(1) Between 1999 and 2003, Scotland's GDP was less than it would have been if the country had been on a par with the overall UK economy.I'm assuming that points (1) and (2) are correct and that point (4) follows axiomatically from point (2). However, point (3) doesn't follow at all.
(2) The gap widened each year, and by 2003 was around £4.3bn.
(3) This means that, so far, devolution has cost Scotland more than £17bn.
(4) This sum is an equivalent of an extra £3,500 for every man, woman and child in the country.
It may be that the decline in comparative GDP is connected with devolution, but that certainly isn't demonstrated by Money Week's story. Perhaps GDP might have been lower without devolution. Maybe it makes no difference whatsoever. That's not to say that I support the present Holyrood regime. On the contrary, I believe that Scotland's government is in the hands of incompetent morons. But that's not an argument for abolishing devolution - it's an argument for electing sensible politicians who have responsibility for raising their own finances. Even with devolution the UK remains by far the most centralised state of its size and that does the country no good at all.