We suppose, then, that we’d better deal with the UK government’s bizarre propaganda booklet that’s about to slither through every letterbox in Scotland at taxpayers’ expense whether they like it or not. We’ve been having some fun with the cover image in the last couple of days, but astonishingly enough this is the real version:

To be honest, readers, we’re still kind of rubbing our eyes in disbelief at that one. But the McTrapp Family above (who are these implausibly happy children? Where, who or what are they running from? Are they trespassing? Where are their parents?) aren’t even nearly the weirdest thing about the pamphlet.

So? Those people are still going to want their insurance and their bank accounts, so why would independence affect those jobs in any way?

Not possible? Isn’t that in fact the exact opposite of what Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England actually said recently about a currency union? Didn’t he say that whatever was decided between the two nations, the Bank would make it work?

Let’s just check, shall we?

Yeah, that’s what we thought he said.

None of those words are actually related to each other. Large economies are no more inherently secure than small ones, and most of the world’s most successful and agile economies are small nations like Norway, Denmark and Switzerland.

And “protect jobs” in the same breath as banks? Hmm.

Well, lucky we had the big strong UK protecting us, eh?

A cunning little piece of sleight of hand, this. “Here’s a dubious claim, but it’s okay because we’ve linked you to the source! Which is, erm, us.” That one gets a few airings throughout the course of the document, so watch out for them.

The £85,000 savings protection is a function of the EU, not the UK. It would be completely unaffected by independence, because it’s compulsory in all EU member states. Of course, if Scotland stays in the UK, it risks finding itself outside the EU.

The pensions line is a flat-out lie. The UK taxpayers who pay for pensions aren’t just doing it out of charity – they want their own pensions too. And as people in the rest of the UK live longer than people in Scotland, sharing the costs means that Scots get less out, in relative terms, than they put in.

Heavens above, this one? Still?

Oh look, it’s that “We say this, and as proof here’s us saying it” scam again. But wait a minute – “lower taxes”? Who does Scotland have lower taxes than, exactly?

They can’t mean anywhere else in the UK, because taxes are the same across the UK. They can’t be talking about higher-tax states like Norway, because we definitely don’t have higher public spending than them.

And they can’t mean a future independent Scotland, because even the Financial Times admits it would be in a stronger economic position than the UK. So who?

You do have to admire their persistence in sticking with a claim that’s been debunked a thousand times. Scotland DOES get higher public spending per head (by around £1200) than the UK average, but as noted by the FT it also contributes far more per head in tax revenues (by around £1700), and has done for as far as records go back.

Scotland subsidises the UK, not the other way round – by the UK government’s own admission, and by the calculations of prominent Unionist economists. Independence will make Scottish public services more affordable, not less. The figures aren’t in any dispute whatsoever. The UK government’s claim is a bare-faced lie.

Ah, “influence”, also known as the old “punching above our weight on the world stage” argument, again. Can you remind us how that one tends to pan out, someone?

The UK promotes Scottish exports if Scotland pays for it. And just as with savings guarantees with banks, diplomatic assistance abroad is a function of EU membership, not the UK. Any embassy or consulate of an EU member state is obliged under EU law to help a citizen of any other member state to exactly the same degree it would help one of its own citizens.

The Scottish Government is already committed to maintaining and increasing aid.

No it doesn’t, because it’s part of the EU, which contains more than 748 million people in 28 nations. An independent Scotland will be part of that “larger community”, just as it is now, so whether it stays in the UK or not is completely irrelevant. (Unless, as we’ve noted already, the UK leaves the EU.)

(1) We’re interested in the future, not the past.

(2) Define “successful”. The UK is one of the developed world’s most unequal nations and over £1.2 trillion in debt, and Scotland has some of its lowest life expectancies.

(3) Who are the other “families of nations” in this league table, anyway?

So we get to take on more debt, but we can’t use our own abundant resources to pay it off, and have to instead keep sending all our wealth to Westminster and then taxing our people more to fill the gap? Great.

(Except that we can’t actually tax anyone more, because you can’t have different tax levels in a unitary state, so all we’ll be able to do to repay that borrowing – and the costs of the useless new tax bureaucracy – is cut public services.)

There’s little doubt that those things are both true. But Wings Over Scotland advises readers to carefully note the usage of “you” and “we” in the two sentences.