![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Largely because linking direct to the FT causes you to hit the paywall. Going through Google should get you there, if you search for this.
But in any case, here's the first few paragraphs, following on from claims that it would cost £1.5Bn to set up Scotland with the institutes it would need:
Direct link to the article here, if you want to give that a go before trying the Google route.
But in any case, here's the first few paragraphs, following on from claims that it would cost £1.5Bn to set up Scotland with the institutes it would need:
Ministers in London have misled Scottish voters over how much it would cost to set up an independent government in Edinburgh, according to the man whose analysis underpins the Treasury’s case for Scotland remaining in the UK.
Patrick Dunleavy, politics professor at the London School of Economics, told the Financial Times the Treasury had manipulated his research to make the one-off costs of setting up a new government look ten times larger than they were likely to be.
His claims undermine part of the Treasury’s case for staying in the union, as both sides in the referendum battle are to unveil their contrasting claims about the economic costs and benefits of Scottish independence.
Prof Dunleavy said: “The Treasury’s figures are bizarrely inaccurate. I don’t see why the Scottish government couldn’t do this for a very small amount of money.”
Direct link to the article here, if you want to give that a go before trying the Google route.
