It seems, according to the article, that "the 'quad' - Mr Cameron, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, the Chancellor, George Osborne, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander - have rejected a more positive campaign in favour of an aggressive response targeting Mr Salmond himself."
The meat of the article suggests that it is not only aggression that will be at the forefront of this campaign, but once again inaccurate and fear-mongering assertion. Lets take the two examples from the piece.
First, according to the IoS story, the Prime Minister "believes the First Minister has had an easy ride and not faced enough questions on how an independent Scotland would stay afloat - and bankroll its huge pensions and benefits bill without raising taxes". But as I wrote a few weeks ago, the facts show that Scotland spends a smaller proportion of its revenue on these items than the UK. Scotland is better able to afford welfare and pensions than the UK.
Here are the numbers from that previous blog post:
"A quick calculation from the figures in Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 2010 shows that in the most recent year social protection expenditure (which includes all the elements of welfare spending reserved and devolved, the vast majority of which is the reserved benefits system) was 42% of Scottish revenues, less than the 43% for the UK. So on the basis of taxes raised, once our welfare payments are made, we actually have more left to spend on other things than the UK.
The second, is welfare spending as share of GDP - as a proportion of the size of our economy. Again, the figures for 2009-10 are illustrative. In Scotland, we spend 15% of our GDP on welfare, while in the UK they spend 16%. Quite clearly welfare payments in Scotland are more affordable on the basis of both government revenue and share of GDP.
This pattern is repeated from 2005-06 to 2008-09. For each of the last five years, Scotland has been in a stronger position than the UK on both counts, as we have been, also, in terms of overall budget position. That means Scots are better able to afford the current levels of social protection than the rest of the UK."
Second, the article tells us "the gap between public spending and taxes raised in Scotland stood at £14 billion in 2009-10, and the country receives subsidies amounting to almost 20% more per head than England."
What the article fails to say is that in 2009-10, when you include Scotland's share of its offshore revenues, our financial position is stronger than the UK. We receive 9.3% of UK spending, but contribute 9.4% of revenue. Scotland's deficit was 6.8% of GDP compared to a UK deficit of 7.6%. And in the four previous years, Scotland generated an absolute budget surplus of over £2 billion, at a time when the UK was massively in debt. On these actual figures the nation more likely to face what Mr Moore in the article calls a "Greece-style economic collapse" is most certainly not Scotland.
If this is going to be the quality of attack from the UK government, I say bring it on. They tell us we can't afford our welfare payments, but the numbers from a National Statistics publication - which means those numbers have to go through a rigorous process to ensure they are robust - show we are better able to afford these services than the UK. Those same UK ministers say we are burdened with debt, but our debt position is better than the UK, and our share of UK revenue is above our share of UK spending.
As the First Minister is often pointing out 'facts are chiels that winna ding' (or in English translation 'facts are fellows that will not be overturned'). That is the bottom line.
Scotland has moved on. When once we cowered, now we stand tall and confident, laughing at crude attempts to manufacture fear with phoney figures. And to the 'quad' - if you don't see that, you've already lost.