WA relied on other states for the better part of a century, so it's a bit rich to raise the question of independence now that the times have come good. In any case, here's why any talk of secession is just that, writes Greg Jericho.

As Kent Brockman might say, "Treason season started early this year."

Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett told The Australian newspaper on Monday that due to the state receiving a low share of GST revenue, there would be "tension and disengagement" towards the federation, and likened the situation to the Boston Tea Party dispute in which American colonialists protested about "taxation without representation".

Many states have issues with the federation, but it is only WA that likes to bandy around talk of secession - a hollow threat that deserves scorn.

To be fair, Premier Barnett did specifically rule out "secession" - although it is telling about the mindset of many in WA that he had to actually rule that out. Barnett suggested, "Western Australia's future is not with the rest of Australia in a financial or economic sense." Instead, he argued, "Our future then shifts to Asia even more strongly than it is now."

Which just goes to prove that Barnett is nothing if not repetitive.

Back in 2012 when the issue of the GST arose he again looked to Asia. He said then, "If we went to a scenario, which is possible, where WA only got 25 cents in the dollar or maybe no GST return at all, at that stage Commonwealth-state relations between Canberra and Western Australia would be negligible."

Right now WA is looking at getting 30 cents in the dollar.

Barnett in 2012 went further than he did this week, saying, "There would be very little relationship [with the rest of Australia] and the West Australian economy would be fully integrated as part of Asia."

I look forward to Barnett getting the economies of Asia to fund the pensions and social security of Western Australians...

And this is the thing with the GST debate and with any talk from those in the west who at the slightest sign of plunging polls or plunging state revenue push ever so slightly the secession button.

It's never going to happen; both Australia and WA would be worse off without each other, and if Western Australians were honest, they would realise they would be much, much more worse off than those of us who are east of Eucla.

Now sure, WA is not getting much GST revenue this year:

It's only getting 3.4 per cent of the GST cake this year, down from 4.2 per cent last year. It means it and the ACT are the only two states and/or territories which are getting less GST revenue than they did in 2014-15.

The cut is sizeable. If WA were to stay at a 4.2 per cent share it would get about $467m more in revenue. Which of course would mean the other states combined would have to get $467m less - but even still, 4.2 per cent is much lower than its population share of 10.9 per cent.

This means that WA along with New South Wales and Victoria are getting a smaller cut of GST revenue than they would if we just divvied it up according to population.

This is nothing new for NSW and Victoria. They have generally received a lower share of Commonwealth funding than their population sizes would demand since the end of WWII:

But it is new territory for Western Australia. Up to WWII it was the poor, white trash of Australia. And once the Federal Government took over income tax in 1942, and massively increased the disbursement of revenue to the states, WA has for most of that time received more than its "fair share":

When looking at total general revenue assistance paid to the states, as late as 2008, WA was getting as much over its population share as was South Australia, and from the end of WWII till the middle of the 1980s, it consistently received a bigger relative slice than did either Queensland or South Australia.

So much for gratitude, eh?

The only reason WA is getting less now is because of that mining boom you may have heard about. That has massively increased WA's capacity to raise its revenue, and as a result the Commonwealth Grants Commission has massively cut back its share of GST.

Now sure, Western Australians might think they are being penalised for being successful, just as they may also think that success is due to their great skill in living on top of a shirt load of iron ore. But being part of a nation means that when you have been relying on other states for the better part of a century, and then the times come good, you also return the favour.

And talk of de facto secession wherein WA's economy is intrinsically linked with Asia rather than the rest of Australia is really quite silly.

Western Australia has a nice size economy, but it shouldn't get too excited about its girth. Its current Gross State Product is around $264bn. Given our current exchange rate, that would see it ranked around the 50th largest economy in the world - maybe a touch larger than New Zealand. Australia without Western Australia would drop to around the 16th biggest economy in the world - rather than around the 12th biggest.

Certainly, Western Australia has grown in importance over the past decade:

In 2004, its economy accounted for a mere 11 per cent of the national economy. Now it is closer to 17 per cent. But it is still much smaller than New South Wales and Victoria, and it is still behind Queensland.

Its share of the economy hasn't grown because other states have gone backwards. WA has merely grown faster:

And certainly WA has helped Australia. Since 1989-90, Australia's economy has grown by 108 per cent; without WA, it would have increased by just 96.8 per cent:

The big difference would be in the amount of income in the economy. In real terms, since 2003-04 Australia's real gross income per capita has risen 21 per cent to $66,388; without WA, it would have risen 15 per cent and be $62,242. Western Australia's gross income per capita by contrast is $100,139:

So WA is doing pretty well right now, and probably could afford to cover the social security payments in its state if it were allowed to levy its own GST and income tax - which it would need to do were it to secede.

It probably is not a great time though for WA to think about ditching the rest of Australia. The production phase of the mining boom is now fast coming off the boil, and while exports remain very strong - and will be for years to come - the tax revenue and employment side of things is better from investment than from exports.

But of course leaving Australia brings with it not just those funding concerns, but also coin concerns. It would need to produce its own currency, have a reserve bank, and be subject to the swings and roundabouts of foreign exchange markets. Just how stable that currency would be is also up for debate. Also, given WA's credit rating was downgraded last year, it would likely struggle even further without the link to the Australian Government's AAA rating.

Such a change might however benefit the rest of Australia. WA's strong mining sector is the prime reason Australia's currency was so high.

Throw in all the other minutiae that is involved with running a country as opposed with just a state, and the costs involved would rise quite substantially.

Not to mention that the cost of doing business would rise as suddenly red tape would be doubled for registrations, qualifications and so on for any companies or person wishing to work or trade between WA and Australia.

Then there is the small matter of defence. Building a navy, air force and army from scratch would be fun to watch.

Of course, it won't happen, but we'll continue to hear the cheap talk that WA is being ripped-off, that they'd be better off on their own.

And the reason we know it is all hollow is because all such talk assumes that Australia will let WA go quietly. It might be worth remembering that the journey which started with the Boston Tea Party did end with independence - but not without a fight.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. He tweets at @grogsgamut.