Still confused about the difference between an “oil fund” and a “resilience fund”, folks?

So were we, but no longer. We’ve had a breakthrough.

It came in the form of a letter from Labour MP Ian Davidson to an alert constituent this week, which cleared the matter up once and for all. We reproduce it in full below.

If you can’t be bothered clicking to read the graphic, here’s the key text:

“The SNPs proposal was to establish an oil fund, paid for out of oil revenue. Since this revenue cannot be spent twice, it would have to be switched away from existing public spending. The proposal for a resilience fund would be to have an amount of money laid aside for use in crises, such as that affecting the jobs all across the north east of Scotland at the present time. Labour’s proposal is that a resilience fund should be paid out of the additional money which will flow to Scotland this year, under the Barnett Formula, which funds Scottish public expenditure at a much higher rate than the rest of the UK. Thus, unlike the oil fund, the resilience fund would not require cuts to public expenditure or substantial additional borrowing. It would be available out of the bonus we receive for being part of the United Kingdom.”

So we all clear? We COULDN’T have an oil fund from oil money, because that has to be spent on services. But a resilience fund comes out of the block grant, which is the money Scotland gets from Westminster to, um, spend on services. So that’s, er, completely different. Apparently.

(Barnett money is magical and special, of course, because it represents a free and generous £1200-per-head subsidy from England to Scotland, and all we do to deserve this “bonus” is send £1700 per head more to London in tax. Mostly from, um, oil.)

Wait, we might just need to read that one through again. Give us a minute.