Number crunching
UPDATE AT 1730: More anent the row over figures.
In essence, the UK Government says: "Behave yourself."
They say that their baseline is correct, that it strips out depreciation and one-off transient spending and that it provides an accurate comparison for figures in future years.
Further, they say the Scottish Government was well aware of these statistics.
John Swinney says he can only go by what is actually in his budget - and that implies a cut adding up to £1.3bn from this year to next, more than he feared.
He says that the capital cuts alone could threaten 12,000 jobs and risk reversing Scotland's fragile recovery: a recovery evidenced by this morning's GDP figures.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Still calculating the impact of the Spending Review upon Scotland. You ask why. You presume that it is all set out clearly.
Up to a point.
As things stand, the Treasury has published a set of figures for the Scottish government budget.
The SG disputes the base line upon which the calculation has been made.
To a degree, this is revisiting the previous controversy when the Scottish baseline was tweaked to take account of changes to health spending in England.
The basics, then.
The Treasury says that Scotland has done better than the UK as a whole from the CSR.
How?
Because health spending has relative protection in England. Health equals one third of SG spending.
Real terms
So Barnett consequentials tend to benefit Scotland, proportionately.
The Treasury sums point to a cash terms increase in day-to-day resource spending, with a 6.8% cut in real terms over the four years of the Spending Review.
For capital, the cut is 38% - with a £900m reduction in year one.
Add that to a standstill in cash terms in resource budgeting for 11/12 - and you get the Treasury calculation that there is a cut of £900m in total for next year, less than forecast by Scottish Ministers. QED.
Ah, say Scottish Ministers, not so fast. They endorse the capital figure, arguing that the capital cut is bigger than they feared, prompting concerns about investment and jobs.
But they are studying the Treasury's figure on resource spending more closely.
They believe it may underestimate the current base line upon which they actually operate by some £1bn, by stripping out depreciation.
Fuel levy
Officials are crunching the numbers now - but the belief in St Andrews House is that the Treasury presentation may mask a still greater cut.
Then there is the offer to sort out the row over fossil fuel levy.
Remember that's the money which Alex Salmond has said is "lying in a London bank" because Treasury rules insist that the money cannot be taken up by Scotland without a comparable cut in block funding.
Today's offer is that there would be at least an additional £250m through the Green Investment Bank for spending on renewables - provided the Scottish government draws down the fossil fuel money and agrees to hypothecate it for said renewable projects.
Again, officials scrutinising. But initial reaction not too positive.
Thinking is that Scotland would be set to get money from the proposed Green Bank anyway - but is being expected to give up a claim on fossil fuel money in order to access that cash.
(There would still be a cut in block cash - counterbalanced, say the Treasury, by that Green match funding.)
More later, if things change.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.