Firstly, how would you know if the SG had been jumping up and down about this? Who was going to report it - not the BBC, or other MSM and certainly not the Daily Telegraph.
Secondly, I did not quote anything "almost word for word". I summarised a much longer article. What is wrong with that?
Thirdly, why is it always the messenger that is attacked? The message is clear; the SG is not allowed to run a deficit so any deficit that is ascribed is that which Westminster says is our share of the deficit the UK is running. That is what the debate should be about, surely.
Fourthly, what does it matter that someone is funded by the EU? What sort of impropriety are you suggesting?