While Salmond landed some blows in the debate about Scottish independence last night he was still unable to answer the crucial questions
While Salmond landed some blows in the debate about Scottish independence last night he was still unable to answer the crucial questions
In some ways it is rather heartening that there is an audience left for the utopia Alex Salmond is trying to sell Scotland. One in which the cuts agenda will not give way to the bedroom tax, nor draw money away from the National Health Service. This is the kind of society I want to live in.
And clearly the way Salmond sells it is working. After his lacklustre performance last time round he has, according to a snap poll of 505 voters in Scotland for the Guardian by ICM, the backing of some 71% of viewers compared with 29% who backed Darling.
But as Darling said last night in the debate, a good line is not always the good answer.
Indeed Darling, the more critical and analytical of the two, was correct to pursue answers to questions that had not been previously answered. Is Scotland safe in Salmond’s hands given the estimates of oil barrels in Scotland? Has the currency question been sufficiently settled yet?
Darling was right to say that in the 670 page white paper, Scotland’s Future : Your Guide to an Independent Scotland, there was just one page of numbers for just one year, and as it turns out estimates were lower than originally thought. Without the right data it is fair enough to accuse the Yes campaign of “gambling children’s future.”
This is backed up by a recent interview with Energy Voice, where Sir Ian Wood pointed out that Scotland’s oil reserves had been “massively overestimated” and the prediction that 24 billion barrels remain in the North Sea is “45% to 65% too high”. Rather, Sir Ian estimates there remains between “15 billion and 16.5 billion barrels.” This requires significant alterations to the economics Scotland’s future.
Once again showing that the letters pages in The Scotsman provides better analysis than debates between campaign leaders, Paul Wright of Edinburgh last month said:
When we read the small print of Scotland’s Future we discover that the claims of vast oil wealth are built on a flimsy foundation. They are based on a hypothetical economic model which assumes a geographical distribution of reserves. This in turn relates to a principle (the median line principle) that has been established for purposes of economic analysis and determining zones of civil jurisdiction (but not for distribution of oil and gas reserves).
Salmond fell flat again on currency (three plan-B’s is an idiotic line to deliver, obviously making Plan-A sound impossible) and scare-stories about hospitals in the UK, whereas the blows that landed were on an odd statements about the shared platform of his campaign (though the Yes vote has support from various political parties, including Labour, as well), and a point about the cost of replacing Trident, which while relevant, in context of the evening (Darling was pressing Salmond on his own number crunching at the time, and winning) was classic smoke and mirrors.
The truth is that an independent Scotland would still face the same struggles to deliver quality public services as the rest of the UK does. While of course we must accept the political dimension of this within the cuts agenda, there are other external factors that must be appreciated, for example an ageing population that will require more investment money into a national health service.
And we mustn’t forget that the SNP themselves are given to short-term strategies that are contrary to the social-democratic tradition. We hear less and less of, for example, the party’s desire to lower corporation tax in Scotland.
Salmond is happy to criticise Darling for sharing platforms with the Tories, some fuss had even been made in the past about the Better Together campaign accepting money from a major Conservative Party donor, but the SNP does not exist only from the good willing of normal people off the street of Scotland. It also has multimillionaire backers such as Brian Souter, the owner of Stagecoach.
Working people, who it has to be said have been more pro-independence throughout the campaign, should not have to put up with the grotesque policies of the coalition government, sure. But an independent Scotland will not exist in a utopian vacuum. Even the SNP woo millionaires for funding and doth their caps at rich businessmen by promising to lower corporation tax.
The point is we have to tackle this crisis, perpetrated by establishment politicians of all colours, together. Alex Salmond remains a snake oil salesman.
Carl Packman is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward
99 Responses to “Alex Salmond is still a snake oil salesman”
dougthedug
Salmond fell flat again on currency (three plan-B’s is an idiotic line to deliver, obviously making Plan-A sound impossible)
Actually it’s the same line he’s always used. If you want a Plan B go and look at the Fiscal Commission Working Group paper which has been online since February 11, 2013. It’s got all the options in it.
It seems you really have to spell it out slowly for the Labour/Tory Better Together alliance before they get it.
Jimmy Laing
What
a load of infantile nonsense, either get some grown up journalists who
know the meaning of being “Left” or change your name to something that
reflects your true colours.
Jimmy Laing
How wrong can you be, this is about leaving the corrupt Westminster system and the sham of the House of Lords, you are repeating their propaganda, swallowing the lie that this is driven by anti English sentiment, don’t flatter yourselves, this is for Scotland, of course the establishment want you to demonise Scotland, they can’t have a successful left of centre country with aspirations of social justice and fairness on their agenda next door can they, their own people might start getting ideas of their own.
Chilbaldi
Darling…. in Scotland.
Burnham…. in England.
The clue is in the locations. And the powers of the UK and Scottish Parliaments. You can go on the Holyrood website and learn about the devolved powers if you are stuck.
John Ruddy
Jack McConnell had very little to do with Trump in comparison to Salmond who virtually wined and dined him, who put pressure on Grampian Police over those opposed to Trump’s development and who tried to put pressure on the local planning committee.