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”
Gary Scott
Sadly, lots of opinion, few facts. Think about why. Why is there a campaign to retain a subsidised part of the union which at least 40% want to leave. Outside Scotland the majority would gladly see them go. No more subsidies, an overnight drop in the national debt and the deficit? An end to the ‘West Lothian Question’ an enforced need to radically reform The Lords and rid Britain of everything that’s wrong with British politics, start afresh. Sounds great, what’s not to like? Everyone’s happy, right? Or, perhaps all is not as it seems. Scotland’s oil? Without any the GDP in Scotland is 99% of the UK GDP (per head, obviously). So any oil is just a bonus. The oil WILL run out one day. According to the most pessimistic reports that could be as soon as five years time (sound like bollocks?). The most optimistic is 35 years (TOO optimistic?). Of course there are things we can’t know, oil prices, future discoveries etc. What we DO know is that last year was one of the best for North Sea investment in a long time, hence lower tax receipts as they offset these investments. We also know that there have been sizeable discoveries lately too. These are either the largest field in the world or size unconfirmed depending on who you ask. By virtue of BEING an independent country, that would draw in SOME inward investment of its own, not massive but noticeable, the kind of benefits derived from being a capital city of a country (an actual sovereign nation rather than devolved). The pound is something that has been asked and answered too. You either take the view that currency union is risky for Britain, ie more risky than it is now or you take the view that the separation of currencies could actually be a negative. Would GBP be stronger or weaker after a currency separation? Whatever, it’d be be stronger/weaker overnight by a significant amount. Not an ideal outcome, shocks to the economy are not generally a good thing. Of course IF you think that UK borrowing is in any way linked to incomes from revenue had from oil and gas then you might also think that this would mean GBP would become weak and the pound Scots strong (overnight). Thus affecting negatively on Britains costs for borrowing, interest rates, unemployment, oil/gas/petrol/electricity costs and the knock on into retail. It would be good for British exports (as long as they didn’t rely on imported raw materials etc). But sadly the British exports are not as strong as we’d all like. It would be problematic for Scotland too, although somewhat offset by those above mentioned advantages. Scottish exports to Britain would suffer due to this sudden disparity being even greater within the two AND the additional costs of changing currency/border controls as the British Government promised, albeit somewhat suicidal to implement. Anyway, I just wanted to take the time to offer you something that’s been thin on the ground – an alternative point of view. Sadly not much has been said about the effects of Scottish Independence outside Scotland. There’s been VERY little coverage. I can’t be right about all of this, but I’m not wrong about it all either. Please use your own resources to look into this and research it. I honestly believe it will reveal much about current UK politics that could do with being scrutinised, and, whatever the result in September this scrutiny is long overdue. Having spent some time looking at this I believe that this COULD be good for everyone in the UK, whether in Scotland or not.
dougthedug
He was wrong on both counts.
Gary Scott
Sid, sorry that’s not correct. Up until the early 90s there was an American base at The Holy Loch for resupplying their sub’s, its gone now. Read from page 232 in ‘Scotland’s Future’. The plan is to convert Faslane to the main Scottish Naval Base and joint headquarters for Scottish Defence Forces. There won’t be nukes popping in for a chat. I’m not sure if you’re in favour of Trident, then its successor at Faslane or whether you’d like to see the back of it. Many countries in NATO don’t have nukes, and you know that there’s countries in NATO who won’t have nuclear weapons brought in either. This is the plan for Scotland, this is what it says in the White Paper. I think someone has misinformed you, I hope not mischievously, but you can check for yourself, its online and the bit about defence/NATO/nuclear weapons starts at page 232.
Sidney Ruff-Diamond
The following is verbatim from scotreferendum.com and also found in the White Paper: “It is our firm position that an independent Scotland should not host nuclear weapons and we would only join NATO on that basis.
While the presence of nuclear weapons on a particular vessel is never confirmed by any country, we would expect any
visiting vessel to respect the rules that are laid down by the government of an independent Scotland.
While they are both strong advocates for nuclear disarmament, both Norway and Denmark allow NATO vessels to visit their
ports without confirming or denying whether they carry nuclear weapons. We intend that Scotland will adopt a similar approach as Denmark and Norway in this respect.”
So, in essence, the Nats are trying to have their cake and eat it. Say they’re anti-nuke but, de facto as part of joining NATO, bury their heads in the sand about hosting them and pretend they aren’t there when in fact they are.
Donald Carthlan
Paul Wright either has no idea what he is talking about or he is downright lying. The oil belongs to Scotland period and this was confirmed by the UK Government as far back as the 1970’s in the McCrone Report which states:
” Disputes on these matters might well occasion much bitterness between the two countries, but it is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the Continental Shelf which would have been hers if she had been independent all along.”
In March 2013 Vince Cable the UK Business Secretary admitted to BBC Radio Five Live, “North Sea oil happens to be in what are called Scottish waters. The simple fact of the matter is that if Scotland did opt to become independent they would have a major resource”
As for the economic model being hypothetical well the McCrone Report states:
“It must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence provided that steps were taken either by carried interest or by taxation to secure the Government ‘take’. Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security, so now would the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.”
More recently a Financial Times article from February this year points out: “Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters.”
In July this year, Professor Sir Donald Mackay, of the pro-devolution think-tank Reform Scotland and an economic adviser to the UK government for 25 years, said that Westminster’s figures were underestimating the true value of oil by £8 billion a year. A Sunday Times Article on 06/07/2014 states:
“Mackay points to official forecasts by Oil & Gas UK which suggest an independent Scotland’s revenues in 2017-19 would be almost £32bn, double the £15.8bn forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. He says there is no hole in the Scottish government’s oil predictions, as Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, has claimed.”