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”
Donald Carthlan
Absolute nonsense with no basis in facts, I challenge you to provide substantive evidence of this supposed “anti-English” sentiment.
Donald Carthlan
Chilbaldi
The YES side has been entirely truthful, the only liars are the NO campaign and I’ll even provide evidence of this. Let’s take the EU as an example:
This article here – http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/alistair-darling-claims-university-research-funding-would-be-devastated-under-independence-1.439972 states:
“Speaking to The Courier after touring Dundee University’s life sciences department, Mr Darling said: “This report confirms what countless experts, including senior EU officials, have said, which is that the nationalists’ tuition fees plan would be illegal.”
Seems straightforward right? Except, wait a minute. Isn’t “Better Together” always telling us that Scotland wouldn’t just waltz into the EU? Aren’t they constantly insisting that Scottish membership and take years, perhaps decades, to be accepted under goodness knows what terms? In this article here – http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/van-rompuy-torpedoes-snp-claims-on-eu-membership.22950437s it states:
“Scots Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: “An independent Scotland wouldn’t call the shots in negotiating entry to the EU, nor would it get any special treatment.
“It would join the back of the same queue as every other country.”
If Scots Tory Leader and senior Better Together member Ruth Davidson is correct then Darling is an outright liar. Because as a non-EU member, the EU’s laws about tuition fees wouldn’t apply to Scotland and Scottish universities could charge English students whatever they liked.
According to Better Together “Scotland will be thrown out of the EU – but, umm, still subject to EU laws”.It’s a measure of the dishonesty – and the incompetence – of the No campaign that it tries to make these blatantly incompatible lies stick at the same time.
Donald Carthlan
“The Tories started carving up the NHS, not Alistair Darling.”
Wrong this linke here – http://archive.unitetheunion.org/news__events/archived_news_releases/2009_archived_press_releases/roll_back_the_privatisation_o.aspx is a press release from the Unite trade union in 2009, when Labour were in power and Andy Burnham actually was the Health Secretary:
“‘Roll back the privatisation of the NHS, Andy’
Unite presented a letter signed by 3,000 NHS members to the Department of Health today (Wednesday, 26 August), calling on health secretary Andy Burnham to halt the privatisation of the health service.
The [letter] was part of Unite’s Health B4 Profit campaign designed to preserve the NHS as ‘a publicly owned, publicly accountable, universal and comprehensive health service managed and run for the public good’.
Unite said that an estimated £20 billion would be spent on creating the bureaucratic market infrastructure for privatisation – money that could be better spent on frontline services.
Karen Reay said: ‘Today, we are asking Andy Burnham to protect the heart and soul of the NHS in England and roll back these costly and dangerous plans.
‘The continuing vicious attacks by vested interests on President Obama over his plans to provide healthcare for the estimated 47 million Americans currently without this safety net is a stark warning of what awaits British citizens, if the mercenary forces of privatisation are allowed to triumph.’”
Donald Carthlan
Chilbaldi
The Scotsman reported this 2 days ago:
“FORMER Labour first minister Lord McConnell yesterday claimed that Holyrood’s funding formula would “wither on the vine” and eventually be replaced by a new needs-based UK-wide system.
McConnell predicted that the so-called Barnett Formula would be “diminished” in the event of a No vote”
The scrapping of Barnett Formula is a clear and direct threat to the Scottish NHS.
Donald Carthlan
dougthedug
Here’s what Sir Donald Mackay wrote in the Sunday Times last week:
“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.”
It’s one thing for the Scottish Government to issue more optimistic oil forecasts than the UK government. But Prof. Mackay is a founder and director of an oil company (and many other companies), and was an economic adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland for 25 years. His track record as a businessman, consultant and adviser is highly impressive. He seems to be a pretty impeccable expert source.
Given Westminster’s track record of lying over Scottish oil as evidenced by former UK Chancellor Denis Healey see here – http://news.stv.tv/politics/225958-denis-healey-westminster-worried-stiff-about-losing-north-sea-oil/ he stated:
“I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism” “Referring to Westminster politicians, Lord Healey said: “I think they are concerned about Scotland taking the oil. I think they are worried stiff about it.
“I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped but if the Scots want it, they should have it and we would just need to adjust. But I would think Scotland could survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent.”