The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

and another convert to Independence

ONE of the architects of devolution has come out in support of a Yes vote in the referendum.

Canyon Kenyon Wright says independence is needed to complete "unfinished business and allow the new Scotland of our hopes to emerge".

...He says his has been "a long and difficult journey" from devolution to Independence.

"For many years I held out the naive 'triumph of hope over experience' that the UK Parliament might be ready to reform itself radically to recognise Scotland's real autonomy," he writes. "That door has been slammed shut.

"There is now only one way to finish that business - it must be Yes."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/devolution-architect-comes-out-in-support-of-a-yes-vote.24189460

Who's next?

[LJS]

Some Labour politicians were/are a bit confused as to how an oil fund is funded. Posted purely for light entertainment

Thanks Buff, I like a wee laugh on a Sunday morning

[russycarps]

Indeed,

leading to this extraordinary situation

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/the-secret-oil-report-we-find-the-crucial-report-advising-westminster-not-t.24189400

cant blame labour for that, blame the tories in the 80s

edit, oh ok, I see someone already said that

Edited May 11, 2014 by russycarps

[russycarps]

I see Alex is humiliating himself on the world stage now. What a statesman he is

[eFestivals]

Some Labour politicians were/are a bit confused as to how an oil fund is funded.

And Alex isn't?

Alex has the same money being used for all of servicing the deficit, paying for extra services, covering the loss of tax cuts, and paying into an oil fund.

Still, he did work at RBS.

[eFestivals]

So, McCrone 2 is now out of the bag...

Missed that.

Does that also say that the Scots re bunch of greedy ***** who can't be trusted to play fair and share with the rest of the UK?

[eFestivals]

and another convert to Independence

Who's next?

Fewer of them, going by the last two polls.

Support for indy appears to be evaporating. While the gap might narrow again, few of the gains seem to be 'hard' enough to actually stick.

Over the past eight weeks I'd started to think that yes might win as the polls narrowed, but I'm back to thinking about the same as I started with - that no will win by around 10% or more.

And particularly so, as there's been no event of note which which to cause that gain for no. At a guess, Scotland got a bit over-excited as the debate hotted up, and they shot their bolt too early. As the excitement dies away again, people are returning to their more-normal selves and their normal voting intentions. The result is that 'the excitement factor' is going to have a lower intensity if/when it comes round again.

[LJS]

And Alex isn't?

Alex has the same money being used for all of servicing the deficit, paying for extra services, covering the loss of tax cuts, and paying into an oil fund.

Still, he did work at RBS.

I believe the proposal is that the fund be set up but nothing is paid into it until the deficit is reduced. Otherwise, as you would no doubt point out, Scotland would be effectively borrowing with one hand and saving with the other.

If the article I quoted is correct, why should we vote to remain in a union which, with the exception of Iraq, is the only major oil producing country with no sort of oil fund?

[eFestivals]

cant blame labour for that, blame the tories in the 80s

edit, oh ok, I see someone already said that

The reporting is a bit disingenuous too.

It talks about the UK govt being "repeatedly advised in the 1970s to set up an oil fund", and then mentions Norway's oil fund's value, as tho Norway were much smarter.

And yet Norway's fund wasn't set up until the 1990s.

While it would have been great if the UK had set up and oil fund, the situation in the UK and in Norway are not in any way comparible - because Norway has around ten times the amount of oil wealth per-population, and yet it still didn't have any money from it to spare until the 90s.

It's much easier to say "there should have been a fund" then to actually have it, when there's always other calls on the same cash.

Edited May 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Missed that.

Does that also say that the Scots re bunch of greedy ***** who can't be trusted to play fair and share with the rest of the UK?

I think in the light of McCrone's revelations, you would be wise not to accuse Scotland of a lack of trust!

Glass houses & stones.

[eFestivals]

If the article I quoted is correct, why should we vote to remain in a union which, with the exception of Iraq, is the only major oil producing country with no sort of oil fund?

because, no different to Alex's pipe-dream of a fund, there's a here-and-now reality and demands from today's expenses, with real people who are effected by the cuts which would have to happen to make it happen.

There was never a sudden pile of new money with which to fund a fund - exactly the same thing as Alex will face and will cause him to fail.

[eFestivals]

I think in the light of McCrone's revelations, you would be wise not to accuse Scotland of a lack of trust!

Glass houses & stones.

McCrone said the Scottish couldn't be trusted to play fair if they knew the true oil value.

Like it or not, McCrone was right - and he advised in the best interests of all of the UK, rather than solely to the benefit of a Scotland that he knew would act on greed.

Remind me again, why is it that we're having the ref?

Edited May 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

McCrone said the Scottish couldn't be trusted to play fair if they knew the true oil value.

Like it or not, McCrone was right - and he advised in the best interests of all of the UK, rather than solely to the benefit of a Scotland that he knew would act on greed.

Remind me again, why is it that we're having the ref?

So it's ok to lie as long as it ensures a No vote.

Like in 1979

Or like it was ok to lie to get a Yes vote for the Iraq war?

But all the government's statements in support of a No vote are totally true in 2014?

Aye right!

[eFestivals]

So it's ok to lie as long as it ensures a No vote.

Like in 1979

The lying isn't a good thing, but the "why" for that is something that can't be ignored. He was right, FFS!!!

He was making that report for the UK, not for Scotland, and he saw - *CORRECTLY!!!!* - that the best interests of the UK were served by not making public the full value.

As an aside, do you think that Salmond has added to the useful debate by saying "there's £300k of oil wealth for every Scot", or do you think that has helped create a false impression of how much benefit the oil is in reality?

Or like it was ok to lie to get a Yes vote for the Iraq war?

The Iraq lies can be couched in that "best interests of the UK" thing too of course - but the reality of that can be argued about.

It's exceedingly hard to argue that the best interests of the UK could have ever been served by telling Scotland of the true oil wealth for Scotland to then deny the UK that oil.

But all the government's statements in support of a No vote are totally true in 2014?

I'm sure you've told a porkie once or twice in your life. Does that mean you *ONLY* tell lies?

The govt or members of it have also said some things, which the cybernats have their own edited versions of - such as "all of the debt is the UK's not Scotland's", and "currency union is up for negotiation". Are they lies too, or do the yes-ers choose to take those as 100% truthful, *ONLY BECAUSE* it suits their agenda to do so?

There's quite a few *proven* bullshits from the yes side, too.

I've asked both you and Buff to present me with some proven bullshit from no, and you've both yet to do so. So I can only conclude it doesn't exist.

There's plenty of stretching-the-truth stuff as 'predictions' from both sides of course, but those things do keep a relationship to the truth even if little of either side's claims will bear much resemblance to what actually happens.

Edited May 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

Missed that.

Does that also say that the Scots re bunch of greedy ***** who can't be trusted to play fair and share with the rest of the UK?

I'd suggest that during the 1980s, instead of creating a UK oil fund as per McCrone's advice, successive Conservative governments used the funds generated by North Sea oil to :

Smash the miners

Smash the unions

De-industrialise Wales, Scotland and th North of England

Create a low skill, low wage economy in these de-industrialised areas

Wage a colonial war against Argentina

Sell off national assets at giveaway prices

Successive Labour Shadow administrations were fully aware of McCrone (parts I and II) yet chose to stay silent.

and you're okay with that... ?

[LJS]

The lying isn't a good thing, but the "why" for that is something that can't be ignored. He was right, FFS!!!

He was making that report for the UK, not for Scotland, and he saw - *CORRECTLY!!!!* - that the best interests of the UK were served by not making public the full value.

As an aside, do you think that Salmond has added to the useful debate by saying "there's £300k of oil wealth for every Scot", or do you think that has helped create a false impression of how much benefit the oil is in reality?

The Iraq lies can be couched in that "best interests of the UK" thing too of course - but the reality of that can be argued about.

It's exceedingly hard to argue that the best interests of the UK could have ever been served by telling Scotland of the true oil wealth for Scotland to then deny the UK that oil.

I'm sure you've told a porkie once or twice in your life. Does that mean you *ONLY* tell lies?

The govt or members of it have also said some things, which the cybernats have their own edited versions of - such as "all of the debt is the UK's not Scotland's", and "currency union is up for negotiation". Are they lies too, or do the yes-ers choose to take those as 100% truthful, *ONLY BECAUSE* it suits their agenda to do so?

There's quite a few *proven* bullshits from the yes side, too.

I've asked both you and Buff to present me with some proven bullshit from no, and you've both yet to do so. So I can only conclude it doesn't exist.

There's plenty of stretching-the-truth stuff as 'predictions' from both sides of course, but those things do keep a relationship to the truth even if little of either side's claims will bear much resemblance to what actually happens.

Yeah & as I've said before the sensible route is to assume the "truth" is somewhere in the middle.

"truth" is in inverted commas because, of course we are talking about the future & just about the only "fact" we can be certain of is that is uncertain. It's uncertain either way.

I'm just glad you have agreed that governments have a track record of manipulating "facts" to their own ends. You even agree this can on occasions be justified. Perhaps we should start a " does the end justify the means?" thread.

Just to save you the bother... none of the above states that I swallow uncritically all the claims of the SNP as I hope I have made clear in previously.

[Buff124]

And yet Norway's fund wasn't set up until the 1990s.

.

Norway''s oil fund was established in 1990, having been first proposed in 1983. .

Norway laid down a set of economic criteria which had to be met before any oil revenue could actually be paid into the fund

Those criteria were met from 1996 onwards. The fund currently stands at 5.139 trillion Norwegian Krone

They keep a running total on this webpage

http://www.nbim.no/

[eFestivals]

and you're okay with that... ?

Nope, of course I'm not. I'd have much preferred that it had been used constructively. But that's long gone, and nothing of it can be changed.

You're doing that wonderful whataboutery thing here - because none of that is actually relevant.

The relevant point from McCrone is that Scotland would have demanded that it was spent on Scotland, exactly as Scotland is doing right now.

Successive Labour Shadow administrations were fully aware of McCrone (parts I and II) yet chose to stay silent.

They took McCrone at his word, and it's pretty hard to dispute his word being a truthful prediction.

So did Labour do wrong in keeping McCrone secret? For the good of *ALL* of the UK (including Scotland but not just Scotland), probably not.

In regards to pissing the money up the wall, it's easy to say "it should be saved" but in the real world with pressures coming at you from all directions, it's harder to achieve.

If some of that money is being saved, then it's not being spent on helping the poor who could be helped - and these are the sorts of bigger budget pressures that Scotland has yet to experience. Scotland currently gets money to spend, without having to take the big decisions about how it's raised and who might get extra at the expense of someone or something else ... well, actually, that's not quite true. Scotland could make a little of those big decisions but has bottled it completely so far.

Which i don't think heralds the wonderful socialist dream that some think they're voting for and will get, do you?

[LJS]

I'd suggest that during the 1980s, instead of creating a UK oil fund as per McCrone's advice, successive Conservative governments used the funds generated by North Sea oil to :

Smash the miners

Smash the unions

De-industrialise Wales, Scotland and th North of England

Create a low skill, low wage economy in these de-industrialised areas

Wage a colonial war against Argentina

Sell off national assets at giveaway prices

Successive Labour Shadow administrations were fully aware of McCrone (parts I and II) yet chose to stay silent.

and you're okay with that... ?

I'm pretty sure Neil was not OK with that. I'm pretty sure he would deplore the actions of the Thatcher Administration as much as you or me, Buff.

The point is: all 3 of us were powerless to stop her.

In the words of Billy Bragg, " I kept the faith and I kept voting

Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand"

I marched against NHS cuts - Against trident -against student loans - voted Labour for 4 elections on the trot & it made not a jot of difference.

That's the point of all this for me. Scotland can make a difference on its own that it has failed to make throughout my entire lifetime as part of the UK. . I've spoken before of my hopes for the political realignment that might happen post independence.

This has been met with buckets of salt ... & I make no apologies for being idealistic.

I've just simply given up believing in the UK's ability to change for the better as things stand.

[Buff124]

It just clicked round to 5.140 trillion

[Buff124]

that's long gone, and nothing of it can be changed.

I admire your Zen-like attitude towards social justice.

Been quoted before, but here it is again

Fool me once, shame on you

Fool me twice, shame on me

[eFestivals]

I'm just glad you have agreed that governments have a track record of manipulating "facts" to their own ends.

This is something i've pointed out a fair few times - that it won't be any different in the Salmond Utopia of Scotland.

All you'll be doing at the end of the day is voting for a different set of politicians. And the problem is politicians, not anything else.

You even agree this can on occasions be justified. Perhaps we should start a " does the end justify the means?" thread.

Well of course it can. Every opportunity has an opportunity cost (that's the cost of the lost opportunity to be doing something instead, if that's a new one to you). So if the ends doesn't justify the means (in someone's eyes, anyway), why is it being done?

If we take McCrone, and take into account how fucked the UK was during the 70s as the result of the oil crisis - that required the infamous "public sector pay restraint", an IMF bailout, and much bigger govt spending cuts than anything Osborne has done - rather than being a wealthy country swimming in money, it's hard to say that the UK shouldn't have used that oil money to help ride thru those problems.

And once that money starts being used to ride thru those problems, it becomes hard to withdraw that money from whatever it's being spent on, to spend it somewhere else.

Better decisions could have been made of course, but i'm far from sure there was huge scope to make vastly different decisions.

[lost]

Bit of a skewed view of history from the Scots? More mines were closed under labour administrations than Tories and none of of major parties have filled themselves with glory regarding asset sales. The Tories as you say, Gordon Browns sale of the UK gold reserves or more recently Lib Dems Vince Cable with Royal Mail. I don't see any reason why the SNP would be any different.

[Buff124]

Re. the PPS opinion poll published at the weekend (though the tables will not be published, as the pollster is not governed by the rules of the British Pollicng Council)

It last conducted an Indy Ref poll in November 2013. It was the one with the 29% gap. This one showed a 20% gap. Go figure.

[eFestivals]

It just clicked round to 5.140 trillion

That must be including pension liabilities.

Do you guys feel confident that the iScotland govt will be able to pay out on yours in (say) 25 years time?

(Cos don't go doing the same 'half an idea' thing as Scotland seems to have done with the treasury debt statement with pensions as well - which has been a common cybernat thing of the last week or so)

Yes, the UK has said your pensions are completely safe - and that's because the UK will transfer the ones in Scotland for iScotland to cover. They're as safe as iScotland is.