As regards my interest in politics, Budget day has become a bit like Christmas; with increasing age you just wish it was all over so things could get back to normal.
Thus while trying to watch some of the yesterday's coverage, I found it difficult to concentrate for long, thus the most memorable bit was probably a (presumably) throwaway line from Alex Salmond on Newsnicht.
Of course, the SNP have been doing a fair bit of huffing and puffing recently about the price of fuel and the need for a fuel duty regulator, but precisely what they are aiming for in terms of prices at the pumps isn't so easy to discern.
However, yesterday the first minister said: "Fuel duty across the UK could have been down by 5p; down by 50p if we controlled it in Scotland."
Aye, right! Of course, fuel would be cheaper in Scotland than in England under such a scenario - it would have to be, wouldn't it? - but the chances of a spendthrift party like the SNP giving up such a huge amount of revenue seems remote in the extreme.
For example, there are all those subsidy-hungry, um, green energy schemes to consider for a start. And isn't it amusing that the party portraying themselves as saviours of the planet would like to cut more than a third off the price of a fossil fuel?
Indeed, the Nationalists making an electoral virtue of any cut in the price of fuel seems at odds with their attempts to outgreen the Greens (well, perhaps not quite), but a promise to cut pump prices by more than a third smacks of the kind of easy soundbite that the speaker knows they'll never be in a position to be held accountable for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Lol. You just go round in circles don't you? Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees.
The new tax on oil revenues will bring in 10 billion. That is 10 billion rxtra that will go straight to george osborne and he will decide how to spend it.
If we were independent it would be going to john swinney and he would decide how to spend it. He could spend it on cutting fuel by 5p or 50p or any point in between. He could spend it on putting a windmill on every roof. Or he could blow the lot on sweeties.
The point of the matter is that the money would go to a scottish chancellor of the exchequer not the UK chancellor of the exchequer.
It's part of the whole independence giving us more choices and the benefits of making our own decisions thing that we were talking about earlier.
"Lol. You just go round in circles don't you? Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees."
Yes, I know you people are just LOLing at people like me - not being a potential member of the 20% and all that - but your 'going round in circles' comment is a bit ironic given the content of my post.
To reiterate.
First, why are the SNP green saviours of the planet one minute while the next suggesting a huge drop in prices at the pumps, telling us what a boon oil would be in an indepedent Scotland and bragging that we're the biggest oil producer in Europe.
Second, fuel prices wouldn't be reduced by 50p in Scotland anyway, come what may. You know it's just a soundbite.
Thus not only do you want to have your cake and eat it, but you can't see the low carbon future for the oil rigs ;0)
You see Stuart Alex Salmond did not say that the SNP would cut 50p off the price of fuel. He said that we COULD, in an independent Scotland, do that. If we wanted to. On the other hand we COULD put fuel duty up even higher, if we wanted to.
The point is that - at the moment - WE HAVE NO CHOICE. Independence would give us the choice to do what we want with our oil revenues.
I don't think you are ever going to get that point though.
No, I worked that bit out as long ago as the "It's Scotland's oil" sloganeering in the 1970s ;0)
But in reality it's not quite as straightforward as that, is it?
I'm no Unionist, but to support independence there has to be a compelling case to abandon the status quo.
And an irrelevant soundbite from Alex Salmond isn't the kind of thing I find compelling.
It's about a lot more than having exclusive access to North Sea oil revenues.
Oh. My. God
Yes, independence is about a lot more than having access to North Sea oil revenues. YOU chose to frame the question in those terms, not me - or Alex Salmond.
Independence is also about Scotland being able to decide what kind of pension system to have, what kind of tax and benefits systems to have, how to fund childcare, how best to support business. It's about Scotland having full control of its energy policy, its foreign policy, its defence policy. It's about Scotland being able to represent itself independently in the EU, the UN and other international bodies and deciding what we want to say. It's about Scotland being able to enter into treaties and negotiations in its own right. It's about seting the agenda on broadcasting, it's about regulating banks and international trade, it's about having the power to introduce (or not) a written constitution, it's about being able to set ou own drugs policy. It's about having our own postal service. It's having control of our own borders.
On any one of these matters I am sure Scots could have an interesting debate - but it would be an academic debate at this time because they are all controlled by Westminster and Scotland is not allowed to take its own decisions or set its own policy.
To my mind that is a pretty compelling case for independence. You are of course totally free to disagree and tell me I am talking mince. But if you do, you ARE a unionist even if you don't realise it.
To reiterate, I'm agnostic about the union.
Unfortunately for the SNP the onus is one them to justify fundamental change, which you probably see as unfair, but that's the way these things are, I'm afraid.
And it's not the litany of powers you outline that's the point, it's what you do with them.
For example, you mention the EU and banking regulation.
Alex Salmond thought the financial services sector in Scotland was OVERregulated, and of course we havent' heard much about the euro lately....
I'm quite happy to accept that it is up to us to justify why independence would improve the way Scotland is governed.
But, equally, it is up to the SNP's opponents to justify why they think it is in our interests to remain part of the UK.
You may have noticed that they rarely do that! Instead they rely on scare stories about the range of disasters which could befall Scotland should we ever become self-governing.
To an extent I would agree, but the problem for the independence movement is that barring catastrophe inertia always favours the status quo.
By the same token, if Scotland was currently independent then there would be little impetus towards forming a union with England.
Except to the extent that both would be part of the European Union, that is ;0)
Post a Comment