Amidst the lack of both realism and economic rigour surrounding the SNP's proposal for a lower corporation tax rate to attract investment to Scotland, the supposed progressives in the Nationalist movement seem to have conveniently forgotten the stock response to such measures, namely that it's done by business-oriented parties on behalf of their corporate cronies. Thus if George Osborne had been proposing such a measure UK-wide you can imagine the reaction from many supporters of Scottish independence.
Indeed, the same could be said about SNP support for the oil industry and Alex Salmond's recent proposal that oil companies should be guaranteed a specified rate of return on their investment, which seems to be a convoluted way of saying that they would be guaranteed a profit. Thus all very moral hazard-ish, but certainly sounds better for public consumption than underwriting their profits. But at least this demonstrates the paradoxical air about the SNP wanting to lead the world in the renewables revolution while oil companies are encouraged to extract every last marginal drop of the dirty black stuff from the North Sea.
But in any case the general point was made by opposition MSP Neil Findlay at the most recent FMQs, when he reminded the first minister of the time when as a firebrand new MP 23 years ago he branded the then Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson's budget speech pledge to reduce the rate of corporation tax an "obscenity", leading to Alex Salmond's suspension from the House of Commons.
Mr Salmond refuted this, claiming he was referring to something else, but the point of principle was nevertheless well made by Mr Findlay. But irrespective of what actually happened in the Commons all those years ago, the air of hypocrisy surrounding all this was neatly demonstrated in the related question by new SNP MSP John Mason, who asked: "Does [the first minister] agree with Jim McColl [OBE] of Clyde Blowers Capital, whose company works around the world in many taxation systems and who says it has no problems with a reduced rate of corporation tax in Scotland?"
In fact I've paraphrased this slightly and Mr Mason actually said that Clyde Blowers Capital has "no problem operating in different tax systems", which is about as useful as asking whether a business or individual would like to pay a lower rate of tax, but of course spinning us a different - and less obviously self-serving - line.
Indeed, as a Chartered Accountant Mr Mason will also be more than aware that the SNP-supporting Jim McColl OBE is resident in Monaco for tax purposes, thus clearly has no problem "operating in different tax systems", the rationale of course being to maximise his personal wealth, thus underlining the true nature of Mr Mason's question.
And indeed Mr McColl is also an OBE (did I mention that?) which it should be recalled stands for Order of the British Empire, thus it's good to know that endorsement of the remnants of imperialism is still alive and well in the Scottish Nationalist ranks. Which of course we all knew already à la Sir Sean Connery, who scurried off abroad rather than pay tax here and fight for his principles, unlike Iain Gray (say).
All of which may hardly seem worth mentioning, but of course the big news in imperial Scotland this weekend is that SNP sugar daddy Brian Souter has been knighted for his services to the paradoxical position of being a predatory capitalist and subsidy junkie at the same time. Or something like that.
But all this merely underlines that the transformation of Scotland supposedly ushered in by last month's SNP victory at Holyrood is a mere fantasy, as indeed the Scottish Parliament itself has arguably demonstrated since its inception a dozen or so years ago.
And that prominent Nationalists are still prepared to accept Her Majesty the Queen's titles and baubles when it suits merely underlines that Scotland will always be a mini-me version of Westminster, independent or not, and that's even before considering the issue of corporate cronies and the like.
Thus when Scotland and nationalism is at stake then clearly this trumps any notion of ideals or principles. And speaking of Trumps....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
And of course Mr - sorry SIR - Brian Souter. The SNP hardcore support, whilst lambasting the monarchy (with some justification), are quite happy to support one of their own when it suits them.
I really would like someone to ask a certain Ms Cunninghame what she thinks of Brian's award.
And I wonder if this will have any bearing on whether Sir Brian funds the SNP's 'yes' campaign, which the Scotsman was speculating on during the week?
Maybe the wheels on the bus are going to come off..... :p (they do as well!)
Och, I did that one before ;0)
Whilst neither a fan of the honours system, the Royal Family or Brian Soutar, I have always been puzzled at the stooshies made about SNP supporters taking honours.
After all the SNP policy is to retain the Queen, so why the fuss about SNP supporters taking honours from her (via the British government's recommendations).
To the best of my knowledge the only SNP rule on this thing is not taking a peerage due to the SNP's objections about the House of Lords.
This contrasts with the late Gerry Fitt, who was elected to the House of Commons as a Irish Republican Socialist but ended his days a member of the House of Lords.
And of course there are bigger hypocrites out there. What about the first President of Mauritius and the present President - respectively Sir Veersamy Ringadoo and Sir Anerood Jugnauth (who was also a member of the UK Privy Council whilst living in the UK). The latter was also the county's main republican campaigner. Neither man (the first being HM's last Governor General) renounced their knighthoods-----
To name some examples I am aware of-
And of course other countries that kept the British monarch as head of state had politicians with knighthoods. Sir Bob Menzies of Australia for one. He never campaigned to get Australia to be returned to colonial status?
I think the point Aberdonian is that some SNP supporters have been strangely silent about Soutar's award. These are the same ones who rant about Foulkes and Co (I do agree with their point of view!).
I personally thought the SNP dropped a few principles in accepting his money, and he most certainly has benefitted from it when you look at transport regulation, or lack of it.
I'm not against the SNP receiving money but they now cannot say anything about other party donors without appearing hypocritical.
Aberdonian
Fair point about the hypocrisy of others as regard the honours system, but I can't see how the examples you outline are directly pertinent to the SNP's hypocrisy as outlined by barbarian.
The point isn't really about cronies, donors, honours and suchlike - which after all all the parties are up to their necks in - it's that the SNP are little better than the others in this regard.
If that's your point then that's essentially my point as well, so at least we can agree on that!
But I'm not so sure about the SNP's rule on this; are you saying that an MP or MSP would accept a knighthood?
And your point about the Queen, and in particular the relevance of the *British* Government's recommendations on honours, just shows that the SNP are Unionists at heart ;0)
But of course there are certainly plenty SNPers of the more fundamentalist persuasion who can't abide that sort of thing, but as barbarian alludes clearly discretion is the better part of valour as regards the subject, not to mention regarding Brian Souter's small-c conservative views.
Post a Comment