Posted by
Scottish Unionist
at 12:21 AM.
There are .
Here’s John Swinney,
spinning through his teeth to kickstart the next predictably dreary phase in the SNP’s futile independence campaign:
“The Calman Commission recognised that Scotland is entitled to a fair share of our own oil revenues yet the UK is practically alone...”
(Ugh, enough John! We’ve heard it all before.)
Seemingly irritated, Sir Kenneth Calman described Mr Swinney’s words as “at worst intentionally misleading” and
further explained:
“The claim that the Commission on Scottish Devolution backs the creation of a Scottish oil fund or the devolution of North Sea revenues fundamentally misrepresents our position. We have been clear on this throughout and it is disappointing to have the commission’s findings skewed in this way.”
Here’s John Swinney, spinning through his teeth to kickstart the next predictably dreary phase in the SNP’s futile independence campaign:
Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett, one of 11 economics experts tasked with examining tax powers north of the border, said its final report did not have "much legitimacy" because it was skewed towards preserving the status quo
he said the report failed to examine the "trade-offs" between various systems. The economist claimed the report did not properly analyse the advantages and disadvantages of the Barnett Formula, assigned taxes and fiscal autonomy.
Muscatelli's report concludes
"Devolving, rather than assigning, oil and gas taxation policies to the Scottish Parliament would add complexity as separate taxation regimes applying in Scottish and the rest of the UK’s waters would produce transitional and other problems. While these would be justified for an independent Scotland
the costs may be unduly high for a devolved Government situation"
"Substantive borrowing and investment powers could enable these revenue variations to be mitigated. For example, investments in an oil fund above the level to maintain the nation’s capital stock could be made when prices where high. "
Calman went for the easy option and has been duly shelved by The High Commissioner for Scotland Jim Murphy, Annie Goldie yon Big Tory Wifey and Ravishing Tavish, the Orcadian Viking.
Iain Gray is strangely quiet. and appears to be disassociating Scottish Labour from the whole enterprise.
Cost of the report £1M
Cost of Unionists falling over themselves : priceless.
What’s your game?
Andrew Hughes Hallett is a nationalist so his criticism of the Calman report is no great surprise.
Your decontextualised Muscatelli quote in no way undermines Sir Kenneth’s criticism of John Swinney’s “misrepresentation” of him. Quite the reverse.
What do your warped view of Scotland as some kind of colonial possession, Annabel Goldie’s body shape or Tavish Scott’s appreciation of Shetland (not Orkney) culture have to do with the topic in hand?
Feel free to engage with the issues, Wardog. Otherwise I’d prefer you didn’t clutter the blog with irrelevancies.
This story is rubbish. Read the press release - at no point does John Swinney claim that the Commission on Scottish Devolution backs the creation of a Scottish oil fund or the devolution of North Sea revenues.
JS says that the report recognised that Scotland is entitled to a fair share of our own oil revenues - which it does. That option is looked at specifically both in the report itself and in Annexe Three by the Expert Group.
Either Calman does not understand that 'recognise' and 'support' are two different words with two different meanings or he is being led by the nose into making party political attacks.
SU
Your own psychological spin is getting out of control. Your double attack on both Salmond and Swinney assumes the former's alleged questionable morality is accepted by all and sundry. On the contrary, this is an old trick designed to cement a questionable unionist political position. In fact, in your link, The Scotsman doesn't even retrieve the quote from Muscatelli. Laziness at best, misrepresentation at worst.
This is the sort of establishment spin that moves me daily toward supporting independence.
Let's forget whether Calman believes it or not. Let's forget Norway. Let's even forget the fluctuation in oil prices: if it's good enough for US states and Canadian provinces, it's certainly good enough for a country within the UK.
I think it would be useful SU if you could post for us the speech, or press release, or statement, which contains the quote from Swinney saying that the Calman Commission backed Scotland having an oil fund, or the devolution of oil revenues. I can't seem to find it.
Thanks.
Hmm. No comments at all since six o’clock this morning and then the three of you turn up within the space of ten minutes, each touting the same disingenuous semantic spin and trying to cover your tails by accusing me of the same.
Just out of a briefing with a certain Mr Pringle, are you? ;-)
Don’t debase yourselves. Just take this one on the chin.
SU
I think perhaps some of us have got to earn a living the traditional way, i.e. 8-5
Well I'm the last to leave the Office so am blantantly stealing my employers time, can't speak for the other two.....
You will manage to find that statement from Swinney yes ?
A convenient excuse! ;-)
The SNP press release is linked above. It clearly conveyed a false impression and I’m not going to be drawn into semantic hairsplitting as you try to wriggle your man off the hook.
My excuse was that I caught a train at 7am for Aviemore.
Nice day in the Highland.s
"warped view of Scotland as some kind of colonial possession"
How many people voted for Jim Murphy to act as Secretary of State for this nation?
A rather odd democratic deficit, ne pas?
That is complete rubbish SU and I think you know it. Why do you think the Scotsman used the line ‘Sir Kenneth appears to believe that SNP ministers have used that "recognition" to suggest that the commission supported an oil fund and oil tax being devolved’?
Could it be Calman put his name to the letter without actually reading the press release?
You’re forcing my hand. Here is the relevant claim by John Swinney:
“The Calman Commission recognised that Scotland is entitled to a fair share of our own oil revenues...”
Implicit within the statement is that Swinney and the Commission broadly agree what “fair share” means. That is untrue.
Also implicit is that the SNP’s use of the term “our oil” (where “our” in nationalist parlance means “Scotland’s”) is shared by the Commission. Again, that isn’t the case.
So Swinney is claiming that the Commission recognised entitlement on the SNP’s terms, which is also false.
Indy:
“That is complete rubbish SU and I think you know it.”
Do you really? Your willingness to essentially call me a liar does you no favours.
Wardog:
Jim Murphy and John Swinney were each elected to their respective parliaments as members. At that point the electorate’s involvement was finished. Secretaries of State and Cabinet Secretaries are appointed by the Prime Minister and First Minister, respectively. This is dull; your arguments haven’t been withstanding even the most superficial scrutiny lately.
SU
You are starting to get a bit personal here about some of the posters. Yes, it's your blog, but it's also your reputation. Have you had a bad day?
On topic, can you explain why it's OK for Alberta and Alaska to run an oil fund, but not OK for Scotland. They exist in a Union, don't they?
Andrew:
I’m not getting in the least personal. But I won’t pretend to be impressed by Indy’s mudslinging.
You’re defending the indefensible here. I won’t be approving off-topic posts, of which there have been quite a few. This thread isn’t about Alberta, Alaska, Calman’s remit or whether the English are our colonial subjugators. It’s about John Swinney’s credibility and integrity – or lack thereof, and my 6:22pm post nails that one.
"It’s about John Swinney’s credibility and integrity"
Chasing the big issues as always then AM2.....
Well Wardog, you may not place any great significance on such attributes but I most certainly do.
That is your prerogative my friend but I can't help but feel you've got more in you than these rather round about attacks on 'integrity and credibility"
Isn't that the Labour Parties' stated tactic?
Are you saying that the expert group's deliberations as part of the calman commission do not establish that in principal Scotland could have an oil fund ?
Do you see the difference between the 'calman commission' and the 'calman commissions report'?
"While these would be justified for an independent Scotland the costs may be unduly high for a devolved Government situation"
Conclusion from Calman Commission Expert Group
Swinney appears to have been completely correct in his statement.
You seem to be mixing up the process with the report which Calman himself confirmed was even more limited in scope than the expert evidence.
SU
If it's credibility, integrity, and morality you're on about, there are much better examples at Westminster, even amongst Scottish MPs. Most of them happen to be from the Labour party. These things are not attributable to any one party, so I suggest the REAL topic, as ever, has more to do with kicking the SNP.
Andrew BOD
"On topic, can you explain why it's OK for Alberta and Alaska to run an oil fund, but not OK for Scotland. They exist in a Union, don't they?"
Presumably Alberta and Alaska run a bottom-line (i.e. current plus capex) budget surplus.
Scotland does not.
I think you are shape shifting a wee bit here.
You seem to have started out by claiming that Swinney misled people by attributing a belief to Calman that he didn't express. And it's quite true that his commission didn't back a Scottish oil fund or the devolution of Scottish oil revenues.
But during the course of the Calman commission they *did* recognise that in certain contexts Scotland would be entitled to a fair share of its own oil revenues, when they considered devolving oil revenues before rejecting that as an option.
Something which Swinney has latched onto to expand on what he thinks could be done with such oil revenues in a different political context from the one we are in now.
I think you are flogging a dead horse here. There has been no misrepresentation that I can see.
Is that why you are moving the argument on to what is our ''fair share'' of the oil revenues, or what is ''our oil''? Swinney didn't define that, he was making a general point.
Yawn.
Next topic: “Supposedly neutral civil servants” and SNP “abuse”. Click here.
sm
According to SU, Alberta and Alaska are "off-topic".
But the term "presumably" seems a trifle ambiguous.
SU
Yawning/ignoring argument, I didn't really take you for. Is this a new tactic?
There's no argument to ignore. Wardog's 8:02 is clutching at straws, your 8:05 is just "two wrongs" and Observer's 9:17 suggests that considering and rejecting a proposal is the same as recognising its appropriateness! Why waste my time?
Andrew BOD
http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200606/2015610F66605-EBFB-7E8B-2F6A49C093FEF76C.html
"2005-06 Highlights
* Alberta recorded a surplus for the 12th consecutive year. "
...and there were further surpluses for 2006-7 and 2007-8, although they are now going into deficit for a few years.
That is the difference. The likes of Alberta have significant, sustained, ongoing budget surpluses which can be used to create "oil funds" without cutting into current spending.
Scotland has no such surplus, and has not had one since the mid-1980s.
On top of which, there is a rather large inherited historic debt to pay off (even if "independence" happens).
So any one-off surpluses ought to go to paying off some of that debt first.
No oil fund.
Swinney talking bolleaux.