“There is now a consensus that Scotland will benefit from fiscal autonomy.”His use of the word will rather than would is intended to convey a false sense of inevitability. And there is no such consensus — among economists, oil experts, the unionist parties or the electorate. But for Swinney, as for Salmond and Sturgeon, factual accuracy seems to be an optional extra.
Halftime in America
25 minutes ago
Interesting to see that you no longer consider the Liberal democracts a 'unionist party' and seem to fail to recognise the green party and margo Macdonald.
Will you accept the democratic will of the parliament or not AM2?
Not to mention, your rather narrow definition of 'benefit'.
Will Scotland 'benefit' from having control over 10p income tax rates as per Calman's recommendations?
I am reminded of something from "Yes Minister".
Whenever anyone says something like "Everyone agrees.." or "There is a consensus.." the smart reply is to say "Really? Name six of them."
Wardog:
The Liberal Democrats, although they would tend not to self-identify as such, are unionists. Federalism, and with it fiscal autonomy for each of Britain's four constituent nations, is a unionist model.
The rest of your snide post is undeserving of a reply.
Oh I see, you belive that federalism is a 'unionist model' comparible to the status quo.
'Has AM2 lost the plot?'
Aren't you trying a bit too hard to keep your splintering 'pan unionist alliance togather'?
How far do you think it will hold in the run-up to the General election with Labour and the Tories at each other's throats?
The pressure is on AM2.
SU
Your use of multiple headers around alleged Swinney spin, 'is intended to convey a false sense of inevitability' about everything he does. I don't disagree that politicians are liberal with their use of euphemisms, but to single out Swinney, Salmond and Sturgeon is just partisan, and you know it. Furthermore your links are selective and subjective and actually betray some of your arguments:
'Electorate' link...
Q.11 Who do you think should make most of the important decisions for Scotland about income tax, the Scottish Government in Edinburgh or
the UK Government at Westminster?
62% said the Scottish Government!
'Unionist' 'Parties'...
Wardog is quite right. The Tory and Labour links were predictable, but where is the LibDem link? They are a 'Unionist' Party.
'Economists'...
A one-liner at the end of the article that is hardly conclusive about an oil fund. Is that it?
'Oil Experts'...
"OK, there is still a lot to go for in the North Sea"
and
"..the middle of a recession is not an ideal time to start a fund.."
Yet again, inconclusive. And given the UK Government's lightweight commitment to energy by appointing yet another mimisterial 'Lord', the oil industry leaders are not exactly in love with Westminster's handling of oil matters in recent years.
I conclude that this is more spin. Am I too "undeserving of a reply?"
A pretty trifling thing to get hung up about is it not. I thought you were done with whimsy. Swinney's point was backed up by the highly respected Cuthberts in Scotsman today. 'Will' be interesting to hear your thoughts on that. Or 'would' be if you choose not to post on it, of course ;)
Wardog:
In your desperation to sow division where none exists, you overlook one key point. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives all subscribe to the key principle on which the Calman Commission was established: that any improvements to devolution must “continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”.
Andrew BOD:
Weak. My post demonstrated that no consensus exists – in either direction.
Jeff:
Two nationalist economists do not consensus make! John Swinney’s claim was not truthful. I don’t think that’s a trifling matter.
Jeff
"Swinney's point was backed up by the highly respected Cuthberts in Scotsman today."
"Respected" by whom, other than the readers of the "Scots Independent" and the "Scottish Left Review"?
Name six of them.
(See? It works.)
Oh AM2, that's spinning beyond belief.
The dogs on the street know that Calman's main fiscal recommendations are in deep trouble and will not satisfy the desire for greater autonomy and economic levers.
Anyone listening to Tavish Scott v Annabelle Goldie recently in the chamber will have realised that the 'pan unionist alliance' is badly divided.
Labour are at sea on the subject, caught in the westminister headlights.
There may be trouble ahead.
SU,
you have to understand that we're talking John Swinney here: he believes in something called a "Scottish Futures Trust", a phantom policy which never existed but which he keeps mentioning as vital to the delivery of schools and other buildings (which, inidentally, don't exist either, having not yet even been commissioned).
He also promised a Local Income Tax without having the slightest idea of the financial implications, how it would work or how it would work in practice.
So give the man a break. He lives in a fantasy world where just saying something makes it "the truth....."
A bit like some of our cybernat friends on this blog....