//
you're reading...
george osborne, independence referendum, North Sea Oil, Norway, scotland

On yer bike Chancellor.

Talk about an open goal. The most unpopular Chancellor since Nigel Lawson, George Osborne, came north again this week, bearing Treasury propaganda disguised as objective analysis – and he seemed to get away with it. Where’s the anger?
The independence campaign has not just stalled, it is in danger of going into reverse. People who were minded to vote Yes are flummoxed by the relentless stream of negativity from Westminster which the Nationalists seem unable to counter. Neither the SNP government, nor the Yes Scotland campaign seem able to mount a coherent, imaginative case for independence in a language Scottish voters can understand. I’m not surprised support for independence is back at its bedrock 25%.
The best Alex Salmond could come up with this week was abolishing early release for sex offenders – the kind of populist policy that Labour’s Jack McConnell used to reach for when he was in a hole. Month after month the Nationalists repeat the same tired slogans about “completing the powers of the Scottish parliament” whatever that means; grasping the “ economic levers”. Maintaining the “social union”, the “defence union” – hey, why not the Union union?
There is a strategic problem with the independence case, which is that it has essentially framed the debate in its opponents terms. This is the classic mistake identified by George Lakoff in “Don’t Think of an Elephant”. If you keep talking about unions then the message that will get across is is that union is rather a good idea. Better Together are much better unionists than the SNP so perhaps leave it to them.
The Yes campaign need to have aspiration, a shining city, a vision. Politics is about moral choices and this is what effective campaigns are based upon, not the dull and desiccated language of economics. Which doesn’t mean that you duck economic arguments – in fact the SNP had an opportunity to do both this week, secure the moral high ground while rebutting the politics of fear.


The Chancellor, George Osborne, is responsible for policies that have left tens of thousands of Scots in insecure jobs and plunged many Scottish families into crisis through the bedroom tax, while he cut taxes on multi-millionaires. He has also sparked a mini-property boom in the South East of England by using tax-payer’s money to subsidise £600,000 mortgages.
But worse he tried to argue that an independent Scotland would be worse off it received revenues from North Sea Oil. He even put a figure on it: £2,000 per Scottish family. He said that setting up an oil fund, like Norway’s, would lead to tax increases of 27%, or £8bn, or spending cuts of the equivalent. This was underpinned by a Treasury report of breathtaking sophistry, which brought to mind the 1975 McCrone Report that cynically sought to disguise the true value of North Sea oil. It should have been kicked the length of Scotland, by unionists as well as nationalists, for the contempt it showed for the intelligence the Scottish public.
An independent Scotland would have a budget deficit of around £8bn, according to George Osborne,  but it is rather less than the budget deficit being run by the UK right now which, in case you had forgotten is around £120bn. The Osborne argument is that Scotland with oil revenues of would be in a worse predicament than the UK without it. How could a numerically literate Chancellor manage to arrive at that ludicrous conclusion?
George Osborne said that if the Scottish government put its oil revenue into an oil fund, similar to Norway’s state pension scheme, this would so denude the nation’s finances that welfare spending would have to be slashed, free personal care abolished, tuition fees hiked. In other words that, unlike the UK, the Scottish government would have to balance its budget in year one in order to set up an oil fund.
In fact, the existence of oil assets estimated by the industry body, Oil and Gas UK, at £1.5 trillion would, even if it were left under the North Sea, substantially reduce Scotland’s deficit by reducing borrowing costs. It is silly to base the case for or against independence on one expendable resource, but this is a legacy most countries cannot dream of, even if the value fluctuates with the oil price.  Currently it is up and production is rising.
  It is reasonable to expect that Scotland would experience an ‘independence boom’ which is what often happens when small countries take charge of their own affairs. But even if Scotland carried on exactly as it is, with GDP per head at approximately the UK level, it would still be in a better fiscal condition than the UK, and not just because of hydrocarbons. Stormy Scotland has an abundance of green energy, and the continuing disaster at Fukushima confirms that nuclear power is not going to ride to the rescue of a warming planet.
   The worst error the Chancellor and his predecessor, Alistair Darling, made this week was to bring Norway centre stage in the independence debate. This is a successful small country, with a very similar demographic profile to Scotland, and fewer economic advantages. It has become something of a beacon for all those who believe that there is an alternative to the devil-take-the-hindmost banker capitalism that is currently the British way.
Not only does Norway have one of the highest standards of living on the planet, it has one of the lowest levels of income inequality, the highest levels of social security and – Conservative chancellors please note – one of the most dynamic private sectors in the world. Small countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland have discovered that impoverishing the working population while allowing the rich to get even richer, is not the way to encourage business to invest. What works is stability: progressive taxation, full employment, social investment.
Even without oil, countries like Denmark – which the World Bank recently cited as the best country in Europe to start a business – have kept calm and carried on throughout the Great Recession. Workers there are more willing to change jobs, which makes it is easier to start new enterprises. Wages are relatively high ensuring that there is demand in the high streets.
In Britain, by contrast, 4.8 million workers earn less than the living wage of £7.20. The top 1% have seen their share of income triple thanks to low taxation. The UK government seems to think that zero hours working creates enterprise and that house price inflation is the same as economic growth. Not so much voodoo economics as vampire economics; sucking the blood out of the real economy.
Scotland is already more like Norway than England, in its social outlook and political culture. A social democracy with communitarian values borne of struggle against a harsh climate and an implacable global economy. The UK squandered North Sea oil revenues, hundreds of billions of it, to finance Margaret Thatcher’s industrial recessions and enrich a financial kleptocracy based in the City of London.
Norway has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, worth $700bn. Britain has one of the biggest debt problems of nearly £2tr. And he has the nerve to say that Scotland would be worse off? On yer bike, Chancellor: Scots have been fooled once too often.

Advertisements

About iain2macwhirter

Writer and journalist.

Discussion

7 thoughts on “On yer bike Chancellor.

  1. Neither the SNP government, nor the Yes Scotland campaign seem able to mount a coherent, imaginative case for independence in a language Scottish voters can understand. I'm not surprised support for independence is back at its bedrock 25%.When ALL of the print and visual media are staunchly against independence is it any wonder that their voice is deliberately stifled or twisted to suit the status quo. They cover Better Together private/public meetings and ignore any Yes ones and we supposedly live in a free democratic country with an honest press, it will be nice when it arrives. Just look at your 25% number which one can only presume was taken from the latest TNS poll which has even been criticised by the only psephologist available for comment throughout these Isles as it shows that Labour won the 2011 election in Scotland!The coverage, or lack, of the march on the 21st should be interesting.

    Posted by cynicalHighlander | September 6, 2013, 6:14 pm
  2. I would have to agree with "cynicalHighlander" above. Your own reference to a 25% poll result speaks volumes in itself. On one hand you seem to be making a pretty good attempt at balance, but your blinkers are showing Iain.

    Posted by Peter Stark | September 6, 2013, 7:42 pm
  3. I tend to agree with most of what Iain writes. My big hope is that after the white paper there will be a concerted effort to highlight the benefits that voting yes would bring and a vision of a new Scotland. Iain is right to look at how the yes campaign is working. Still a bit to do but getting there I feel.

    Posted by Keith Smith | September 6, 2013, 9:47 pm
  4. Lol. Iain I was going to suggest that I am surprised that you have been taken in by the biased unionist media, but then I remembered that you are part of that media.

    Posted by Indy_Scot | September 9, 2013, 10:13 pm
  5. Iain: if you want the Yes campaign to 'mount a coherent, imaginative case for independence', why don't you YOU do something to help? You can't be unaware that the Yes Campaign is making the case, but the media isn't reporting it. The media does not just report news about the referendum issues: it manufactures it, always with a negative slant on independence. Your difficulty is, as you well know, that were you to show support for the Yes campaign, your income would drop: fewer articles published, fewer appearances on television. So don't condemn the Yes campaign while you sit on the fence, well aware of the bias and dishonesty of your colleagues in the media, and the political motives and machinations behind them.

    Posted by AuldReekie | September 10, 2013, 9:39 am
  6. David Cameron, away back, voiced publicly that he would like to model UK society on that of the United States of America.A doctor who practices in England remarked in a letter to the Guardiaan not so long ago that: 'When the ENHS reforms being pushed through by the coalition government at Westminster are complete there will be no route back'.Oliver Letwin, Tory strategist told a meeting of like minded people that within 4 years of a majority conservative government being voted into power the English National Health Service will cease to exist.In an article under 'Comment is free'(guardian Tues 10th Sept 2013) Michael Paarlberg, a lecturer at Georgetown university,New York State, provides those of us who are interested with an insight into what is part of everyday normality in that great country. The following are extracts: '… most personal bankruptcies are driven by medical expenses and that college tuition fees have sky-rocketed, reaching as high as $60,000 a year…..this is the reality for Americans: where four years after a recession, real incomes are increasing only for the top 1% and declining for the bottom 99%: where pensions and collective bargaining agreements are a distant memory: where McDonald's advise their employees that if they want to earn more money, get a second job: and where someone with a teacher's salary and two children lives one illness away from financial ruin…' This is the unvarnished reality of the country David Cameron wants to emulate.But you are unlikely to find it in the Scottish press or hear it on the radio or Scottish Television.

    Posted by stan ley | September 12, 2013, 9:10 pm

Twitter Updates

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 46,426 other followers

Follow Iain Macwhirter on WordPress.com

Archives

Social

%d bloggers like this: