Thought I should add some more suitably RI-ish developments to this thread, since we don't want to end up re-hashing mainstream political and economic arguments that can be found on any other forum here.
I love the political and economic (and military) arguments myself, and hope to see more of them, but there's no harm in looking at other angles too.
Many pages back I joked that Alex Salmond had been in America at the time of the last Bilderberg conference so that he might attend it, or be attended upon by some of it's attendees, so that he could thereby gain permission from them for "his" project of Scottish independence. A joke, no further harm. But then again...
On the 19th of May 2013 an interview was published in Holyrood Magazine (which deals with news surrounding the Scottish Parliament) featuring Denis Healey, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, who served in that role during Callaghan's Labour government, from 1974 to 1979. He had some awkward and unusual things to say, considering his former and present positions:
He says that the value of oil to the UK is a prime motivation behind Westminster’s opposition to independence now and in the 1970s.
“I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn’t actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really,
Thatcher wouldn’t have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that.” I ask Healey if he had considered establishing a sovereign wealth fund with the oil revenues to invest in the country’s future when he was in office.
“It’s true that we should have invested the money in things we needed in Britain and I had thought about an oil fund, like in Norway but it wasn’t my responsibility by then.” I explain to him that the oil has become a controversial focus in the current referendum debate and wonder if he thinks Westminster is afraid of the consequences of independence.
“I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven’t been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British (?) and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes,
I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.
“I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped but if the Scots want it [independence] they should have it and we would just need to adjust but I would think Scotland could survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent. Yes, I would think so… with the oil.” I ask Healey what he thinks about claims that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK given that Joel Barnett, he of the Barnett formula, was his deputy at the Treasury and worked out what share of the national income pot Scotland should receive. He says Scotland “pays its fair share” and that
“these myths” are simply perpetuated by those that oppose independence. On Scotland keeping the pound, he says Scotland would gain but adds that so “would the rest of us” and he doesn’t see why Westminster could say the Scots couldn’t have it.All in all, he is fairly matter-of-fact about the idea of independence and says that he considers it a “natural desire”.
http://www.holyrood.com/2013/05/still-raising-eyebrows/
These seem like very strange things for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially a Labour one, to admit in public - especially now, in the midst of an independence campaign. He was a feirce opponent of independence, and even devolution, back when he had some power, and as far as i know he was not averse to trotting out the subsidy myth himself.
Then I remembered that Dennis Healey is a
founding member of the Bilderberg Group, and was on it's "steering committee" for thirty years. Strange, eh? Whit are they aw up tae noo?
This seems an odd aside from the article:
His conversation is littered with sexual innuendo - but while politically incorrect, it is hard to be offended by one of his ancient years, especially one that requires assistance, time and a stick just to rise from his chair, never mind try and chase you round it. Although, it is also intriguing to wonder whether his Benny Hill-esque repertoire has been affected with age or is simply unchecked from another era of acceptability.
Christ Awmichty. You'd think that at least one or two of these old Westminster goats would have learned to stop leering and jesting and propositioning journalists inappropriately over the span of an entire lifetime, eh? But apparently not.
You'd also think that Holyrood Magazine could afford to hire a sub-editor. But apparently not .
EDIT: Mac, you don't owe me nothing. I owe you.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
Imagine that.
