Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Why would they turn them off if they're getting money? If the money stops, they'll turn them off. But I'm betting there will be some kind of arrangement made.
Exactly. Everything is being painted as incredibly difficult and uncertain now, none of it will be a problem once the decision is made.
Since I have the opportunity, I dont suppose anyone read former Chancellor
Denis Healey's interview with Holyrood magazine this week? Probably not. It was all over the media here in Scotland ... no, wait, thats wrong, it was pretty much
ignored by the media here in Scotland. Hmm.
"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."
"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."
Thanks Rum, for the opportunity to post in this long dead thread
