Sunday 15 July 2012

The SNP, Secrecy, Your Money


What is it with the SNP, secrecy and public money? Last year they spent £100,000 keeping secret the internal Civil Service documents relating to the costs of implementing their ill-fated Local Income Tax.  Labour had claimed that the tax would cost in the region of £350-£400 million to implement. The SNP denied this, but refused to release their own calculations. Labour asked for the information under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation. FOI Commissioner Kevin Dunnion ruled that the informationshould be revealed but still the Nats refused, preferring to go to appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh and spend £100,000 of public money to delay the publication of the facts until after the 2011 election. In July 2011, after the Scottish elections, the figures were conveniently “leaked” and were confirmed at £380million.

This week, another FOI followed by another SNP refusal to submit to a decision by the Commissioner.

Labour MEP Catherine Stihler asked Scottish Ministers what advice they have received on Scottish membership of the EU (supposing a “yes” vote in a referendum to break up the UK). The SNP insists that Scottish membership of the Union (European) would be a shoo-in, a mere formality with no possible barriers or delays to taking immediate membership of the EU, but they refused to answer Stihler’s direct question, so she put in an FOI request asking if they had received advice on the matter, and what the advice was. The Information Commissioner said that the Nationalists should at least reveal if they had sought and been given legal advice on EU membership. The SNP Government immediately appealed the Commissioner’s decision..... More delay, more cost to the public purse, more obfuscation and less information from the Nationalist Goverment which must be setting a record as the least transparent administration ever to sit in Holyrood.   
The Nationalist refusal to be open with the Scottish people is even more striking in this case as the UK Government has released its own legal advice. It says that the legal advice it received was that Scotland is only part of the EU by virtue of the UK's membership and could not automatically assume membership of the EU. There are other conditions including adopting the Euro as the currency of the new member state. This last is a real headache for the Nats as they gave up their attachment to the Euro due to the current problems of the Euro-zone and switched back to being in the “pound zone”*. In their defence Nationalists quote Westminster convention that legal advice is never disclosed – as if the SNP has ever taken a minutes notice of “Westminster convention”! And if the UK Government can release its legal advice, why can the Nationalists not release theirs?

The strong suspicion is that the Nationalists have never sought any legal advice on the position vis-a-vis the EU post referendum. Which would be very strange of a party which has been in existence for nearly 80 years and has only one real defining policy – that of “independence” from the UK. Especially in light of the Nationalist policy of “independence in Europe”, it is beyond belief that they would not seek legal clarification on such an important issue.

The other suspicion is that the Nationalists did seek legal guidance and the advice they received is at odds with their stated policy and that there would be significant obstacles to immediate EU membership for an “independent” Scotland.  

Either way it is absolutely ridiculous that a Nationalist party which has long standing policy positions on Europe and the Euro has not sought any legal advice on the viability of that policy. To use public money to keep this information from Scottish voters is verging on maladministration.

* incidentally they never asked the Bank of England if this was a possibility – are we seeing a  pattern here?

14 comments:

  1. Do you think the Scottish Government should accede to every mischievous or trivial demand from unionists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Do you think the Scottish Government should accede to every mischievous or trivial demand from unionists?"

      Membership or non-membership of the European Union is hardly "trivial" - but fundamental to the relationship of an potential independent Scotland with our nearest neighbours. The UK government advice suggests that if Scotland seceeded from the UK it would have to re-apply to the EU, this is something voters need to know - hardly trivial!
      Of course, like many issues that concernt Scots (and the rest of the UK), the SNP seems quite happy to not consider them nor disclose any advice and make it up as they go along.

      Why won't the SNP disclose their advice on EU membership or lack of? Only two reasons - either they haven't asked which shows the party who claims to be be the "only party that cares about Scotland" really couldn't give two hoots as it doesn' take this seriously, nor in fact anything seriously apart from identity politics and creating divsions.

      Or secondly, the advice is consistent with the UK govmt advice - i.e. an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership.

      My personal opinon (not based, like the SNP, on *former* commisioners or *former* presidents of the commission) is that RUK would remain part of the EU as it is not a "new country", and would inherit the treaty obligations etc - but any new soverign state of Scotland - as it is secceding from an existing one - would have to re-apply. The application would be fast-tracked as Scotland currently as MEPs.

      Delete
  2. "The Nationalist refusal to be open with the Scottish people is even more striking in this case as the UK Government has released its own legal advice. It says that the legal advice it received was that Scotland is only part of the EU by virtue of the UK's membership and could not automatically assume membership of the EU."


    If that is the case for Scotland it surely must be the same case for England .

    ReplyDelete
  3. QUOTE
    "And if the UK Government can release its legal advice, why can the Nationalists not release theirs?"
    ==
    I was not aware that the UK had released their advice.
    Can you post a weblink to it please?
    thank you
    pete

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The link is in the story.

      Delete
    2. There are only two links in your story, but neither link points to UK government legal advice.
      I cant find any on a google search either.
      Can you please let me know where to find the UK government legal advice.
      Thank you
      pete

      Delete
    3. The link to the Herald story...

      http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/shameless-cover-up-over-independence-legal-advice.18086328

      "The SNP insists a newly independent Scotland would not have to apply and would automatically become an EU member by dint of the fact the UK is already one...However, this view is contradicted by legal advice given to the UK Government, which said: "Scotland is only part of the EU by virtue of the UK's membership..."If Scotland were to leave, it would not automatically assume membership of the EU...."EU law would require negotiation of the terms of an independent Scotland's membership of the EU."

      If that's not clear enough, I don't know what could be....

      Delete
    4. Hi,
      This is just a link to a newspaper article.

      You said the UK government had released its advice on Scottish membership of the EU. If that is true, then please give me a link to the UK government website, where this advice has been released.

      Thank you
      pete

      Delete
    5. Oh dear.... "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe".

      Pete, if you don't believe the Herald on this because it's not the source document, then how do you know that the Union of the Crowns and the Union of the Parliaments took place? Have you seen the source docs?

      I've been told that Mount Everest is in the Himalayas, but I've never seen it. Should I refuse to believe it exists?

      And what's the capital of Chile? How do you know?

      How do you "know" anything if you don't take some things on trust?

      The Herald reported, I believe accurately, the UK Government's legal advice.

      If you refuse to believe anything you don't agree with until you've seen the source documents than you must lead a pretty difficult life.

      So, stop avoiding the issue, and take part in the discussion and stop trolling.

      Delete
    6. Hi

      All I seek is the truth.

      I asked for a link to the released documents instead you give me a link to a newspaper article, didn't anybody tell you not to believe all you read in the newspapers.

      I ask you again for a link again but instead you insult me.
      You see someone who asks you to backup your statements as a troll??
      That says all I need to know about your view of the facts.

      I can only conclude that you can't give me a link because there is no link, because the documents you refer to have not actually been released.

      Perhaps you should do a little more digging for the truth yourself, before spreading misinformation.

      I'm sorry Mr. Braveheart, but I thought you were better than that.
      Please don't bother replying, I don't think I'll be reading any more of your blog.

      cheerio, and thanks for your comments.

      pete

      Delete
    7. Pete, I didn't mean to upset you.

      I just thought that you were one of those mulish, beetle-brained-barrack room-lawyer cybernat types who refuse to believe anything that doesn't coincide with their own prejudices and who demand historical documents to corroborate common sense points and well understand and well known facts. You get a lot of them on the Nat side of the web.

      Apologies if you're not one of them.

      The Herald is a good enough source for me.

      If it's not good enough for you I can't help you.

      Delete
  4. Gordon Brown Sold Britain’s Gold at Artificially Low Prices to Bail Out a Large American Bank

    One decision stands out as downright bizarre, however: the sale of the majority of Britain’s gold reserves for prices between $256 and $296 an ounce ….

    When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things.


    c$3,670,016,000 all to bail out a foreign bank 'easy come easy go' is Labours mantra.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Braveheart

    I noticed Peter Bell Tweeted the link to this story as if you somehow got the wrong end of the stick ie you've followed the MSM puff or spin or propaganda or whatever the Cybernats like to call it these days.

    I take it the facts are true?

    I couldn't see it being any other way myself.

    He doesn't usually do the outright sad case denial like a lot of the Nats.

    I think you're bang on. Doing this makes the SNP look really shifty.

    It's beyond me what advantage they can get out of the denial or non-denial

    ReplyDelete