Bernard Ingham: Salmond is a slippery customer over oil and its role in Scotland’s economic future

I summarise my position because Alex Salmond has drawn me into Scotland’s bid to go solo. He has, I am told, just accused me on TV of 30 years ago running down the benefits of North Sea oil to an independent Scotland.

Unlike Salmond, I am not always clear about what I said in the 1980s. But, from my knowledge of the subject during my time in the 1970s in the Department of Energy, when North Sea oil started to flow ashore, I have consistently made the point that Scots should be careful what they wish for on two grounds: the way international offshore boundaries are drawn; and the possibility that those “blue-eyed Arabs” – the Shetlanders and Orcadians – might be unwilling to hand over their hydrocarbons to Edinburgh.

This was such standard stuff in the 1980s that in one sense I am astonished Salmond has a file on me. On the other hand, it is understandable because Scottish nationalism is the by-product of North Sea oil and gas. Before there was a sniff of hydrocarbons on the wind, Scot Nats did well to get two per cent of the vote.

What is more, derogatory references to Ingham – “Thatcher’s spin doctor” – that Salmond employed in his broadcast are calculated to go down well in his bailiwick.

All this may seem rather inconsequential, but I draw two important conclusions from it.

The first is that the much admired Salmond is less of a political genius than many think. Indeed, he bids fair, depending on his real aim, to become as counter productively useless a leader as Arthur Scargill.

It is now clear that he has not thought through Scottish independence. His reflex answer to all doubts about North Sea oil and gas is to say, as he did quoting me: “We have heard it all before.” This may well be true. But the circumstances are different.

In the 1980s there was substantial wealth at stake. Now the North Sea oil province is well past its peak. Last year total revenue fell 42 per cent to £6.5bn. SNP socialist-style welfare spending would soon consume that and leave nothing for Salmond’s idea of a Norwegian-style sovereign wealth fund of untold billions. He has yet to learn you can’t keep it and spend it.

Other aspects of Salmond’s approach show that he is flying on a wing and a prayer rather than hard analysis. He presumes he can keep the monarchy. He effortlessly assumed that he could retain the pound when the gilt came off the EU and its currency. And he seems oblivious to the risk that, if international businesses such as Standard Life think they will struggle in an independent Scotland, they will head south.

All is for the best in Salmond’s dream world, which brings me to my second conclusion.

The evidence suggests that he may well recognise that the Scot Nats have missed the oil boat. After all, public opinion in Scotland is not enamoured of independence. Substantially more (around 60 per cent) say “No” than say “Yes” (about 30 per cent).

Instead, what he could really be angling for is “devo-max” – maximum devolution – which gives Scots substantial independence without such inconveniences as having to 
apply for EU (and euro) membership; or inventing a 
new currency, the McDuff; or running a shadow pound without visible means of support; and exercising a modicum of financial discipline.

If all this talk of independence is just a front for devo-max, then Salmond may not be an entirely incompetent, as distinct from honest, leader.

But he runs two risks: disenchantment by hard line nationalists and the belated discovery that the rest of the UK is no longer prepared to fund Scots in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

He had better think again – assuming he is capable of addressing unpleasant issues – if he assumes Scots will continue to get £1,364 more than the UK average of Government funding per head to spend on social welfare not available in the south. There are limits to English largesse. They are fast approaching.

A referendum “yea” or “nay” will have to sort things out to avoid real trouble.