They who must not be named, by those who should be shamed, have now increased by a factor of one.
While the BBC and Fellow travellers were trumpeting the latest UK treasury scare report with regards to finance in an Independent Scotland, they were studiously ignoring a much larger story reported by the Holyrood Magazine, where Labour former chancellor Dennis Healey admitted that the British Government had deliberately lied about Scotlands Oil wealth, in order to retain the proceeds for Westminster, and that this present government would do anything to hold onto Scotland for the same reasons.
BBC radio Scotlands GMS programme, did very briefly mention Healey in questioning Michael Moore, but no more than that.
BBC Online News had an article headlined ” Scottish Independence: Treasury claims savers would not be protected” which went into detail over these spurious claims, and tagged a brief piece about Healey at the tail end of the article.
But as for BBC Scotlands TV news……Not a whisper of Healey.
By briefly mentioning the explosive Healey interview, in minor slots on radio and online, albeit buried by the main story of the treasury scare story, they can claim to have reported it….but only just!
It was a prime example of their damage limitation policy which they reserve for the Union.
Nicola sturgeon was immediately cut off from her interview on BBC radio scotlands GMS programme this morning, as soon as she mentioned Healey.
This is of absolutely no surprise whatsoever, and It would appear that Healey has joined with another famous name which must not be named by our unionist media….that name Is McCrone.
Any time I have ever seen McCrone’s name brought up on televison, the presenter immediately cuts it off, and heads the interview off in a different direction.
I need not state why this should be, as Healey said as much in his interview with Mandy Rhodes…. So I will leave an extract of that here, for you to read for yourself.
“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”.
“Being of Irish origin, the idea of independence has always interested me,” he says. “My father always thought he was an Ulsterman because he lived near Enniskillen but in fact, at that time, Ireland hadn’t been divided and he actually came from a little place which was actually in southern Ireland but he never realised that.
“Would Scotland being independent from the UK upset me? No, not really, why would it upset me, it’s a very natural desire”