Leaders: SNP foundations crumble a little more - but will it really matter? THE idea of setting aside some of the substantial revenues which accrue to the nation from the North Sea to set up an oil fund is a sound one. Norway's version, officially called the Government Pension Fund - Global, is estimated to be worth about £360 billion. It is one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds and Norwegians are fanatically thrifty when it comes to using it - a relatively small amount of the income goes on day-to-day spending, while the rest is re-invested to be used in post-oil rainy decades. It is this model which Alex Salmond has put at the heart of the economic case for independence and which he made great play of in a speech last month at the London School of Economics after which we, and other media outlets, reported his claim that investing only £1bn over 20 years would create a fund for Scotland worth almost £30bn. To use the modern idiom, what's not to like about that? The First Minister returned to this theme in a speech to a conference yesterday, but he appeared to insert a caveat into his advocacy of a Scottish oil fund, saying it would be established "when fiscal circumstances allow." When his office was pressed over the apparent failure to mention this at the LSE, it was pointed out he had used the phrase then, though no-one appeared to notice. Using this as evidence, Mr Salmond's office claimed there was nothing new in this statement and it was, therefore, not important. This is disingenuous. The use of a lawyer-like qualification raises questions over whether the fund will ever be established, and casts doubt on the claims of the benefit such an investment pool would bring to an independent Scotland. Yet even as another pillar of the SNP's independence edifice is discovered to have been built on less-than-secure foundations - joining pledges on the currency, EU membership and defence, among others - there can be no guarantee that when it comes to the independence referendum, voters will make their judgment on such complex matters. This is not to patronise the Scottish public, merely to acknowledge that many simply do not have the time or the inclination to investigate the intricacies of policy. If this is so, how will Scots make their choice? Will they base their decision on the heart or the head? Will the SNP's emotional appeal to patriotism and promise of oil-funded prosperity be more attractive than unionists advocating the economic and social benefits of a Union - as Ed Miliband did yesterday - but which had long been taken as a constitutional given, something which did not need to be defended? The logical answer is that it should not matter one way or the other. As with the many countries to break away from the UK, belief in independence should be unconditional. It should be to have and to hold from referendum day forward, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish. Would that it were that simple. Labour's plan is a sign of a tired party A DEVOLUTION commission to challenge the SNP's independence plans will be proposed by Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont in her keynote speech to the party's conference in Dundee today. It can hardly be hailed as a Big New Idea. Indeed, Labour played a conspicuous part in championing just such a commission on devolution only a few years ago. It was headed by Lord Calman and led to the Scotland Bill now going through Westminster. What is it another Labour Party-backed commission will do that has not already been exhaustively aired - and failed to inspire much enthusiasm? A devolution commission (Mark II) might even be less than the deja vu proposal it already sounds. When politicians call for commissions, what the public tends to hear is the swish of an awkward ball being kicked deep into the long grass. And the kick here looks long. The commission, led by Johann Lamont and made up Labour representatives from Holyrood, Westminster, local government and trade unions, will report in a year's time. She will say the party must look forward after last year's disastrous defeat and launch an attack on the "cartoon politics" of Alex Salmond. This tired rhetoric has all the signs of an exhausted party reduced to the politics of Micawberism, hoping that something, anything will turn up. It could be said that this conference is awkwardly timed and that she would have preferred to keep her powder dry. The problem is that this powder risks being blown away in a puff of inconsequence. Decisions will now be held in abeyance for a year at least. Dynamism? Aspiration? Solutions? A licence to kill some of Edinburgh's charm One of the reasons why Scotland's capital has become a magnet for young artists and performers the world over is the informality and spontaneity of its many free arts events - from poetry readings in the back rooms of pubs to book readings and art exhibitions. But under a new ruling set to be adopted by City of Edinburgh Council next Friday, all such events will require to register for an entertainment licence. Arts organisations are furious, and fear the paperwork and bureaucracy involved will kill off many of these small-scale grassroots affairs. Glasgow has chosen not to impose this new regime, approved by the Scottish Parliament, for the time being. But reluctant Edinburgh councillors say the legal advice from officials, that licences will be needed for all events after 1 April, leaves them with little discretion. This must surely be a matter for councillors to decide. There are thousands of informal events that are clearly not a "flash rave" or a threat to health and safety. If it was not the intention of the legislation to impede these, or the wish of the council to impose restrictions, why the talk of little option but to enforce it? Council staff need to reconsider the imposition of unnecessary bureaucratic gobbledygook that could work to destroy the city's charm and spontaneity. It will shut down many innocent and harmless arts events - and for no good purpose.