The Scotsman carries a story today that says (amongst other things):
THE man credited as being the author of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's economic policy is to deliver a series of pre-election briefings to the SNP, who he has advised to abandon its support for a currency union as part of a radical shift in the party's economic approach.
Richard Murphy, the author of bestselling book The Joy Of Tax, has told how he attended talks with a senior nationalist MP in London that were sanctioned by the party leadership.
He has described a currency union as “the weakness at the heart of SNP policy” in the 2014 referendum. The campaigner also said that the SNP was allowing big business to dominate the issue of tax devolution.
Murphy is due in Edinburgh in mid-April in the run-up to the Holyrood election, when he will meet senior SNP politicians for talks on how to use newly devolved tax powers to promote greater social justice.
He said: “I've talked to the SNP in London about what taxes should be devolved and about what currency an independent Scotland could use.
Let's get the record straight then, as much of this implies things I did not say.
It is quite clear my links with Jeremy Corbyn are loose.
And I have never said I am giving a series of pre-election briefings to the SNP.
I have met two SNP MPs recently, one for lunch. But I have not a clue if such meetings were sanctioned by the SNP leadership and have never hinted they were.
And I have been invited to Scotland in April, but I never said that the trip had anything to do with the SNP, although I did say I would be open to meeting interested parties whilst I was there.
And the meeting with the SNP in London was with its London branch, in December, as I clearly explained.
Someone is making mountains out of a series of events here and if the SNP are upset, I apologise: facts have been distorted here to imply things I have simply not said.
I do have opinions on tax and devolution and think this is a vital issue, and am more than happy to talk about them. But to imply I am in any way and SNP adviser now is wrong, and inappropriate. I am happy to talk to parties, of course. But this implies I am doing more than that and that is incorrect.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This all begs the question of whether the advice is/will be to abandon the currency union? With a population of 5 million Scotland seems pretty small to have a completely independent currency. If it did it would mean that the North of England could justify one without problem – and London could certainly have one. It would nicely give the lie to all being in this together – but where do you stop? Disentangling it all would be a major project and probably bad for the economy in the short term. When corporations get larger and larger it seems rash to have governments – and currencies – that get smaller and smaller.
Denmark manages rather well
But you cannot have two currencies in one country
“But you cannot have two currencies in one country.”
Sorry, you’ve lost me. Why not?
Try effective macroeconomic management when it happens
You will find it is associated with low tax yields, high levels of corruption, massive inequality and low levels of GDP per head
the Danish manage this by pegging the Krone to the Euro… I’m not sure how popular that would be in Scotland…
I should think it would be obvious that Scotland can never really be an independent country (whether this be for good or ill) without it’s own fiat currency. A country that adopts another country’s currency is really just a colony masquerading under a different name.
We had a similar situation in Canada where the government of Quebec held an “independence” referendum while saying that the “independent” nation of Quebec would still use the Canadian dollar!
If you are not sovereign in your own currency you are not sovereign at all, really.
Ireland used the pound for a while after Independence.Do the work then think it through
Scotland will be Independent by 2020 get used to it.
I am not sure what you are saying
“Ireland used the pound for a while after Independence.”
They are now in the Euro-zone and don’t have any real “independence” left. They are under the whip of the Troika.
“Do the work then think it through
Scotland will be Independent by 2020 get used to it.”
Doesn’t matter much to me one way or the other. But if they aren’t sovereign in their own fiat currency the “independence” will just be a sham.
Which is precisely why I say Scotland can only offer independence if it is willing to offer a separate currency
The Scotsman (or anti-scotsman) is a tory supporting SNP hating rag.
Phew! I’m glad to hear it! Scotland is in effect a one party state with one police force etc.
Alarm bells are starting to ring in my mind!
So the media keep telling us, but we rumbled the media some time ago. The more frantic and contrived their attacks on the SNP, the more popular the SNP becomes. That tells you we have an increasingly mature and critical electorate which, contrary to the ‘one party state’ nonsense, has the option of three Unionist parties – also rumbled. It’s called democracy and it’s in a far healthier state in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.
The Scots need to be alert to the risk that Totalitarianism can come through the back door , so they must participate fully to ensure Scotland acts in the interests of the people and not authoritarian Euro Technocrats.
Don’t let me get started on the despicable cheats and liars installed as the Westminster Government unsder the control of Plutocrats!
The Scots have a system of government that can and will, I am sure, deliver two and more party government in due course
Thanks for the clarification. It is reassuring to see that people outwith Scotland can see how the press manipulate. (no doubt that the recent barrage of media dross in England against Jeremy Corbyn, has opened a few more eyes). Reference the comment above about country size, it is interesting to note that much of the top 10 nations in terms of GDP, standard of living, health, education and social provision are of a similar size to Scotland (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand to name a few). As for the one party state moniker, Scotland has been a ‘one party state’ for a long time. It’s just that at present it is not the preferred party of Westminster’s choice.
The question is whether any of the three Union parties will survive, at least in their present British form, to be part of a two or more party government. The move to a Scottish, rather than a British, politics has been profound – it had to be to remove a British two party system considered impregnable – and given the electoral demographics that move is unlikely to reverse.
Never mind, Mr Murphy. We in Scotland have come to take for granted that the media are outright liars a lot of the time. SG knows this too, through long experience. It is good to set the record straight, certainly, because it alerts those who do not yet know to what our media is for. But the fault is not yours
As to the drivel about a one party state: it is drivel and need not detain us. I thank Theremustbeanotherway for his concern, but I suspect he is not Scottish. Perhaps, if he is not, he might like to address the more present danger of totalitarian plutocracy in his own country. As a current citizen of the UK it certainly bothers me more as a possibility in the UK than in Scotland
I have always believed that currency union is the wrong policy for an independent Scotland. We need our own currency and there is no insurmountable problem with that, though no one pretends it is likely to be easy, especially since WM is unlikely to truly cooperate to make a smooth transition. However difficult, it must be done, because debt denominated in a foreign currency is a bad idea: and if one chooses instead to control the economy using “printed” money rather than borrowing it can’t be done unless the currency is sovereign. To me this is a no brainer, and I hope the SNP, or whoever forms the govt at the point of independence comes to see this. As with Ireland I hope that the SG sees it as a desirable transitional arrangement. Though I don’t agree with that either.
It seems to me that it can be argued that countries — and currencies – require a certain critical mass to have the full potential for economic well-being. And I think there are precious few examples of a properly internationally traded currency for a country of 5 million people? New Zealand is one (is it the only one?) but is always considered to be a currency that is particularly volatile — presumably because with limited real trade the gambling trade is able to gain more of a hold. Interesting too to speculate whether, with an independent Scottish currency, Scotland would ever have had sufficient resources to bail out RBS. They could perhaps have let it go bust à la Iceland, but Scotland would then have been ‘unpopular’ on a much, much bigger scale…
Would Scotland have had to bail out RBS? Large parts were npt Scottish based.
As for the currency question – until recently there were numerous – and many would like them back
The currency question is interesting. The disadvantages of the pound sterling are already known to the Scots (is the UK an optimum currency area? – probably not).
Having a separate currency raises the potential for a Dutch Disease problem due to the presence of North Sea oil etc.(and that can be a very serious problem).
Thankfully, the Norwegians have already devised an excellent policy for the management and taxation of mineral export revenues. If the Scots go it alone on currency they will need to do something similar.