Regular readers of this blog will know that over the last couple of years or so I have become quite involved in debate about what might happen in Scotland if it were to become independent, and that led to some involvement in recent discussion in anticipation of the SNP conference yesterday to resolve whether, and when, Scotland should have its own currency at the time of independence, or soon thereafter. I am pleased to share comment from Commonspace, from the Common Weal think tank, on the outcome:
ON 27 APRIL 2019, the grassroots of the SNP showed its mettle, and proved that the independence movement is a thinking, critical and truly independent force, willing to defeat their own leaders when necessary.
The Growth Commission motion passed, but only after a revolt from below which saw an enormous 781 delegates vote in favour of amendment D, with 729 against.
That amendment mandates the party to “take the steps necessary to enable the Scottish Parliament to authorise the preparation of a Scottish Currency as soon as practicable after a vote for Independence with the aim that the currency be ready for introduction as soon as practicable after Independence Day.”
The amendment scraps the annual Central Bank assessments proposed by the movers of the motion, but it doesn't explicitly get rid of the six tests in which the assessments were supposed to be based on.
This was a stunning, and slightly unexpected victory and full marks to DEr Tim Rideout, who comments on this blog, for proposing this motion and getting it carried. That is the good news.
The bad news is that the SNP leadership say the six tests of when a currency may be introduced are intact, but Tim Rideout savaged them in his conference speech. And Commonspace said:
This leaves a battle of interpretation over the outcome, with an SNP press officer telling CommonSpace afterwards that despite the movers of Amendment D trashing the six tests, the amendment was, in fact, “kind of in harmony” with the tests.
No one in the Edinburgh conference hall would have been thinking that when watching Tim Rideout propose Amendment D, and in a five minute contribution totally dismantle the case presented by the SNP leadership, including taking each test apart piece by piece. It was a virtuoso performance, which will have to be re-played repeatedly to those who deem to turn Amendment D into something it was most certainly not intended to be by its advocates. In fact, the safest interpretation of the vote for Amendment D, as opposed to B or C, was that it was the strongest and simplest in advocating for a Scottish currency as soon as possible.
Rideout's speech was the highlight of what was a hugely precise and rigorous argumentation on the side of those in favour of the amendments to the currency motion - entirely made up of contributions from the grassroots of the party, who provided a major rebuke to unionist stereotypes of the rank-and-file of the independence movements as brainless droids. Surely no one could have come away from those contributions thinking anything of the kind.
I hope that is true, and having read Tim's speech I cannot see how it can be interpreted any other way. But this is politics. And the fight for sane economic policy seems to be a continuing battle. But victories have to be counted, and yesterday was one of them.
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:
The People of Scotland appreciate your expertise and advocacy for a Scottish Pound.
Keep up the good work.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/pounds.jpg
It doesn’t mean that a Scottish currency isn’t a good idea, it’s just that the great majority of Scots don’t agree – at present. It would therefore be a gift to the unionist side to even engage in debate about currency.
Most people are in the dark about the money/currency system but, even if they might not be able to articulate them, they are in no doubt about two essential facts.
1) They can exchange money for goods and services.
2) Any particular currency has value as a means of exchange only if it can be trusted.
You are wasting your time trying to convince Scots in general, but particularly the older population that a Scottish currency would be trusted – at present.
You might as well say ‘we’re all doomed’.
If you believe change is impossible then we have reached the end of politics
Not at all – it’s about the Overton window, the art of the possible etc.
We know that most people are not prepared to accept a Scottish currency – at present, so why would we try to persuade them to vote for independence by telling them that a Scottish currency will be an immediate outcome. It may well be that the limitations of using the UK pound become obvious at some point – if we are independent we can do something about it, right now we can do nothing.
During the referendum the SNP brought out a white paper stating their preferences with regard to how an independent Scotland should proceed. They are entitled to their opinion, like everybody else – the problem is that the more preferences you state, the greater the number of voters who will find something to disagree with and who will vote accordingly, because they confuse the ability to control our affairs with what we do once we have control.
It’s our opponents ridiculous position that we have to know that everything will be perfect from day one. As soon as we state a preference it gives them the opportunity to argue that point instead of talking about independence. They will happily while the time away talking about currency but will avoiding any discussion about power/control, where it is concentrated at the moment, and how it has been used. We should be asking questions of them, not continually answering theirs.
If we want people to vote for independence we have to concentrate on what independence means, that it is about being able to control our own affairs, and what can be/has been done to us without our permission, or even being consulted, when others control our affairs for us.
Everything above should be preceded by ‘I think’ – it’s just my opinion, nothing more.
Opinion is fine
Thanks for yours
If it really is true that Scots need to be persuaded then we have to persuade them. Politics cannot be the art of reflecting back to people what you think they want to hear – certainly not when we’re creating a newly independent country.
We have to be bold, principled, brave. We need the kind of people who aren’t afraid to take a lead, who aren’t afraid to try to change opinion and who trust in the power of the arguments they have and the good sense of the people to understand them.
The strength of a Scottish currency depends on the strength of the Scottish economy, the resources we have and our ability to manage them.
If we don’t believe in a Scottish currency that reads like we don’t believe in the Scottish economy or our ability to run our own affairs. That is a terrible – and probably fatal – message to send.
In 2014 Alex Salmond thought the currency question had been answered so well there was not just one but answer a whole range of them. The voters would have preferred one, clear answer. The current currency fudge – talking up a Scottish currency while simultaneously creating tests to avoid having to create it – risks making the same mistake again.
We need one clear answer: a Scottish currency as soon as it can be arranged, just like any other normal country.
Agreed
Sounds like the leadership have been taking lessons from Labour. Put just enough ambiguity into the resolution to make sure there will be an excuse to ignore it.
… exactly like Labour… and for the same reasons… the leadership of both parties think that subterfuge is the only way to get where they need to be to achieve their other policy goals… in power…
Roger Stoke says:
“… exactly like Labour… and for the same reasons… the leadership of both parties think that subterfuge is the only way to get where they need to be to achieve their other policy goals… in power…”
I call it trying to sneak under the wire. I remember well, thinking that New Labour were trying a similar trick to get elected only to discover that they were in fact intending to do every conservative thing they said in their campaign.
If we can’t get independence on an honest manifesto let’s not bother. What will be the point ? What is needed is some radical changes of political direction, not just more of the same with tartan bunting.
The 6 Tests are dead, but if Cameron and I have to go back to Conference in October to finish off the zombies then we will.
Good!
Well done
An excellent speech, Tim and even though I was reduced to watching a video feed at home I found myself applauding. I saw a Nicola tweet last night trying to say the ‘Six Tests’ were still party policy and that is a singuarly stupid reaction – far too close to “Nothing has changed” for our, or her, future comfort. But she’s a political realist and I hope we’ll see a more nuanced tone in today’s speech.
What you splendidly managed to do, was release the self-confidence that the vast majority (far more than the vote) of party members have in Scotland’s future – and, I think just as important, the sense of certainty across all sections of Scotland at the moment, that if the ‘answer’ has anything to do with the London Establishment then the wrong question is being asked. Of course the ‘No’/unionist side is going to try making something out of the currency ‘issue’ – but the gigantic difference now compared to 2014 is that they, as competent purveyors of economic sense, now have zero credibility. The more ‘they’ try to raise ‘scares’, the less they’ll be believed, and belief in the country rather than in them, is the final issue.
This was classic can-kicking. The six, specific tests remain, despite Tim’s excellent deconstruction, and with no mechanism for their application. The successful amendment (that I voted for) has no specific timetable but urges haste, and is incompatible with the six tests. Thus it is the perfect campaigning vehicle, which is what it is meant for, meaning caution on currency for those who are cautious, and boldness for those who are bold. The battle for actual policy has been deferred until after a successful Yes vote.
You will note Tim does not agree
I was on a railtour yesterday with an old friend who is a fellow Scotsman. He was looking at the news on his phone and proclaimed, in fairly incredulous tones, that the SNP conference had voted to ditch the pound. I think that not having Her Majesty’s face on the currency (which might of course not be case) in an independent Scotland is, as J Brown has alluded to above, still unthinkable for a large number of Scots, including many of those who are supporters of independence.
Thanks to your lucid explanations, I was able to demonstrate to my friend that, if Scotland is to become independent, then it must have its own currency, otherwise it will simply be an economic colony of England/rUK. I think he got the point. I wouldn’t myself fancy Scotland ending up like Greece, but without the climate…
Nigel Goddard says:
” The battle for actual policy has been deferred until after a successful Yes vote.”
I do so hope you are wrong about that, Nigel. A successful Yes vote is going to rely on people having confidence in the future prosperity of Scotland. That will need senior SNP party members to demonstrate that they know what they are intending to do, how they will go about it and why independence will work.
Kicking the currency decision down the road sends all the wrong signals and should undermine any sentient being’s faith that the administration knows what it is about.
Shall we learn from Brexit or shall we make the same mistakes ? We have a choice.
Perhaps I was a bit too specific on timing. I should have said the battle for policy is not yet settled, but those advocating clarity won a skirmish. The leadership clearly believes they need the six tests to make the “stronger Scotland” slogan plausible to a significant majority. Jan (another comment on this blog post) is right that the concern is having a good story on the doorstep. It’s important the story includes our own currency, as that will in fact be essential (as most here agree), and that the transition to it will be carefully and competently managed (the details of which are, storywise, less important). One reason the government is setting up one or more Citizen Assemblies is to draw a much greater proportion of the population into the debate on what sort of country to create. I expect currency will be one of the topics for the Citizens Assembly.
Trying to be all things to all people is not good politics. It’s simply lying to your electorate. It’s literally the end of politics. Democracy means giving people clear options which they can choose from (and high-quality, comprehensive information with which to make the decision).
Frankly, I’m terrified of politicians who can’t even make decisions in the run up to a campaign. How are they going to react in office when events may demand brave decisions? Will they duck that too?
Both Tim and Cameron made superb use of their short time at the podium. If only BBC Scotland had covered it…but no, snooker on both BBC2 and BBC Jockland at the same time, once again. You wonder what this new channel’s for, or perhaps not.
Anyway it was a terrific debate from start to finish; watching the top table body language whilst listening to some excellent contributions, from all sides.
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/14170/analysis-stunning-victory-grassroots-snp-and-scottish-currency-advocates
Just in case anyone missed it….
Congratulations Tim….
Thanks Richard…
As you may remember, from my previous comments, this issue one that concerns me. Not because I don’t want to see an independent Scottish currency (which I do) but because I worry about how to sell the idea of an immediate switch to one, while out campaigning on the doorsteps.
When faced with the people who voted No last time, many out of fear that we were going to be stripped of the Pound, I need to have something to say to them that will allay their fears, and get them enthusiastic about the concept.
My husband is a delegate at this spring conference, and voted in favour of the amendment, so he’s happy. Once again, this is proof that the SNP is a grassroots party, and the party delegates (chosen by their individual branches, NOT by the executive) DO determine policy. If the party delegates vote for change against what the leadership has proposed, the leadership will accept that change. Without splitting and infighting.
I am happy with the result of yesterday’s vote as well, as long as we can figure out a way to sell this to a previously-No-voting public. That’s the sticky bit.
The SNP’s think tanks and executives (pragmatic as ever) will no doubt be working on this sell-it-on-the-doorstep issue already. It will be a big help if CommonWeal, and the other Yes groups can also help to frame this issue, so it convinces people who are scared of change TO change. And maybe not waste time and energy crowing in the media over a ‘victory’ over Nicola Sturgeon & Co? And consequently undermining the SNP government’s role as figureheads for our push for independence.
In the end, none of these decisions taken at conference or anywhere else will matter at all, if we don’t win independence.
That means convincing people who voted No last time to change their minds. I’m hoping that presenting the idea of a fresh new currency will be a vote winner. I’m sure it can be, if it’s presented as a logical, well-controlled move AWAY from chaos. I’m waiting to find out what the best angle for that will be. We all need to be on the same page, from now on.
Jan Foley says:
“And maybe not waste time and energy crowing in the media over a ‘victory’ over Nicola Sturgeon & Co?”
I think you’ll find most of the crowing coming from the unionist media trying to get a wedge into the SNP and manufacture a split.
I don’t see why a Scottish currency should be difficult to sell on the doorstep. It will be a lot easier if the party leadership stops shilly shallying and simply takes the trouble to explain why it is essential for a successful independent country to issue its own currency. (Of course some of the party leadership will have to do some homework and get their heads round the idea, instead of listening to a London-centred, financial community, fifth column which is rubbing its hands at the prospect of indefinite pillage of Scottish resources – aka business as usual.)
@Jan Foley
If people are worried about the value of a Scottish currency I’d say that, like every other country, its value will be guaranteed by Scotland itself: by the strength of the Scottish economy, our resources, and our ability to manage them. If we can show people good reason to feel confident about that, we win. If not, we lose.
I’d also point out that the UK pound, and the UK economy, faces huge challenges post-Brexit. An independent Scotland in the EU has become the conservative, steady-as-she goes option with the best chance of delivering the same sort of life we’re used to.
With our own currency we can always afford to spend to grow the economy because we can always create as much new money as we need (provide we spend it wisely – inflation has to be kept in check). Smart investments can kick-start new growth and “pay for itself” in the long-run.
That’s why currency is so important – and why deficits don’t (necessarily) matter. It gives us the power to connect labour & resources anywhere we see an opportunity. Without that power we’d be trying to manage the economy with one hand tied behind our backs.
(By the way, I’m Jan not Jean Foley! I have no idea why my post got double-posted with a name change. Glitchery at work.)
Yeah, I am just hoping for a clear, unified way to answer people who will be nervous about the idea of a new currency. It’s definitely going to be easier to answer that one if Brexit goes ahead, because the Pound is going to look pretty sickly (worse than now) and an independent Scotland will resemble the ‘status quo’ more than the UK will. It will require a bit more effort to address this concern if the UK eventually ditches Brexit. But a new currency is definitely the right way to go.
I’m sure the issue will be officially addressed as campaigning gets underway. I’m ready.
I was concerned at the Jean version and went so far as to check email addresses etc and then let it go ahead…
The duplicate comment has been deleted
When I saw it for moderation the way in which your comment had been altered was not clear
Now it is I have removed it
@JAN ! Foley 🙂
“It will require a bit more effort to address this concern if the UK eventually ditches Brexit. But a new currency is definitely the right way to go.”
Agreed, but in itself a triumph of common sense for Nicola Sturgeon’s consistent insistence that Brexit was always a bad idea and at the very least should be soft, and Scottish interests represented in negotiations.
Any Scottish voters who don’t see that that the Westminster Tories, backed all the way along by their Scottish Branch, would have had us hauled out of the EU into the abyss – even if they don’t succeed – and doesn’t think that reprehensible and reckless is really not paying attention.
Even IF the UK is forced to back down on Brexit ambitions, the dragging of heels and generally surly and uncooperative attitude at Westminster, towards the EU, is hardly likely to change after forty years of it being the prevalent relationship.
As suggested elsewhere in comments here, Scottish Independence has become the (small ‘c’) conservative choice for Scotland. Irrespective of the result of Brexit….assuming we get one, the radical dangerous and uncertain future for Scotland is represented by being hog-tied to Little England.
I’m not expecting a resolution of Brexit in October, just another display of reckless brinkmanship.
It is an interesting, quite distinctive – if ill understood – peculiarity of politics in Scotland that ‘currency’ is a far, far more fundamental, critically important, almost visceral issue for Scots than many critics appear to realise. In Scottish politics, unfortunately discussion of ‘currency’ has almost acquired the ill-judged status of a Taboo; it is only reluctantly, and uneasily discussed in public by politicians, who too often, too abruptly reveal a peremptory anxiety, too hastily to dismiss the discomforting subject with some airy, vacuous, populist over-simplification.
The deeper popular and public importance of ‘currency’ is therefore also too often, and too easily overlooked in Scotland: perhaps because it is the journalists, political party functionaries and quasi-professional critics whose eyes too readily glaze over at the mention of ‘currency’ (and who confuse the finer points of arcane, arid monetary economics with the power and authority of the real, functional practicalities, which are well understood); rather than the problem resting with the electorate.
Good that the SNP leadership are being made too see sense on this issue.
BUT I also agree with others that this is a hot topic (when it shouldn’t be, but that’s people for you) for independence debate – but surely the majority of people would realise after gaining independence that it’s the sensible way to go – but while still debating the issue people will be resistant to the change. A few references to decimalisation have been made, that we didn’t crash and burn, everyone survived etc – but a lot of people were STILL moaning about it a decade later. I was just wee, 4 or something, when decimalisation occurred so was quite open to the change, and remember still using the sixpence as my snack money (2.5p) for quite a while after the event , particularly when a bag of crisps outrageously went up to 2.5 pee a bag. Gosh, do you remember we once had half pence pieces?? The cost of everything had apparently went up, shops were screwing consumers etc.
Meandering off topic there, sorry, where was I? Oh yes – I don’t think it’s going to matter what the SNP say they are going to do, the unionists, which includes the entirety of our press and broadcast media, are going to be against it and say we’ll all die horribly in an asteroid impact if we do ,,, well anything. Because no other country has gained their independence, ever, and survived, and certainly scots are wholly incapable of ever being able to run their own affairs. This is Scottish people that actually buy into the idea that they are the most useless bunch ever in existence – cannot for the life of me figure out how they live with themselves when they see themselves in such a negative light. Meandering again here – I am not exaggerating what unionists see as a reasonable argument here though, and the blanket coverage they get in our media. So – anything proposed is going to be put down, and feed the fires of avoiding change. People are worried about their mortgage and their pension, not what is best for the country, so any change in currency is seen as a bad thing,,,
So, to my mind, even though polls show that people don’t want change, we are going to go through the same arguments as before (you can’t use the pound etc) anyway, so what the Yes movement and the SNP need is a decision that they can stand behind and be positive about, and I would think this is it – the trouble is, of course, is that the majority of the population are pretty much totally ignorant on how economies work, as I was back in 2014 (though even then, I didn’t think the currency issue was such a big deal and just got frustrated at the nonsense circular arguments).
The first step is to have all politicians fully understanding of how it works, and able to explain it and show how smooth the transition will be in simple terms, and to grow a backbone and show they fully support it – it IS the best thing, they just need to demonstrate they will put everything into it, to make sure it really is. Absolute conviction on the (any) issue will be the only thing that will win over the selfish neoliberals, and ‘introducing the Scottish pound as soon as is practicable’ is something that can be convincingly argued for.
So education, learning, understanding for SNP politicians (and Scottish greens? Might be a lost cause there, but I suppose you have to try. They certainly took their time proposing a GND, which you’d have thought would be a key thing for them, but still with no ideas on how to implement it), to ensure they are not mired in ‘currency debate’ (nonsense – ‘you will have to use the euro’ ‘what about the debt’ ‘pensions will disappear’ ‘you can’t / have to use the pound’ ,,,) issues. Then trickle-down education for the population. If I hear one SNP politician suggesting the economy is like a household budget ever again, I will be furious. Currency is just part of the system that needs to be put in place.
It sounds like Tim Rideout put forward a good argument, so well done to him, that same conviction needs to be adopted by all now. I would have been happy with any outcome, the one that is most likely to secure independence, but am quite pleased to have something I can convincingly back in any discussions I have. The media is going to be the biggest hurdle – but then, no change there.
I could do with some education on financial markets and how they fit in with banks/gov’t/taxes – if anyone can recommend a baby-steps starting point I would be most grateful. (I’ve tried before but get bogged down, and can’t do the detail).
Contrary says:
“So education, learning, understanding for SNP politicians (and Scottish greens? Might be a lost cause there, but I suppose you have to try.”
I think you’ll find Patrick Harvey has already pointed out that without our own currency the Scottish Green Deal, Nicola promised at the STUC conference, is not deliverable.
Whether his membership has got that message is another question. Being ahead of the membership, rather than being dragged along, is a good sign of leadership.
He has indeed said that
And he is right
Ah, good to know about Patrick being aware that an independent currency is required – his letter sent out to the membership did not mention it, and I only saw a short clip (posted by him) talking in parliament on the issue. I could search more widely, but think I will just take your word for his support, until I hear otherwise!
Please forgive this gratuitously irrelevant comment to this thread. Gavyn Davies has just written an article in the FT on MMT: ‘What you need to know about modern monetary theory’. Davies knows what we need to know.
We have early warning of the thrust of the Davies argument by his early use of inverted commas; Davies is going to “explain” MMT, in notably short order. In short, Davies is determined to offer less and argument, than an “argument”. Make of it what you will.
What I take from Davies, who effectively concedes a central tenet of MMT while simultaneously, polemically rubbishing the whole concept, is more sobering than he appears to realise. In economics it now seems you can have your cake and eat it. I knew the discipline of economics has been in some intellectual difficulty in recent years; its credibility not standing up well to closer scrutiny of its techniques, rigour or methods than it has long been used complacently to assert (inadequate understanding of the financial crash, both before and after; a well recorded careless use of statistics in research – a sad catalogue there); but having now read Davies; the words of a Peggy Lee song come readily to mind – ‘is that all there is’?
I may cover it in the morning…..
@John S Warren
Arguments about economics are fundamentally arguments about power. Should economies be run to deliver opportunities for people with power in the market to grab wealth they have not earned and do not deserve or should the wealth which we all create together as a society be shared more fairly and used to create the most good for the most people (which actually turns out to create better outcomes for the richest too if they weren’t too dumb to see it).
MMT opens a door which many would like to keep closed. It makes it harder for a right-leaning government to insist we have to live within our means and therefore can’t afford hospitals, schools – or even food. Scary to think that the UK is quite happy to tolerate real hunger & destitution which it could so easily end.
The neoliberal orthodoxy looks a lot like feudalism adapted to an age when land is not the only source of wealth. All it has to offer is ever-increasing inequality and environmental destruction.
I couldn’t read the FT article because of the paywall but it seems that hardly a day goes by without an article or two rubbishing MMT. Most, no, virtually all, make such little sense that I usually dump them in disgust after a few paragraphs. The neoliberal establishment is RATTLED. If MMT is as bad as they say they should save their energy.
Agreed
Where can one watch/read Tim’s speech? Keen to see what he said in detail.
I haven’t got a link
Anyone else?
Apologies Richard, Tim starts at about 1:41 on Facebook – the time I gave shows on the bottom, at the right hand end.
Thanks
Jo Wilson says:
“Where can one watch/read Tim’s speech? Keen to see what he said in detail.”
I can’t find it…. There’s interminable footage of snooker….would that do ?
Timothy Rideout’s speech on Amendment D is here at about -1:15:15, followed by Cameron Archibald – https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/videos/snp-conference-2019-session-2/447614922733226/
Only a few seconds of Tim from the BBC obviously, here at 4:06 –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0004vj5/scottish-national-party-conference-spring-conference-2019-snp-28042019.
Spliced to show Nicola shaking her head of course, and they obviously needed to leave room for Sir John’s pronouncements.
I confess the timings did not work for me
“Timothy Rideout’s speech on Amendment D is here at about -1:15:15, followed by Cameron Archibald — https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/videos/snp-conference-2019-session-2/447614922733226/”
Tim is proposing at 1:41:37 (1:15:15 remaining) and summing up at 2:34:00 (22:50 remaining). Yes I realise those numbers do not add up perfectly but close enough.
Thanks
Tim Rideout has posted an interesting, alternative ‘6 tests’ in a new comment on a very old Bella Caledonia comment thread. Since Dr Rideout is an occasional commenter here, perhaps he may now give them wider circulation?
Tim??
I was just about to!
I can suggest 6 proper tests:
1) Is the Bill to establish a Scottish Reserve Bank drafted and ready to introduce into Holyrood the day after a vote for Independence?
2) Have we got the arrangements and timetable in place to design and manufacture the new notes and coins?
3) Have we established a new Scottish Bank payment system (since you can’t use the UK bank payment system), and this should be using the Eurozone standard template to avoid re-inventing the wheel and ensure compatibility with existing bank computer systems.
4)Have we designed a Public Information Campaign to ensure that the public understand the process and are fully prepared?
5)Have we identified the requirements for premises, staffing, infrastructure, etc (I prefer using the Royal High School as the Central Bank HQ – a nice classic Greek Temple style building already publicly owned, but empty since 1979) and put in place a plan to get them in place?
6) Have we identified and developed a plan for the financial regulation that will be needed for our financial institutions, etc? This should not be a cut and paste job from the failed London model!
So lets have some useful Tests rather than ideological nonsense, Catch 22s and irrelevance.
Tim might be busy answering questions from our impartial media (LOL), so here are his 6 tests from https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/01/07/modern-monetary-theory-and-an-independent-scotland/ (I assume this is what John had in mind):-
Tim Rideout 29th April 2019 at 10:21 am
“Thank you. They live on in zombie state, but I don’t think anyone will take much notice of the ‘6 Tests’ now. I can suggest 6 proper tests:
1) Is the Bill to establish a Scottish Reserve Bank drafted and ready to introduce into Holyrood the day after a vote for Independence?
2) Have we got the arrangements and timetable in place to design and manufacture the new notes and coins?
3) Have we established a new Scottish Bank payment system (since you can’t use the UK bank payment system), and this should be using the Eurozone standard template to avoid re-inventing the wheel and ensure compatibility with existing bank computer systems.
4)Have we designed a Public Information Campaign to ensure that the public understand the process and are fully prepared?
5)Have we identified the requirements for premises, staffing, infrastructure, etc (I prefer using the Royal High School as the Central Bank HQ) and put in place a plan to get them in place?
6) Have we identified and developed a plan for the financial regulation that will be needed for our financial institutions, etc? This should not be a cut and paste job from the failed London model!
So lets have some useful Tests rather than ideological nonsense, Catch 22s and irrelevance.”
I like them
We also Robin MacApline’s work on this
Gordon Brown established the purpose of economic tests.
These Growth Commission six tests follow a similar pattern, and are intended to serve a similar purpose (albeit rather the other way round). They are intended to stymie parliament and leave the decision to the bankers.
They need to go. Along with six testes. Those belonging to Fluffy Mundell (over whom we have no control) Derek Mackay and Keith Brown unless they change their tune PDQ and get their act together.
Contrary wrote: “I could do with some education on financial markets and how they fit in with banks/gov’t/taxes — if anyone can recommend a baby-steps starting point I would be most grateful. (I’ve tried before but get bogged down, and can’t do the detail).”
Have you read “How to Start a New Country” and its shorter, less technical, version “A Short Guide to Starting a New Country”, both by Robin Mc Alpine and published by Common Weal? If not I’d recommend you buy both (available online for about £15 for the 2) and start by reading the Short Guide. It covers all the main points with great clarity and once you’ve read it, you’ll find the longer book, where he goes into more detailed and technical explanations, much easer to understand. Both books cover timeline, strategy, Constitution, finance (including currency, banks etc), citizenship & passports, IT implications, defence, tax & social security, energy, communications, trade & international relations, borders and customs, negotiations.
The themes, how they function and how they inter-relate are developed in a logical manner and don’t assume reader knowledge, so it’s easy to follow. I found his section on currency and how to transition from GBP to £Scots very clear and helpful. Strongly recommended!