I made a fleeting appearance on BBC Scotland last night. I was invited to comment on the government's claim that it is only the supposedly broad shoulders of the UK that have permitted such things as the furlough scheme.
I made it clear that I disagree. In a clip of low Skype quality I made the point that if independent, with its own currency and own central bank, Scotland could have done exactly what the UK has done on furlough, if it had wanted to.
In the process of making this point it's worth noting that I not only disagreed with the government in London, but also disagreed with the preferred SNP leadership position. Indeed, in an unbroadcast part of the recording I said Nicola Sturgeon was wrong when she said yesterday that the UK's borrowing would have to be repaid by taxpayers.
That's wrong because £300 billion of the UK's expected deficit this year is QE and there is no need or obligation to repay that. Indeed, it would be folly to do so.
And it's wrong because the rest of the so-called borrowing is actually the result of people wanting to save with the government when it makes absolute sense for them to do so even if the real interest rate on their savings is negative, as it would also be in an independent Scotland. And we've never seen these balances saved with the government fall in any serious way over time, meaning it also makes no sense to start forcing their repayment now.
Nicola Sturgeon got that part of her commentary wrong in that case and I strongly suggest she needs to get it right.
But I also contradicted her line on the currency post-independence as well. The SNP hierarchy want Scotland to pursue ‘sterlingisation' post independence. That would mean Scotland would use the existing pound. And this would be an outright disaster.
Scotland could not, in that case, borrow in its own currency.
It could not set its own interest rates.
It could not do quantitative easing.
It could not have done furlough then.
And its debt would be subject wholly to the whim of foreign financial markets, and you can be sure that those in London would do their best to undermine it.
Scotland would with sterlingisation not, in fact, really be independent at all. Being independent is about a country being free to make its own decisions. And with sterlingisation Scotland would not be free to do that. In fact, it might be considerably more constrained than it is now.
And the supposed objective of sterlingisation makes no sense at all either. It is claimed to be required whilst Scotland builds up its foreign exchange reserves. But you can't do that when you are already trading in a foreign currency, which the pound would then be. You can only do that by creating your own currency. And the very fact of creating that currency would, in fact, create those reserves as people bought the Scottish pound by translating existing sterling balances into Scottish pound ones, which they would voluntarily do.
There is an alternative, of course. Dr Tim Rideout had a resolution passed by SNP conference last year to require a rapid transition to a Scottish currency post independence. His plan is appropriate, and justified. That's why the SNP membership took note of it and passed his resolution.
If Scotland is to be truly independent it must have its own currency.
If it wants to be able to act as a strong government should Scotland must have its own currency.
And if Scotland wants to be rid of the influence of London sterling has to be consigned to Scottish history.
But most of all, Scotland has to be able to protect its own people in the future and it can only do that if it has a Scottish currency.
It is time for the SNP to believe in Scotland and its ability to govern itself. And it can only do that when the SNP declares itself in favour of the Scottish pound.
To beat the Tories and austerity this has to be done. And it's best done soon so that people get used to it.
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:
If Scotland were to become independent & rejoin the EU, would it be required to join The Euro, in which case how would that affect the situation?
It would need to say it would join the euro
But no date is required
Check Sweden
Check also the – er- Czech Republic, and Slovakia, which both joined the EU at about the same time and agreed to join the euro. The latter did adopt it in 2009, but the former retains the Czech koruna to this day, 15 years later.
Britain’s exit from the EU has been good for the EU in one respect. Angela Merkel is reassessing her legacy and seems intent on using her strong position currently (she has had a ‘good’ pandemic) on recalibrating the monetary framework while Germany carries the six month Presidency; I suspect she realises that the German approach to countries like Greece was wrong, and she will try to make sure it cannot happen again, and retire as one of the great figures in European and EU politics.
There is no prospect whatsoever, that I can see, of Sweden joining the Euro; probably ever. Everybody knows that the last thing the EU wants is an endless argument in the EU about the Euro, so I consider that beyond the mere ritual face-saving form, the substance is that compulsion to join the Euro is dead in the water (and only substance ever really matters, except when you are about to follow form and make a really bad mistake).
Agreed
Very helpful Richard. Without fully understanding why it does not get repaid can I ask if a proportion is still lumped on to Scotland’s notional deficit? Thus allowing opponents to crow about Scotland’s black hole of some £13Bn.
Scotland’s deficit is real
But GERS misstates it
The deficit reported for Scotland reflects the money spent by Westminster and apportioned to Scotland. The Scottish Government are required to balance the books. They are allowed to borrow a limited amount of their own volition, which is real debt, and has to be repaid. But the debt accrual assigned by Westminster is an accounting manoeuvre, not real debt, since it is spent by the currency issuer.
I have more coming on this…
If GERS provides inaccurate figures, which figures do you believe are more accurate and why?
I’ve stated this moany times
First GERS needs to be consistently accounted for on income and revenue
Second, data needs to be collected
Third, the income that leaks from Scotland – especially on profits, rent and interest paid in Scotland and accounted for out side it but which should be recorded and taxable within it, needs to be included
It has a long way to go…
There are too many people in Scotland who do not understand; especially older people who think they know how to manage a budget and therefore think they know how the government should manage theirs. They have sufficient judgement to know they know nothing about quantum mechanics, or artificial intelligence in robotics; but that still believe they are experts in monetary economics and have nothing to learn. It is that silly, but it means that the politicians and media can either hide in the same stupefying ignorance, or come under the rubric of Stephanie Kelton (‘The Deficit Myth’) anecdote about Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver’s response to Kelton and Warren Mosler when the veil fell from his eyes: “I can’t say that”. Cleaver was also a Reverend.
I heard John Beattie only a few days ago circling around the issue, frankly in an inane ‘household budget’ interview on “government debt”, after – if I recall correctly, you had found (and I quote from your Blog Richard, of 18th May) on “‘how are we going to repay this?’ I faced the same problem on BBC Radio Scotland with John Beattie last week, and he was clearly baffled by my response when I said we did not need to do so”. It seemed to me then, as a listener that Beattie confessed he didn’t understand. But then he is happy a few days later to discuss the issue with politicians who clearly do not understand, as if they all did understand, or it didn’y matter whether they do, or not.
I heard Drew Hendry (SNP MSP and government spokesman) debating with a Scottish Conservative politicians on television and it was quite clear that neither of them knew what they are talking about; but they all think they know how to run the finances of a currency issuing country.
It is all quite absurd – and far-fetched, until you remember that Boris Johnson is Prime Minister, and Theresa May before him; and they actually allowed George Osborne loose on the Treasury, and still wonder how we could double the debt and even then destroy the economy with austerity. Well, in the old Scots saying “ye ken noo”; and if you still don’t, you soon will.
How do we get them to realise this?
I wish I knew….
In my opinion, and with no facts to back it up, it’ll be difficult to change the mindset of politicians who’ve made careers out of saying the debt is a burden.
Theoretically a strong politician should be able to change and be lauded for it, if the change is to the betterment of society in general.
However, I don’t think this type of politician exists at the moment, in the U.K.
Maybe we need new blood.
Hang on….no facts?
What about QE?
What about Japan?
What about trillions of QE in the eurozone
And US?
No facts?
They’re all around us but the blind are not willing to see
“We are simply invited to accept incomprehensible interviews between politicians and media, when neither side actually understand what they are talking about; but somehow we are to suppose it the result is a contribution to public knowledge. It isn’t.”
Sorry Mr Kruse, I had written in too great haste.
Buy him Kelton’s book for a start (Beattie).
We should all buy our MP a copy and send it to them with heartfelt wishes that they use it to help their constituents.
And I agree that Scotland needs its own currency.
I strongly recommend reading Wilful Blindness by Margaret Heffernan. I reviewed it in the past …this is an extract:
“First “wilful blindness” is explained as a legal doctrine whereby “knowledge can be inferred if the defendant deliberately blinded themselves to the existence of a fact”. It has been used to prosecute in the Enron affair, and it casts an explanatory shadow over events in the Catholic Church, Nazi Germany, B.P., BBC (over Jimmy Saville), News Corporation and within our armed forces; and into our most intimate relationships.
For those that doubt perception problems, despite the clichés of the elephant in the room and the example of the ostriches’ head in the sand, looking at http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com is recommended.
The book provides a unifying theme that encompasses related concepts of groupthink, wishful thinking, corruption, compliant submissive behaviour, ahistoricism (bias for the present), fear, exhaustion, conformity, bystander behaviour, courage, deference, complexity, division of labour and inability to pick up signals. It draws on psychology, history, organisational and management theory, and economics; and draws parallels in various fields: business, religious orders and cults, the military, and the public services and banking. It lists heroes and villains, whistle-blowers and predictors of the past and future. Best of all are the vivid anecdotes. My favourites are Sir George Tyron who had unusual (and tragic) ways of inducing critical thinking in the navy; the cults predicting the end of the world and their ability to rationalise going on; and more poignantly, the German lady writing to complain about her view of the killings in the concentration camps and asking that it could at least be done out of view because of the distress it caused.”
The fact is that once you know that there is a gorilla on the basket ball court you don’t fail to spot it.
Once you know and understand MMT, jAPANIFICATION, THE kELTON mYTHS ETC
THERE IS NO GOING BACK.
The issue is that the current system suits too many people just fine.
Noted
I fear I already have too man6 books for August – my best reading month of the year
Noted
I fear I already have too many books for August – my best reading month of the year
https://newleftreview.org/issues/II123/articles/robert-brenner-escalating-plunder
If this were widely known and understood it might rip the veil from more peoples eyes.
Plus it reinforces that MMT is already being deployed by OUR ELITES. its just that the benefits are being focused on their interests and not the poor and unemployed.
Thanks
But I am not sure that’s MMT…..
I imagine when Beattie’s chatting with you and others he’s genuinely trying to find out the reality. When he’s speaking with politicians it’s more his job to let them expose
either their knowledge or their ignorance. While he’d go back and forth with you, his job with politicians is to get them to open up and then let them run.
I agree about Joe Public being clueless on quantum physics and having no delusions about that, whereas where economics are concerned they’re flattered by a meretricious media into believing otherwise. Media flattery serves to make for repeat custom, thus lamentably it will be a brave editor or producer who tries to explain to their demographic how ignorant they actually are. I still maintain voting should be limited to people actually capable of understanding the issues, and there are as few of them around as there are those capable of grasping extremely high level physics.
As I understand it Mr Beattie acknowledged to Richard that he did not understand. If that assumption is correct, I may be wrong of course, but then I understand even less what on earth was going on in that interview; but in any case, that is no basis to conduct a meaningful interview some days later that is actually going to explore the argument.
If Mr Beattie does not understand MMT, on what basis is that a foundation to understand the merits or demerits of what a politician tells him about monetary economics, and the national debt? None. This is the problem with ‘impartiality’; it presumes a level of understanding that journalists are not necessarily capable of meeting. We are simply invited to accept incomprehensible interviews between politicians and media that neither side actually understand what they are talking about, somehow that is a contribution to public knowledge. It isn’t.
We all have to stop simply accepting this dismal guff.
And remember Beattie is not financially illiterate
He is a chartered accountant if I recall correctly
Oh hang on then…..he does not get macro, by definition in that case…..
He is also an engineer. I knew one of his lecturers. He can do better.
A Scottish currency would benefit from the inherent balance of payments surplus due to our export strength in Tourism, Whisky, Oil, Green energy, Life Sciences, Quality Foods, Digital Products etc. This gives some protection against deficit financing even though the discreditable GERS figures fail to give an accurate position (7% on Defence, Third largest figure is “accounting adjustments” both are spurious)
You are not likely to join the Euro which is mandatory but requires a two year optional membership of an exchange rate mechanism which if you never join denies you the path to the Euro.
I have now made a video ion this (literally this morning) which will be contentious
Coming soon- but we have 20 made now to publish over the coming month
AwaIting this/these with interest……
Any indication that you might be considering moving up to join us would also be greeted most favourably..!
Absolutely! See http://www.reservebank.scot for more information on the currency campaign or join the Scottish Currency Group on Facebook. We now have 5 MPs, 1 MSP and 1 Growth Commissioner as members. For those interested I will be doing a Zoom talk on ‘The Economics of Independence’ on Thursday 30th July from 7pm hosted by YES Midlothian. Details will be on the Scottish Currency Group and the Scottish Reserve Bank Facebook pages some time this weekend.
So far as the ScotGov deficit is concerned it can, should have, and will have a deficit of 8-10% of GDP in the early years of Indy. All of that is an investment in the new Ministries and other infrastructure of the independent state, a start on the repair of past neglect (potholes!), and a start on the Green New Deal. That means jobs, building projects, contracts for IT, furniture etc. In fact an Indy boom. If the state does not spend the S£ into existence there will simply not be enough and its value would go through the roof in the FX market as what I call the late exchangers (folk who are a bit canny and hang on to all or some of their sterling) try to exchange their money. So ScotGov could finance say 50% of the deficit by selling S£ bonds to us (and our pension plans) and 50% by running an overdraft at the Reserve Bank. As the economy moves towards genuine full employment and the remaining sterling is mopped up then the deficit will fall as tax revenues rise. Any over-heating and taxes can be increased, but in a way that promotes policy, such as reducing inequality.
Tim,
I would really love to see you do a video on this subject, that could be hosted by Richard on his YouTube channel.
I don’t think there’s anyone with a better understanding of the subject of a new Scottish currency than yourself.
Tim
We could do this with you being dialled in….
Richard
There are at least seven big contentious issues that the SMP does not want to address because of electoral unpopularity:
The constitution
The currency
The monarchy
Policing
Armed services
Trident
NATO
The policy appears to be that these will all be sorted after independence. All too reminiscent of Brexit.
Alan
Adding to your list, the SNP don’t want to address land ownership either.
I think this is linked to their neoliberal mindset regarding economics. They don’t want to upset wealth in case they can’t borrow from that wealth, or get them to invest in jobs, in an independent Scotland.
An MMT mindset with the policy of a Government Job Guarantee would allow them to take a different attitude to land ownership, if they desired.
That’s my feeling on the matter anyway.
Agreed
Note their choice of adviser …..
Don’t forget that last year’s SNP spring conference PASSED the Amendment D saying that:
“conference considers that an SNP Government should 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.”
Nicola Sturgeon had better remember it too.
I hope so…
Interesting.
However, were Scotland to establish her own central bank and currency then wouldn’t Moodys et al give her an extremely low credit rating, and therefore make it very expensive to borrow money?
If they had the Bank of England as a central bank then their credit rating would be the same as rUK and cheaper to borrow, right?
If so, which is best – the ability to borrow cheaply, or the ability to print your own money? (silly question to an expert like you, I know, but I’m not clear in my mind, sorry).
Moody’s et al have almost no influence on this issue
And why would they give a low rating when Scotland will deliver competence at least as good as the UK
People will rank Scotland like a mid tier country and no different from say Sweden, Finland, Denmark and NZ, for example
There is no fear on rates
And borrowing and money creation are not separate – they’re related issues as substitutes and via QE
No, in short Rhodri. Firstly, the new Scottish currency, call it S£ (or £A in Gaelic) is sold into existence. Every S£ note sold is paid for with £1 sterling handed in. So on Day 1 it is about the only currency in the world with 100% foreign reserves (UK has 2%). The Central Bank could, if it wished, buy back every single S£ at that point. Secondly, ScotGov needs to borrow the S£. There is no sense borrowing any other currency as it could not be used in Scotland. International markets have no S£ to lend whether they want to or not. The only ones with S£ will be Scots and Scots companies. However, there will be no trouble selling us bonds as we will wish to dispose of our UK gilts and replace them with Scottish ones, plus there will still be a demand for new saving. In so far as it of any relevance at all I suspect ScotGov would get a very high credit rating – no debt to start with and a strong currency with an Indy boom as it spends all the money needed on new infrastructure, etc.
Borrowing cheaply or the ability to create money are not an either / or (don’t use the word ‘print’). Any country with a currency is constantly creating new money. The UK creates at least a trillion of new money every year since all government spending is new money, just as all tax paid is money destroyed. In addition such a country can run an overdraft at the central bank (in the UK called the Ways & Means account at the Bank of England). The Central Bank controls the interest rate on sterling debts since it can buy and sell in the market without limit. No state with a currency can ever be held to ransom by ‘the market’ when it comes to bonds in its own currency (unless it wants to be – e.g. to feather the nests of mates in the City).
“Maybe there are things we could have done differently” Boris Johnson (BBC, Laura Kuenssberg interview 24th July).
Johnson has just returned from Scotland yesterday; when he told the Scots, with a staraight face, he has done a fantastic job. This useless inadequate is PM, and the British people voted for someone who clearly (long before the election) should never have been allowed near real political power. Scotland needs to leave the Union. Now.
If I was north of the Border I have no doubt that would be my position
I don’t “have a dog in the fight” so I am content to lets Scots decide their future monetary arrangements…. but it is an interesting question as to which way is best.
First, on a technical note, joining the EU makes adopting the EUR compulsory…. as long as you meet the criteria. Sweden, too, is theoretically obliged to adopt the EUR but chooses to fail to meet the criteria (on CB independence). Scotland could choose the same strategy.
Joining the EUR would not give Scotland powers to “print” their own currency and these could be exposed in a crisis but there are some powerful political reasons to use the EUR so I would not rule it out…. particularly if Irish unification is “in the mix” at the same time.
Retaining GBP would mean that Scottish fiscal policy would be very constrained and would probably make “independence” worse than now. Personally, I think it is a non-starter.
So, we are left creating a new currency…… and this is very tricky. Most of the issues about a country withdrawing from the EUR would apply to Scotland and GBP, too. Thankfully, there is no TARGET 2 imbalance problem but there could pretty quickly become (a similar) one if there was deposit flight from Scottish to English banks (or the other way around).
HAVING your own currency is best but GETTING your own currency would be tough… particularly if Anglo-Scottish relations are strained. All I read on the subject talks about the desirability of HAVING one’s own currency with insufficient detail on getting there.
The Czech Republic and Slovakia managed it reasonable well in 1993 so this is, perhaps, the template….. but that was a different place and time.
Would like to hear your thoughts on the nitty-gritty of creating your own currency.
I suggest reading what Tim Rideout has written on this
Mr Parry,
I have great respect for you opinion; you are clear-headed, well-informed and your own man. Forgive me if that seems condescending; I wanted to say it, but I know it may seem arrogant. It isn’t intended. Here, however you are straightforwardly wrong. The EU ‘compulsion’ has no teeth: deliberately. See my comments on this thread for further explanation. If you disagree, I welcome your rebuttal; I am sure it will be considered.
On another matter, I know you are also modest, but you really ought to join forces with Richard and do an important piece together. I do not know why you don’t (I know it is none of my business, but why should I care); it would be great for MMT. Please, trust me. I would really look forward to reading it; great insights in the modern age are – more often than not – collaborative.
Your suggested title John to provide a starting point?
Ah, that placed me firmly ‘on the spot’! I want to give you both flexibility to find something you both like, keep the title pithy, and something people want to know, and will think about. Okay, that is beyond me, so I will offer a broad suggestion that covers some ground, but needs some work on the final title. A long way round to say:
“Debt management, bonds and interest rates: what you need to know.”
No challenge there then….
Clive?
… I think we agree – the “compulsion” is illusory.
The Treaty was written to make it seem an “all EU project”….. but with a simple “get-out” – you can only join the EUR area if you meet the criteria. Sweden deliberately chose NOT to meet certain elements of the criteria. So, certainly, the “compulsion” is illusory.
Interestingly, at the time this was being drafted, few people thought that any country would CHOOSE to stay out; it was all about who should or should not be let in! Remember, there was a severe Swedish banking crisis in the early 90s and it was not clear that they could have joined if they had wanted to. There was discussion about whether ERM membership condition would be waived etc. But by the time the EUR was introduced in 1999 things were different and Sweden chose not to amend its Central Bank legislation to make it “Maastricht compatible”…. and so kept its own currency.
… would be happy to give input to a piece on debt management, rates etc.. but it will have to wait as I am off on holiday tomorrow….. sailing off the West Coast of Scotland!!
Enjoy
And I am taking a break soon too….and I am not working
But blogging is not work…..
Mr Parry,
I take your point about the history. Who can forget the image of David Cameron furtively slithering along the street on a dark evening, when the ERM ‘went south’ (it didn’t stop the country voting for him – all these ‘leavers’ (!) – in a general election). Who can remember that it was Gordon Brown that kept us out of the Euro (it didn’t stop the country voting against him in a general election).
It is extraordinary how few people in the 1990s understood that currency is a more critical test of sovereignty than democracy. I confess I do not believe that I did at the time. I make no claim to being a monetary vsionary. It is even more astonishing that this lack of undertstanding still applies, in spite of the brutal experience of banking and austerity over the last ten years.
The only way your vote counts for much, depends on your country being a currency issuer. Without that status your vote (whatever the majority your vote happens to produce for your politics), it counts for little; more puff than substance.
It isn’t so much the control of the Westminster majority in Parliament that presents Scotland with a problem, but the mechanism of control Parliament, through the British Government, is able to exercise over Scotland through its absolute control over currency issuance and borrowing. The majority alone is only a small part of the problem.
Referring to history, all through my life, decade after decade, I watched Scotland (which always had a more ‘ heavy industry’ dependent economy, for historical reasons that served Britain well); every time the Scottish economy crawled out of some setback, and began to grow; the “British” (London) economy overheated, and government slammed on the brakes, and Scotland fell back into recession; a cycle repeated decade after decade wearing away the resilience of the economy. There is nothing creditable in this for Britian, or its politicians, of any party. Nothing. When oil arrived in the 1970s, did Glasgow (for two hundred years supplying much of the engine of British economic growth – both literally and metaphorically – for Britain, through peace and war) receive the injection in resources it badly needed? No, London and Thatcherism took the lot, invented Big Bang, and destroyed the great Scottish independent banking tradition while it had the resources and opportunity; and in consequence Scottish banking borrowed London’s sordid standards, and has in consequence virtually disappeared as a substantive and independent Scottish industry; our great banks are insignifcant subsidiaries, run from London.
One of the consequences of the end of empire nobody notices, is that as Britain shrinks inward it becomes more important to the centralising tendency of Government to swallow Scotland whole; it has little else it can do in a world where bullying does not work anymore, because all the big deals are with partners bigger and more pwerful than Britain. Bullying close to home is all that is left for natural bullies.
Eloquently put
This is the end of empire being played out
Both, enjoy your break.
Hi Clive, why is it a problem to get your own currency? The City of Bristol introduced the Bristol Pound and I recently saw some very nice properly printed Bristol Pound banknotes at one of my talks. The key issue, which Warren Mosler put forward in his advice to Italy and Greece when employed by them to advise on maybe having to leave the Euro, is that it is voluntary. Nobody switches on the breakfast telly to discover their sterling was confiscated during the night in a re-denomination. At the changeover period people decide how much sterling they wish to change into S£ – that could be all, a percentage, a fixed amount or, for Ruth Davidson, zero. However, as of Currency Day (last weekend in January 2024, 2 months after Indy on St Andrews Day 2023) then the ScotGov will make all official payments (Salaries, suppliers, etc) in S£ only and it will not accept tax payment in sterling (and also parking tickets, council tax, et al). You can carry on using both currencies in shops etc for a while, and employers can pay folk in sterling if they wish. But after a short period (1 or 2 months) parity with sterling ends and you will get an FX charge (2.5%) from your bank when using a sterling card.
I don’t see anything that suggests this is other than fairly simple and I have been looking at it in detail for four years now. The biggest issue I see is getting the new banknotes and coins manufactured. The rest is fairly trivial. I am not aware of any country, including the world’s smallest and poorest, that have ever had a problem introducing a currency after breaking away from an empire.
None at all
I am not suggesting it is impossible/wrong…. rather that some additional issues need consideration.
For example, what about liabilities? What happens to my mortgage?
If I have choice then I presume my bank does not. How will they manage that risk?
It is forgotten that in the 18th century, decades after the Union with England in 1707, the £Scots was still being used, as well as £Sterling. Things, and people were slower to change, and it caused no great difficulty for anyone. The pace of things is dictated by the prevailing contemporoary technology and the rythmn of social change. It is faster now than in the past, so the transition may take place more quickly, but people will also have the flexibility to make choices. There is no justification in making a drama out of a transition.
There are far more dangerous trip wires being sprung right now on an unexpecting public than a Scottish currency could ever provide. How? Think of the rapid move we are already experiencing, especially post-pandemic towards a cashless society in the UK; which is full of unintended consequences nobody is discussing, and the vested interests that benefit most from the outcomes, but do not wish you to think about (save for their emphasis on the appealing facile simplicity of transactions it offers consumers – the ‘now’ society); and which media and politicians are too short-sighted and lazy to think about, never mind discuss: to say nothing of the myopia of economists, who are of course bad psychologists at both the individual and group level, and never see the dangers that really matter.
I think it was, however, assisted by a fairly fixed exchange rate
Was it £1 = S£8?
It has to be remembered that in rural Scotland, and most of Scotland was not urban until the ninenteenth century, even up to the mid-eighteenth century payment was still being made in kind; ‘chalders’ a unit of measure used for agricultural produce was still common in setting prices. Your 8 to 1 for currency between Scotland and England has been said of the eighteenth century, I think; but it was set at 12 to 1 at the Union of Crowns in 1603. It is commonly claimed it was 5 to 1 in 1560.
Thanks
Dr Rideout,
“The biggest issue I see is getting the new banknotes and coins manufactured.”
I do not intend to quibble, but I think issuing a new currency now will require a smaller proportion of notes and specie than the launch of the Euro in 1999. We have moved quite far towards a cashless society; accelerated by the pandemic, and it is very attractive to both banks and commerce, so they are pushing it fast.
When I was in business, as late as the 1990s (and at that time I was in a principally ‘cash’ consumer business), the banks did not like having to collect the cash from our units. I remember being amused and bemused by their dislike of cash, because a conventional business mantra of the time was “cash is king”. It was a different age – a foreign country: they do things differently there.
Clive Parry writes: “So, we are left creating a new currency…… and this is very tricky. Most of the issues about a country withdrawing from the EUR would apply to Scotland and GBP, too.” Is it not the case that the EU requires a state to have its own currency in order to gain membership? I seem to recall having read this in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum. If that is the case, then a Scottish currency is a prerequisite to any discussions on membership and, once created, it would seem folly to sacrifice the benefits and flexibility it brings just to abandon it for the euro.
Mention of EU membership raises another issue: it’s always better to go into negotiations with a flexible strategy and a range of desirable outcomes, so we should be looking at potential options such as EUCU (European Union Customs Union), EFTA, EEA, Norway option in addition to full EU membership. The preferred European outcome may only become clear once conditions of Scotland’s departure from the UK are agreed.
Today’s Sunday National leads on an SNP proposal to ban nuclear weapons within 3 years of a vote for independence. This will up the ante with the UK Gov as it means the end of nuclear-armed subs at Faslane in a timescale shorter than the estimated timescale to find a suitable alternative site and relocate existing facilities to it. It will also draw individuals who oppose nuclear weapons on grounds of religion or principles into support for independence. Add in the impact of unpreparedness for trade regulation between Ireland (North & South) and rUK in the face of a rapidly advancing Brexit deadline and the collapse of the UK Union looks closer than ever.
As a PS to my earlier post, I think it’s worth examining why Scotland voted substantially to remain in the EU, but is being dragged out of it against its democratic will. In the hundreds of years of Scotland being an independent nation before the Union of 1707, its relations with its European neighbours were cordial as a result of longstanding trading relationships, at a time when England was engaged in serial wars with them. Education was another factor, with Scottish students more likely to go to university in the Netherlands than in England. As a result, the Scots have a very deep-rooted affinity with Europe while England has deep-rooted suspicions and enmity. I know these are generalisations, but they go some way to explain England’s inability to understand Scotland and its people’s mindsets.
Indeed…..
You are right: Scotland has to have its own currency to join the EU
It does not need to give it up
The nuclear move is wise
And rUK will have to pay all Scotland’s decommissioning costs as they arise from actions taken during U.K. control
Totally surreal situation with UK politicians pretending they know how a fiat currency systems works but totally unable to point to a coherent and detailed explanation how it does and to boot explain why central bankers like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke went on public record to say governments with a fiat currency can create money electronically from thin air in amounts subject only to avoiding abnormal inflation. Voters in the UK are the victims of deeply dishonest snake oil salesmen and women who pretend wisdom in regard to fiat monetary systems but have none!
It’s about time the uk as a whole were given a vote on independence for Scotland. I for one would like to see them hoist by their own petard, with people like Murphy trying to distance themselves from the economic carnage their financial illiteracy would would wreak upon the nation.
Goodbye and good riddance is the feeling I pick up from many at the constant whining and whinging from our northern cousins. The rest of the us has had enough and wish you would just go.
You mean you want to stock with the economic havoc in England?
And you want to suggest that’s rational?
While I wouldn’t disagree that an Independent Scotland, as a self-respecting independent country, should have its own currency, something I recall seeing from the time of the 2014 Independence referendum is http://jdawiseman.com/papers/finmkts/20140224_scotland_pound.html . “Abstract: divorce is expensive. Any possible new monetary arrangements for Scotland will be expensive. Some arrangements pay those costs up-front, other delay and exacerbate them. But they are all expensive.”
To which perhaps should be added that divorce may still be better than the alternative – it is for Scots to decide if the price is worth paying.
Sometimes the up front cost is well worth the price
Yes, £50 million or so for some notes and coins and the initial staff and premises of the Scottish Reserve Bank. Insignificant given the £40 billion of sterling that we all hand in to get our new currency.
I think that’s just the start of it.
What Julian Wiseman says (in part, in summary) is that there are all sorts of (financial) assets and liabilities denominated in £ – and if some of them change from £Stg to £Scots, there will be an impact when not all £s are the same – which are which, and what happens when they are no longer equal?
Around the world this happens all day everyday and without difficulty
Why is Scotland not going to be able to handle what are commonplace financial situations?
I think that Julian Wiseman is inventing problems. All legal contracts where both parties are Scottish will be deemed by law to be in S£ as of Currency Day, unless both parties agree otherwise. While Scotland can not control contracts where one party is outside Scotland, we can require any financial institution that wishes to operate in Scotland to register with the Scottish Reserve Bank. A condition of registration would be that all contracts with people in Scotland be deemed to be in S£ unless the person / company in Scotland requests otherwise. So that should deal quite simply with any overdrafts, credit cards, personal loans, business loans, mortgages and so forth. So what else is he whining about? There are indeed some contracts, such as company in Scotland has an English supplier or seller, where there will be an exchange rate risk. That, though, just means prices may have to be adjusted gradually. If it is some sort of royalty or commission then a percentage of something is still a percentage of something. I anticipate that the S£ will tend to increase against sterling, so that will mean imports to Scotland will get cheaper and paying off sterling debts will get cheaper. Exporters may have to increase prices or get more efficient. I don’t particularly expect much change of the S£ against the dollar and euro. The FX costs are probably something like 1-2%, so of some significance for big importers / exporters, but trivial compared to the advantages for all of Scotland in having our own currency.
I agree with you Tim
The idea that this is hard is absurd, and there are ample precedents to rely on and learn from
Aye. It’s no wonder Nicola Sturgeon wants to stick with devolution when she appears to not have a clue about how currency-issuing economies work – I really wonder if her head’s just full of fluff at times. I also think she’s well out of order claiming the Growth Commission report is the order of the day when it isn’t party policy (by democratic decree), and how can you claim independence is better when you don’t understand how – it’s an own goal in any argument and an easy win for the media to ask about currency. Very disappointing.
Some SNP politicians did attend a presentation by Stephanie Kelton on MMT recently though – there is hope. (I’ve forgotten who now! It was a cross-party meeting).
It was organised and chaired by Angus MacNeil
Angus MacNeil! Yes that’s the man, I rather like him, he’s got a little bit of the radical in him. I do hope he gets to stay in the party and stays in post.
I have noted that you’ve started using the London (as seat of power) terminology in some articles, Richard 🙂 . I still feel like I missed out when I missed most of the debate my throw-away comment sparked a while ago, whether you remember it or not, (I am usually careful, believe it or not, when commenting here to use phrases that the bulk of your readership will understand, but that slipped in). It’s just interesting, that’s all and of no consequence, but does demonstrate an open-mindedness that’s always good to see. (Or does it demonstrate you hang out with too many revolutionaries?!?) 😉
It seems the way to speak the truth
That’s what I try to do
Scotland must use its own currency, as soon as possible after leaving the Union, whether that’s the Scottish Pound or the Euro. The pound sterling has already dropped in value before Brexit, and after Brexit completion, and Scotland leaving, will drop even further. Scotland must in the beginning, also tie its currency in value to another stable currency, or risk rampant inflation.
The first argument is true
The second has not a shred of reason to it
Inflation is not determined by pegging or an exchange rate
It’s determined by fiscal policy, external events and productivity changes
Pegging to another currency increases rather rather than reduces all those risks
[…] Source link […]
As an ordinary Scot, I have read these contributions with astonishment. How fascinating it all is. I don’t know if I have the mental capacity to understand it all but I’d love to be able to say something sensible and accurate in discussing independence with others. Richard and Tim, I believe you are the ones to listen to.
1) Start with a Payments System – adopted and created by the Yes Movement itself. (Tim Rideout has this and the criteria involved on his list.)
2) Think big but start small, demonstrate it and have it adopted at grassroots level.
3) However – start now, not after independence.
Two links as background (if interested):
https://www.facebook.com/DoYesHaveTheBottle/
https://www.facebook.com/TheScottishHand/
I don’t really want the Union to break up but I have always believed that Northern Ireland for example is wrong and have been in favour of a united Eire since I can remember. It’s always been rather self-contradictory for me.
I think my reluctance to see Scotland ‘go’ is because I’m an idealist who would love to see Scotland (and Wales and the English regions) benefit from more devolution as a rational, democracy-improving process towards better governance of this island.
Instead it looks as though the driver will be revulsion towards the way you are governed by Westminster. Whether you like it or not – this is not a good way to leave when even I can see that the revulsion is justified.
But speaking as an Englishman who has suffered at their hands these last 10 years (and before), I would not trust Whitehall as far as I could throw them. Scotland is dealing with some of the worst people you could possibly have to deal with right now on these issues and I cannot see that changing. Added to that we have national press who still stokes the auld racism and can be relied upon to do it again. You MUST have your own currency.
I just wish that independence might take place in better circumstances. All I see at the moment is fragmentation everywhere and the more division that emerges, the more there is for darker politics to play with and wreak havoc and divide and conquer. I worry constantly about identity politics ramped up to national levels. I see more instability everywhere – designed I think to get us fighting amongst ourselves whilst a new age of global oligarchy emerges right underneath our noses.
Someone or something is benefiting from all of this. And consider that it might not be Scotland to be honest. If you have to go on this basis please leave carefully and wipe your feet on the way out and sanitise thoroughly.
On the Scottish side you are going to need good people to build a sustainable country. Are you sure you’ve got them? Are you sure?
I appreciate your discomfort. Actually, nobody is perfect, and we in Scotland cannot claim to be; but that is no reason to stay in this dysfunctional, ill-governed Union. We cannot do worse, and do not require to be saints to do better. Scotland, candidly, has significant potential for prosperity in a fast changing post-neoliberal world. We really ought not hang around in the UK much longer if we are going to make the best of this.
In spite of the bile and loathing that pours out of the UK against the EU, there are countries that would still like to join the EU, and there are more longstanding members of the EU who realise they are better in than out; and maybe can now make some headway forward, correct the mistakes that followed the ‘Crash’, and move on now that the principle, purely disruptive internal force against EU stability and progress has left.
What list of countries do you have prepared, that are desperate to join the British state? I suspect it may be quite short. The Commonwealth is a mere exercise in memory, recording a shifty and uneasy past; recalibrated as polite, diplomatic decorum, celebrated through sport, nostalgia and a common language. I write as someone who cannot deny Scotland’s leading shifty and uneasy role in Empire; Empire was the opportunistic glue that worked for Scotland, and most of all held the UK together (as the old dynastic and religious imperatives, over time slowly died on the vine). It is what it is.
The staunchest advocates of British rule in the world today, are tax havens. Oh, I missed the stoutest allies we currently have for the UK: the Russian oligarchs.
‘principal’ not ‘principle’; I never thought I could make that mistake, as a matter of principle.
🙂
Spell checkers…
Sorry, PSR, I enjoy your contributions, but – and this is not meant in a hostile way – but Ireland is the name of my country in the English language, Eire if you’re speaking or writing in the Irish language. It really grinds our gears.
I have family in Southern Ireland and always put Eire on Christmas cards as a form of respect (and my late my mother’s side of the family hails from there), but fair enough.
The complexity of ending an almost 50yrs association with the EU block has been obvious. The animosity and sang froid equally so.
Having these observations alone surely makes the neutral majority avoid seeking secession?
You make several excellent points in your blog. Your desire for a rational, smooth Scexit is commendable but unlikely to prove attainable.
Not at all
It takes willing parties
That’s all
We could have left the EU sensibly
We chose not to
Scotland has the thinkers to avoid this
Mr Scott,
I am confident that Scotland will seek an equitable accommodation; it is not in any one’s interest not to find a satisfactory solution; Scotland wishes to remain on good terms with rUK. The rhetoric of the UK Government (rUK in waiting) is belligerent because it does not want a solution, it wants hegemony. Once it is realised that hegemony is not an option, everything will, in the end, change. Everything.
Brexit remains a problem because the UK refuses to accommodate a satisfactory solution. It has expected to leave, but to retain a trading advantage over the rest of the world and even some members, for nothing; when it has always known that the EU cannot offer such a deal, because then some members may judge they could have all the advantages of membership without being members. Britain is asking the EU to sign a suicide note. This is because leaving the EU has nothing to do with trade. It is ideology dressed as politics.
There is a very old, largely English suspicion of European entanglement, and I have always believed that the purpose of Brexit was not just to leave the EU, but to undermine it. We joined the EU partly out of anxiety, partly to attempt to ‘clip its wings’ from the inside. Ironically, British membership had succeeded as a purely negative, disruptive influence on the EU; it had made it a meaner and more divisive institution. In many ways the disruption worked and the EU is better for us leaving. This is a tragedy, because in 1948 and 1957 Britain had the opportunity, post-war to take the leading role in Europe and guide its future. We rejected it, out of hand. We have finally proved that we are not up to such a big task in the modern world.
Well said
PSR – you are asking a question about good people, are we sure – it’s a chicken and egg situation – until we are rid of malign influences we can never get the ideal set of people to ensure a smooth and easy start – and we can only get rid of malign influences after we have already made that start (and probably much further down the road) – stuck between a rock and a hard place might be a better description.
So – it’s a case of making the best of it, getting on, getting a renewed nation up and running and weeding out the parts that may be harmful as we go along – messy but unless England suddenly becomes,,, what it is not,,, there will never be an ‘ideal’ that is realistic.
Your fantasy view of a happy federated Britain, is likely just something fed to you by the great imperial project – the fact is, Scotland as an independent nation will have close ties etc with England – much the same as Ireland – much the same as how a federated Britain could look. There are few reasons why a country should need to ‘own’ another, and it definitely isn’t for their own good. There is no reason for fiscal control and control of defence, security, foreign affairs etc etc, unless you want total control and to use that country for your own ends – there is no equality, there is no freedom – and to believe another nation should be shackled in this way because it fits with your world view I find strange. Maybe you could practice fitting in a happy independent Scotland into your world view and see how it fits? If you find that ownership is a necessary criterion for you to think pleasant thoughts, maybe empire has had a bigger influence than you think?
So, it isn’t the union ‘breaking up’ it is one of the nations regaining its full and rightful independence which it has no prospect of having within the union. There are many ‘what ifs’ and things that could have been done – but they haven’t and never will be, so let Scotland go, stand on your own two feet; the empire needs to end.
Contrary
I don’t appreciate the tone of your response at all and it is indicative I’m afraid of what can happen when these issues are discussed on line when we start talking about nationalism and other matters that make us seek out what is different about each other when really we would benefit from looking for what we have in common.
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all have a common foe: an over centralised, London-centric Government. We ALL suffer from it – don’t you see? Talk to any English Council now about what 10 years of austerity has done to them. To me. To us.
I’m offended when you say I have a’fantasy view’ on this subject matter. If I’m a fantasist, then so is Richard and so is MMT or any other new idea or good old idea being resurrected. I don’t think you have actually read what I wrote. All I have wrote is how things could be better. It did not need to be the way it was.
Progressive devolution would help England, Scotland and Wales alike. Devolution done deliberately to right past wrongs, working towards reconciliation and recognition is fantastic way (not a fantasist way) to assert national and regional independence and pride on a small island such ours (and we do share this island, this land with the exception of the island of Ireland) whilst maintaining positive, co-operative relationships.
That is a good goal to have.
I am conversant with history thank you Contrary – whether the potato famine, the highland clearances or the banning of the Welsh language in Wales – none of it done in my name or with my agreement – all of it repulsive to me and my family that hails from a mixture of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. I have no illusions I can assure you. When I heard Cameron saying ‘English votes for English people’ (I paraphrase) I thought ‘Here we fucking go……….’.
The real fantasy element lies in those more reactionary nationalists in these countries who will fail to take into account the context within which independence takes place in contemporary Britain and a world where nationalism is growing in ways we would rather it did not and is also at the mercy of malignant external interests thanks to a dilatory management of the WWW.
We have an uncouth Government that has some really dodgy friends who are good at dividing and conquering. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland all sleep under the nose of this dragon and its pups.
I don’t warn to stop independence; I warn to make sure it’s done properly and consciously and safely. The bigger the herd, the more defence it offers. We are all becoming smaller and easier to pick off when we separate under a cloud.
And once separation is achieved – then what? Well, ALL nations have snakes in the grass, people who can be bought. Look at the Neo-lib influence on the EU. How did that come about? By accident was it?
To sum up, we are facing unprecedented environmental problems, depletion of natural resources that will effect economies and national relations, mass migration away from war zones and still think we can use stupidly old fashioned ideas about how to deal with them (such as austerity, the manufacturing of wars in order to seize resources and the neutering of sovereign Governments rendering them useless at helping their citizens to name but a few).
Added to those is politics itself. The USA. Russia. China. Not exactly a bed of roses is it? Just when we need more global co-operation, it seems to me we are going to get more conflict.
Nationalism might be the new Tower of Babel: an inability to work together and share the burdens that will come at a critical point in human history on this planet.
This is not an ideal time for the emergence of new nations. All I’m saying that it needs to be right or it will fail. Be careful. Be wise. Be lucky.
And I’m still worried. And I’d love to be wrong. If it all turns out great, no one will smile broader than me I assure you.
Apologies, yes, fantasist was far too strong – we get to hear the tired old trope of federation from Labour every year or so or more often if they think independence is getting a bit popular (the same way Labour promise to abolish the House of Lords). So it’s an automatic reaction to groan a bit and believe the person has been listening to Labour on the subject.
I see some of where you are coming from now – the centralised uk government is preventing a more progressive structure and society to develop? I would add a few more words to that (corrupt, archaic, monolithic, barely democratic, etc), but in the ideal yes things could work well. But,,, it needs to be England that makes the changes – this is the issue, when there is such a disparity in the sizes of the countries – Scotland can’t do it for you, we have no say and no influence. Do I see any change, or likelihood of change? No. (Well, not for the better anyway).
I admire the work Richard does, and I also admire your input here – but the London-centric elitist seats of power are not going to go away overnight, and from Scotland’s point of view, we have waited 300 years for some level of fairness and equality, I think we might have to accept we are flogging a dead horse now. Make the changes, and I for one am very open to the kind of close ties you seek. But I believe countries can be independent of each other politically and fiscally and still work very closely together and support each other, and reach mutual agreements – on equal terms – just as well. If your political changes come about, we would likely find a natural falling together – but more likely so if each nation was independent. I still can’t see your point about why it shouldn’t be so (except that malign influences are going to make it very difficult…), in an ideal world.
Some people do have the notion that everything will be all hunky dory as soon as we have voted for independence, that’s very true. I don’t believe that, I have no illusions in that regard, and I treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.
We don’t quite have the same idea of nationalism here as you are portraying – not the isolationist intolerant kind for sure. We usually associate that with a different kind of nationalism, one we’d like to leave behind. Anyway, at the moment it seems a far-off improbability – independence that is – so there is time, to build a solid structure that might withstand the neoliberal onslaught.
Were Scotland to have its own currency would there be any compulsion – could there be any compulsion to use it?
It would be perfectly possible for Scottish residents to maintain sterling (Euro, Dollar, SK, whatever) denominated accounts and as in Ireland for Scottish Business to make & accept payments in whatever currency they chose
No compulsion at all
But taxes would have to be paid in Scottish pounds
That would make it the day yo day currency in weeks
However, in these days of financial globalisation you would be able to pay Scottish tax from an account denominated in most currencies in the world as far as I know. I used to have accounts in Euro and US Dollars for business purposes. Your bank would simply convert your Sterling, Dollar, Yen or whatever into S£ and remit to Scottish Revenue and Customs, although I never actually tried it.
This thread is very interesting. Thanks for bringing it up, Richard.
But the point is, you would have to convert….
And in day to day terms that means the currency must be used
People will be paid in Scottish pounds if their tax has to be deducted in it, and so on….
Richard,
You replied to my request for a more accurate source of Scotland’s economic data if GERS was seen to have flaws.
1. First GERS needs to be consistently accounted for on income and revenue.
What’s wrong with the current figures, as the SG accepts them in their entirety?
2. Second, data needs to be collected.
So what makes you think new collection methods will substantially change the final results?
3. Third, the income that leaks from Scotland — especially on profits, rent and interest paid in Scotland and accounted for out side it but which should be recorded and taxable within it, needs to be included
Is it not reasonable to assume many businesses will relocate to the South in the event of secession, making the alleged leaks you refer to pale into insignificance? They will relocate to reduce the significant business tax burden between Scotland and England that has been notably increasing over the last 5-6yrs.
Unless advocates for independence provide a cogent alternative to GERS (with credible input of the calibre of Margaret and Jim Cuthbert) we may have to accept the status quo with its imperfections?
I have made the case for an alternative many times
Proposing proper national income accounting would be a good place to start
GERS is not that
For more just search it here
Yes I agree. I was merely suggesting that it would be perfectly possible to run your affairs in a sterling bank account. I accept it would be pretty awkward. I don’t suppose your employer’s payroll department would be very happy about it. The Scots would be rushing to change over their accounts to S£ within weeks. It might even be possible to do it overnight on the day of Indy. I’m looking forward to it, providing the current leadership moves away from Salmond’s insistence that the £stg would be retained. I think that was a tactical error.
It was
It still is
There are some strategic realities here that this debate is ignoring. The English ruling class have been a suspicious,piratical lot for many centuries. Read Shakespeare’s Henry V and study the “auld alliance” and the possibility of the “weasel Scot” sucking the English eggs. England wants to keep Scotland close to satisfy strategic imperatives for the defence of the realm. These matters haven’t needed to be thought about for 300 years. If Scotland leaves the UK, joins the EU and installs a hard border, those concerns will inevitably resurface. The English ruling class feel the need to control the public by playing on bogus fears of an enemy. It’s Russia at the moment but that could easily change. Coupled with the nuclear issue and the loss of a massive sea area with all the mineral wealth possibilities, do not expect the tories to give in without major dirty tricks supported by the crown and security services.
I would support Scots independence but it needs to be done in a way that carries the support of the English and keeps the nations close. The experience of Brexit leads me to suspect that would take a great deal of hard work on both sides. There is very little evidence that Johnson’s government could do that, even if it wanted to, which it doesn’t.
That is an English problem
It is nit a reason for Scotland not to be independent
England’s problems aren’t for Scotland to solve
And are you suggesting England would use force to prevent Scotland leaving? It’s done one civil war in my lifetime. We do not need another.
I suspect the English establishment won’t use force in a military sense to stop Scotland leaving but they will use every dirty trick they can think of. Look at the way the contempt proceedings against Craig Murray are being handled. Someone is provoking the Scottish establishment to destroy itself. Who might that be I wonder? They tried for Alex Salmond and it appears he has been chastened. Nicola Sturgeon seems to be closer to conservative and neoliberal interests than the Scots working class. Given her shady dealings in the Salmond case at some point she could be used in an attempt to set set back the Scots independence cause. Whatever dirty tricks one might dream up, the security services will come up with more and worse.
The SNP is being split over this…..
Hello Richard.
In one of John S. Warren’s many interesting replies, he says,
“currency is a more critical test of sovereignty than democracy.“
and also,
“The only way your vote counts for much, depends on your country being a currency issuer. Without that status your vote (whatever the majority your vote happens to produce for your politics), it counts for little; more puff than substance.“
These two statements, passages or insights, if you like, stand out.
I feel a focus on them for one blog (or video) would be beneficial.
Just a suggestion. Maybe you feel it’s been covered before or whatever.
I’ll make a note….
I have no problem covering ground more than once ….. that’s what blogging and reform is all about
The point of money being THE key and absolutely essential part of sovereignty as a concept is something Stephanie Kelton makes in her her book ‘The Deficit Myth’ – see from page 142 ‘ The Spectrum of Monetary Sovereignty’.
It is the best exposition of this concept I have ever read – present company excepted. Read it.
It makes the BREXIT position seem rather twee and their supposed expressions of sovereignty
But it also indicates just how tightly controlled and deliberately selective the disinformation to those who voted for BREXIT was.
Borders? Well, if you’ve no money, you can’t afford borders. And doesn’t money just fly over those anyway and offshore?
Immigration – well if you’ve no money you can’t afford to control this either.
All because the BREXITEERS are also Tories and explaining to the public the latent power of being able use your sovereignty to print money to help your citizens would rather upset the gravy train for the rich wouldn’t it?
I thought it was really useful….
The House of Commons came to dominate the British polity, not first based on democracy; but on its ability, first to take hold of, and then control the money, taxation and currency. All of it. Democracy came later.