I know I've said, many times, that it's not credible for the SNP to demand independence without a sovereign currency, because the result would not even vaguely approximate to sovereignty, but now Yanis Varoufakis has said it too:
"Of course Scotland could be viable in the EU, but they need monetary independence too"
Tonight on #TheNine, we'll be discussing the UK internal market bill with politician and former finance minister of Greece @yanisvaroufakis.
Full interview at 9pm on the @BBCScotland channel pic.twitter.com/5yE9oLDSCD
— The Nine (@BBCScotNine) September 9, 2020
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:
Absolutely! But sadly what is also not credible is that Scotland will be given another referendum in our lifetime, whatever Scotland says. Imagine the status of ‘Great’ Britain, of the ‘United’ Kingdom. And if you Google the union jack without the Scottish blue it looks absurd. Britain would be a laughing stock around the world. Which then begs the question – if the risk is so great, how did they come to allow the referendum in the first place? The only rational explanation is that there was in fact no risk. And how could that be achieved?
I am not sure I follow any of your logic
“Britain” is already a laughing stock. As for the Union flag, it’s a personal banner of the Monarch and not the flag of any country as, of course, the UK is not a country. As such until Scotland votes to be a Republic then the Union flag will remain.
Sorry. In my earlier comment I implied that another referendum would make the UK a laughing stock. I meant to say that an independent Scotland would make us a laughing stock – when we tried to retain the ‘United’ in UK or the ‘Great’ in GB, not to mention the loss of prestige in losing arguably the most symbolic part of the nation. So another referendum will never be allowed unless the outcome could be controlled.
I don’t think this will remain in the c0mntorl of Westminster
A leaving state does not require the consent of the former state of which it was a part to to so
100 years ago Labour campaigned for Home Rule for Scotland, and we can all see where that went.
Today the SNP (claim) that they are campaigning for independence but after 6 years, 4 mandates and umpteen reasons to do something about it it’s been kicked down the road.
This is not trolling. I’ve voted SNP for nigh on 50 years, am an ex- member and would vote for independence tomorrow but no longer sure that I will see it in my lifetime.
Hi WJ. I too am now past the point where I believe we need to play good guys with whom are, basically, bad guys.
But, it can’t be avoided that until this year Indy support was in the minority – that is a crucial factor. Until Indy overtook unionism, unionists and the UKG that represent them could, legitimately, state that while the SNP was the biggest party in Scotland, unionism was the political choice of a (smaller and smaller) majority of Scots.
Now that is no longer the case, we can fairly say the only thing keeping Scotland in the union is a Westminster diktat, and the SNP stance should reflect that.
While I disagree with the SNP leadership and Wilson in particular regarding currency, it’s not the case that these are stupid people. Anyone with any idea of economics whatsoever must realise the price of not having your own currency.
So why are they doing it..?
For me the answer is clear – it’s not an economics position, it’s a political one. And as such I can (sort of) see reason in it.
There’s 8 months until the Scottish election. A big SNP win will probably mean Indyref2, which will in turn probably mean Indy. So – its ALL about that win and what will achieve it.
I think the SNP want to “undramatise” Indy as much as possible. And not frightening the horses (as they see it) with a new currency is a big part of that. So what if their currency position is wrong, Mr or Mrs McGlumpher up a close won’t know that – and once we have a YES vote in the bag, we can revise it.
At least I hope that explains it.
I wish I could believe you
This is exactly correct. The strategy is obtain political independence with the minimum of other changes so to minimise unnrcessary risk of scaring a cautious electorate. Learn the mistake made by Michael Foot with the longest suicide note in history in 1983. When Scotland is independent, as soon as sterling is seen as sub-optimal for Scotland’s economic situation, sterling can be kicked into touch.
The government will be doping its best to make Sterling sup-optimal very soon
Euan, it does not work in a political campaign. All the NO side will do is to say ‘You say you will use sterling, but you won’t – you will have your own currency like every other country’. So we say ‘No No, we are going to use sterling really’. Back to 2014 because we can’t prove we will use sterling and all they have to do is sow the doubt and then hint that e.g. all the pensioners will wake up one morning to find their sterling was confiscated during the night and converted into the new groat. It is just a totally silly indefensible position to say we will use sterling as it does not work from any perspective. Even arch-unionist and tory press release writer Prof Ronald MacDonald actually says in one of his papers that if Scotland were to be independent the only sensible position would be to have its own currency. He also says sterlingisation is the worst possible choice out of every conceivable option. There is probably little else I would agree with him on, but he is right about this.
Agreed
Including on agreement with Ronald MacDonald
Hi Tim,
Any Scottish use of sterling will only be short term. As soon as independence is achieved, Scotgov can kick sterling over the Tweed. Between now and then its play things politically with minimal change so to avoid the risk of unnecessary alienation of the electorate. The same goes with the monarchy. The Yes campaign will say keep the Queen. Independent Scotland can subsequently give her the heave ho.
At this stage its use political language.
Someone should run a sweepstake or the like on how many months sterling lasts in IndyScot. How many months do you plump for? For a bit of fun, I’ll go with 8.
We know it can be temporary
Weeks, I would suggest
So would Tim
But the SNP disagree
Hi Tim. With respect, we went into Indyref1 with less and increased indy support by 50%.
Logic doesn’t always apply.
Politics trumps all.
I think another reason it won’t work for the campaign is that it actually undermines the reassuring message on the economy which needs to be conveyed.
On the one hand we’ll be saying of course Scotland’s economy is strong enough for us to prosper as an independent country. But on the other we’ll be suggesting it isn’t up to having its own currency.
While most people may not be experts on monetary economics, I think a lot of people will pick up on the contradiction there. Indeed I think a lot of people did back in 2014 – including my No voting parents. And it fed into a distrust of the positive messages on the economy more widely that the Yes campaign were giving out. Made folk suspect that they were being sold snake oil. It would be a great shame to repeat those mistakes.
Richard – in the blizzard of scare stories re the massive foreign currency reserves needed to support an sovereign currency, why does no-one mention the example of Denmark in 2015?
Elaborate
https://tradingeconomics.com/denmark/foreign-exchange-reserves
The 10 year view shows the currency reserves of the danish central bank during the period they successfully fought off an attempt by foreign hedge funds and speculators to force a devaluation and abandon their peg to the Euro.
Their economy is about 25% bigger than Scotland – can we draw any parallels about a Scottish central bank from this?
Yes
Scotland should not and would not peg its currency
That was Denmark’s mistake
If Scotland chooses to keep GBP as its currency then it is better staying in the Union and sending 50+ SNP MPs to Westminster to get the rUK to adopt sensible policies. (As a rUK resident I would be quite happy to have England become more like Scotland).
But, if it IS to be Independence then having its own currency is the best way forward (but you know my concerns about transition – particularly with a rUK government that does not want to play nicely). Perhaps an Independence vote would prompt the fall of the current government to be replaced with one that showed Scotland a little more respect and offered cooperation rather than confrontation…. or is this wishful thinking?
Of course, the third route is adoption of the euro. Now, I completely get all the theoretical and practical objections – they are huge…. but there might just be sufficient political gains to be had from the EU to make it worthwhile. Just a thought!
Scotland must have its own currency before the euro
And I think the euro would be mad
George Kerevan suggested recently that some SNP figures such as Alyn Smyth MP, view sterlingisation as a stepping stone not to a new Scottish currency, but to the Euro. Of course you’re correct that the rules preclude this. But it seems they imagine the EU might agree some kind of special deal to allow Scotland to skip the own currency stage. That sounds extremely unlikely to me. And I agree the Euro would be a terrible option.
It would be a disaster
The EU would not do it
[…] It’s not credible for the SNP to demand independence without a sovereign currency Tax Research UK […]
Try looking back at history! The pound belongs to Scotland! Let Westminster find a new currency!
The way things are going down there they could use bananas! To match their republic!
I think there are some problems with that claim