Tim Rideout has drawn my attention to a poll that the Scottish Currency Group had included in a recent Scot Goes Pop opinion poll in Scotland. The question and answers were as follows:
59% of respondents wanted a Scottish currency after independence. The proportion accords closely to support for independence itself. 89% of those who are pro-independence are also pro a Scottish currency.
Two points follow. The first is that this is welcome, and new finding: confidence in a Scottish currency is growing.
Second, the refusal of the SNP leadership to consider this issue becomes ever more baffling. To commit to a currency union, which is what the SNP is effectively doing, is to commit to the Union still. I simply do not understand their logic.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Neither does anybody else understand their (the SNP hierarchy) thinking! Maybe there isn’t any, thinking that is.
If I am elected as SNP Policy Development Convener the new Policy Development Committee to be elected at Conference must promote an early National Assembly attended by the Leaders and our members.
Good
Andrew Wilson is the reason. I refuse to go his long term, ridiculous plan which would impoverish Scotland.
Scotland will want to re-join the EU. Will they be forced to adopt the euro to do so?
No
They have to commit to join
20 years or more after giving such a commitment Sweden is not in and has no intention of doing so
Poland’s the same isn’t it? Been saying will join / adopt euro fro years but still using own currency with no immediate timetable in place
Because they’re scared.
That’s why.
Like too many politicians these days, they think that markets are sovereign and not their own employer.
As an Englishman I suppose I get some grim satisfaction that ignorance on these issues is not confined to those of us south Hadrian’s wall.
Same answer to this as when you asked this question before Richard,
The SNP are seeking to win voters by not scaring the voters; ie they seek to gain vote share by attaining independence by changing as little as possible pre independence. They seek to appear prudent and deliberate, not radical / impulsive.
Once independence is secured and Holyrood rather than Westminster is the nucleus of Scottish political power, then people can decide on Scots economic policy such as currency. The current snp position on currency is based on pre independence political posturing, not on long term term economic policy making.
But if they do not answer this question people will not vote indy – as in 2014
Alex Salmond has realised the error now – it’s time Sturgeon did
Before reading the table, I’d have been rather more with Steve on this one. And yet I will still say the experience of Project Fear leaves me not at all sure the over 60’s are robust in their openness to a Scottish currency. I know too many elderly unionists ready to hear Project Fear 2. The SNP will fear many more.
I shouldn’t speculate, but maybe the thinking is that we will go further if Scotland pushes the SNP than with the SNP pushing Scotland. Indy polling isn’t punishing timidity so far.
Rob @ 3:12pm.
Remember us over sixties have already ‘changed’ currency before when the country went decimal. Didn’t frighten us then so why should it frighten us now?
I remember it well
For all the prior fuss it was a non-issue
The ‘don’t scare the horses’ excuse has worn thin – it makes the SNP look weak and uncertain and is unlikely to bolster support. Yes, Scots tend to be conservative and don’t like change, but you’ll never get them to agree to change by pretending there won’t be any! A positive, assured, and firm stance – and honest one – would have a bigger impact. There is no point in trying to convert the 30% that will never change their minds.
The SNP hierarchy are selling themselves to many voters by claiming a centre-left status, but it seems this is far from true – they support neoliberalism, and so buy into the Westminster lies on the economy. There is so little transparency from the SNP now, so little listening – it isn’t just on this issue, it’s everything, they refuse to listen to popular opinion – or even their own membership – and think they have a monopoly because they are ‘the only vehicle for indy’. I attended an assembly where Ian Blackford was being interviewed, and even in the face of nearly everyone criticising SNP supposed ‘strategy’, he carried on repeating the party line, the same one for the past 6 years – no real response. They are blind deaf and dumb. It’s like everything they claimed they would be, they are now doing the opposite. Whatever their agenda, it doesn’t involve being honest and open, or doing more than they are doing at the moment. Something stinks badly at the top – and it’s time the rest of the party stopped supporting them; whatever the ‘apparent’ popularity rating is for Nicola Sturgeon, it won’t be lasting beyond the upcoming scandals, and relying on those ratings is a shoogly peg. The only question is when this will happen, not if, and I’d prefer not to have the British establishment deciding on the timing.
Richard, I didn’t see this part of the poll – this is really good news, that people are now getting behind the idea of a new currency – this is progress and one thing less to spend endless hours debating in the future I hope. Thanks for all you’ve done to promote it Richard – and to Tim Rideout on his excellent work on a clear pathway to point people to.
I thank Tim too
He’s brave enough to stick his neck out
Hi Contrary,
“The ‘don’t scare the horses’ excuse has worn thin”
On the contrary, if you look at the last dozen or so opinion poll results on Scot Ind, things are trending nicely in the right direction. Changing a successful formula is at best risky and could be any of foolish to disastrous.
Steve,
On the contrary ( 🙂 ), the poll described here, with a graph of previous polling showing how the trends have remained largely unchanged over the current administration ministrations:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-state-is-not-her/
I think that demonstrates that their strategy only ever retains the status quo. (So, it could be worse right enough!).
The likely reasons for rises in poling are due to circumstances – the SNP have not done anything different this year from previous years as regards independence. This is very far from a successful strategy, it’s a dead-end strategy that leaves us in the same dire straits as we are in.
Richard,
Yes, with big thanks to Tim – I’ve only realised during this year the extent to which he really has been very brave in sticking his neck out, and sticking with it – he’s winning though! I no longer wonder things like ‘why isn’t he being more forceful,,,’ – he is doing everything the best way possible under current circumstances I think. I am hoping that ‘current circumstance’ will change dramatically – still just a vague hope, but there are plenty of rumblings that indicate change will happen, sometime.
It is becoming quite clear that the SNP are content Devolutionists. They have good sincures because of it.
Yup,
if one assumes that the current SNP leadership are actually quite happy with the current devolution settlement, and are not interested in independence, then a lot of their behaviour makes sense. Quite happy to be the big fish in a little pond, then pursue various fringe policies.
My gut feeling exactly.
Strange world. Johnson is increasingly doing his best to drive for an independent Scotland and Sturgeon, Blackford et al are doing their best to hold back on driving for it.
eg Why is a citizen pushing to legally determine if Scotland needs a Section 30 for a vote on independence, yet the SNP are actively avoiding pursuing this or any other options.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18877027.joanna-cherry-backed-plan-b-rejected-debate-snp-conference/
Something very rotten in the current SNP leadership.
Ian, the Scottish government, and so the SNP, are not just avoiding doing anything – they have been actively trying to prevent the s.30 case – their argument in court was for the case not to go ahead, just the same as the uk gov’t argument. They have delayed it as much as possible, and then withdrew for no reason, except the Lord advocate is still representing the ministers’ interests as well as parliament’s. If you wanted to form a true strategy for gaining independence, you’d want to know the answer to this question – not the SNP though. They are actively obstructing any efforts to move forward with independence. It’s remarkable.
If my tinfoil hat antennas are working correctly the conspiracy is that Sturgeon isn’t serious about independence and her vows when taking office swears allegiance to the crown and the union.
So kowtowing to Westminster means Stirling currency for an independent Scotland which hamstrings the independence movement by tying it to the Treasury.
Now the last thing I advocate for is conspiracy fantasy but Sturgeon has not cast herself in the best light with the revelations of the power play involving her husband and inner circle and their concoctions of sexual assault allegations against Salmond plus the abuse of the judiciary to silence Craig Murray in the aftermath.
The SNP and the movement is much larger than Sturgeon so why are they so sketchy?
Because, if independence is to come there are some in whose interest it is that an independent Scotland operates just like a little UK.
No-one wants an example of trying to do things differently on your doorstep do they?
Hence no radical prospectus, hence just the slow accumulation of majority by attrition, careful not to inspire hope or vision.
The word is that Andrew Wilson of the (anti) Growth Commission went to the Banks to see what they thought they didn’t fancy a new currency so he meekly accepted that went back and proposed Sterlingisation instead.
The SNP commissioned the Growth Commission, they have accepted its findings in full and therefore they are afraid of the political fallout from breaking with it. They have handcuffed themselves quite voluntarily.
Add this political reality to Sturgeon’s increasing caution and you have your explanation.
Our hope is that the Salmond Inquiry etc will let us see the end of cautious Sturgeon and the new FM hopefully won’t feel as bound to the GC so that can be eased away from.
Every time I see another poll with what is claimed to be a Scottish objective, I wonder who paid for it and why. The number of divisions caused by setting groups of people on fools errands looking for nirvana the moment Independence is achieved, is no more than another way to divide the vote, even turn against the SNP. It isn’t perfect, it is however our best opportunity to gain independence in the short term. It is a broad group of individuals all with varying ideas of what independence means to them and their electorate. The main thrust is and has to be gain independence, there will be a transition period when lots of discussions can thrash out the detail.
This question was requested by the Scottish Currency Group and paid for with a grant from the Scottish Independence Foundation. The rest of the poll was paid for by Scot Goes Pop with a crowdfunder.
The fact that there is an appreciation among ordinary folk that Independence requires a new Scottish currency is to be welcomed. I agree with them, it is essential for any real independent policymaking.
However, as far as I can tell, there is not enough appreciation of the problems of conversion. Richard, you know my concerns here so I won’t repeat them other than to say that a successful new currency WILL require the co-operation of rUK – in particular the Bank of England.
Is that co-operation more likely before Independence whilst the BoE is still the Central Bank of Scotland (with a responsibility to the Scottish people) or will it take its lead from a potentially hostile Westminster government?
Or, is co-operation more likely after Independence when the campaign rhetoric has cooled and rUK and Scotland negotiate as sovereign equals?
Depending on the answers to these questions it is possible that a policy of “Independence now, Scottish currency later” makes sense. I don’t know.
What I do know is that those wanting a Scottish currency still have questions to answer surrounding the mechanics of conversion regarding the Asset/Liability mismatches it might create for banks and the corresponding FX flows that would follow. I emphasise again – I am not against a Scottish currency….. but those advocating it do need answers to these issues.
Clive
I have to say that I do not agree
This is not an issue as cooperation will simply be given – banks would not forgive rUK for not doing so, and I think their power outweighs petty politics
Politically this risk does not exist in my opinion
Although delay could create it was the UK resents the use by Scotland of its currency
Richard
I don’t think we disagree – as I don’t have a view! The end point is a Scottish currency (on this we agree). The “when” is tactical and that depends on one’s view about when is the optimum time to get the BoE to agree to what is required. At a minimum this would be massive swap lines and some sort of statement about the willingness to hold Scottish currency in its FX reserves. Also, probably in indication that it would intervene to support the Scottish currency in the open market.
So the issue is “when is the best time to negotiate this with the BoE?”…. and I don’t know. But it is possible to support a Scottish currency and disagree about timing.
Of course, if the “delay policy” is designed to deceive voters or mean “never” then it needs to be opposed. But “honest delay” is reasonable.
Finally, do the proponents understand the importance of the arrangements I suggest? And, if so, when do they propose to discuss them with the BoE or UK government?
There would be at least past a three years transition….there is time to negotiate after a referendum
I am sorry. Maybe I have not kept up to date but in the summer when this was being batted back and forth the suggestion was that currency conversion would happen within a few months of Independence and that this was straightforward….. and my point was it is NOT.
A three year transition is much more reasonable. It gives time for preparation after Independence is won when hopefully all sides would be sensible. Even so, there is a lot that needs to happen.
I did not realise you had not appreciated that is the Indy plan…
I have to say, Clive, that I think you are over-dramatising this. Firstly there is expected to be around 2 years in-between a vote for Indy (say Sept 2021) and actual Independence Day (say Nov 30th 2023) and then the currency coming into use (say weekend of 28th Jan 2024). Co-operation from the BoE is, of course, going to be both helpful and expected. However I do not see why there would be a need for any ‘massive assistance’. Let us say people, companies, government request £40 billion to be exchanged initially. That simply changes ownership and becomes the property of the Scottish Reserve Bank. I have not had a clear answer from anyone as yet but if it is helpful to the commercial banks that money can simply move into an SRB owned account at the source bank. In due course it will transfer to one SRB owned account which might be at the BoE or with any other correspondent bank of the SRB (it has to stay in a bank that works in sterling and can’t be on the SRB’s own accounting system). So that could mean there is zero change to the sterling assets and liabilities of the current banks. No change to the sterling balance sheets. All loans, unless folks arrange otherwise, will initially remain as they are in sterling. At the S£ end the SRB will deposit the new S£40 billion to the new reserve accounts of the banks for onward transmission to the relevant customers. On the S£ side the banks will initially have full reserves against their new S£ liabilities. Should any intervention in the FX market be needed the SRB has £40 billion sterling available. Over time folk will quite quickly either pay off or replace sterling loans with S£ ones, which will mean some flow of S£ back to sterling. That can, depending on circumstances be either an FX transaction or a reversal of the initial process (i.e. reduce bank’s reserve balance by selling S£ back to the SRB in exchange for some of the SRB sterling held in the commercial bank’s sterling balance sheet.
I don’t really see where all these huge stresses are going to come from. Everything is entirely voluntary (except paying tax in S£ only) so nobody that gets the S£ will be rushing to sell it.
Hello Richard.
The U.K. is a union. Considering only the Scotland and England relationship for a moment, they have different legal systems and different NHS, etc.
Would it be possible for the U.K. to have two fiat currencies running simultaneously? Could a Scottish Reserve Bank be set up and a new currency launched whilst still within the U.K.?
I have no idea if this is nonsense or possible. It’s just something that crossed my mind.
In theory that would be possible
But candidly, it would make a nonsense of the Union
There would be borders, exchange rates, different tax systems and everything else that separate states
There could be a Union as in the European Union, but that is between separate sovereign states (despite what is claimed by some) and I think that is what you are suggesting
When I first came back to the UK from NZ with wife and kids in two to work here in science my stipend was paid every 6 months in ECU’s: European Currency Units. This was the precursor to the Euro and did not have paper money but it was still real with exchange rates. Barclays took a solid sum to exchange it for sterling each 6 months.
The point is it existed as a medium of exchange. We could do the same thing between a Yes vote and Independence day. We could set up a reserve bank in waiting and have it run SCU’s. Last Indyref the SNP proposed selling oil bonds in this period. The ECU’s could be predicated on the oil reserves, be a petro currency.
This would give our Reserve Bank practice in handling the necessary systems. SCU’s could then be converted to Scot£’s on Independence Day or not as the case may be. We might find it useful to use it as the basis of our SWF.
Sturgeon and her inner circle have surrounded themselves with the wrong advisers and won’t listen to any other views. As Salmond’s deputy, she was responsible for the deeply flawed economic prospectus for independence that was produced between 2011 and 2014. She has learned nothing since.
As Business for Scotland and others have shown, Scotland’s wealth has been systematically sucked out of our economy for centuries. A good example of this in the past forty years has been oil and gas. Less than 40% of UK jobs in the industry are based in Scotland. Most of the top jobs are in London and the Southeast. Most of the Scottish jobs are in the supply and support sector.
It gets worse though. Of the jobs based in Scotland, a significant proportion are filled by people who commute to Scotland from elsewhere to work offshore. This includes crews on hundreds of support vessels. It includes construction, installation and commissioning specialists as well as crews for drilling rigs and production platforms.
It gets worse still. Because the policies of successive Westminster governments of every colour have favoured the financial services sector over manufacturers, almost all of the offshore support vessels and the overwhelming majority of drilling rigs, production platforms, FPSOs and other infrastructure are imported rather than being made in Scotland.
Taking these factors together and then considering the resulting lost economic multiplier effect, I’d be surprised if Scotland has enjoyed more than 10% of the possible economic benefit of oil and gas. Compare this with Norway which has manufactured a huge proportion of its oil and gas infrastructure, support vessels etc and has the headquarters of its oil and gas industries within its own borders.
Exactly the same thing is happening now with Scotland’s renewables potential, with most of the infrastructure being imported and with jobs and profits being sucked out of Scotland. The same happens in almost every sector of Scotland’s economy and that’s before we look at how Westminster governments suck money out of Scotland’s economy and spend it elsewhere. Scotland’s wealth is systematically sucked out of our economy.
The economic case for independence is overwhelming. Only with independence can Scotland maximise the employment, economic and social benefits of its natural resources and people. The problem is that Sturgeon failed to make this case in 2014 and instead, the case for independence was torn apart with threats of job losses, economic damage, currency, membership of international organisations etc. The economic case for independence in 2014 was inept, bordering on complicity with unionists.
Why is this important? Because a strong economy results in a strong currency. The prospect of a much stonger economy would boost support for independence to unassailable levels.
Support for Scottish independence should be overwhelming. The fact, as evidenced in many opinion polls, that so many people still doubt Scotland’s economic potential (too wee, too poor, too stupid) is a damning indictment of Sturgeon and the SNP. The party has had 86 years to articulate the economic case of independence and still hasn’t done it. Sturgeon has been personally responsible for this for nine years and still hasn’t done it. She has many fine attributes as a politician but making the case for independence isn’t one of them. Her refusal to listen to other ideas (evidence the agenda for the forthcoming party conference) is disgraceful.
The SNP have been in power in Scotland for long enough to have shown the people of Scotland that they are competent at managing the country, but have failed to do so. If they had done well in the areas they have devolved powers, increased investment, created jobs, improved education and the NHS, and increased GDP, independence would have become a fait accompli. But they have squandered the opportunity and constantly blamedcWestminster for their failings. They aren’t fit to take on full management with independence, and until a group that is fit to do so makes itself known, Scotland should not seek independence. If they can’t manage some powers well, how can they be expected to manage all powers well.
You do realise they do not have access to the funds to do what you suggest?
If Tim provides the same presentation to all Scots that I had the privilege to follow this evening they will quickly realise a new currency is to be cheered rather than feared