I took part in a debate on the need for a Scottish Central Reserve Bank yesterday. This was run as a parallel event to the SNP conference, featuring resolutions that the SNP conference organisers had declined for debate by their membership. The event was run by Tim Rideout and the Scottish Currency Group.
I made a few notes in advance, just to concentrate my thinking. They focussed on why Scotland had to have its own currency if it was to manage its own affairs via a central reserve bank. Those notes said:
Why Scotland has to have its own currency
It's essential to manage the economy. A country without its own currency cannot:
A) Control the interest rate, for reasons B and C
B) Provide central bank reserve accounts for its banks - meaning that a key economic sector is effectively beyond its control - and these accounts are essential for controlling short term interest rates
C) Do QE, which is essential for controlling long term interest rates
D) Advance money into the banking system to prevent banking meltdown as has been required twice in the last 12 years in the UK
E) Integrate monetary and fiscal policy - as most economists now think to be essential.
They're all a bit shorthand, I admit, but also fit fairly into recent threads on QE and related issues.
The overall point is simple though: without its own currency Scotland would not have control if its interest rate policies, would not have control of any crisis hitting it, and would not be able to integrate monetary and fiscal policies, with the latter being fundamentally undermined as a result.
As I summarised it during discussion:
Trying to run Scotland without its own currency would be like a person trying to be a carpenter without having a saw.
I could have added:
And nor can a carpenter borrow a saw, because they need it all the time and will never be able to give it back. So too with the currency.
It baffles me that this debate is required, but the SNP insists that it is by refusing to consider a Scottish currency. It's a big mistake on their part.
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:
Hi Richard and all,
I personally would like an independent Scotland with a Scottish currency. That though is just my personal opinion. I suggest that the optimal time to decide when such a currency is adopted is for the Scottish people to decide, once Scotland is independent.
Just sharing an idea for a bit of friendly discussion.
I disagree: this is at the core of independence
Wait until Scotland is independent and it is not
The issues are literally the same
It is also a factor in whether or not people will or won’t vote indy. A Scottish currency would certainly have Britnat campaign artillery focused on it, with the Britnat media firing on Scots currency at full pelt. It would be something they see as an easy target to scare the voters with project fear 2. Cummings style they will appeal to negative emotions. They wont appeal to voters based on reason.
“A Scottish currency would certainly have Britnat campaign artillery focused on it”.
Yes, but an independent Scotland without a currency is not in fact independent. This is a matter of economic substance, not prestige. It is critical. The proof of that will be that the Britnat artillery will only be fired point-blank, when an “independent” Scotland does NOT have its own currency, and is dependent on Sterling (directly or indirectly) .
The Britnat’s will not even require to fire their ammunition deliberately; it will ‘go off’ in Scotland’s face whenever rUK’s policy or economy diverges from Scottish interests, or Scotland’s policy needs diverge from rUK, for any reason. Please do not assume that diveregence from rUK is only a factor because Scotland will be independent; this is not the case.
The Scottish economy has different charactersitics, particularly from the economy of the dominant London-South East axis that swallows policy for the UK, whole; in its own interests, which are always sacrosanct, and ‘trump’ everyone else. Please note, the ‘trickle-down’ benefits of this hubris are illusory. Indeed, throughout my whole life ‘boom and bust’ in Britain has followed a business cycle determined by the movements and needs of economic policy south of the Wash; Scotland has often been plunged into ‘bust’ before there was any ‘boom’, or had even recovered from the last ‘bust’. Over decades this stop-start, abrupt, lurching, crab-like drift has had a very serious, deleterious effect on Scotland’s economy and its ability to develop and thrive. This needs to stop, once and for all; now.
Why is the currency so critical? Because independence requires sovereign control over the currency, for independence to exist, and to work.
Hear, hear
I did think from the outset that the Growth Commission Report was specifically aimed at getting ‘soft No’ voters inside. I wonder, now, if it is also pandering to the EU economic restrictions of deficit levels and austerity politics. Obviously, the rules also state we need a functioning Central Bank and our own currency, so that’s where that thinking falls down, unless there is room for negotiation.
The GCR economic strategy just seems such an own goal for the Indy movement. It’s impossible to argue a positive case for. I completely in agreement that Scotland needs a Central Bank and to issue its own unpegged currency.
As a said yesterday, when 2% were needed to tip the balance this may have made sense
But that is not the case now – the time for fence sitting is over
It is essential to have the currency policy (our own) in place for when the campaign hits. The woolly responses from last time and the underlying policy of Sterlingisation will be impossible to defend against the attacks that these will justifiably attract. The currency issue was one of the biggest problems for No voters in 2014. That’s why the question cannot wait.
Thanks for your contributions yesterday.
The majority of voters said No at Indy 2014. Why? It wasn’t so much that they wanted to be part of the UK. It was that there was no clear description of what an independent Scotland would look like. No structured plan for economics and the currency issue wasn’t even considered.
It was like being asked to go on holiday with a vague idea of where you were going and no plans regarding funding until after you got there.
Even as a Yes voter, I felt uneasy about the specifics. ‘No’ voters couldn’t get to Yes because the status quo was safer. The Unionists knew this and it was the currency issue and project fear they used to defeat the Yes movement. These issues must be addressed to give our fellow Scots the confidence and knowledge to vote for Independence the next time they stand in the ballot booth.
Agreed
Perhaps the plan is to join the Eurozone, following Ireland. Low tax as well.
That requires Scotland to have its own well established currency first
It us a pre-condition, not negotiable
I think I heard on Radio this morning that the SNP proposal is to have austerity and stay with UK £ for 10 years. As was commented; no country going independent has not also had it’s own new currency.
I wonder if the SNP have just sunk their cause?
I am baffled by this policy
Agreed. Money creation is power and why we must not join the Euro once independent.
I bang on about the current being unprepared for independence, without putting in place the necessary building blocks for statehood. These are (in decreasing order of importance from my perspective):
Constitution
Currency
Tax
EU relationship
UK relationship
Agricultural/ Industrial policy
Social policy
Security (police/military)
Monarchy/ republic
Land ownership
Trident
The long document prior to the referendum talked much about the first of the three key planning questions (Where are we?) but
little on the next two (where do we want to be? and how are we going to get there? )
Alan,
I keep coming back to reading your list, and I appreciate that it’s your own personal list of priorities given without reasons behind it – but I like the idea of ‘keep it simple’, so I will give my own basic list based on your categories:
1. Reserve bank/treasury/currency/tax
2. Customs borders/defence
3. Trident
4. Land reform/land ownership reform
5. Health/social reform
6. Constitution (written)
7. Foreign policy and UN Treaties
8. Agricultural / industrial reform
9. Monarchy
I have, of course, went one step farther and made it a numbered list. I’m thinking this is a useful exercise, and a poll of what people’s basic priorities are – without details or reasoning – would be a good thing. We can discuss detail and reasoning once we know what people see as priorities. I have lumped together some stuff on my list – I like to take an holistic view, and believe some things should not be decided separately or they won’t work smoothly. I want a choreographed dance, not a ragged pile of rubble.
As for big long rambling documents – one side of A4, in large-font text, on each of these subjects is fine for an outline plan. If I have to face another 800-page exercise in drivel I’ll scream. We need OUTLINE plans that allow for flexibility in development and actual policy, with a flow chart outlining how decisions on each item may affect other items. The outline plans should be tested against possible future situations, with some rough modelling (too many unknown factors? Or if you assume we would, indeed, be Taking Back Control, maybe not)(TBC,,, 🙂 !), so there will be extra background workings, but the actual outline plans to be presented to the public should be MAXIMUM ONE SIDE OF A4 in large type font, each. In plain English.
No details – people should be able to look them up if they like, but outline plans shouldn’t hinge on that.
I am absolutely sick of the current trend to squeeze as much tiny drivelling text as possible into the smallest space because computers allow us to do so. Make it readable, clear, accessible, and printable! And get to the point, I don’t care how many big words the author knows!! (Sorry, my job can be a strain at times, which is where this frustration comes from).
Damn….I have 14,000 words on Scottish tax on my machine right now….
Lol
200 words max, ye’d better get trimming that down!
There is a one-word response to that….
I think you may know it
Oh, and, I should mention now, I’d like to see a maximum of 3 different taxes – I might allow 4 if absolutely necessary – and have only one of those that applies to me as a private citizen so I never have to bother with the rest. Thanks in advance. 😉
Here I have to disagree with you – we need at least as many as we now have if tax is to function properly. Remember that tax is not primarily about revenue raising. There are six reasons to tax:
1) To ratify the value of the currency: this means that by demanding payment of tax in the currency it has to be used for transactions in a jurisdiction;
2) To reclaim the money the government has spent into the economy in fulfilment of its democratic mandate;
3) To redistribute income and wealth;
4) To reprice goods and services;
5) To raise democratic representation – people who pay tax vote;
6) To reorganise the economy i.e. fiscal policy.
Ah, yes, I was just wanting simplicity when suggesting fewer taxes – I knew you wouldn’t agree to that! But now you’ve neatly set out a numbered list for me, I realise it isn’t the taxes themselves that need simplified – it’s the regulation and laws surrounding them that should be simplified, perhaps – I think someone has already suggested we should think in terms of what is allowed, rather than what us disallowed, which I think has merit.
Is it possible that your six-point list, these broad categories, can be used to guide regulation on taxes? Say when a government wants to set a budget, or parties seeking election propose a fiscal policy, or anything like that, the six categories are the ones clearly presented to the public – I mean we get to understand WHY and in what way the taxes are being structured …um, like say:
They propose and income tax of 10% for 18-20 year olds earning under 50K a year: they have to state this is to satisfy points 5), 3) and 6),,, hmm, I suppose it would need some amount of breaking down as well…
Then for a whole set of taxes, someone can write a fancy spreadsheet to model them all on sliding scales so we get graphs showing how it all ties in together…
Bah, I’ve already spotted flaws even as a basic outline – it’s never going to be simple, is it? I think the only question left is: How do we ensure the tax system is fair, when most of us barely understand it?
And I concede we will likely have to go over a 200-word limit too! 😀
Very hard
I gave been challenged to make a 10 point list …..
The SNP only want to win Indy2 and hang the consequences. Sterlingisation looks like a safe option, it seems like business as usual so it doesn’t scare people. Of course if you understand economics it’s the opposite and actually completely terrifying. There would be masses in foreign exchange to pay, just to keep up the balance of payments, massive austerity, and no economic levers to manage the economy… totally bonkers. But that’s not the game the SNP are playing. It’s not about what’s best for Scotland, it’s about what gets the SNP into power. They think that few Scots understand this issue. They think that more of us will vote for indy if they promise to “keep” the pound, rather than launch a new currency.
I think your generalisation far too sweeping
Try ‘some in the SNP’
I am not a member
I would go further than Richard and say it is a handful of the SNP out of the 100,000 or so members. I have spoken to thousands of SNP members and out of all the folk I have spoken to then only Alyn Smith MP and Andrew Wilson support the sterlingisation plan. There are others like Sturgeon but I have not had a chance to speak to her.
Sterlingisation is the stated policy of the Growth Commission, so I think it’s fair to say that represents the SNP position. If Sturgeon doesn’t support it, why support the Growth Commission report? Where has she said otherwise?
It has always been a curious part of the ongoing indy delusion, that supporters are convinced that independence will deliver to them whatever it is they wish for, even when their wishes are clearly not consistent with SNP policy. There may well be members who don’t agree with sterlingisation, but it remains the official position of the party, and if Scotland votes SNP this madness is what we’re going to get.
No, that,s the position of a few in the SNP
They just happen to be in charge and are ignoring party policy – which was written by Tim
Quite different
I’ve been increasingly in favour of Scottish independence over the decades since 1970. However, there are two massive issues which I view as sine qua non and which the SNP seems eternally ambivalent about: our own sovereign currency/sterlingisation and the removal of all nuclear weapons from our lands and waters.
To an extent I can understand the SNP’s lack of understanding that sovereign independence depends on having our own sovereign currency — that’s just ignorance which can be corrected with guidance — whereas sterlingisation can only result in dependency, but with fewer means of influencing UK Gov policy than we have at present. As John S Warren has pointed out, it’s inevitable that the economies and policies of the two states will diverge and this will produce otherwise avoidable political friction. What I can’t understand is that the SNP doesn’t seem to grasp that an independent currency and central bank are essential pre-conditions for joining the EU, so why continue talking about sterlingisation? If the “own currency” proposition is hard for people to understand, surely the EU’s access rule will be an easier sell? After all, in 2016, 62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU.
On the matter of nuclear WMDs, apart from spells of working abroad, I’ve spent my entire adult life living with the daily threat of vaporisation due to attack or accident at Faslane & Coulport and I don’t want my children and grand-children to go through their lives with this threat too.
With the SNP being the only vehicle of independence, these two issues make it difficult for a committed supporter of independence like me to vote for independence if the SNP continues with their ambivalent proposals. I certainly don’t want my descendants being saddled with an economy that’s doomed to failure.
Thanks Ken
I’m afraid we get the leaders we deserve. The No voters questioned the SNP’s currency plans in 2014, and were called traitors and told to get out of the country. If Yes voters had engaged in respectful discussion then, then they might have realised that currency really was a problem and No voters were genuinely concerned about the damage Sterlingisation would do to the economy. If proper debate had followed, then maybe by now there would be an independence movement with leadership who had some economic literacy. But that’s not what happened. Instead you’ve got leaders who’ve spent six years getting really, really good at bashing the tories and bashing the union, and that’s kept them in power and that’s all they have to offer.
I think the SNP should publicly ditch the Growth Commission report now and state that it is the intention to adopt a new Scottish currency upon independence. This would draw the fire of unionists now and open up a much bigger public debate in advance of any referendum. It would be folly to leave this matter hanging until the Indyref2 campaign.
I agree…
A good analogy.
It is a difficult one to sell to voters. There has to be a massive education program. Most people don’t even know how the current financial system works. The idea of getting paid in a Scottish currency and likewise buying all goods and services is a big ask. Personally I have went from sterling to Sc. The latter arguments are compelling when viewed through MMT. It is correct to say that now we can only be sovereign with a sovereign currency and accept large deficits (wealth accumulation for those with money) in the short term. The argument has ended the task is now one of education.
There are two key reasons why a country should have its own government created medium of exchange:-
A) It can ensure at all stages of the economy there’s enough created and spent into the economy to optimise exchange or transactions in the market-place and this in turn gives life to capitalism.
B) Only government can create a “safe-asset” medium of exchange because the underlying “collateral” of the medium it creates is backed up by legally obligatory taxes and this maintains the medium’s value over the short term whilst also providing transactional stability to the market-place.
Agreed
A little speculative thinking, ‘on the hoof’ and out on a limb. Having read and reflected a little on ‘safe asset’ theory, which – along with Law – is key to Desan, I found myself wondering; if for neoliberals equilibrium theory was right (simply to take an example of its base assumptions), why is there an absolutely critical emphasis in all transactions and for investors, on the vital importance of ‘safe assets’; and the demonstrable fact that the ultimate safe asset is money; especially in the form of sovereign debt? If equilibrium theory was “true”, it would be proven to be self-correcting; and ‘safe asset’ theory would never have had any purchase, because the markets would already predict the automatic correction, and price it in.
We could spin this out to apply to almost all the vital organs, the sacred shibboleths of neoliberalism. So if this appraoch to the problem has ‘legs’ (?), could this be distilled into some short, crisp trenchant questions for that neoliberals need to answer?
Yes….it is
Small independent countries outside of larger trading blocs don’t have a good track record unless they have a lot going for them.
The case of Greece is instructive and analogous.
Even if Scotland had successful independence it would soon find itself under pressure to join the Eurozone, and then if they join they would soon come under fiscal pressure.
Small currencies are easier for markets to manipulate and put under pressure, for outside economic interests to dominate and manipulate , and thus independence is not a panacea.
My preference would be to use their clear thinking to leverage access to power in the UK and to leverage the UK power in the EU. It may not be popular in the short term but may be best long term strategy.
Not true
Scotland would be a mid size3d state in world and EU terms
Pressure is not being brought to bear on equivalent states to join the EU
And their currencies are not being abused
Why claim what is no true?
I think Roger’s first error is not to see that when he writes: “Small independent countries outside of larger trading blocs don’t have a good track record”, his description fits Britain (or rUK) best of all. As for the Eurozone, there are eight current members not in the Euro, and in no hurry to join, or under detectable ‘pressure’. When, for example will Sweden (a reasonable comparator for Scotland) join the Euro; and what do you believe the Swedish response to gratuitous ‘pressure’ is likely to be?
Unfortunately I do not preceive a great deal of “clear thinking” in Roger’s comment.
I was quite aware that my description could apply to the UK itself but it applies to Scotland with knobs on.
I am also aware of the general theory favouring trade blocs and I would prefer the Uk to be within one.
My comments on the eurozone are informed by the expressed wish of the SNP to join the eurozone and the general EU policy in favour of harmonisation which the french for one are ever eager to pursue.
My motive for my views were stated at the end of my comments.
Clear thinking was not something I claimed for myself but attributed to the wisdom of the scottish people.
If it is so much better out of the eurozone why has Greece stayed in?
Happy to keep the discussion going.
“I was quite aware that my description could apply to the UK itself but it applies to Scotland with knobs on.”
Actually, it doesn’t; since Scotland intends to (re-)join the EU, it would be in a large trading bloc and benefit from its ‘purchasing (negotiating) power’ with other large trading blocs, on better terms than Britain could possibly negotiate; so why would your description apply to Scotland? I trust you are not going to launch the old canard that the EU will not allow Scotland to join; in the whole of Europe, Scotland is the sole pariah (not the UK, just Scotland. Only the UK in the whole world wants Scotland in a Union).
As for the Euro, I have already made the point about the ability to stay out. I didn’t notice that you answered. As for Greece? “[W]hy has Greece stayed in”? I do not claim to know. Its position with creditors has been difficult, it has gone through a brutally difficult economic depression, and several bail-outs. It probably should not have been in the Euro when it entered; it is in a particularly difficult position now. It is an exceptional case, but I feel insufficiently informed about the current debt position or economy of Greece to provide an informed answer, off the cuff. I am, however doubtful if its predicament provides a useful (serious) contemporary comparator for Scotland; which is in the EU, being jettisoned from the EU by the UK against its better judgement (recorded in a referendum), and is not even in the Euro. I am struggling to see the relevance.
There are countries that have long established positions in the Euro and are not in the same circumstances as Greece. It works reasonably for them, but whether they would join now is a question nobody can answer. There are EU members that are not in the Euro, I think for good reason.
None of this is provides a sound argument why Scotland should stay in the UK Union, or be independent and use the pound Sterling.
Ireland made the mistake of leaving their currency tied to Sterling for decades after Independence. It was not good for their economy.
I nsee no reason why Scotland should make the same mistake.
It was an outright disaster for Ireland
DeValera and his thinking was not good for the Irish economy
With the UK out of the EU, don’t you think it makes sense for an Indy Scotland to be outside of both and able to set up trade agreements unilaterally with both. We have bargaining power despite our size.
Let’s not do the Brexit argument again.
No, is the answer
Yes, it makes no sense to go to all the trouble of establishing an independent country with its own currency, and all the turmoil that that would involve, only to hand over control to the EU, who will simply impose even more austerity. It’s obviously incompatible with genuine independence.
The EU does not take control
And the euro is not obligatory.
I’ve been checking what I thought was the SNP policy on the eurozone and it appears I was mistaken. I apologise but shows the value of vetting responses.
They want to join the EU but to have an independent currency.
https://theferret.scot/independent-scotland-join-the-euro/
A bit like having your cake and eating it.
This is of course what the UK enjoyed til recently .
This is the SNPs policy on the EU and wishes to be a full independent member of the EU.
https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-is-the-snp-s-position-on-the-eu/
The reality is in applying to join the EU a country has to pledge to join the eurozone in future.
It doesn’t happen automatically and it appears the EU is in no hurry at the moment to usher compliance. But the direction is undeniable.
A commitment to join is required
Sweden’s I think 25 years old
Please stop making up claims that are not true
I think both Mr Warren and yourself are looking at this from the point of view of Scotland.
As I declared I would prefer an outcome that used the clear thinking of the Scottish people in favour of tipping the balance within the UK towards the EU and the favourable position that was enjoyed prior to Brexit of membership of the EU and independent control of the currency. It will be harder to restore sense if the Scots go their own way.
Given that the brexit negotiations have not yet been concluded I still have some hope for that. (I may be in denial)
If a successful UK-EU deal is concluded however and the course set by the UK government is irreversible neo-liberalism (which in the event seems possible although nothing is certain ) I can see the attraction for Scotland in both membership of the EU and independence of the new Scottish currency. If that is possible I would snatch at this on behalf of the Scottish people; although it is not without risk .
But it involves a certain amount of duplicity in saying you will do a thing while not planning to do so ie join the eurozone and commit to ever closer unity.
The good news appears to be that there is likely to be a lot of small countries in a similar position to Scotland in the future and so alliances within the eurozone are feasible to bulk up the Scottish influence.
The bad news is it will doom the remainder of the UK to further years of Tory misrule.
My concern is that for the EU to usher Scotland into their fold will be seen by some in the EU as encouraging separatism. The Spanish and Italians and Germans may not want to encourage that. And it only takes one country to veto an application.
But no one can pretend that these issues are straightforward.
Apologies again if I have got my interpretation of the facts wrong but there is a reason that small countries like to be within trading blocs. The English position remains foolhardy in my opinion.
“A bit like having your cake and eating it.
This is of course what the UK enjoyed til recently .”
Hardly anyone in Scotland has been able to understand on common sense, best practical interests grounds, why Britain chose to leave. Perhaps you have stumbled over some small appreciation of the incredulity of Scots that Britain would choose to do this; in particular do it to Scotland. We do not share the desperate desire of Brexiters to ‘take back control’ – of what is little more than a bottle of smoke.
“But the direction is undeniable”.
You are describing a pre-Crash past; which I suspect may already be furtively slinking off into a dark corner for a rethink. The “direction”, and any inevitability was turned to stone under the too public spectacle of the Euro and ECB, discovered post-Crash to be the new Medusa; the Greece debacle was scarcely a persuasive sales pitch for either the Euro or ECB (including how they managed to engineer such a predicament), no matter from whatever perspective you approached it.
Roger,
You already have my response to some of the points you made, including “duplicity”. It is not duplicity now; the agreement, frankly is no more than a ritual dance. Given recent history there is little prospect of the Euro/ECB recovering its credibility with all non-Euro members of the EU, and everybody knows it, albeit it remains unsaid.
Forgive me being blunt: you are in denial. There is little more I can say. rUK has set its course to nowhere. Scotland is leaving principally because of the realisation of most Scots that they can do nothing about it; it is time to for Scotland to sink or swim.
I am writing this comment because I wanted to acknowledge a rarity in social media comments: you admitted you were wrong. I doff my hat. That never, ever happens on social media. I just wanted to acknowledge your dignified gesture. You set a standard, honoured daily in the breach.
You are right the phrase should now be the direction was undeniable. The EU is a living breathing entity capable of thinking for itself despite the DNA written into its constitution and Treaties. Which is a good reason for staying in and influencing it.
The issue for me is how best the English can be brought back to the fold. One theory is that they might follow a positive example from the Scots but a more realistic short term theory would be to join with Labour to seize power again of the UK as the crisis spirals out of this governments control.
And I haven’t stumbled on to the madness of the Brexit position , it was clear to me at least, that it was so from the outset.
“The EU is a living breathing entity capable of thinking for itself despite the DNA written into its constitution and Treaties. Which is a good reason for staying in and influencing it.”
There is the tragedy of Brexit. Britain could have played a leading role in Europe, if only it had settled for sincere membership, without expecting to take total control of the EU. It couldn’t do either. Insincerity oozed from Britain’s membership from the moment Margaret Thatcher arrived and the Wets were driven out of her Party.
Britain preferred undermining Europe to improving it. Britain was at the leading edge of fast expansion of the EU from the East, when the Soviet Union collapsed. I am sufficiently cynical to believe a critical reason for Britain’s policy was to expand the EU substantially with new members to undermine the key endeavour of ”ever closer union” of the original six members, and without much thought for the problems of fast expansion. When all the complex problems consequent on the decision to expand arrived in the form of free movement across borders on an unprecedented scale (and directly on continental European countries far more than the British Isles), then compounded by sudden migration from the ‘third world’; what does Britain do? Brexit; head for the exit, point accusatory fingers at the Eu, and leave.
You have effectively described why Scotland can live with the EU Union, and both hope and work for its future, as a worthwhile enterprise taken in the round; but not any longer the UK Union. Scotland discovered, especially post-WWII and the end of Empire, and over decades, just how astonishingly insular Little England aspires to be; frankly, the UK Union is too small, too one-sided, too perfidious, too resistant to thinking and learning anything new about governance in the world before us, and not just the world behind us. It is time to go.
I too recall Thatcher saying that eastward expansion of the EU was designed to make the EU unstable and to water down the overmighty franco /german alliance.
As it turns out it isn’t necessarily a bad policy even if it represents the old divide and rule policies that gave us two world wars.
It now seems ironic that you speak for a scottish future made possible by decisions of a labour government , that you make more remote as a future prospect by seeking to abandon, as a hopeless cause.
This is to fall victim to divide and rule.
A better strategy is to keep options open ; to lead the UK rather than divide it, to insist on close relations with europe in any deal and thus to make a deal more difficult for brexiteers to stomach, to argue for greater economic investment and improved public services and to put money where its mouth is. That means arguing for MMT in the UK not just in Scotland.
I understand that the small pond has its joys but you shouldn’t give up on the UK . It needs you and its future success is important for scotland after all.
You have selected unfortunate words; they have an ironic history. The siren, seductive voice of “lead us, don’t leave us” was heavily used, and may have persuaded critical numbers of Scots electors in the 2014 referendum. It went along with: ”voting no is the only way to stay in the EU’. That went well.
You cannot keep going back to that well and expect people gullibly to drink from it. It doesn’t work. It never does. There is always a trip-wire. A majority in favour of Scottish devolution in 1979 was overturned by a – in UK parliamentary context, reasonable – provision to overturn it (sponsored by a Labour MP) if the majority did not reach an acceptable (arbitrary) measure: there was no arbitrary boundary in place for the Brexit vote, a bare majority sufficed.
The Conservatives have not held a majority of vote share for Westminster in Scotland since 1959. Conservative Governments have held UK majorities in around 45 of the last 60 years. This has not led to Scottish-sensitive government. The effects on Scotland have been brutal, and it must be said, quietly calculated. Conservatives have learned there are no votes in Scotland, so Scotland can be ignored. Worse, the Scottish Conservatives cannot win a majority within Scotland (either Holyrood or Westminster), but their whole opposition strategy is based on an aggressively insistant claim that they alone represent majority public opinion on everything in Scotland. They don’t, but they represent UK Government policies in Scotland that have long served Scotland ill.
The problem is, the UK has form. Labour devolution in 1997 was not desinged to provide a flexible, developable constitutional reform geared solely for the better government of Scotland. It was designed soley and specifically to ‘dish the Nats’ and change as little as could be done, with nobody noticing how little was being changed. The centralised UK state marched on. It never does change, unless it has no choice. It is now too late. Nobody believes it. I am sorry, but frankly you really are in deep denial.
In response to John S Warren’s post Dec 2nd at 5:34pm, your last para sums it up perfectly: the Scots have recognised both the 1997 charade by Labour and the fact that matters have moved on and that we see a better future in independence than being permanently locked into a UK polity which pays scant regard to the needs and wishes of the Scots electorate.
In response to Roger’s post at 4:41pm, how does he imagine that Scotland can “lead the UK” when we have a mere 59 MPs at Westminster out of a total of 650 and the Tories currently have a majority of 80? A little practical reality might help the discussion. Faced with these issues and the demonstrable incompetence and hostility of the current Westminster government, it’s hard to see how we could fail to improve Scotland’s governance by running our own affairs and, if a Scottish Gov were to fail in that duty, we would be able to vote them out at the next election. That’s something that is and will always be numerically impossible under current UK arrangements.
Predicting future events is a tricky business.
The better policy is to not burn bridges unless absolutely necessary.
Unless you advocate the Sinn Fein solution there is still much to be gained by participation in the UK parliament and every chance in my opinion that this government will collapse.
It is failing to get a Brexit agreement that commands respect and support (it risks being categorised as not worth the effort or of precipitating economic chaos) ; its covid management has been a disaster; it is prematurely withdrawing support to the economy and inflaming resistance to compliance with essential disease suppression measures; it thus risks prolonging the pandemic and increasing its costs in the long run. This is not a popular basis for winning the next election.
It is likely that the next general election will occur before Scotland could withdraw from the UK and thus this should be the focus of our attention.
There is every chance that between the Labour Party and the SNP/Liberal party there will be a majority for a closer relationship with Europe; meaningful investment in infrastructure and public services, and more respect for the needs of regions and for local autonomy.
It is also likely that the EU will evolve further and see the need for more flexibility in the eurozone.
But nothing is certain and confidently predictable.
We are on the same side in seeing the possibilities in use of MMT to manage the economy over the next few years. Your focus is Scotland and mine the UK/Europe that’s all.
I acknowledge the UK is pretty far gone and populated by a large number of vocal right wing nutters but the silent majority should not be abandoned and under the right political leadership there is a way out of here.
Thankyou for your response. I do try not to be wrong but in brevity I can sometimes take short cuts in the way views are expressed and in allowing wishful thinking to creep into the narrative. I comfort myself in not being alone in this.
I agree with you that the chance that this government – and parliament – will last until 2024 is remote