Andrew Wilson, who Chairs the Scottish Growth Commission for Nicola Sturgeon, has an article in the FT this morning on the supposed detailed plan for an independent Scotland. In it he says:
On currency, the Scottish National party proposes to retain sterling for the transition period required to ensure that the country is ready – and clear tests met – to launch its own currency.
This, of course, is blatantly untrue. The SNP policy, agreed by the Party in conference, is not that at all. The actual SNP policy is to go for an independent currency as quickly as possible, and there are no tests attached.
This matters for three reasons. First, politicians who ignore their parties lose them. At a critical moment the SNP still might.
Second, politicians so clearly not telling the truth are then not trusted on any issue.
Third, what Wilson then describes is a policy far removed from independence that will crush an independent Scotland.
He says his policy will mean Scotland will not have an independent central bank. He says it means control of monetary policy will remain in England, and he says the pound will be used. In effect, he says Scotland will choose all the downsides of independence and none of the upsides. In effect, he wants to prove Scotland is too wee and too stupid to run its own affairs, which is what he clearly believes.
There are two conclusions. One is that the SNP does not need Wilson claiming what is not true. The other is that the cause of independence does not need the likes of Wilson, who would appear to be a dedicated devolutionist who would be most happy in the company of Gordon Brown and Michael Gove.
Scottish independence is not as yet a foregone conclusion. Andrew Wilson would seem to be doing his best to prevent 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:
Of course Wilson is the voice of the banking and financial clique – this clique is already firmly esconsced in the corridors of power and is determined to stay there – thus is the reality everywhere. They have proved to be pretty nimble in adapting to political events for decades. Wilson just leads one particular regiment but others are preparing to fight a guerilla war elsewhere – the next front that will open up as the Wilson regiment falls on the field of battle, will be over the design and remit of a Scottish central bank – there will be a battle for “an independent central bank”.
Watch out for this one becoming the focus of the battle for hearts and minds and for the attention of our media.
If you think about it, the divisions in the Scottish independence movement all fall on a spectrum of timescales for adoption of a new currency. In 2014 the timescale was infinity (never a new currency, as Scotland would be in a currency union with rUK). Now we have proposals for adoption of a new currency straightaway after Independence Day – so that timescale is effectively zero. In between are a variety of positions on timescale between zero and infinity – some say 3 years, some 6, some 10 etc etc. The infinity faction has been defeated as it lost the 2014 referendum. Wilson’s “10 year” Growth Commission faction is facing defeat. So the banking brigade will next move to a shorter timescale of a new currency as well as fight for central bank independence. Of course any timescale greater than zero (or nearly zero – a matter of weeks) undermines the possibility of a new currency ever escaping the clutches of the banking brigade’s control.
Agreed
The word is that he went to the banks with the proposal for a currency and they were dead set against it. As they would be, it marginally complicates their lives, why would they want that?
Instead of standing up to them or doing what is right he comes up with Sterlingisation because at least he knows a currency union is a non starter. Not that one would not work but it would not be fiscally good for Scotland or anywhere near as good as our own currency.
But this is in part all about Andrew Wilson wishing hard not to be wrong. Which is understandable but as you say deeply unhelpful.
To quote another Scot…..”If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly.”
Using sterling with a promise of creating a currency sometime in the future would cripple Scottish business during that transition period of unknown length. What bank would lend to a Scottish firm not knowing what currency it would be repaid in?
As you know, I think there are considerable problems surrounding creation of a new currency and proponents have not really got into the nitty gritty of what it looks like. But it CAN be done.
Dithering about transition periods and tests is a recipe for failure.
Agreed
Andrew Wilson is an ordinary member of the SNP and as far as I am aware his only standing is as the former chair of the former Growth Commission. That was many years ago and it is now totally out of date. The currency Section C was ridiculous even at the time.
It is actually an offence under the party consitution for a member to purport to represent party policy in the media without having the authority or clearance to do so.
Interesting…..
It really isn’t. The current SNP high heid yins are NOT going to discipline him and he knows it.
Agreed – this is a trap. The White Paper in 2014 attempted to describe reasonable propositions and scenarios, and it was used as a list of things to beat us with.
It is a pernicious tactic to being down a strategy discussion with a detail discussion. Brexit was won because they stuck to strategy and didn’t give detail an inch. It was also in my view bad not because of detail but because the strategy was evil – it was built on xenophobia and right wing values rather than simply a desire to be like Switzerland or Norway, which is quite reasonable.
For Wilson to drag this onto detail without consent is worrying.
It astonishes me how politicians lie and deceive but on the other hand very few seem to understand what a fiat currency actually is.
“there are no tests attached.”
The BBC reported (27th April 2019) that at the SNP conference,
“Party members also backed the leadership over six economic tests that will “guide” the exact timescale for a new currency – which some left-wing activists had wanted scrapped.”
You say “no tests”, the BBC say “six tests”.
Is the BBC wrong or are you?
Accepted – there are tests. I forgot. They are now spelt out in this thread.
I made a mistake.
But they are considerably more credible than Wilson’s which are designed to be unachievable.
On a slightly different thread ..Richard you are very quiet about the EU threatening a unilateral breaking of the Brexit agreement, being accused of ‘vaccine nationalism’ by the WHO and then having to back-track in embarrassing fashion.
You can imagine the angry fist typing that would have ensued if the UK had done this….Almost as if your musings are solely influenced by the EU funded grants you occasionally receive?
They acknowledged an error
It was an error
I forgive those who own up to mistakes
Don’t you?
Ah yes, Andrew Wilson, Chaiman and founding partner of Chalotte Street Partners that does public relations stuff, who seems to have enough questionable sources of income that some might suggest means he’s fully embedded in neoliberal elitism and the British state and hopes for the continued status quo and to continue his profit from it.
Nicola Sturgeon and Andrew Wilson are so out-of-touch with the majority of people in Scotland, and from the majority of SNP members, and insist so wholeheartedly on not listening, it’s like they are living on a different planet; they appear to have no clue as to what is being done, nor interest, or what people believe or think or want. Unfortunately, the mainstream papers and news will only report what THEY say, as though it’s of any interest. (Like Mike Russell’s weirdo 11-point non-plan to have a wildcat referendum, published in the papers the day after the section30 hearing of which they published nothing, and which the 11-point non-plan doesn’t reference, see also the plebiscite poll below – that was ignored too. Intentionally oblivious I’d say)
People want plans in place, and independence to happen, and are now working towards those goals despite those two numpties.
But in fact, there ARE a few test for the currency! I took a browse of the Scottish Reserve Bank website just yesterday and noted it has been substantially updated, with Dr Rideout proposing 7 alternative tests would have much more validity:
https://www.reservebank.scot/currency-tests#gsc.tab=0
“Dr Rideout then proposed the following seven tests which he argues make far more sense and are more practicable:
Test 1: Is the Bill to establish a Scottish Reserve Bank drafted and ready?
Test 2: Will new notes and coins be ready in time?
Test 3: Have we designed, implemented and tested a new Scottish Bank payment system?
Test 4: Have we designed / executed a Public Information Campaign?
Test 5: Are the premises, staff, infrastructure, etc., for the Scottish Reserve Bank in place?
Test 6: Have we identified and developed a plan for the financial regulation that will be needed for our financial institutions, etc?
Test 7: Has a (sterling) Pensioner Guarantee been set up?
On these tests, argues Dr Rideout, a Bill to establish a Scottish Reserve Bank should be started before any Independence vote.”
Because I believe Dr Rideout has been incredibly busy setting out how and when these points might be delivered, I would like him to take note that there has been an opinion poll done which shows that a plebiscite in the May GE has majority public support, in principle. This means, it can be easily sold to the general public as the best solution. A plebiscite is legal, saves us having to have two (expensive) votes, saves on campaigning money and time (and reduces contact during a pandemic), is the method by which most countries gain their independence etc. The only thing we need is a political party, and a leader of that, to stand on only one mandate so that it’s a clear plebiscite. Politically, I think the SNP needs to move on (or even just move back what they once had) and ditch the neoliberal devolutionists, pretty soon preferably.
The currency vote at conference should be party policy but the current leadership pay only lip service to that sort of thing. They ignore conference when it’s inconvenient and make up policy (GRA, HCB) without them ever being presented to conference as policies. They are Scotgov policies not SNP policies.
Sturgeon pretending they are is just as much against the rules as Wilson but we have more serious charges to bring against her than that.
You might find this interesting btw.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,taking-a-lead
By Mandy Rhodes editor. This is a significant attack.
Let’s step back in history. The English themselves had a bit of an independence problem in regard to their monarch’s powers in relation to Parliament. The Bill of Rights Act of 1689 helped go some way to sorting this out. One power in particular was the monarch could no longer levy taxes without approval of Parliament. Provisions of the Act:-
“levying taxes without grant of Parliament is illegal”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
As any good MMTer ought to know taxes are the device that help turn a currency into an information insensitive safe-asset. Taxes in effect are the collateral of the safe-asset. See Desan page 8:-
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3557233
For Scotland not to have its own currency and continue to depend on using sterling means it cannot have total control over Scotland’s taxation policy. Does Andrew Wilson even understand the arguments I’ve just set down? Highly doubtful but if he does he’s failing to properly inform the Scottish people and SNP members of this consequence!
It would seem he has no idea…..
Well clearly there are other MMT arguments in regard to taxation, like the balancing the books argument, or indeed the Bill Clinton taxing too much to have government spending in reserve which led to the GFC, and of course the taxing too little I’ve already eluded to but of course the other aspect fails to deal with abnormal inflation. Any currency issuer has to be aware of all these things to hope to make optimal use of a currency for the good of all. Out of ignorance it would appear Andrew Wilson wants Scotland to be a “surrender monkey” on these things. Clearly it’s to be hoped this can be forcefully pointed out on monetary technical grounds!
Sort of off topic but I just read your tweet about Boris Johnson proposing to put Paul Dacre in charge of Ofcom. This is the equivalent of putting a killer whale in charge of a seal colony! To some degree it was the lack of an effective Ofcom (balanced media content) in the United States that allowed Trump to broadcast his many false claims and misleading statements (30,563 over four years of office):-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4
High time for electoral reform. This country is now so corrupt from a moral compass viewpoint this is a logical step to reverse the corruption. I very much doubt it will happen though given the high level of economic, monetary and political illiteracy in the country which means the alternative dismemberment of the Union.
I would like to point out, that under UN International laws, Scotland does not need Westminster’s
permission for a referendum. Recently a retired but still active advisor ( a professor with many accolades to his name ) from the UN on such matters said.
Scotland can have a referendum under EU laws, it would be legal and recognised by the International laws governing this. He also said that Bori’s talk of ” once in lifetime” is nonsense rhetoric with no standing in law.
For me, and I would imagine many many people would like to use this totally legal way of getting our independence. A cleaner way, as far as I feel sure the UK is signed up to this, so what they are currently doing is not in line with these laws. Maybe rogue states would still try and bypass them. But these laws exist for a purpose, and Scotland would be able to use them.
Which means we do not have to ask Westminster’s permission.
By the way Andrew Wilson should be fired, he has some other agenda, his ideas are certainly not in the Scottish interest. Tim Rideout’s ideas are much more in line with what Scotland wants and needs.
It is nonsense to suggest Scotland needs the UK’s consent. The legal precedent came from the Kosovo case
[…] post in question referred to an FT article by Andrew Wilson, who headed the Scottish Growth Commission that recommended what I considered to be the disastrous […]
This article posted on WOS perhaps explains why the SNP’s vote for a Scottish currency might be completely ignored.
I think you have exposed here an attempt to deceive.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/how-to-make-a-coup/
The constitution says that party policy is determined by the National Conference but it also says that manifestos are written by the Deputy Leader and approved by the Leader. Guess which has precedence. The only recourse members have is to depose the Leader and/or Deputy Leader by means of a challenge around three months prior to National Conference. I expect that there will be a leadership election this year.