I liked Tim Rideout's way of addressing the Scottish currency question when he spoke at the Alba conference recently. There is no currency question, he said;
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!
There obviously is a currency question, which may or may not involve the £, for every European country which is currently a member of the EU or has an aspiration to join.
Scotland can join the EU and need never join the euro, as I have explained many times
Note, Sweden
Maybe Scotland will be offered the same deal as Sweden. We’ll have to see; but, there is still a currency question – even for Sweden. As Tim Rideout rightly says if you want to be a genuinely independent country you cannot use someone else’s currency.
So why is the EU so keen that every member country should use the euro and so give up their independence? I voted Remain in the referendum because we were in a relatively strong position with the EU. There was little likelihood of this happening. I’m not at all sure what it would be like to rejoin now we have given that up.
The deal is the same for all accession states
I have never believed in the euro
The problem is he is not really taken that seriously north of the border.
Seriously enough for the SNP leadership to have suspended me for 6 months, which just happened to be long enough to prevent me standing in the party elections or be a voting / speaking delegate at Conference. Conference committee blocked the two latest resolutions getting on the agenda. I think the YES movement and most SNP members are united in supporting the Scottish Currency Group plan. It is only the SNP leadership that refuses to listen. You should watch the leader’s face on the top table when we won the vote in April 2019 to reject the Growth Commission plan. Eating a mouthful of wasps would be a fair description. I have been persona non grata since.
I’m glad that Richard has allowed you to share that with us Tim. I had no idea that’s how you’d been treated. This closing down of real discussion about such trenchant issues is the curse of our times.
Do we understand why they refuse to listen?
And why can I ask did they suspend you?
Notes to Tim:
1. Smile more (mind you, you did warm up as you went on) but those first few seconds/minutes are important first impression moments – Richard is good at this – watch him.
2. I for one agree with you (if that’s OK Scotland?). Smiley Face here.
3. I do hope that the currency question is treated as seriously and diligently as possible to win over the Scot’s established cultural trust in the pound. Nothing must be left out plus there should be no debt owed in a ‘foreign currency’.
Good luck and look after yourself.
The two hours I spent hearing Tim Rideout introduce Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchell was my best use of time in lecture theatre this century. I didn’t know anything about MMT. Loved Warren Mosler using the term ‘kilt’ for the unit of the new Scottish currency, because everyone would want to know what was behind
If only we could escape from the current cringe about the currency of an independent Scotland. As so many people have already pointed out, we would not be independent if we were using another country’s money. From Independence being agreed to it taking full effect is likely to be at least 18 months. This would be more than enough time to set up a central bank, stock exchange, etc., design and print banknotes and mint coins, especially since much of the preparatory work could be being done now. Let’s leave behind once and for all the old “too wee, too poor, too thick” mantra, and just get on with it.
I absolutely agree, Peter, but suspect the Transition Period between a vote for Independence and Independence Day may need more like 3 years to conclude all the negotiations to separate from the UK, especially if the UK is obstructive (which I consider very likely). A 3-year period should be enough to prepare for full independence and for the SNP to be brought onside with the need for Scottish currency to be fully operative on Independence Day, along with disentangling of the deeply integrated institutions and information systems of the UK. An excellent book on these processes is Robin McAlpine’s book ‘How to Start a New Country’ for Common Weal. Well worth a read!
Agreed
But I am biased about it….
(slightly off-topic, sorry !) Can anyone explain in detail the precise procedure to be adopted in order to try to secure from the United Nations a clear, concise, public statement of Scotland’s right to withdraw from the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as apparently provided for in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
I was not aware of any such option
Nor am I, Richard. The United Nations Charter is a statement of universal rights and runs to 30 pages. On a quick scan I didn’t see any mention of a procedure (much of it relates to internal management processes), but I’ll read it in detail later and let you know if there’s anything about a procedure to apply for UN approval.
In essence, the United Nations Charter clearly sets out the right of any region or people to secede from any other state which rules over it, regardless of whether that other state’s law expressly prohibits secession (e.g. Spain’s Constitution). In essence what the UN Charter provides is summarised in the following paragraph (from Peter A Bell’s blogsite):
What matters in relation to the right of self-determination is, not formal legality, but democratic legitimacy. So long as the process by which the right of self-determination is exercised can be shown to be open and democratic, any law purporting to prohibit or constrain that right cannot itself be legitimate. Especially when that law is imposed by a parliament and a government which itself lacks even the semblance of democratic legitimacy. Who says so? Well, among others, the British government. It is stated with great clarity and concision in the British government’s statement(s) to the International Court of Justice inquiry as to whether the declaration of independence by the provisional institutions of self-government of Kosovo was in accordance with international law.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State‟s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.
5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
which the secession is occurring.
5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond the scope of already conferred power.
That pretty well confirms Scotland’s inalienable right to self-determination provided it can produce clear evidence that a majority of its electorate supports its independence.
Thanks Ken
Sorry, Richard – I hadn’t made myself completely clear. I didn’t mean to suggest that there was explicit provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for the UN to make a specific statement in support of Scottish independence. I was referring to the UDHR’s general support for people to control their own affairs, and enquiring about the procedure needed to seek from the UN a public statement in support of Scotland’s specific claim to Independence.
Noted. Thanks