On Saturday, I spoke at the Scottish Currency Group conference in Dunfermline via weblink.
I was asked to talk about money, but slightly to my own surprise, I started with this quote:
And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
If you want to understand money in the context of Scotland, I suggested that verse might be a good place to start. Because, just like faith, hope and love, money is an intangible thing. It is nothing, and yet it is everything. It holds a society together not because it has physical form, but because it is built on belief, trust and shared purpose, and that, I argued, is why Scotland needs its own currency.
First, let's be clear about what money really is.
Economists will tell you it has three functions:
- it is a store of value, and
- a facilitator of exchange, and
- a unit of account.
But, I argued, the greatest of these is the unit of account, because money is, before anything else, information. At its core, money is data about our collective potential.
To be quite specific, money is not coins, nor notes, nor gold, nor promises in a vault. Money is, instead, just numbers entered via a keyboard in ledgers, which means it is data on:
- who can command value,
- where that value is located, and
- who we trust to ensure the transformation of value into well-being is appropriately directed, which is the feedback loop that accounting after the event can provide.
That is all that money is. And precisely because money is data, it relies on trust. In that case, money as currency is only as strong as the belief we share in whoever controls the keyboard that creates it. So the real question for Scotland (or anywhere else, come to that) is simple: who should control that keyboard?
Should it be someone in London, accountable to English voters, governing a monetary system designed for the City?
Or should it be someone in Scotland — elected by, and responsible to, the Scottish people?
Second, faith, hope and love are not just words for theologians.
They describe what makes a monetary system work.
-
Faith is what we place in the institution that creates money, believing that its records are accurate, its policies are fair, and its promises are good, because all three are fundamental.
-
Hope is what we feel when that system unleashes potential, whether to fund investment, create jobs, or enable innovation and care.
-
Love is what ensures that money serves the people, not as charity, but as justice; and not as favour, but as responsibility.
Without faith, money collapses.
Without hope, economies stagnate.
Without love, wealth divides and corrodes society.
Right now, there is no sign that England has faith in Scotland's potential.
There is no evidence of hope that Scotland's people might benefit first from the value created there.
And there is no love — not even the faintest concern — for whether the current monetary system delivers for Scotland at all.
That is why a Scottish currency is not just a technical issue. It is a moral one.
Third, those who say Scotland could “simply use the pound” misunderstand what money is.
A nation that uses another's currency has surrendered the most fundamental power of self-determination: the ability to decide:
- who can create money,
- how it is used, and
- for whose benefit.
To outsource these is to outsource faith itself.
If Scotland wants to shape its own destiny and believes in its capacity to create value and care for its people, then it must issue its own money. That is not a matter of pride. It is a matter of truth.
Money is faith made visible through accounting.
Hope is expressed in investment.
Love is enacted through care.
So, the question is this:
Who should hold the keyboard that types new money into existence for Scotland? Someone in London, whose priorities lie elsewhere? Or someone in Scotland, answerable to its people, committed to its wellbeing?
Money is about faith in potential.
It is about hope that potential will be released.
It is about love for those who should benefit.
Love Scotland enough to trust it with its own currency.
It really is that simple. He or she who holds the keyboard must be in Scotland.
Because that — and that alone — is what faith in a nation looks like.
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!
I have to say Richard, you have roused the Scottish part of my ancestry somewhat with that. All I need now to top that off, is a kilt!
🙂
Very well put Richard. Recognising the distraction, deflection, deliberate lies and fear-mongering on this topic (akin to the Boris bus claims during Brexit) propagated by the No side during the independence referendum, it is vital that the ability to bring money into being via your own central bank is understood. It is also vital that where the responsibility sits for doing this is understood.
Thanks
It was an angle that came to me about an hour before I spoke
It seemed to work
I call this an Ah-ha moment. I had one last week when I realised the ground around my old stone cottage has some insulation value. I could lay insulation on the ground up to 12 feet from the walls and this would equate to 4″ thickness of insulation. So no digging under the walls, no insulation on the floor and no work inside the cottage.
Honestly speechless and yet inspired to reply. Richard, this is a magnificent post that clearly captures the truth of why Scotland must have its own sovereign currency as an independent nation. I have forwarded a link to this to all of my MSPs (constituency and list) in the hope that it speaks to them in the same way it has lit a fire in my heart. Thank you.
Thanks
Nicely expressed.
But it also feels like an argument that the EU creating the Euro might have been a mistake, given the continuing and even increasing tensions between its members. I guess there’s a choice between having separate currencies to maintain independence, and having one currency to foster unity – the US model, perhaps, as well as the EU’s aspiration.
Paul
The euro was a mistake from the moment it was thought of
Part of me bristles at using such religious language as a foundation for what I hope will be a secular state. But money really is all about faith. Nice post.
I think last time round a tricky aspect of a Scottish currency related to the transition. Is it simple enough to “continue to use the pound until [SOME DATE OR CRITERION]”, and then swap over?
Your arguments for a Fiat currency are convincing. The need for alignment / partnership with a trusted coalition with sufficient “balls” to withstand global bullies also seems essential. Europe has flaws, but has many positive aspects and also wants to progress.
Then, what about the European union and mandatory use of Euro? I struggle with reconciling these.
Is there a path?
Or is the primary challenge just to cast off shackles of Westminster?
The path is do it on day one
For detailed analysis of the transition to independent statehood, Robin McAlpine’s book ‘How to Start a new Nation’s has it all (Richard had input to it). My copy has gone AWOL,but from memory it was published about 2018.
One thing I think likely, in the event of a good sized YES vote, is immediate refusal by UK Gov of the right to secede, followed by a right old barney that could go on for quite a while before it gets resolved. The longer it lasts, the greater the risk of civil disobedience.
We live in interesting times….
https://www.commonweal.scot/shop/p/how-to-start-a-new-country-a-practical-guide-for-scotland
I am biased, but I recommend it and am proud to be associated
Sorry Mr Mathieson but “One thing I think likely, in the event of a good sized YES vote…”; a YES vote in what? When? How?
How do you see that opportunity to vote being delivered? A section 30 order? A post-UDI confirmatory referendum? Or maybe even (whisper it), a “Wildcat”, non-binding, “consultatory” referendum?
I understand the need to create confidence and to have answers to unionist pokes-in-the-ribs and like A JAMIESON above, some feel the need to be cosseted by “someone”, to have answers like our esteemed host has very emotionally posted here…BUT how is it beneficial to concentrate on whether the cart is ready for the journey, when the horse has not been harnessed to it? How can we move from where we are, to where we can realise these plans/theories/ideas?
Unless we have the cojones to take our independence, all of those plans and ideas are just leaves in the wind, to be scattered, mulched and rotted.
I despair that we have become so conditioned to that “cringe”, that we have to baby-talk, to even find it necessary to re-hash “what currency will we use”? It really doesn’t matter, you know? Not now, because we have no way to (currently), get to the point where we need to apply the plan!
I would love to hear what others think could shift/remove this particular impasse?
Seven EU members do not use the euro
Addendum to my post :
Use the link given in Tim Rideout’s posting here. It covers all your currency issues.
This could be your column in The National next week. Excellent and stirring piece.
I’ll ask the boss if she is happy with that
My one on nationalism from last week transferred to the National last night
I am Scottish, I love Scotland and I live here on a Scottish Island. I would like someone in Scotland to oversee our wellbeing but I still need to be convinced that independence and our own money would work for our country. Any good sources to do more research would be appreciated. Your quote from Corinthians is so true and should be a good point for all of us to live our lives and especially those in power…. if they asked why they are making their decisions the answer should always be love, love for their people, for their communities, for their country and our world.
At the end of the day this will come down to who you trust more.
That is it. Technically Scotland can have its own currency,
It is more than big enough to survive.
Just whose fingers do you want on the keyboard?
To do this, I suggest that you search for a list of all the countries that have gained their independence from the UK (65 at last count), and then compare that against a list of all the countries that have said “this doesn’t work, let’s go back” (0 at last count). Then, you can ask yourself why (or if) Scotland would be so different from any of these other 65 countries, so uniquely incapable of managing its own affairs. (Hint: it wouldn’t)
Well said
in 2014 I read Andy Wightman ‘The Poor had no lawyers’ and Lesley Riddoch ‘Blossom’ which convinced me independence was the right path to take. Since then Lesley Riddoch has explored several small countries in NW Europe – stretching out to Iceland – and produced vidoes in collaboration with various film makers – see YTube. She deliberately draws comparisons between them and Scotland. I guess being on the mainland I have more options to ttend meetings but there is much to be found online if your broadband stream is up to it? My friend in Orkney has a better service than I do. Several sane and balanced accounts – as opposed to mere ranting – can be found on social media if you have an account (see Bluesky). Broadcast media, again YTube e.g. Broadccasting Scotland, The Scotland Channel.
You also believe in EU membership for Scotland. How come then that your analysis is presented as a binary London/Scotland choice when it really isn’t?
I am not commtted to EU membership.
EFTA, yes.
EU, maybe, one day.
The euro, never.
So what are you trying to say?
So, you definitely haven’t decried the Brexit vote for the past 9 years? Because I’m pretty certain that you have. I’m quite certain your stated view for the past 9 years has been that the UK should never have left the EU and should return now. Have I missed those posts where your opinion is qualified?
Do your readers, the majority of whom definitely were and are Retainers, know of your ambivalence?
I was talking about the choices for Scotland now.
And you are trolling.
My preference, having read your blog for some years now, is obviously to have an independent currency from Day 1 of Independence. However, I also understand that a lot of people have concerns about that, and prefer to trust in a “known quantity” such as GBP.
Would it be possible to have a new currency (let’s call it SCP) kicked off on Day 1, set at 1:1 ratio with GBP and pegged at this level for an initial period (i.e. 6-12 months)?
In my mind, this would provide some level of assurance to the doubters, while also ensuring a seemless transition. The current Scottish Banknotes could also be redesignated as SCP, since they are in already circulation and distinct from BOE notes; another transition stabiliser.
A peg is the same as fixed.
A float in a tunnel might work better.
Better still take away the causes of concern:
1) Mortgages
2) Pensions
I should address both again.
Thanks, I would love to see that elaborated on.
It will happen.
An exposition on those concerns that people have would be really useful and what I’d like to use in my conversations with SNP members and when we’re canvassing. Thanks.
Noted…
During canvassing for the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, whether coincidental or not, it, currency, wasn’t a subject that came up very often in a discussion. I wonder why that was? Did people just assume we would go on using the pound sterling? Personally, I thought the Yes campaign was very weak on the subject, so I can only hope next time they will have read your thoughts on the matter, and follow your advice.
Yes was vdy weak on it.
Alex and I discussed it before he died and he apologsed: he wished he’d had the courage to be more robust.
This seems to me to be the extraordinarily direct, bold and inspiring voice of a politician and could / should be used by those from the SNP, Alba, Plaid Cymru as the basis for hammering home the message about how to lay the real foundations of independent sovereignty. It seems to have grown straight out of your recent forays into new areas of thought experiments.
It was written in minutes, and the idea for the strcuture from Corinthians was bounced off my wife for 5 minutes before that. “Retirement” has improved my creativity.
One word – inspired!!!
I have offered it to The National. And thank you.
Inspiring as always. Should (when!) Scotland gains its independence from the UK and, hoping that your guidance on this is taken, are there any caveats? Are there any dangers to guard against in regard to bad actors seeking to jeopardise the set up and operation of a Scottish Central Bank? Could it be compromised be unfriendly operators?
Secondly, where would the money come from? From settlement agreed during the separation?
Finally, I think I disagree with your point that England has no faith in Scotland’s potential; my view is that it relies upon it and is deeply fearful of losing it.
You mean the Bank of England? Yes, of course. But if the advice here is followed https://www.commonweal.scot/shop/p/how-to-start-a-new-country-a-practical-guide-for-scotland there will be three years of detailed planning for the transition to deal with that.
And where does the money come from? From people in Scotland swapping Sterlin into it, and from the Scottish government creating it through its spending.
And you last point my be right.
Dear Richard,
Many thanks from all of us in the Scottish Currency Group for speaking at our Conference. As usual your presentation was excellent. It will be available as a recording later this week.
People can also visit the brand new SCG web site at http://www.scg.scot. The Reserve Bank site at http://www.reservebank.scot will remain, but will focus just on the central bank going forward.
Thank you again,
Tim Rideout
SCG Convenor
And thank you, Tim. I enjoyed the afternoon I took part in.
Absolutely outstanding – crystal like clarity.
It was made from my speaking notes.
So glad you followed your instinct to inspire. We Scots are cautious by nature when it comes to money and the lack of clarity about plans around currency had a major impact on the outcome of the referendum.
All your work on this subject is very much appreciated.
Thanks
This seems to be, in part, a question of scale, & the magnification of the lens you are looking through. Through the lens you are using, Scotland is seen as an independent sovereign nation. But zoom in a bit further & would you say then that every county needs its own currency so its people can enjoy self determination? Every city? Every village? Zoom out a bit further, though, & you do have one single sovereign nation, with its own currency – i.e. the UK, with the pound as its currency. At what scale does the need for self determination & one’s own currency kick in? So it seems implicit in your views that Scotland should become an independent nation. And there also seems to be implicit in this piece, the sense that everyone else shares this view? Well, I imagine amongst a group specifically meeting to discuss the issue of a Scottish currency, that might well be the case, but I’m not sure if it’s a fair assumption that that view be quite as widely held throughout the UK / your readership? As far as I’m aware, even amongst the people of Scotland, that was not found to be the majority view, the last time there was a referendum on this? I’m not at all saying that I am against Scotland becoming independent – I mean, who would want to be governed by the monkeys we have in charge in England (although, politics being politics, there’s a fair chance that Scotland might just find their own monkeys to do just as bad a job. Worth having a go though….). Curious about what would seem to me, therefore, to bethe implications for your views on the Euro – should the EU nations all revert to their own sovereign currencies, or are there advantages from zooming out beyond the national borders & saying that it is the EU as a whole that needs its own currency (same question as before – zoom in / zoom out… at what point does the need for a sovereign currency kick in?). None of this implies disagreement with your post – would just like to understand for my own curiosity, the points where I could potentially see those arguments becoming contentious….
Thank you for a thoughtful and generous comment. The question you raise — “at what point does the need for a sovereign currency kick in?” — goes right to the heart of modern political economy.
First, let’s be clear what I mean by a sovereign currency. It is a currency issued by a government that can tax in that currency, spend in it, and ensure the convertibility of its bank deposits because it stands behind its banking system. That combination gives a government fiscal autonomy. It is what allows it to serve its people directly, rather than being financially dependent on anyone else.
Now, to your question about scale.
1. Sovereignty is not about size, but capacity.
A currency is not viable because the issuing state is large, but because it can credibly enforce taxes, regulate its financial system, and manage the productive resources of its economy. There are successful currencies in very small states — Iceland, for example, or New Zealand — and there are large states that have given away their fiscal autonomy — as in the Eurozone, where nations have surrendered monetary sovereignty to the European Central Bank.
2. Democracy defines the boundary.
The legitimate level for a currency is where there exists a political community with shared institutions of accountability. Counties or villages in the UK are not sovereign because they do not have parliaments that legislate for their own taxation, borrowing and spending. Scotland, by contrast, does have a parliament and a distinct democratic mandate. If that parliament is to be truly responsible for the well-being of its citizens, it must have the fiscal tools to do so — which means its own currency.
3. The Union was a political bargain, not a natural law.
When the UK formed, Scotland ceded monetary sovereignty to London in exchange for political and economic stability that arguably no longer exists. To ask whether Scotland should have its own currency now is simply to ask whether that bargain still serves its people. Many would say it does not — and the point of discussing a Scottish currency is to explore what self-government means in economic terms, not to assume a political outcome in advance.
4. The European parallel proves the rule.
CONt’D
CONT’D
The Euro shows that sharing a currency without a shared fiscal authority creates deep dysfunction. The EU lacks a central treasury with democratic accountability for its currency issuance, which is why crises like Greece’s became so destructive. A currency works best when those who vote for a government can also hold it responsible for how that currency is used. The further you zoom out, the weaker that accountability tends to become.
So, in summary:
• Villages and counties do not need their own currencies because they are not sovereign political entities.
• The UK as a whole does have a currency, but Scotland may reasonably question whether that shared arrangement still meets its democratic and economic needs.
• The EU’s experience suggests that monetary union without democratic fiscal union undermines both prosperity and consent.
The scale that matters is therefore not geographic, but democratic. A currency is a tool of self-government. The question is simply: at what level do people wish to be governed, and do they wish that government to have the means to act on their behalf?
That is why the debate on a Scottish currency matters — not because everyone agrees on independence, but because everyone agrees that democracy without economic power is an illusion.
MEB, Scotland is a very different country from England with its own very vibrant history, culture, languages, politics, legal system, education systems, NHS, parliament etc, never mind it’s considerable sources of energy. It’s population is less than a tenth of England’s so it has effectively no voice in Westminster.
Devolution was always designed to provide very limited powers and even these have been persistently undermined by UK governments. Despite a mass UK media which constantly distorts events in Scotland, a majority of Scots prefer independence. We understand our strengths and weaknesses and with independence, we’d at least be able to vote-out governments which fail to meet the needs of our people; something that can never happen as long as we’re part of the UK.
Thanks, Ken.
I hope you’re OK.
In response to Gordon Taggart at 9.48pm on 29th Oct:
Mea culpa for unintended wording in my haste. I meant the forthcoming 2026 & a convincingly high poll for pro-indy parties. If these votes among to 60% or more of votes cast it will be tricky for UK gov’t to ignore.
I do have concerns about SNP’s strategies, but we, the electorate, have to influence them more intently. Scots Law Statute clearly states that the people are sovereign and we should make the politicians and their parties very aware of that.
Thanks Ken.
As a (very) long term “radical” independista and an avid listener/reader of other voices, my faith in the SNP has now been eroded so much, that I doubt they will ever change and genuinely accept their members and the electorate’s instructions.
I believe they have accepted the devolution-settlement as “as good as it gets”, without radical (civil) disruption. The examples in their behaviour are too many to ignore as a tell of their “direction of travel”. That and the now accepted position that Sturgeon, Robertson & Swinney as deputy changed the constitution & National Council to the extent that rowing-back is now impossible.
“Scunnered” hardly covers my feelings that the SNP are a lost-cause. Thanks again for replying.