As The National newspaper has reported in Scotland this morning:
The Alba Party has said it will do the “heavy policy lifting” on independence after party members backed the adoption of a new currency “as soon as possible” after a Yes result in indyref2.
Alex Salmond's party was in Dunfermline yesterday for its national council.
Delegates voted for a new currency after independence, and research on “the practicalities of the currency transition and the institutional preparations required to facilitate the move” will now be commissioned.
I no more do party politics in Scotland than I do in the rest of the UK, keeping an open mind about all parties unless they are racist, when I will have nothing to do with them. So, I have spoken to Alba as much as I will to the SNP this week, and have done to Labour recently.
I say that to preface the fact that I do, of course, welcome this decision. As I have said, repeatedly, Scotland cannot win independence without resolving this issue. Whilst the SNP procrastinates it seems that independence is not part of its leadership's plans.
The merit of this decision is that in a member led party a decision has been taken. I think that the SNP membership would take the same decision based on my discussions with them.
The question is, why are the SNP leadership holding back?
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:
There will be a partial answer at 2.15pm. That is when the resolution on establishing the Scottish Reserve Bank is debated at the SNP conference. They have said I can get the film of my speech which you can then post here.
Good luck and thank you
I’m seeing this comment after the resolution has passed overwhelmingly! Congratulations, sir. Thank you for all you have done for the independence movement. Hopefully, as a movement, we can move away from the disaster that is the sterlingisation proposal and move forward united as a movement to achieve Scotland’s independence.
A view here (Fife) is that SNP now stands for Scotland Needs a Party.
Currency decision yes, but let it not overshadow all the myriad other issues that need work.
I’ve heard that Tim Rideout’s motion re a Scottish currency post-indy was approved by a substantial majority of 418 to 37. Fantastic news! Now can we just get on with the necessary planning without further distractions?
The response to that motion will be the same as so many others – it will be ignored!
Time to keep up the pressure
But you may be right
What the SNP and Scotland don’t need on this issue is an incrementalistic approach. They might be scared of asking for too much too soon – but that is exactly what the racists at Westminster and Whitehall want.
Good luck Tim.
Even if we agreed that a SCP was a great idea, the art of making it real is how do you sell it to the Scottish public, and what polices are there to counteract the obvious lawlessness of the financial sector?
The truth of the matter seems to be that other than here and Dr Rideout, I don’t see Scottish politicians willing to have a genuinely honest conversation with the public about this. Maybe they just couldn’t be bothered – it’s complicated and goes against the laissez faire/lazy attitude that many modern (post-modern?) politicians have to these issues – leave it to the market, they know best etc.
But it is rather a shame that it will be ignorance and fear that leads to Scots not having their own currency in the end and also leaves those countries with their own currency in an in imperious position over other countries.
In fairness, it looks as if Alba will now be piling pressure on the SNP on this issue
There are other voices as well as Richard and Tim but our voices are being drowned out at the moment by a dominant independence narrative, which hides behind the proposition of a “fairer and more equal society” and a “wellbeing economy”, (who could possibly disagree with such concepts?), without explaining how such a future can be delivered…….an explanation which involves understanding the currency issue but also the need to reform the Scottish financial system.
I wrote a series of articles for the Scottish Banking & Finance Group, which were published weekly in The National between March and November (the final one of the series of 34 was published on 22/11). I am exploring the possibility of publishing the collection in a book but for now a pre-publication pdf version is available for anyone interested in reading the articles. You can contact me by mail at jim.osborne@talk21.com if you wish to get the pdf.
I am delighted to hear this. I have no knowledge or involvement in Scottish politics but of one fact you can be certain. Party leaderships are never comfortable with policy driven from the base, so this is the moment to use the momentum of this overwhelming vote to achieve a commitment to real and not nominal independence. There will be Neo liberal ideologues with Nicola Sturgeon’s ear who will have to be forced aside. I don’t know who they are but I’m sure you do.
More to the point, could Scotland apply to join the EU if it used Sterling?
No, in a one-word and emphatically correct answer
You are correct, but is the EU now making membership of the eurozone a condition of joining the EU? i.e. could it even join with its own currency ?
That has always been a condition
Note the case of Sweden. Not joining is tolerated. It would be in Scotland’s case as well.
Promising to do something but without having any intention to do that does raise an ethical issue. We rightly criticise Boris Johnson’s government on this matter. We can leave it to the Scottish people to decide if they want to do that too.
The adoption of the euro, if it were to happen, for an independent Scotland would be the end of a process of monetary alignment. The euro, per se, is not the only monetary consideration. There is, long before that can happen, the question of whether it joins ERM2 and agrees to stick to the constraints of the Stability and Growth Pact. The latter is temporarily suspended for the duration of the Covid emergency but we can expect that to be back in the next year or two.
Sweden has previously stuck to terms of the SGP reasonably well and wasn’t in the EU’s bad books in the same way the UK was.
It is a pity that the EU has set up the rule about joining the euro but it has and we do have to accept the rules. We aren’t a member now so we no longer have a say.
The stability and growth pact is more worrying
Right now I am inclined to an EFTA deal
In addition to Sweden, “Denmark joined the European Union in 1973. It has negotiated an opt-out from the euro and is thus not obliged to introduce it” (I am quoting the words of the European Commission).
Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007 and has been in ERM-II since 2020.
Croatia joined the EU in 2013 and has been in ERM-II since 2020.
Czechia joined the EU in 2004 and is not yet in the Euro.
Poland joined the EU in 2004 and is not yet in the Euro.
Romania joined the EU in 2007 and is not yet in the Euro.
Some of them may never join; or are critics saying the EU will start throwing EU states out of the EU? Please expalin the precise politics and technicalities of how that works out. Or is it just the UK that is entitled to sign a Treaty it proposes to repudiate through inaction and prevarication. The rapid expansion of the EU after the fall of the Soviet Union (which was pushed very hard by the UK, before it casually ditched everyone in the EU), has changed the rules of the game; probably forever. It is no longer the original EU “six” alone that frame the future. Indeed, it ill becomes UK apologists to press an outdated view of the future of Europe; for it has gratuitously set itself up as a competitior of the EU, and UK voices cannot be expected to speak in as disinterested arbiters of the EU’s best interests.
Thanks John
@ Richard,
I agree that we should look at some arrangement with the EU. Right now, I’d settle for being a part of the Customs Union. It would be a matter for an Independent Scotland whether to do the same but if they did there would be the possibility of them to continue with the GBP. It still would not be a good idea though.
@ John S Warren,
It is hard to know which way the EU project will develop. Those of a more Federally minded inclination, at the heart of the EU, will still have ambitions to increase the take up of the euro to include the countries you mention. They will be planning the next EU treaty to establish a number of levels. The top level, or full membership, will be for those countries which have complied on everything, including Schengen and, of course, the euro. The next level will be for those EU members like Ireland (not part of Schengen) and Denmark (plus the other countries you mention) who haven’t yet adopted the euro. Possibly there will be an associate level to include non members like Norway who are nevertheless part of the Single Market.
I’d expect a carrot and stick approach to encourage compliance.
I am not predicting it will happen this way. It really depends on events! These will determine whether the EU develops into a full Federation or settles for being a looser collection of nation states which have setup their own trading zone.
Richard, the answer to your question is quite simple. Sturgeon has progressively amended the SNP’s constitution and rules and turned the party into an autocracy. Even if members vote for something at conference, she ignores it. Amongst other things, previous conference motions on currency and land reform have been ignored. Policy is set out in manifestos. Manifestos are written by the Deputy Leader and approved by the Leader. There is no requirement in the rules or constitution to take any account of what members vote for at conference or elsewhere. I’m glad that Tim’s motion was overwhelmingly approved by conference but it was watered down and I fully expect Sturgeon will ignore it, just as she has done with countless other conference motions since becoming leader.