I wrote about the SNP leadership election in my column in The National yesterday. I was not endorsing any candidate. I certainly do not think that is within my remit. I did, however, express concern about some of them. John Swinney and Kate Forbes were my particular focus of concern, as former finance ministers for Scotland.
As I put it:
To see John Swinney and Kate Forbes emerge as the front runners in the current SNP leadership race was troubling (though Forbes has now said she will not run). To describe their similar approaches to economics as conventional is to be kind. Their experience has, of course, been framed within the environment of Holyrood, where the Government has no choice but to balance its books, but to date, neither has shown the imagination or leadership that would suggest that they are even aware of the different, and necessary, economic approaches that could be adopted if independence was achieved.
As I also suggested:
It is fair to say that this failure to understand the ways in which the economic potential of Scotland might be unleashed is troubling, and that it is appropriate to say so because of the adoption by the SNP leadership of what I might describe as a "central bankers' view" of the economy. That approach does not represent a source of hope.
The Scottish independence movement, in which at present the SNP is the largest political party, might have the short term goal of controlling the Holyrood parliament, inadequate and inappropriate as its powers are. But that, many think, should not be its primary focus. The goal of recreating Scotland as an independent country has that status.
In that case breaking Scotland from the shackles of neoliberal thinking should be very high on its agenda, and yet it keeps getting leaders who seem more than happy to embrace that approach, and make Scotland suffer for it. I do think it my responsibility to point this out in my column, and I wish the SNP, as a whole, took notice.
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:
I really did think I was alone on this one.
Phew!
First, I should say that I am fully supportive of Scotland being once again a nation in its own right; an independent nation.
However, I have for many years been unsure as to what it is that the SNP stand for in the current situation. For most, I am certain that independence is the goal; but what then? The Cabinet seems to swing from one extreme to the other: at one moment showing care for the welfare of the people of Scotland, with generous healthcare provision and the like; the next, coorying down with businesses that harm society & the environment while pumping money out of the economy.
I hope that John Swinney (presuming he is crowned!) declares his intentions one way or the other; but for now, I am more inclined towards the Scottish Green Party – if only they would concentrate on the larger issues affecting this country.
I don’t think you should underestimate what John Swinney is open to in terms of future ideas for Scotland’s economy as an independent EU state. He is, understandably, somewhat marked by having had the difficult role in the past as the minister in charge of the Scottish budget which he, ludicrously, was legally required to ‘balance’, as he is forbidden borrowing powers – let alone fiat currency control. In that role he developed his popular reputation as ‘honest John’ – and more marking still had to do so in minority government circumstances. But that is very far from who he would like to be able to ‘be’. I’d urge you to try to develop a relationship with him that is open to hearing all that is on offer on future ideas. Though a canny poltician, he’s much more his own man than his past public roles may suggest and doesn’t lack for determined/bold decision making when that is what serves best.
I hope you are right
I will wait to be persuaded
For once I wanted a grinning emoji, Richard. I hope it is he who will end up being persuaded.
Banks/Central bankers & neoliberalism: ……….the population and the politicos embedded within it.
The latter have been groomed by the former.
The relationship is akin to that between peadophiles and children. The former convincing the latter that everything is normal, even when it most definitely ain’t.
The abuse of the population (and the failure of politicos to inform themselves) is staggering. The group as a whole denying what is happening – even as it happens.
BoE £40bn in payments to banks for holding BoE money: response of anybody – why, no, that’s not right, nope that’s not happening, there must be a reason, nope etc.
All done in plain sight – with the bankers relying on a combo of ignorance and simple aquiesence to keep the show on the road. The old boy network helps of course. No different in the EU, nobody in any position of authority ever questions the role of the ECB, ever. & when somebody does raise questions, these are dismissed with “its the rules dear boy, rules” or some such garbage. Nobody wants to step out of line and declare the bleedin’ obvious: “the neo-libs have no kit (= it is a belief system found on nonsense) on and its all swinging in the breeze”. Doubtless Swinney will go with the flow.
Agreed
I have warned about this so often on central bank reserve accounts and yet the FT had a headline on it this week as if they were surprised
Had a discussion this week with a strong and usually well informed longstanding Scottish LD supporter and activist who insisted that Scotland could not afford a Central Bank or its own currency as we had no way of establishing sufficient reserves.
I outlined how fiat currencies work, explained that the gold standard and Bretton Woods were long dead, and that Gordon Brown, (who she admires) had sold off UK gold reserves as being surplus to requirements.
Any attempts to convert people to Indy, or reassure that the country is not uniquely unmanageable as a 5m+ independent nation, has to include a major programme of education discussing potential future finance arrangements, and this campaign needs to start sooner rather than later.
It is one reason why Salmond lost Indyref1. He fudged this issue.
It is essential that the bog standard SNP neoliberal approach is superseded with a wider debate, or the neoliberal hegemony that both leading lights accept will be seen as inevitable, not optional.
Agreed….
A problem that is too easily overlooked is that remarkably few people in Scotland understand the devolution settlement. It was deliberately constructed to guarantee Westminster control, but more important hamstring Scotland from taking any radical action to improve Scotland outside a subordination to prosperity elsewhere; the hierarchy of British narcissism. For the ordinary voter who is not political the powers of devolution are complex; and difficult to remember or follow, without possessing special interest, and application. Most important the tax powers given were deliberately the ones Westminster knew were politically the hardest, politically the most controversial to use. The problems become more abstruse and labyrinthine over time.
Add to that, over more than twenty years the Unionist opposition parties, who cannot win an election in Scotland, have effectively given up trying to win; they have settled instead for destroying the reputation of everything associated with independence, including devolution itself. The Unionists need ‘independence’, as a stick to beat the SNP, more than the SNP need it. Paradoxically the Unionists have combined to alight on an approach that is based on opposition that effectively argues that Scotland is already independent, and the SNP (and especially among Scottish Conservatives, devolution itself) has failed badly. All the economic catastrophes that follow from the mess the British economy and Government has made of itself, do not apply in Scotland. Effectively, Scotland is independent already, and faring badly. The argument is incoherent (after all, Scotland is in their Precious Union), but it isworkable; it is politics, after all – and it all the Unionists, low on talent have to offer. It doesn’t need to be rational, or even make sense. Here, abosolutely everything is thus the failure and responsibility, exclusively of the SNP. The Union is irrelevant. We are, in effect already independent.
This is absurd, but it has traction; partly because some people want to believe it, but significantly also because few outside the ‘anoraks’ adequately understand who is responsible for what; how devolution works. GERS is critical to this pantomime. It shows that most of Britain’s deficit must be caused by Scotland; but since there is no British consolidation of GERS accounts, Westminster does not even need to bother making GERS make sense. When GERS comes round, this is the ritual moment when Unionism proves Scotland is a mess under devolution. nobody ever questions why there is no British consolidated GERS, or would dare offer GERS for detailed, line by line critical comparison with any other small country on earth; because it would be impossible to make a rational comparison. This is the Unionist version of ‘proof’ of Scotland’s abject condition; its fundamental incapability. The Unionists do not even see the irony of their position; their essential self-loathing.
A great deal to agree with, John.
As usual Mr Warren – a fine post, begging the question wrt Scotland – what to do? What narrative would resonate with voters? How to even get that narrative “out there” etc etc.
It’s difficult. Who do people trust? Who do they believe?
Many decades ago I was involved in some educational research. My colleague and I were at an impasse without a key to unlock the hours of transcripts. Then I raised something an educationist had said: “we are all professionals, we know what we are doing and the parents trust us.” We had the key. This trust in professionals, in experts was found in every transcript.
I suggest it’s the same with the economy. Most citizens are too busy, uninterested, don’t have the knowledge or whatever to critique neoliberalism or delve into MMT so they leave it up to the experts who, they assume, know what they are doing. Experts like the Chancellor, the BBC, the press, that clever man from the IFS who is always wheeled on, and all the other experts who all agree – about living within our means, just as we ordinary folk have to do, the maxed out credit card, the unfunded tax cuts, or was unfunded spending plans? – and of course the BoE keeping inflation down.
Trouble is most of these economic experts believe in utter nonsense (as described in Late Soviet Britain), a paradigm for which there isn’t a shred of empirical evidence.
What to do? Is it too late to change the minds of the old guard? Can the new guard, tomorrow’s politicians, economists, journalists, commentators be persuaded to reject neoliberalism and embrace a different economic paradigm?
As I keep saying, we have to live in hope
The constant underlying narrative of “too wee, too poor and too stupid” has resulted in Stockholm syndrome in much of the population. I volunteer at a local, non politically partisan, independence hub. We frequently run street stalls and events and we have a plethora of economic analyses available to explain and demonstrate that we can be a successful independent country. (HT to RJM, Believe in Scotland, Scotonomics & others).
The reactions of people vary from: abuse, disbelief, complete lack of understanding of fundamental economics let alone Scottish economics, polite listening and discussion leading to a fragile understanding that is quickly crushed by media regurgitation of the prevailing narrative, and finally preaching to the already converted.
The independence movement isn’t supported by the politicians – who are also economic pygmies. They don’t seem to understand it, or they don’t want to understand. They are hopeless at explaining the economics of our situation to the public.
Our present Scottish economy IS like a household – we’re given our pocket money each week for as long as we are good girls & boys & others. If our politicos would only shout loudly how different things could be with control of our own assets ( which are being rapidly sold off from beneath us – not for Scotland’s benefit) and our own fiat currency with all the possibilities that and our natural resources and human capital can provide then maybe, just maybe, the majority of the population would demand better because they would KNOW we are worth it.
So agreeing with John. Civic & Economic
Education in all ways and to all ages is key.
Thanks Vicky
I will be turning to this issue in due course as part of my video project
I appreciate your efforts. We all feel we are banging our heads against a wall, but one day….
Thank you John s Warren. The most succinct description of Scotlands perilous situation I have read.
Thank you John. The most accurate and succinct description of Scotlands perilous position.
The neoliberal grip on finance ministers and central bankers is more likely cause than cure for economic emiseration, but – with apologies for a beginners question – how can Scotland forge macroeconomic policy as a part of either Sterling or Euro? Must Scotland spend and tax in their own (fiat) currency (ala Norway, Denmark, Sweden) to gain benefit from independence?
I am a beginning to sketch out a Scottish economics video series…
If money is the root of all evil, which it probably is, then it follows that understanding it should be a critical issue to examine and understand. It looks like this documentary could be a big help in that respect by challenging the neoliberal economic dogma. The trailer looks promising and the release date is today, although I haven’t seen it yet.
https://findingmoneyfilm.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R47h_ux-nE8
Here’s a clip with Jared Bernstein (Former Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to Vice President of the United States and who currently is the chair of the United States Council of Economic Advisers) trying to explain government debt.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1786272981058220187
These may hit the blog in the morning
Right now, Scotland needs leaders who will get the voters out to finally put us over the line for a majority vote for independence.
I think John Swinney is the perfect choice just now. He’s a person who has tons of experience in several iterations of not only the Scottish Parliament but a long-standing SNP activist and administrative role. He is also articulate, is nobody’s fool, and yet knows how to be diplomatic and kind. I suspect the Opposition at Holyrood is quite dismayed at how this has panned out. They were all set …as were the media …for a leadership contest they could use to portray the SNP as a crowd that doesn’t know what’s what, and are constantly herding cats while the Opposition jeers from the sidelines.
Woopsie. That didn’t quite happen, did it? Once again, opponents underestimated the SNP. Amazing how we keep bouncing back.
What happens AFTER independence is, of course, going to be up to politicians and voters at the various stages of setup. There will be several visions as to how that might work, and I’m sure many of our current leaders are quite willing to listen to what Richard’s approach has to offer, and take it on board. But, as Vicky G pointed out, above, “Our present Scottish economy IS like a household – we’re given our pocket money each week for as long as we are good girls & boys & others.”
Getting any SNP politician, just now, to openly advocate anything very radical MAY convince some new people to finally vote for independence—although I suspect those people don’t refuse to vote for independence because the SNP isn’t radical enough! However, there is also still a large body of waverers who kinda like the idea of independence, but are easily scared off the reality of it.
These are the people who fell for ‘the vow’ last time, and who swallowed the scare stories. Scare stories will certainly be cooked up again, over anything unusual. Whatever is ultimately correct will not matter; how it’s perceived is what will matter, when it comes to the crucial vote. Many people, no matter how bad things are, will return to the devil they know rather than take a chance on change.
Right now, what we need is the perception that no, the bottom will NOT drop out of our standard of living if we vote for independence! In fact, the opposite will occur. To some extent, the ‘good old days’ need to be referred to.
We will reverse Brexit, allowing free trade and movement between us and Europe again. We will take control of our resources that we’ve lost over the years to Westminster. The SNP is a party that cares what happens to all people who have been suffering under the present system of Westminster rule—a party that intends to restore the NHS to its former state. An SNP government in an independent Scotland will begin to take services and utilities back into public control. We will ensure that—once again—there is an unstigmatised safety net for everybody who falls on hard times. Affordable council housing. Workers and unions will be supported so everybody gets decent working conditions and a fair wage. Pensions will be protected. These issues are vote-winners for the majority of voting Scots.
Of course, the media is not our friend, and will take any notion put forward and spin it as unworkable. But John will be able to manage the anti-indy media scrum as well as anybody can. With Stephen Flynn and others backing him to the hilt, I really feel positive that this is the moment of truth. We can do this, if we stay the course and keep building on what we already have achieved.
I admire your optimism. I hope you are right. But, as yet, I am not convinced.
I hope you are right Jan but I left SNP 2 years ago as I’d had enough of being lied to by Sturgeon & the inner circle. That damage may take years to recover from if it recovers at all as not a single MSP had the bottle to stand up & say this is not how governments should behave or govern. They don’t listen to the people & are just Westminster’s lackeys. I won’t waste my vote on any SNP politician but I will spoil my ballot with my reasons as I’ve done for the last 2 elections in Scotland.
I await an explanation of how an independent Scotland that seeks to join the EU can square the circle that we would be both required to adopt the €, and comply with the convergence criteria. Taking these steps would prevent the tools offered by MMT to be fully utilised in compensating for the damage done by neoliberalism, and negate the advantages of having a fiat currency.
The EU is fundamentally a vehicle for corporate neoliberalism.
The ECB is not remotely democratically accountable and we would be sacrificing any substantial use of monetary levers whilst accepting constrained fiscal independence.
At the level of the single market and customs union, so practical trade, and in harmonisation of environmental standards, there is a lot to commend paralleling or joining the EU.
As far as full political and financial union is concerned, with its neoliberal stranglehold, all the benefits of having our own fiat currency would be lost.
Sweden, in a word
Th requirement to join the euro is not enforced until all the conditions are met. Sweden proves that complying is a choice.
In other words, there is no requirement to join the euro: it is an option, not an obligation.
Scotland can have its own currency in perpetuity.
I can’t comment because the site keeps telling me it is a duplicate post
Ah.. EU realpolitik
Still awaiting the validating referendum after almost 30 yrs. Probably the same timescale as WM would like to hold up Indyref2