The tumult in the Eurozone these days is well documented but the knock-on impact on Scotland and the SNP’s designs for independence are anything but clear.Â
To suggest that it doesn’t matter which currency an independent Scotland would have would be ludicrous. Has it made a difference whether Ireland has had punts, pounds or euros these past 11 years? Of course it has.Â
So, as the SNP softly and quite sensibly backpedals on it’s ‘Scotland in Europe’ message, it is worth considering what currency options an independent Scotland actually has. For me, there are really only three:
1 – Keep Sterling
Probably the safest option and straight of the drawer marked ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Our low rate of exchange has boosted exports at just the right time and that pound for pound advantage would remain even if our borders changed. Â Â
Keeping the Queen on our bank notes is in keeping with the SNP’s strategy of maintaining the Queen (or King) as our Head of State and it avoids the otherwise unavoidable uncertainty surrounding the other two options.Â
There is, of course, the rather odd anomaly of a Bank of ‘England’ deciding interest rates for Scotland but this is simply harmless nomenclature and not only no different to the status quo but also no different to the ECB deciding rates across the Eurozone. Who is to say that a Scot couldn’t be Governor of the BoE in this scenario anyway. Gordon Brown’s hardly a busy man these days, right?Â
Indeed, a ‘Britzone’ of Sterling-denominated nations could seek to increase its power and influence by welcoming Ireland into the fold, a country that is already inextricably linked to the current UK’s economy. Who knows, maybe other countries in Northern Europe could be convinced to join – Iceland, Sweden, heck… Norway?
An independent Scotland outside of the Euro doesn’t mean it can’t still think big but even maintaining the status quo of old UK keeping the pound is a perfectly valid option for an independent Scotland.
2 – A Scottish currency
This is such a risky option for a new nation that it has pretty much already been discounted as an initial preference by the SNP, that I can tell. However, Sterling could provide the necessary stability in the first decade of independence before a new Scottish currency could be established thereafter.
A Scottish Central bank with Scottish interest rates and Scottish foreign exchange to help boost imports and exports, depending on economic conditions, is potentially a very powerful position for Scotland to be in. Ireland and Greece may have faltered but some of the strongest economies in Europe right now have this nimble, flexible model at their disposal, with similar population size, so there is no reason why Scotland could not leverage that to our own advantage.
It makes independence more of an adventure and puts us in better control of our own destiny too, which is not necessariy a bad thing at all. Life is to be lived, right?
3 – Join the Euro
An independent Scotland outside of the EU is, to me, practically unthinkable and, yet, ‘new’ nations cannot join the EU without joining the Euro so that leaves the SNP in a very tricky position as the Euro currency continues to approach the precipice.
An ‘inside or outside the EU’ is possibly the closest the SNP gets to internal warfare and Salmond will be mindful of plastering over any splits while European volatility continues, but he has his work cut out over the next few years.Â
Pragmatically, the best thing for the SNP to do is simply sit on its hands and wait to see what is left of the Euro once Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi et al are finished with their rounds and rounds of crisis talks. The SNP can then, to a certain extent, simply follow public sentiment to ensure their referendum chances remain intact.
That is not to say that the Scottish Government can’t be pro-Euro in the meantime. A quick win for the SNP right now would be to encourage Scottish businesses and retailers to accept Euros from the general public and tourists alike. After all, a country that looks and feels independent is more likely to be independent in due course. It would be a further welcome boost for tourism to me.
The jury is very much still out on whether the Euro will be in a fit enough state for Scotland to join it later this decade, if the referendum returns a yes vote but, thankfully, Scotland has time on its side.Â
For me, an indepedent Scotland that used Sterling as a currency leading into either joining the Euro or creating a Scottish currency, whichever is the more practical at that point of time, would be a perfectly stable future for our nation.
So, exciting times and, hey, in amongst all of this, we might even get the gone-but-not-forgotten Scottish £1 notes back.
As I say, nothing wrong with thinking big. Â Â
#1 by Douglas McLellan on August 21, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Good article that sets out the options. If/When Scotland does become independent will the rules regarding EU/Euro fiscal stability have been tightened up, thanks to Greece et al, to such an extent that Scotland may struggle to get in if borrowing is as high as it nominally would be just now?
Also, I am sure RBS still does the £1 note and its still in circulation.
#2 by Jeff on August 21, 2011 - 7:10 pm
Thanks Douglas. All common sense stuff really but still worthwhile to get it all down one page to assess options. (I think the referendum will be a No so all moot as far as I’m concerned)
And if that’s true about RBS’ £1 notes, it’s actually quite sad how happy that’ll make me.
#3 by Aidan Skinner on August 21, 2011 - 3:03 pm
The nature of the debt pile we inherit after independence is a crucial, and over looked factor, here.
If we inherited a set of outstanding bond liabilities which matched the profile of the existing UK debt pile we’d have 30+ years of servicing debts in sterling at a minimum, leaving us quite vulnerable to exchange rate fluctuations even if we converted the bonds to the € as they fell due.
Staying in Sterling, however, we’d effectively giving up control over monetary policy – the BoE would presumably set monetary policy on the basis of inflation in rUK, rather than rUK + Scotland. This is substantially different from the situation we’d be in if we were part of the eurozone where the ECB has to at least take account of it’s members and there’s a mechanism for political accountability.
Joining the Euro is also fraught with difficulty, how would we participate in ERMII with no control over our currency? Would we have to launch our own currency into ERMII and then go through 3 in perhaps 15 years? Or would we transition over longer? How much damage would that do to the Scottish economy? We’d have to issue all our debt in a foreign currency as no bond investor would take that sort of currency risk…
I do hope the SNP have detailed plans for this. Seems unlikely though.
(this sort of guddle, btw, is why I believe big-bang independence is a rubbish idea, much better to do it gradually, Westminster slowly losing powers to Holyrood and Brussels over a century or so…)
#4 by Angus McLellan on August 23, 2011 - 12:19 am
That’s a very good point about the ERM. Even though I’d read that Sweden had used the route of not joining the ERM to avoid joining the Eurozone, the penny hadn’t dropped properly. It could be impossible for a Scotland which used Sterling to join the Eurozone since joining the ERM without having your own currency seems to be a logical contradiction. It’s a funny old world!
#5 by cynicalHighlander on August 21, 2011 - 4:17 pm
The nature of the debt pile we inherit after independence is a crucial, and over looked factor, here
What did other countries that left the empire do? I think a two fingered salute was offered and accepted.
Dump the UK debt – Part 2
#6 by Aidan Skinner on August 21, 2011 - 5:39 pm
Aye, *that’ll* happen…
#7 by Alex MacDonald on August 21, 2011 - 4:27 pm
I interviewed David Bell (economic advisor to Scottish Gov) a few months back asking him the exact same question. He seemed to think that Scotland will stick with the £ as the Scottish economy is very similar to that of the rest of the UK.
He also mentioned that should Scotland join the Euro it would have to deal with interest rates from the European Bank which will not be favorable towards Scotland. He predicted Scotland would stay put with the £.
#8 by Chris on August 21, 2011 - 4:53 pm
Does sticking to the pound mean having a Scottish pound that is tracked to sterling, like Ireland tried to do, or does it mean that Scotland would use sterling?
It is not just a matter of interest rates, but of borrowing too.
Regarding the debt, unlike the colonies Scotland has been a willing member of the UK, and as far as anyone can tell, still appears to be.
#9 by Jeff on August 21, 2011 - 5:01 pm
My assumption would be that it would be a Scottish pound, not linked or pegged or tracked to anything, but we’d have a blank canvas to work with so what you say is an option too.
Borrowing is, of course, part of any settlement with the UK and goodness knows how that would turn out but this post was just focussing on currencies. I would expect Scotland would take a share of the debt loosely based on population size but that’s just a guess.
#10 by Barbarian on August 21, 2011 - 4:54 pm
We cannot go with the Euro. Keep an independent currency.
Does the SNP have any plans about the currency issue? They will have to come up with something prior to the referendum.
#11 by Jeff on August 21, 2011 - 5:04 pm
Absolutely Barbarian, but opinion is so widely divided within the SNP that coming up with something is easier said than done. There are some bona fide tartan Tories within the SNP that don’t want anything to do with the Euro and there are Europhiles that are as keen on the currency as the most ardent of Lib Dems, even (as Alyn Smith did a while back) going as far as to suggest that a Yes to Independence is an automatic Yes to going with the Euro. It’s not at all clear how you satisfy both wings.
The desire for independence holds the SNP topgether remarkably closer but, as that reality nears, the whole structure of the party could fall apart and ‘Scotland in Euro/Europe’ is one of the loose strands that could start the unravelling somewhere down the line.
#12 by Aidan Skinner on August 21, 2011 - 5:39 pm
How would a currency which we have no control overl be in any way “independent”?
#13 by Jeff on August 21, 2011 - 6:15 pm
That’s semantics. I find it difficult to believe that you don’t see the difference between the Euro, Sterling and an ‘independent’ currency. And anyone saying that an independent Scotland with Sterling isn’t really independent, I doubt they would say the same about France, Germany or any of the other Eurozone countries.
In other words, I’m not letting this comment thread go down a splitting hairs route! 😉
#14 by Aidan Skinner on August 21, 2011 - 8:41 pm
Oh, I absolutely do see the difference between having the Euro, Sterling and a Scottish Shilling. With the Euro and the Shilling we’d have some degree of control over it, through the established political mechanisms overseeing either the ECB or a Bank of Edinburgh.
If we retained Sterling in an independent Scotland what political mechanisms would we have over the Bank of England?
#15 by Jeff on August 21, 2011 - 9:19 pm
The Bank of England is not a political body in its own right. In my mind, we would have as much access to Bank of England as France/Germany/Malta have to the ECB.
rUK and Scotland as equal partners, stronger together and weaker apart etc.
#16 by Aidan Skinner on August 21, 2011 - 9:35 pm
There’s certainly a degree of indirection, but ultimately the Bank of England, like the ECB, is accountable to the elected political leadership – ie. governors are appointed by politicians, have to write open letters explaining why inflation target has been missed etc.
Are you suggesting that an independent Scotland would have the power to.. what.. veto appointees? Reject the explanation for missing the target? Set the target rate of inflation? Have Scotland’s inflation rate taken into account when calculating the rate of inflation?
There are clear, established mechanisms for doing all that in a shared sovereignty context with the ECB. There are none for doing so in that context with the Bank of England, nor is it abundantly clear why rUK would acquiesce to such an arrangement. Why not just respond with “we’ll set our monetary policy as we see fit, if you want to use Sterling feel free”?
#17 by Nikostratos on August 21, 2011 - 5:06 pm
Dont know what would happen if Westminster refused to allow an Independent Scotland use the GB pound as their national currency.
#18 by Jeff on August 21, 2011 - 5:12 pm
Good point, I didn’t even think of that.
#19 by Aidan Skinner on August 21, 2011 - 5:38 pm
How could they? They wouldn’t be guaranteeing bank deposits anyway so wouldn’t stand behind the broad money base (M4 as wonks call it) in any sense, but would be standing behind Bank of England issued coins and notes regardless of where they were used. The most they could do is stop Clydesdale, HBoS and RBS issuing notes, which is hardly a huge practical matter.
All a national currency really means is what’s commonly used, we do without legal tender in Scotland anyway…
#20 by Random Lurking Scotsman on August 21, 2011 - 6:10 pm
I touched upon this in an earlier comment – if the solution to the Eurozone financial crisis is the formation of some sort of Eurozone economic government, we can assume that this might involve a loss of independence on fiscal policy for the various members of the Eurozone, with an eye especially on those that haven’t kept their houses in order such as Greece. Of course, this is only an academic exercise at the moment, but it’s nevertheless an interesting one.
One of the big pluses of independence in my view is that, in theory, Scotland would gain full control over the levers of the economy and be able to pursue a Scottish solution to the problems that dog the economy north of the Border. I think it’s safe to say that this would probably take on a different form to the continuous slash and burn that the Conservatives favour, and perhaps Scotland would choose to break definitively with the “private good, public bad” orthodoxy that’s driven the economy for the past 30 years. There are definitely good reasons to consider that.
If the Eurozone solution does turn out to be a Eurozone economic government that centrally decides aspects of fiscal policy for the Eurozone and has a significant degree of control over the individual economies of the Eurozone, that would strip the member countries of a fairly significant degree of independence.
I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing – the idea of a single currency being accepted over a collection countries that are politically very different and may have a variety of different agendas doesn’t really make sense. The reason why the dollar has up until now been safe is that although the states of the US can be very different politically (for example, IRIC Maine has universal health coverage now, whereas that would mandate crucifixion in Texas) in terms of fiscal policy they are pretty much still all “America” and controlled by Washington. Becoming the United States of Europe may be the only way in the end to solve the Euro’s problem – either you pull together, or pull apart.
I’m thinking that come the referendum the EU, whatever form it is in, is going to become a very big issue in ways that only a few may appreciate now. If Scotland is going to join the EU on a separate basis, for example, what if part of the “contract” so to speak is that Scotland must accept the Euro and the loss of fiscal autonomy that may go with it?
The SNP talk about having the full powers of an independent nation, but the meaning of “independence” is changing by the day. The Scandinavian model, where they remain outside the EU with their own currencies and a high level of social spending, is often mentioned, but they’ve been going for ages. Scotland would be starting out, and so I’m not sure if that model would be acceptable to the EU should membership comes up for renegotiation. Like it or not, the UK turning into two countries would have implications for EU membership despite what some say that it would be all automatic.
I see the plus sides to independence, but I can see some downsides as well. Outside of the ideologically driven activists, I think a lot of Scots (such as myself) voted SNP due to the fact that the SNP has governed well, proving mature and responsible in power, and represents a moderate, responsible alternative within Scotland to the other parties who still haven’t grasped the idea that the parliament in Edinburgh is not just a sideshow to London, but important in their own right.
A mature, sensible and informed debate will be needed before we take any decision, and I’m hoping that the voices who characterize remaining within the Union as evil oppression (no guys, it’s not, just means that we have to deal with cretinous, but not tyrannical Westminster politicians) and being outwith the Union as the land of milk and honey with no downsides (again, there would still be problems – what would make Scotland less susceptible to problems than any other nation? We could be fiscally sensible but still suffer due to external events.) get marginalized so we can make the decision on pragmatic rather than ideological grounds.
#21 by Andra on August 21, 2011 - 6:35 pm
1) The sterling option after” independence” – sticking with Sterling would result in Scotland having absolutely no control over the currency that it uses. We’d be completely at the mercy of the requirements of the remaining parts of the UK.
2) Go for the Euro – Ireland’s big mistake! The Irish pound roughly tracked sterling because the Irish Economy was inextricably linked to the UK Economy. However unlike the Sterling option, the Euro would not be a foreign currency since Scotland would be round the table with the other Euro nations – although we have to do what ever Germany and France wanted!
3) Our own Scottish Pound – a non-starter! Probably less advantageous than following the path set by the Bank of England.
As with other issues, we have an input now in our lives through representation at Westminster. With no representation we’d have zero control over our currency, borders, where our soldiers fight (assuming many remain in the UK army as many Irishmen did and do), we be completely ignored in Brussels (less than now).
#22 by Tony on August 21, 2011 - 9:55 pm
“”2) Go for the Euro – Ireland’s big mistake! The Irish pound roughly tracked sterling because the Irish Economy was inextricably linked to the UK Economy. However unlike the Sterling option, the Euro would not be a foreign currency since Scotland would be round the table with the other Euro nations – although we have to do what ever Germany and France wanted!””
Ireland’s biggest mistake is not having oil, gas and whisky which would allow them to comfortably deal with the ramifications of another mistake, which was to follow the British policy of deregulation of the finance and commercial property industries.
“”As with other issues, we have an input now in our lives through representation at Westminster. With no representation we’d have zero control over our currency, borders, where our soldiers fight (assuming many remain in the UK army as many Irishmen did and do), we be completely ignored in Brussels (less than now).””
Utter utter nonsense…………………Surely having less representation than countries like Malta and Luxembourg with less thana tenth of our population is not something that our nation should be content with. Westminster runs our nation as an economic appendage and sometimes cash cow for the rest of the UK.
Also I have no idea what you are on about regarding Scottish soldiers, if you are hinting about some becoming mercenaries and reaping havoc, subverting human rights and killing for pay post independence in a foreign army. Well that would at least be a wee bit more honest than what many of them are upto at present in the uniform of the British army.
Jeff
I’m pretty sure that the SNP has stated many times over that for the time being we would keep sterling until it doesn’t suit our interests to do so.
Where is the drama?!?! Why has every i to be dotted etc. before we can be allowed to reassert our nationhood……………all in good time!
#23 by Andra on August 22, 2011 - 10:44 am
In your world, Westminster is some mythical place where no humans exist but decisions are made.
We have representation at Westminster just as those from Yorkshire, Cornwall and London do.
In your world, in an independent Scotland the people of the North would be ruled by the people of the Central belt!
You need to get over it – we live in a democracy.
#24 by Tony on August 22, 2011 - 10:54 am
Andra
There were some of that Westminster mob in Goergie square the other day.
Apart from busy building men of straw do you find fault with my points as made? Regarding Scotland as an economic appendage and having less representation than Malta and Luxembourg etc.
#25 by Andra on August 23, 2011 - 2:22 am
I don’t agree with any of your points, Your analysis of Ireland problem is wrong.
Your suggestion that we have less influence than Malta or Luxemburg is rubbish – please name one occasion they have had any influence on anything.
Decisions about whether to go to war or not are made in Washington and Westminster (maybe also Paris) – definitely not any other provincial ‘Capital’
#26 by Tony on August 23, 2011 - 11:37 am
Andra
Didn’t know that Westminster was a ‘Capital’ (sic) provincial or otherwise, but none of these places would be able to commit Scottish soldiers post independence to their imperialist neo-colonial wars.
I had thought that we had 5 MEP’s but we have 6 which is the same as Luxembourg a country of half a million people. Other countries with a similar population to Scotland have 13, not many compared to Germany’s 99 but many more than 6 and not to be sniffed at, not that I suspect you will not.
I have given a truthful summarized account to the best of my knowledge of what went wrong in Ireland and how they would cope if they had similar natural resources to Scotland.
Rather than just stating that someone is talking rubbish and being all hoity toity about provincial Scots, perhaps you could give some info as to how/why I am talking rubbish.
#27 by Barbarian on August 21, 2011 - 6:43 pm
As Jeff points out, the currency / EU question might just be the issue that stalls independence.
It is a far more critical issue now after the debacle that the Euro is currently involved in.
If the SNP do not deal with this is in an effective manner – and soon – their opponents are going to capitalise on it.
#28 by Tony on August 21, 2011 - 9:58 pm
Should the SNP have categorically stated that we would join the Euro forthwith then you might just have a smidgeon of a point. However current policy is to retain the county Down.
#29 by Angus McLellan on August 21, 2011 - 11:02 pm
It’s wishful thinking to suppose that Unionist parties can make much of this. They’ll have to say what they think if it becomes an issue, and the last thing they need is to talk about Scottish independence as a real possibility. Even ignoring that, there are other problems.
If they favour the Euro for Scotland, why not for the UK? For Labour and the LibDems, that’ll lose votes in the UK general election which may come before the referendum and for the Tories it’s simply unthinkable. Sterling? By default Unionist parties must believe that’s good for Scotland, so if it’s good now, why not in the future? And a separate currency? That might be the best option for Unionists to gain traction against, but the SNP will know that. And as for retaining Sterling for now and waiting to see what happens, that was Labour policy for over a decade. It might still be today for all we know about Labour’s policies.
On day one, the only realistic option is to retain Sterling in some fashion, whatever the preference might be for the medium term. The SNP only needs to present Plan A, B and C (as set out by Jeff) and say “in the long term we prefer Plan-whatever but the actual route taken will be decided post-independence”, whether in a referendum or an election.
#30 by Ben Achie on August 21, 2011 - 9:01 pm
Scotland would not be a new member of the EU, as we already are a member, so the requirement to have the Euro would probably not apply. There is nothing stopping Euros being accepted as payment in any contract – just ask our farmers about their Single Farm Payments! A Scotland outwith the EU continuing to use Sterling sounds perfectly plausible to me. The EU will sort itself out, at great cost, but will simply be paying the price of fudging the convergence criteria for joining Euroland in the first place. That was politically driven, as the EU is primarily a political entity rather than an economic one, and this has always been the case. By virtue of our location, Scotland is spoiled for choice!
#31 by Jeff on August 21, 2011 - 9:21 pm
I don’t sign up to that Ben. I personally believe that rUK, as the larger part of the current UK, would be the member state and Scotland would need to reapply.
And there is a difference between Euros being an acceptable form of purchase (as, as you say, it already is) and a Scottish Government encouraging retail stores to encourage payment in this way.
#32 by Tony on August 21, 2011 - 10:18 pm
Jeff
I believe that the EU have already stated that if Scotland had to reapply then so would rump UK. There would be no legal basis for disenfranchising us as we are currently EU citizens, indeed Denmark had to negotiate on the behalf of Greenland-a quasi independent overseas territory-for them to be allowed to leave after a referendum.
Should we be talking of highly unlikely scenarios then, if we were ‘chipped oot’ this would leave us free to negotiate our own treaties and we most certainly would not be obliged to honour our portion of British commitments or debts. It is a two way street that confers on us the benefits and obligations of a ‘velvet divorce’ not simply the commitments.
#33 by Doug Daniel on August 22, 2011 - 10:40 am
Indeed. Also, as I’ve said on Karen’s blog, let’s bear in mind that the EU would be very keen to keep Scotland within the EU, as Scotland would be one of its most prosperous nations. I would say it’s highly likely that rules would be bent if necessary if it meant keeping Scotland in the EU. I can’t see the EU effectively kicking Scotland out if we didn’t want to sign up to Schengen and the Euro etc. Even if this wasn’t the case, there are various treaties and agreements in place that allow several non-EU countries to enjoy many of the same privileges as EU countries.
#34 by Angus McLellan on August 22, 2011 - 2:06 am
When Malc raised this a couple of weeks ago, I took a rather legalistic view and suggested that EEA membership might be inherited by an independent Scotland, but that EU membership wouldn’t be. I still think this is more in line with the intentions of the framers of the treaties and of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States to Treaties, but on further reflection I’m not convinced that this actually matters much.
For the sake of argument, imagine that our hypothetical independent Scotland begins life outside of the EU and EEA both but inside the UK & Ireland travel area. Implications? Horrendous for everyone.
While we’ll be able to travel in Europe on UK passports, until such time as the UK Passport Authority can figure out who is Scots and should be removed from their database – and that will take a while – we’ll need to get airlines busy handing out those nasty landing cards for everyone who isn’t carrying a UK or Irish passport before arrival at Scottish airports. Everyone who is working in Scotland on an EU passport will need a visa. And so on. Trade is no longer free between Scotland and England, so we’d be pulling over all goods vehicles at the Tweed and Solway too, just as soon as customs duties are set. Tens of thousands of businesses in and outwith Scotland will be well chuffed, don’t you think?
A lawyer, or a Unionist in search of a scare story, might pretend to think that it’s possible for Scotland not to be a member of the EEA at the instant that it becomes independent, but senior politicians and bureaucrats would never make that mistake in private. Political necessity demands that Scotland should inherit EEA membership. That it’s possible for a lawyer to reach a different conclusion is of little importance.
There is at least a shaky case to be made for inherited EEA membership in legal terms, but no such case exists for EU membership. The treaties are clearly framed with particular states in mind. The state in question here would be the UK, and law and political expedience both demand that the government in London must be the successor state.
Still, the EU great and good could find sound reasons to treat legal arguments the same way that I treat New Years’ resolutions. If the EU follows the letter of the law, as it’s generally understood, Scotland will spend several years negotiating membership, always assuming we get to jump the queue. Is it reasonable for EU fishermen to expect to be able to exercise the rights they had under the Common Fisheries Policy when Scotland is not a signatory? Probably not. So Scotland’s EEZ becomes like Norway’s or Iceland’s (Mackerel or Sandeel War anyone?)
To vote “Yes” to joining the EU in a referendum means seats in the European Parliament, a Commissioner for as long as every member gets to appoint one, a seat at the table at meetings, and the like. But it does have its downsides. The CFP is loathed by fishermen and the CAP is not best designed to aid Scottish farming and the likelihood is that it will get worse. Scotland might have contributed something around £1500 million to the EU in 2008 based on a population share of the UK total. We’d get some of that back, leaving a net contribution of perhaps £600 million.
So let’s assume that Scotland spends several years outwith the EU before a referendum is held. We’d be around £2.5 billion in pocket as a result if our contribution to EEA funds was similar to Norway’s in terms of GDP-share. That windfall be just about enough to cover the estimated backlog in road repairs. Some people will want to keep that £500 million a year to spend here and in consequence will not be inclined to vote for EU membership. Fishermen and farmers are likely to be happy with the status quo. People who are opposed to membership of the EU or EFTA will of course want to keep things just as they are. People who’d rather join EFTA – and we know that the SNP membership contains more than a handful of these people – may want change, but not the change on offer. So, is an EU membership referendum winnable in those circumstances? Never say never, but surely running the “No” campaign would be the easier job.
The great and good of the European Union would likely reach similar conclusions. The track record on referendums on this side of the former Iron Curtain is not happy reading for enthusiastic supporters of the European project. Norway voted twice against membership, Switzerland didn’t even get that far along the road before voting “No”, and Sweden’s “Yes” vote has proved to mean less than might have been hoped as it remains resolutely outwith the Eurozone. Scotland could end up exploring a previously unhabited (I think) region of Wikipedia’s conceptual map of Europe, north-east of Liechtenstein, outwith the EFTA boundary but inside the EEA and Council of Europe ones. That would not be a good outcome from the perspective of France and Germany, or the EU bureaucracy.
So why shouldn’t Scotland inherit EU membership automatically too? I’m sure that people will find that the treaties can be read that way if only the reader is in the right frame of mind. That way a Swiss or Norwegian outcome just couldn’t happen as there would be no need for lengthy negotiations and a referendum. I think there are very few member states whose interests would be damaged by reading the rules that way and many more states whose interests would be advanced by doing so. It is impossible to be certain of the outcome, but governments rarely act against their own interests unless they have compelling reasons to do so.
#35 by Random Lurking Scotsman on August 21, 2011 - 10:23 pm
Possibly the answer would be what has been hinted at by some SNP members (who promptly get slapped down by others in the party and independent nationalists) is that Scotland’s “independence” will revolve around a lot of shared institutions and interests with rUK and active co-operation.
I think post-independence something like the Nordic Council would probably form, and a lot of institutions we see as being “UK” would fall under the control of this body – rUK and Scotland pool a lot of resources together to fund the BBC and the Bank of England (may have to change the name…), and these are run co-operatively along with other issues to ensure harmony in the UK after Westminster ceases to be responsible for Scotland.
I think we’re big enough as countries now to avoid the squabbling and fighting that characterized pre-Union England and Scotland. Certainly, I can’t envision a reenactment of the Battle of Culloden, and the SNP most definitely aren’t the beasties I try and avoid reading on the Scotsman comment forums below the news article. I think that perhaps if both sides are willing (and why wouldn’t they be?) we can amicably sort this out and avoid many of the problems that might otherwise occur.
#36 by ReasonableNat on August 22, 2011 - 1:12 am
Ah, finally some sense. This, Jeff, is the fourth way that you missed. Turning the current UK into what it should always have been – a supra-national union of sovereign states, is the best case in so many ways, not just the currency. In negotiating our independence we should be aiming for the creation of a poundzone with a shared central bank, responsible to both governments (or all four). This, in fact should be the general approach for all shared resources, i.e. they should become truly shared. I think the SNP should he declaring that they intend to take such an approach in their negotiations, and they should state in which areas they intend to try to achieve this. In doing so they not only make the whole idea seam much less risky, but also much more palatable to those who value some of these shared institutions.
To those who keep saying we’ll get our proportion of the debt: fine but that means we also get our proportion of the embassies, the Falklands, Gibraltar, the Antarctic Territory, the bases on Cyprus….. Or perhaps we have more to bargain with than some would like us to realise?
And to those who keep saying rUK won’t accept this, or will not accept that, again, you’re being just a touch melodramatic 🙂
Remember we are as much owners of all current UK assets as any other people living in the UK are, and have as much right to them as any other UK citizens do!
#37 by Doug Daniel on August 22, 2011 - 10:49 am
That all sounds extremely reasonable, as one might expect from you…!
#38 by Random Lurking Scotsman on August 22, 2011 - 3:46 pm
I quite like the “Nordic Council” solution – if you look at the website – http://www.norden.org, it talks quite a lot about the Nordic region as a whole and its shared values and history, and it’s a relentlessly positive website that emphasizes a common Nordic response to societal and world problems.
It also emphasizes that sometimes they do things differently, but there’s a lot of things they agree on. I think that would be the relationship between rUK and an independent Scotland, rather than midgets yelling across Hadrian’s Wall as some Scotsman forum beasties seem to want to do.
It’s an emotional issue, but looking at it through the cold, hard light of day I can see the current relationship just is not working. Were we to move to a relationship of shared values and co-operation rather than an increasingly contradictory political union I think that would have a positive effect on Scotland, and rUK as well.
As it happens, I’m thinking that probably the whole path will end with full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and some sort of solution that allows the “UK” to survive, but one that’s rather indistinguishable from what I thought about above. We will still be the “UK”, but in practice there is Scotland and then there is the rest of the UK, and due to a desire to share resources Westminster and Holyrood simply pool together money to pay for common services but in areas like welfare may diverge.
In the end, I don’t think the issue really is one for wailing and gnashing of teeth about history, but rather about the fact that regional politics means we disagree quite profoundly on how to spend public money. Even after all of this, Scots will still like English TV shows and popular culture, and the English will like Scottish culture, and there’s more of a mingling than some Scotsman forum cyberNats would care to admit. We may be divided politically, but after 300 years of history a full divorce is impossible.
#39 by An Duine Gruamach on August 21, 2011 - 10:56 pm
When did the EU adopt the rule that new members must join the Euro? Romania joined only a few years back and still uses Lei.
#40 by Angus McLellan on August 22, 2011 - 3:01 am
It applies to all members who joined after 1992. Romania is a long way from meeting the criteria for Euro membership, but when it does it is signed up to join the Euro. In theory anyway.
But while there’s a treaty obligation to join the Eurozone when the convergence criteria are met, one of the criteria is membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years. The Swedes and Czechs have found it convenient simply not to join the ERM, and they are not and cannot be obliged to do so. The Czechs may go further, if President Klaus has his way, and ask for an opt-out.
#41 by An Duine Gruamach on August 22, 2011 - 4:38 pm
Cheers, Angus!
#42 by Richard Cain on August 22, 2011 - 12:43 am
Type your comment here
Or, worse, if a scorned, vengeful England used our reliance on their currency to destabilise our young country?
#43 by Gavin Hamilton on August 22, 2011 - 2:55 am
Very good post Jeff,
I think you have laid out the issue and the options very well, succinctly and objectively.
I think this is one of the crucial issues in helping us Scots decide the constitutional question.
As you say, our own currency in a new country would be extremely risky and impractical.
I think the Euro is a non starter for, as one of the comments says, interest rates from a European central central bank would be unlikely to be favourable to Scotland. Like you I think being outside the EU is unthinkable and I remain an enthusiastic European. I have nothing against the Euro in principle but I would take a pragmatic view on it – I don’t think it works for the UK economy and wouldn’t work for a separate Scotland. Never mind the fact that has some considerable issues to solve at this time.
That leaves Sterling which is the logical position for us I think.
You point out the odd position of the UK central bank deciding interest rates for an independent Scotland.
This is one of the key reasons why I believe Scotland’s natural and logical state is as part of the UK with devolved government. We are part of a Britzone. We are economically largely one entity.
I have seen it argued that the British state just doesn’t work – this is one way in which I think it very much does.
#44 by Tony on August 22, 2011 - 10:34 am
Gavin
By your logic then Ireland should re-join the union (aye right) and the Netherlands and Poland for example should be seeking to join a greater German Reich.
Again if it is a purely economic argument that you are putting forward and in the best interests of Scotland, then surely you should factor in our reasonably healthy economy and budget surplus into your rational.
#45 by Gavin Hamilton on August 22, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Ha! Tony there is no way I’m going to talk about greater Germany.
Ireland is an interesting one – they are close enough to fit but they don’t want to. (I know many readers here would say the same of Scotland). In my opinion Ireland are just that further step removed culturally from England for full independence to have happened.
There is an ebb and flow of health of the economy and budget surpluses and deficits and how you count them. I just think we are part of the same economy.
#46 by Tony on August 22, 2011 - 2:05 pm
I think the recent riots in England have only served to underline our social mindset and it has to be stated cultural differences.
Of course we are part of the same economy Gavin we have been in a union for over 300 years and tied in other ways for longer it would be strange if we weren’t. To a lesser extent we are part of a European and certainly with our natural resources a world economy. I put it to you that you even looking at the issue from a pro-union that you are only recognising the factors that support this view, weak as they are.
Try looking at the issue from a purely what is best for Scotland, I am aware of the ebb and flow but it would be in our best interests in managing them on our own for our own benefit.
#47 by Richard Cain on August 22, 2011 - 11:31 am
Gavin, let me cast your mind back to 1997, just after New Labour came into power.
The economy in England, the South-East in particular, was doing very well. So well, in fact, that it was in danger of overheating and creating rampant inflation. The Bank of England, judging what was best for the economy as a whole, made a considerable number of interest rate rises in a short space of time to counteract this.
The story in here in Scotland however was rather different, where things were only just ticking over. Suddenly struck with these rate rises, the economy here went into reverse, ruining businesses and livelihoods across the country.
The economy in the UK is simply too diverse for all its constituent parts to flourish simultaneously.
#48 by Gavin Hamilton on August 22, 2011 - 12:54 pm
Richard
I remember the day well and I was in the SE of England at the time.
As long as I can remember there is often a ripple effect – both good and bad starting in London and the SE. This I would actually argue makes them part of the same economy rather than so diverse that the economies have to separate.
And certainly any company I have worked for has been a Scottish company doing business throughout the UK. not that it couldn’t after independence its just an example of how it is largely one homogenous economy.
Still very much see the logical constitutional settlement for Scotland is devolution within the UK – what used to be known as Home Rule!
#49 by Doug Daniel on August 22, 2011 - 3:05 pm
You’ll presumably remember 2008 as well then, when a ripple effect starting in America caused a global financial crisis (or so we are always told by Labour, anyway). Your logic would dictate that this means every country in the world is part of one homogeneous economy, and that therefore we should have one set of interest rates etc for the whole world as it makes no sense to have them as separate economies.
Economies are never separate entities, because a situation in one country can have implications on the economies of the countries it trades with etc. This isn’t a reason to pool every economy together – it’s just what happens. If anything, it’s an argument in favour of independence, because that’s the best way for a country to safeguard against the effects of other economies.
#50 by Chris on August 22, 2011 - 9:24 pm
The problem for an indepenedent Scotland using the pound sterling would not only be the interest rates, but the level of borrowing and public expenditure and the PSBR. If we were to retain parity with the pound we would need to do all the stuff that Greece failed to do in relation to the Euro. So an independent Scotland could end up having similar borrowing and taxation policies to the UK. At which juncture, the whole point of independence looks questionable. (Much of where my doubt lies)
Whilst having an oil dominated economy has its undoubted revenue advantages, it has two severe downsides which would affect our position in any transnational currency. The first is that it is highly volatile so borrowing needs would fluctuate unpredictably: so our position of having to track UK borrowing would mean huge fluctuations in public expenditure. The second is ‘Dutch Disease’ where the presence of a large free gift puts huge inflationary pressures on the rest of the economy and makes their exports expensive to the rest of the world. Ask yourself what is Norway’s biggest non-petroleum export??? Independence could make Whisky exports unaffordable.
Oil’s dominance is lost in the wider UK economy. But for Scotland it is a serious matter.
Scotland isn’t in the same position as other small nations as we are extremely enmeshed in the UK so the otherwise obvious solution of creating our own floating currency could be very damaging.
My scepticism about Independence does not lie in any love for the Union, but the failure of advocates of independence to even acknowledge (or more likely be aware) that such problems exist. When ever these complex arguments get raised the response appears to be the soothingly reductionist “if Slovakia can do it, why are you feart of Scotland doing it” or “Alex Salmond is an economist, so he must know what he is talking about”
#51 by Tony on August 22, 2011 - 10:05 pm
To be honest this is the first time I have heard of ‘Dutch disease’ and it is a credible concern, very different from much of the usual anti-independence weak weak window dressing, excuses for arguments. You make a cogent and worthwhile rational for forward planning. And as long as I will be able to afford my hauf then bugger the Japs and yanks ;¬)
However i am perplexed as to why we absolutely need a completely different borrowing and taxation policy to make independence a goer for you. Surely how and what we spend the money on is far more important, and actually having the ability to make those decisions.
#52 by Phil Hunt on August 22, 2011 - 10:13 pm
That’s not true. New nations cannot join without agreeing to join the Euro at some unspecified future date. So they don’t have to join, they just have to agree to 🙂
#53 by Ben Achie on August 22, 2011 - 10:41 pm
Sorry Chris, but I just don’t follow what you are saying. It takes a steady hand, but isn’t that what the SNP government has shown over the last four years?
How do we counteract inflationary pressures? By setting up an oil fund, just like Norway, and just as the SNP has been consistently advocating for a long time now.
OK, there would be a degree of unpredicatbility about borrowing needs, but the whole point is, public spending would be prudent, and revenue surpluses would be set aside and invested abroad to prevent overheating, just like China has done, on a much larger scale.
Blimey, if we’re not too poor to be independent, you seem to be telling us we will be too rich! What makes Scotland so different that the commonsense approach so many other diverse nations have been able to take to management of their economies cannot be applied here?
We’re not actually interested in “punching above our weight” and thus seeking to join every international military confrontation going. When will the reality of the prospects for post-imperial Britain really sink in?
And finally, as a small, open, economy, we can quite happily work with a variety of currencies and spread risk and thus provide stability from an inevitably sinking pound (holed below the waterline by debasement of the currency by quantitative easing).
If I am challenging economic orthodoxy, then good! Look where our purportedly orthodox economists have got us!