The SNP are wrong on currency union

Whilst I’m no fan of the chancellor, what he will say tomorrow will be a perfectly rationale defence of the interests of the rest of the UK if Scotland voted for independence.

Osborne scotlandj

The SNP’s reaction to the news that George Osborne is set to reject their plans for a currency union with the rest of the UK should Scotland vote for independence has been predictable to say the least.

In his response to news, Scotland’s finance secretary John Swinney has accused the chancellor of seeking to “bully Scotland”. Good party political stuff it might be, but what Osborne’s speech tomorrow will highlight is the naivety of the SNP’s proposals.

The fact remains that it would not be for an independent Scotland to dictate to the rest of the UK whether it would be able to stay within Sterling.

Yes it is true that the pound is as Scottish as it is English, but the very act of independence would mean divorcing Scotland from the rest of the UK. It would end Scottish inclusion in a UK wide military, it would end Scottish representation within the UK wide diplomatic service and ultimately it would end Scottish claims to remain within Sterling.

What Osborne’s speech will do is to highlight the SNP’s failures to convince the very people they would need to convince that an independent Scotland, keeping the pound, would be good for the rest of the UK.

Already Wales’ first minister Carwyn Jones has opposed the idea of a currency union on the basis that it would not be in the best interests of Wales. Speaking in November, he declared:

“Given the experience of the Eurozone in recent years, and the uncertainty which surrounded the various bail-outs, I am not convinced that a shared currency would work from the Welsh perspective.

“I would be uncomfortable being part of a currency union where there are competing governments trying to run it. If there is a disagreement, who has the final say? This is a recipe for instability and these things matter, particularly in times of crisis.”

Is this bullying Scotland as John Swinney might put it? Or is it a perfectly rationale argument put forward by a leader standing up for the interests of his nation?

Likewise, is it bullying Scotland when the ratings agency Fitch warned in December that an independent Scotland remaining in a sterling zone would create instability?

And is it bullying when the former deputy leader of the SNP Jim Sillars last month dubbed Alex Salmond’s currency plans as “stupidity of stilts”?

Whilst I’m no fan of the chancellor, what he will say tomorrow will be a perfectly rationale defence of the interests of the rest of the UK if Scotland voted for independence.

Far from bullying Scotland, it is a warning to voters that they might promise the earth, but on the currency union the SNP would need to embark on tough and unpredictable negotiations with the rest of the UK with no guarantee of success.

Rather than sniping and throwing accusations of bullying around, Swinney would do better to persuade the UK why it should accept an independent Scotland within a Sterling zone. So far, he’s failed quite spectacularly to do so.

57 Responses to “The SNP are wrong on currency union”

  1. Alec

    It almost is as if you have no ideas of your own and resort to reposting others’ without independent thought.

  2. Mick Reilly

    Independent thought now there’s a very novel idea. The Edinburgh agreement was supposed to facilitate exactly that, a nation allowed to weigh up the evidence or act on its faith and come to its own independent decision, but a certain section of larger society decided that this may not provide the outcome that they foresaw, and then therefore, they in their infinite wisdom decided that Independant thinking was not what they wanted.
    Original thinking is a very dangerous thing generally like in the cases of copernicus or gallileo it results in the death of the individual trying to promote it, usually by tools just like you intent on maintaining the status quo and totally opposed to any progress!

  3. Alec

    Yes, it is a novel idea for you. It involves actually stating what you bloody well think instead of consistently referring to others, and – in the case of a proposed major political change such as independence – offering coherent suggestions as to what might be done in the event of a Yes vote… not playing dumb when essential questions are asked, and hoping someone else would answer them two years down the line.

    The Edinburgh Agreement relates to allowing the referendum to go ahead, and for any Yes vote to be accepted by Westminster. It makes no mention of an independent Scotland’s issuing fiats for EWNI.

    Your final paragraph was, I have to say, a series of words strung together in good grammatical and semantic sense. Utter gibberish though, which didn’t even relate to anything I’ve said.

    ~alec

  4. Mick Reilly

    To relate to anything that you have said would require your uterrances to actually carry some value or substance themselves. I am beginning to wonder if you are not some Oxford/Cambridge political software experiment, piloted on Blair and Clegg but being honed for roll out on all future Westminster political leaders of all persuasions, yeah Westminster Windows Alec self important Bullshit 9

  5. Alec

    Your ability to blather is incredible. No thoughts expressed, no cogent suggestions of what to do after a Yes vote beyond feel-good hope-for-the-best-plan-to-leave-the-worst-to-EWNI nothingness.

    The Emperor doesn’t so much not have clothes as is waving it about on the parade ground, scaring the horses.

    ~alec

  6. spotthelemon

    they might need to since they rule themslves & use the pound

  7. Alec

    Buenos Airies would last five minutes in a new war.

    ~alec

Leave a Reply