Skip to main content

Sterling scuppers the SNP?

I can understand the arguments for Scotland's independence. They are a proud nation and for too long the politics of Westminster has polarized opinion. I agree with Salmond that if Scotland vote for independence then we will have  to work with it. But whether they can be part of a single currency union if they vote for independence shouldn't be a matter for voters in Scotland alone. Such a union would affect all people in the United Kingdom. It is reasonable therefore for the British government to state now that it would not be possible, or at least it would not be possible without some kind of political union.

It seems that the SNP want to have their independence cake without true economic independence. They want the benefits of being part of the UK economic community without the political responsibility. That is not true independence. It would hand more of their sovereignty to Westminster whilst removing any influence on policies. It is crazy, and it is clear this has not been thought through by the SNP.

Postscript

News that José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has said that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU is a further blow to the position taken by the SNP. Once again the SNP dismiss it as 'preposterous' saying that Scotland has been a member of the EU for 40 years. Yes but not as an independent country. It is the UK that holds membership.

The SNP should concentrate on the arguments for independence. Their assessment of monetary union and EU membership are at best questionable and at worst clearly wrong. They should be arguing that the undoubted costs of independence would be outweighed by the advantages of being independent. This they are not doing. They are trying to argue that little if anything would change. They cannot have it both ways. Independence without pain isn't an option. They would be better arguing that the pain would be worth it for the freedom to control their own destiny.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As