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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau