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 unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown