Leaders: Answers raise more questions about independence

Published on Thursday 2 February 2012 00:00

THE more we learn of the Nationalists’ plans for an independent Scotland, the less we know for sure.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the interview with finance secretary John Swinney, which we publish today. Mr Swinney, a respected figure less prone than some colleagues to resort to the politics of assertion, has revealed significantly more about the SNP’s economic thinking. But for every answer, more questions arise.

Take the issue of the currency Scotland would adopt after independence. We learn, surprisingly, that the SNP believes Scotland will be part of the sterling zone for at least a decade. On the face of it, this is welcome clarity with Mr Swinney ruling out any attempt to join the eurozone and stressing his determination to bring certainty and financial stability to a newly- independent Scotland.

Yet this attempt not to scare the unionist horses raises further policy questions. What will Scotland’s relationship with the Bank of England be exactly? How will it interact with and influence what will in effect become a mini-European Central Bank, the central bank for the nations of the former United Kingdom?

Mr Swinney will say only that there will be “dialogue” with the Bank over fiscal policy. This is an unsatisfactory answer given that it appears the SNP is accepting the Bank in London will set the financial framework for an independent Scotland, inevitably limiting the scope for fiscal activism to boost the growth of the Scottish economy, which has long been a central plank of the Nationalist vision.

The finance secretary argues he will have far more scope to manipulate the levers of economic power under this system than under the present devolution settlement, which confers very limited powers over taxation. The new position may indeed give him more power, but he will only be able to act within the limits set by the Bank of England, in the same way European countries are constrained by the ECB.Mr Swinney also failed to say whether there is any agreement over the Bank being the lender of last resort to an independent Scotland, an idea put forward by the First Minister. If the Bank does not agree to that, then the danger is Scottish Government sovereign bonds might have to trade at an interest rate premium relative to the rest of the UK given financial uncertainties.

And even if these thorny questions can be resolved – which they must be before Scots vote in the referendum – there is a more fundamental point of principle to be addressed. If Scotland is part of a currency union using sterling, can that state of affairs properly be called independence? In the eyes of many, and not just SNP fundamentalists, the answer is a firm no.

Mr Swinney deserves credit for putting some flesh on the SNP’s bare policy bones, but his efforts so far prove we need to know much more about how a separate Scotland would function financially before we learn to love independence.

Army manoeuvres just one troubling concern

IT IS worrying, though not surprising, that questions have begun to arise over plans by the army to double the number of troops quartered north of the Border. These doubts have arisen now that the independence referendum campaign has a date on which to focus and which will become increasingly potent as the weeks and months pass.

It would certainly be regrettable if concerns over the outcome of the autumn 2014 referendum came to be used as an excuse for further cheese-paring and for army units in Scotland to be reduced. To do this ahead of the vote and well before the result is known, would be opportunist at best and would be seized upon by independence campaigners as evidence that the army and the UK government had little confidence that the case for remaining within the Union was likely to prevail.

However, if indeed this is the way that the referendum is likely to go, it would be foolish for the advocates of independence to pretend that such a vote would not have an impact on the size of the army stationed here. However velvet the divorce, the army would be uncomfortable about having such a large commitment of troops in a separate country where continuing support for that presence would need to be assured. Such doubts have been raised by letters from UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond to former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, which indicated that plans last year to increase the size of the army to more than 6,000 are still in the melting pot.

This may be only one of a number of fronts where the spectre of independence could come to have influence.

Lord Provost’s Banquet leaves a bad taste

FEW would dispute the aspiration of the City of Edinburgh to stage a high profile “Lord Provost’s Banquet” similar in allure and prestige to the annual Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London. The magnificent setting, the formal dress, the decorated tables, the fine wines, the sparkling wit and wisdom of Provost George Grubb and, above all, a guest of honour of international renown to deliver a resonant address: what could better confirm the status of Edinburgh as a capital city? Princess Anne will be attending and Nicola Benedetti performing. Civic leaders should be well pleased.

Unfortunately for them, the proposal has not met with universal acclaim. The city is in recession. Times are tough. The council is strapped for cash. The £144-a-head bash may struggle to find takers sufficient to fill the venue. Even with a price to keep council costs to a minimum and with city officials planning to take a table for ten with tickets paid for out of their own pockets, the event still seems at odds with these chastened times. Now the Labour opposition has expressed concern that the event, scheduled for 20 March, is too close to the council elections and breaks the “purdah” period. Is it a blessing, or might it be a curse? Judging by the mood in the city, this event may prove to be less of a celebration, and more of a wake.

Comments

There are 12 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

12

christelijk_recht

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 06:38 AM

Comment removed by moderator

11

samcoldstream

Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I wish everyone would stop fretting about an inconceivable YES vote in the referendum. The Scots have already voted by a landslide for Dependence!

• Report Unsuitable

10

christelijk_recht

Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 08:43 AM

It would behove the Jocksman's editors if the were to concentrate on articulating a positive case for staying in the Union, rather than these incessant propaganda pieces sniping at the Scottish Government. Can the doomed and gloom merchants cheerfully take my subscription, show equal enthusiasm for making the positive case for the Union. .................................................................................................................. I am sick and tired of this constant negative vacuous bilge. Why should I vote "No"? present a case for Scotland in the Union in the 21st century.

• Report Unsuitable

9

JPJ2

Friday, February 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM

"If Scotland is part of a currency union using sterling, can that state of affairs properly be called independence? In the eyes of many, and not just SNP fundamentalists, the answer is a firm no." This comic is brain dead. Are Germany, France and the other 15 countries not to be considered to be independent-they are part of a currency union MacPravda,so trying telling Merkel and Sarkozy they are not independent you birdbrains!!

• Report Unsuitable

8

samcoldstream

Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:57 AM

The debate is pointless. The Scots have already overwhelmingly voted for Dependence.

• Report Unsuitable

7

allymax

Friday, February 3, 2012 at 04:51 AM

Leader Comment .....................................................is anti-Scottish.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Hearthammer

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 08:42 AM

#1, nobody knows what the Euro will be like in the 2020s. It might not even exist. Time will tell, but my preference would be to have a referendum on joining the EU in the first place. Let's face it, at the first election in 2016, the National Party will romp home because the English parties still won't be able to come to terms with independence and their Scottish lackeys will be runnng around in circles tearing their hair out. Th election after that will be a different matter, however. Assuming the English parties become Scottish parties and stop sulking, of course.

• Report Unsuitable

5

gus1940

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 08:20 AM

I see that a drunken failed former politician has been given a free run as first item on EBC Weegie this morning to voice his latest disruptive rubbish regarding the Independence debate. So much for balanced reporting .

• Report Unsuitable

4

McNasty

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 08:06 AM

Sticking with Sterling would bring stability until an independent Scotland can find its feet.

• Report Unsuitable

3

gus1940

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 07:54 AM

This bogroll has surely beaten all previous records today for the number of anti-independence articles masquerading as news. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What defines a publication as a newspaper? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't know if it is still the case as I stopped buying propaganda sheets about 2 years ago but newspapers used to contain the statement 'Registered at The GPO as a newspaper'. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I presume that statement meant that they had to comply with certain definitions of what was a newspaper. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there anybody out there who thinks that this rag complies with any reasonable definition of what is a newspaper?

• Report Unsuitable

2

Beachdair

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 02:44 AM

It should be "The euro is forever. Do Scots really want that?"

• Report Unsuitable

1

Beachdair

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 02:43 AM

The first section of this editorial is much overblown. Does the Scotsman editor believe the BoE is incompetent? If so, come out and say so explicitly. Otherwise the Scotsman's questions will beits questions answered long before the Referendum. ....................................................................................................... Also, remember that Scotland could leave sterling when it is ready and financially qualified to issue its own currency. If Scotland then decides to go with the euro, it would be a bad mistake. Sterling can be temporary. The is forever. .............. Do Scots really want that?

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.