Is the SNP offering true independence?

I really would have expected much better from George Kerevan than his rather feeble attempt to support the SNP’s policy on the currency to be used in an independent Scotland (“Who are champions of economic rationality?”, Perspective, 15 June).

Having continued to argue for Scotland’s entry to the euro, long after it had passed its sell-by date for even the most deluded of EU fanatics and fantasists, the SNP has little credibility on the currency issue and, if its apologists and supporters continue to produce the kind of arguments favoured by George Kerevan et al, it will have no credibility at all by the referendum date.

When first challenged to explain “independence in Europe” and how that involved surrendering sovereignty to the EU, the SNP’s answer was: “What sovereignty? Scotland has no sovereignty to surrender.”

His answer to the charge, that the Bank of England would continue to set Scottish interest rates, is similarly risible: “Who cares if interest rates are set by the Bank of England? We have that anyway.”

What kind of argument is that? The next time the SNP agrees to another watering down of independence in response to another objection by some focus group – and you can bet your sweet life there will be one before the referendum – are objections to be met with the reply: “So what if it is not independence? We don’t have independence anyway.”

Mr Kerevan continues to use the example of Ireland to illustrate how a common sterling currency area would work after “independence”, as if it was something which could be emulated by Scotland and the Rest-of-UK (RoUK), explaining that “independent Ireland kept the link with sterling between 1922 and 1978”.

What neither he nor Alex Salmond, who has also used this example, bothered to point out was that Ireland did not have a currency union as envisaged by the SNP; it merely pegged the Irish currency to sterling and had absolutely no control over interest rates or monetary policy.

It is also worth explaining that at that time 98 per cent of Ireland’s exports went to the UK and 82 per cent of her imports came from the UK, a relationship that continued until the 1960s, when Ireland’s trade became much more diversified.

That level of trade dependency does not exist in Scotland, nor is there any comparison between the natural resources and economic diversification in modern Scotland and Ireland in the 1920s.

If the SNP finds it necessary to use this kind of comparison to make a case for continuing to use sterling after “independence”, it has already lost the argument.

Much more interesting, perhaps, is Mr Kerevan’s example of the membership of the US Federal Open Market Committee, which has “mandatory representation from its regional affiliates”, as justification for the SNP’s argument that there should be Scottish representation on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. The USA has a federal structure of government and it is only natural that the states are represented but the SNP is supposed to be campaigning for independence, not federalism – although I may have missed something.

Mr Kerevan advances the proposition that the SNP is actually offering a Confederation of the British Isles, something it cannot yet admit. That may or may not be true but I have long been convinced it is certainly not offering independence.

In fact, there will be no need for a second question on the ballot paper as the SNP’s version of independence is really devolution – without the plus.

Jim Fairlie

Heathcote Road

Crieff

I may not be much of an expert in these matters, but George Kerevan’s article sounds suspiciously like federalism to me!

William Ballantine

Dean Road

Bo’ness, West Lothian

I enjoyed Bill Jamieson’s piece comparing the forthcoming independence referendum to embarking on a flight – on AirIndyRef! – without any effective flying instruments (“Flying blind into the referendum”, Perspective, 14 June).

I would argue, nevertheless, that his elaborate metaphor is deeply flawed and profoundly premature.

Surely the reality is that if the Scottish electorate simply votes No to independence in the autumn of 2014 – which I suspect is Mr Jamieson’s own personal preference – there will be no flight to anywhere, and we will have to muddle along as best we can – and for the foreseeable future – with the deeply unsatisfactory constitutional status quo.

It should not be forgotten that this is a consultative referendum, and that the SNP administration has explicitly recognised in its consultation document that even if it succeeds in securing a positive outcome there will have to be ensuing negotiations with Westminster before the fine details can be sorted out.

This is a vote about the broad direction of travel the people want to take – it is not about the subsequent journey which no-one can predict in precise detail.

This, after all, was – and is – also true of the initial 1997 devolution referendum itself, as was confirmed by our original First Minister, Donald Dewar, in his fine speech at the formal inauguration of our new Scottish Parliament, which he described as “a proud moment: a new stage on a journey begun long ago and which has no end”.

IAN O BAYNE

Clarence Drive

Glasgow

Bill Jamieson is right: Scotland is “poorly informed” about the complexities of independence. Michael Kelly is also right that the SNP has no idea of what negotiations after a vote for independence would produce.

He may well also be right that the “negotiated deal” should be brought back for approval, although that would be highly complicated.

However, there is a more fundamental point. Scotland’s decisions about its currency, its membership of the EU or Nato, and all the other matters which are the responsibility of sovereign legislative bodies, would be made by its democratically elected parliament.

That parliament would have only limited scope to bind its successors. For example, a decision to apply for Nato membership, or to use sterling, would not necessarily be forever. Your columnists don’t seem to have grasped this.

To be fair, the SNP hasn’t given them any help, but whatever is the largest party in a future Scottish Parliament, it surely won’t be the SNP, which will no longer have a raison d’être, pace Michael Kelly’s suggestion that it will “take… (its ball) home” if it doesn’t get its way.

Perhaps more than independent research, the debate lacks imagination. An independent Scotland will not be slightly different from a devolved Scotland, with the same party in power but exercising a few more powers: it will be fundamentally different from anything we’ve ever known.

There’s no blueprint, no five-year plan, no certainty about this future. That will frighten many, but excite others. The result of the referendum will probably ultimately depend on which group is larger.

Andrew Anderson

Granton Road

Edinburgh