Unseated by MPC

The 1998 Bank of England Act set up the current remit of the bank, together with the makeup of the membership of the MPC.

By far the most important aspect of any consideration of an independent Scotland having a seat on the MPC, is the second part of the remit of the Bank of England, which is to, “support the economic policy of the government, in terms of growth and employment”.

It is quite risible to suggest that an independent Scotland would want to sit on a committee of the Bank of England, part of whose remit is to support the policies of a foreign government, policies which may in effect, run totally counter to Scottish interests.

Just what impact would this sole committee member be expected to have? Would the purpose be to draw attention to the possible adverse affect on Scotland of interest-rate proposals currently before the committee? In light of the past history of interest-rate policy of the Bank of England, in terms of its impact on Scottish interests, would any input by the sole Scottish committee member be of the slightest importance to the colleagues on the committee?

Does Mr Jones and the SNP expect the Treasury in rUK to rewrite the remit of the Bank, so as to remove the requirement to “support government policy”?

If it is the SNP’s intention, and Mr Jones’s interpretation of its policy, that an independent Scotland would use the pound sterling as a form of sterlingisation, the question of having a seat on the MPC would not even arise.

Either way, if Scotland continues to use sterling after independence, it will have no control over monetary policy.

The SNP has little or no credibility left on the currency question, given its unthinking commitment to the euro.

The longer it allows the nonsense of a claim to a seat on the MPC to carry on, the more difficult it will be to salvage even some credibility before Scots are asked to vote in the independence referendum.

Jim Fairlie

Heathcote Road

Crieff