Scottish Indie Referendum 2: The Sturgeon Strikes Back

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
[MOD]This thread is for discussing a potential referendum. If you want to discuss other aspects of Scottish politics, please start threads on them.[/MOD]
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
https://www.yes.scot/

You know what the UK needs to really bind it together? A referendum.

Nicola Sturgeon has updated the nation on our next steps to independence.

Within this term of the Scottish Parliament, her view is that the people of Scotland should have a choice between Brexit and a future as an independent, European nation. To make that possible, the Scottish Government will now put in place the legislation required to have a referendum. And our government is to establish a Citizens’ Assembly to deliberate the changes our country needs in a way that builds agreement.
poorly
For the SNP, today’s announcement gives new impetus to our campaigning. Our immediate objective is, of course, to win the European elections on May 23. After that though, we need to focus all our efforts on building an independence majority. This work will start with a major new campaign focused on Scotland’s economic potential as an independent country.
The last referendum was held just 5 years ago and was rejected 55% to 45%. And really it seemed to be rejected for four reasons, and many of them are interlinked
  1. The UK and EU were clear that Scotland would be out of the EU and would have to reapply for membership
  2. There was no workable currency plan laid out
  3. Poorly developed economic forecasting which was overly reliant on oil. Had it actually won and been implemented: The country would be in ruins today
  4. Enough young and old Scots liked being in the UK. Unusually for this sort of thing, the taxpaying worker base was in favour of independence, it was the non-taxpaying voters who rejected it. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948
But that was 5 years ago. What's changed based on today?
  1. This argument is in ruins with the Brexit vote. Scotland will leave with the rest of the UK. So using it as a threat to keep them in disappears. The EU will streamline their accession process. But (And this is crucial) that will ONLY happen if they leave with a Westminster backed referendum. Spain, Italy and Belgium won't allow them in easily if they just have their own vote that's not backed by London. If they do that, it provides a sop to Catalunya, Venice, Wallonia etc. If they go get the support from London (And a Corbyn led govt would likely give it to them) then an argument that a vote for independence is a vote for EU membership is a REALLY strong one
  2. Well they haven't bothered with this. But if 1) is successful, then you just say "We'll take the euro and do the Montenegro trick for the 5 years it takes to join the EU". There is no successful independence vote based on a position of "Sher we'll just use sterling".
  3. Yeah they've a LOT of work to do on this.
  4. I think the youth vote will turn as a result of 1). Taking away the EU and all the things the youth vote likes about the EU will be a huge factor in their voting.
But it all starts with 1. If London doesn't move on it's refusal to support a referendum, it's hard to see this progressing, or being successful if it were to progress.
 

Robutnua

Member
Nov 28, 2018
12,353
5,611

AND soon after:


"On Scottish independence, PM’s spox adds: “Now is not the time: now is the time for the UK to be pulling together”.

"Downing St also makes clear that no referendum could be held without UK government backing. “The constitution of the UK is rightly reserved to the UK parliament” - and all parties signed up to cross-party Smith Commission in 2015. "


Go away, stop bothering us, we told you already no more dessert, you already had your dessert


But one could argue this:

Scotland remained in the UK on an HMG promise to stay in the EU. But this was broken in 2016. HMG is now trying to force Scotland to leave the EU Scotland were promised they would be in.
 
Last edited:
Dec 4, 2018
2,117
1,529
Planet A

AND soon after:


"On Scottish independence, PM’s spox adds: “Now is not the time: now is the time for the UK to be pulling together”.

"Downing St also makes clear that no referendum could be held without UK government backing. “The constitution of the UK is rightly reserved to the UK parliament” - and all parties signed up to cross-party Smith Commission in 2015. "


Go away, stop bothering us, we told you already no more dessert, you already had your dessert


But one could argue this:

Scotland remained in the UK on an HMG promise to stay in the EU. But this was broken in 2016. HMG is now trying to force Scotland to leave the EU Scotland were promised they would be in.
Can't see a flat rejection to hold a referendum on this by the gimps in London being taken lying down... not with Brexit screwing everything up...

And if it is taken lying down... then the Scots don't deserve independence.
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
Well they rejected it for 800 years. And then gave it to them the option. And then the Scots rejected it.
 

CatullusV

Member
Feb 15, 2019
1,419
895
Can't see a flat rejection to hold a referendum on this by the gimps in London being taken lying down... not with Brexit screwing everything up...

And if it is taken lying down... then the Scots don't deserve independence.
Sturgeon has something about her. She is impressive.
 

Vega1447

Member
Feb 17, 2019
2,753
1,873
https://www.yes.scot/

You know what the UK needs to really bind it together? A referendum.



The last referendum was held just 5 years ago and was rejected 55% to 45%. And really it seemed to be rejected for four reasons, and many of them are interlinked
  1. The UK and EU were clear that Scotland would be out of the EU and would have to reapply for membership
  2. There was no workable currency plan laid out
  3. Poorly developed economic forecasting which was overly reliant on oil. Had it actually won and been implemented: The country would be in ruins today
  4. Enough young and old Scots liked being in the UK. Unusually for this sort of thing, the taxpaying worker base was in favour of independence, it was the non-taxpaying voters who rejected it. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948
But that was 5 years ago. What's changed based on today?
  1. This argument is in ruins with the Brexit vote. Scotland will leave with the rest of the UK. So using it as a threat to keep them in disappears. The EU will streamline their accession process. But (And this is crucial) that will ONLY happen if they leave with a Westminster backed referendum. Spain, Italy and Belgium won't allow them in easily if they just have their own vote that's not backed by London. If they do that, it provides a sop to Catalunya, Venice, Wallonia etc. If they go get the support from London (And a Corbyn led govt would likely give it to them) then an argument that a vote for independence is a vote for EU membership is a REALLY strong one
  2. Well they haven't bothered with this. But if 1) is successful, then you just say "We'll take the euro and do the Montenegro trick for the 5 years it takes to join the EU". There is no successful independence vote based on a position of "Sher we'll just use sterling".
  3. Yeah they've a LOT of work to do on this.
  4. I think the youth vote will turn as a result of 1). Taking away the EU and all the things the youth vote likes about the EU will be a huge factor in their voting.
But it all starts with 1. If London doesn't move on it's refusal to support a referendum, it's hard to see this progressing, or being successful if it were to progress.
Any links to support 3:
Poorly developed economic forecasting which was overly reliant on oil. Had it actually won and been implemented: The country would be in ruins today
?
 

ruserious

Member
Dec 4, 2018
5,138
4,881
I’m not so sure the Labour Party would be so quick to allow a referendum. If they did, and IndyRef passed, it would be perpetual Tory government for rUK.
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
Any links to support 3:?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/devastating-cost-of-global-oil-price-fall-to-north-east-revealed-1-4038616

Unemployment has rocketed, house prices have fallen and fewer businesses have been set up in the North-east as a result of the dramatic fall in the oil price, a new document shows.

A briefing prepared for MSPs by the impartial Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Spice) has outlined the devastating impact the oil price slump has had on Scotland’s off-shore industry.
https://www.ft.com/content/d97d49ce-877d-11e4-bc7c-00144feabdc0

Scotland’s North Sea revenues would have slumped to one fifth of Holyrood’s preferred forecasts in its first year of independence if Scots had voted Yes in September, according to an Office for Budget Responsibility simulation using current oil prices. The OBR projections, which take into account a dramatically lower oil price than the one used in Scottish government forecasts, highlight how the nation could have been saved from a crisis in its public finances by voting No in the referendum. Had Scotland voted Yes to independence, it would now be looking at oil revenues of £1.25bn instead of £6.9bn in 2016-17 — its first year as a new country — while facing a deficit of close to 6 per cent of national income, compared with a UK forecast of 2.1 per cent.
Carney was clear in a number of sessions that the rest of the UK was bailing out Scotland for the losses they were suffering. The plan was rightly derided by everyone during the referendum. They need to come up with a new one this time around.
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
Sync really really opposes Scottish Indy. Really.

Dunno why.
I'd have voted in favour of independence if it were me. Without hesitation. For much the same reasons that Farage wanted the UK to leave the EU: Short term economic damage is worth it in favour of self determination.

That doesn't mean that the Independence arguments around currency, economy and the EU weren't patent fairytale garbage. They were either lying or incompetent. That doesn't breed trust.

Too much of the campaign wasn't about Scottish independence. It was about SNP running an independent Scotland. And that's how they've kicked this one off as well.
 

Vega1447

Member
Feb 17, 2019
2,753
1,873
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/devastating-cost-of-global-oil-price-fall-to-north-east-revealed-1-4038616



https://www.ft.com/content/d97d49ce-877d-11e4-bc7c-00144feabdc0



Carney was clear in a number of sessions that the rest of the UK was bailing out Scotland for the losses they were suffering. The plan was rightly derided by everyone during the referendum. They need to come up with a new one this time around.
England bled Scotland of its oil revenues for decades at least. The Governor of the Bank of England is hardly an impartial judge of Scotland's best interests.
 

midlander12

Member
Dec 4, 2018
3,089
2,108
https://www.yes.scot/

You know what the UK needs to really bind it together? A referendum.



The last referendum was held just 5 years ago and was rejected 55% to 45%. And really it seemed to be rejected for four reasons, and many of them are interlinked
  1. The UK and EU were clear that Scotland would be out of the EU and would have to reapply for membership
  2. There was no workable currency plan laid out
  3. Poorly developed economic forecasting which was overly reliant on oil. Had it actually won and been implemented: The country would be in ruins today
  4. Enough young and old Scots liked being in the UK. Unusually for this sort of thing, the taxpaying worker base was in favour of independence, it was the non-taxpaying voters who rejected it. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948
But that was 5 years ago. What's changed based on today?
  1. This argument is in ruins with the Brexit vote. Scotland will leave with the rest of the UK. So using it as a threat to keep them in disappears. The EU will streamline their accession process. But (And this is crucial) that will ONLY happen if they leave with a Westminster backed referendum. Spain, Italy and Belgium won't allow them in easily if they just have their own vote that's not backed by London. If they do that, it provides a sop to Catalunya, Venice, Wallonia etc. If they go get the support from London (And a Corbyn led govt would likely give it to them) then an argument that a vote for independence is a vote for EU membership is a REALLY strong one
  2. Well they haven't bothered with this. But if 1) is successful, then you just say "We'll take the euro and do the Montenegro trick for the 5 years it takes to join the EU". There is no successful independence vote based on a position of "Sher we'll just use sterling".
  3. Yeah they've a LOT of work to do on this.
  4. I think the youth vote will turn as a result of 1). Taking away the EU and all the things the youth vote likes about the EU will be a huge factor in their voting.
But it all starts with 1. If London doesn't move on it's refusal to support a referendum, it's hard to see this progressing, or being successful if it were to progress.
She seems to be giving herself a considerable 'out' by presenting it as a choice between Brexit and an 'independent, European nation'. Does this mean that of Brexit doesn't happen (the most likely outcome now), then she drops her call for a second referendum?

I'm not convinced a second referendum would pass, certainly not if the UK is staying within the EU. However, on a point raised by another poster, I'm also not convinced Lab would refuse a second referendum. They will have no choice if the SNP make it the price of supporting a minority Corbyn govt, but also Lab are doing so badly now in Scotland that they have little to lose from Scottish independence.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
She seems to be giving herself a considerable 'out' by presenting it as a choice between Brexit and an 'independent, European nation'. Does this mean that of Brexit doesn't happen (the most likely outcome now), then she drops her call for a second referendum?

I'm not convinced a second referendum would pass, certainly not if the UK is staying within the EU. However, on a point raised by another poster, I'm also not convinced Lab would refuse a second referendum. They will have no choice if the SNP make it the price of supporting a minority Corbyn govt, but also Lab are doing so badly now in Scotland that they have little to lose from Scottish independence.
That's what I'd take from it. More pressure to make sure the WA gets through.

It sounds like Independent Scotland vs crappy Brexit rather than Independent Scotland versus Soft Brexit or Independent Scotland full stop.

so much deja vu. The only thing that pushed the Tories to have a referendum was the fear of losing voters and members to Farage. Now the only thing that'll get the Tories to push the WA through is losing voters and members to Farage.

My feeling is that the SNP are using independence as leverage and a contingency, now that the Tories are desperate, rather than it being an active play for independence sooner rather than later.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
What does make it darkly funny is that no Brexiteer in Westminster can oppose Scotland's right to a referendum on independence without appearing utterly hypocritical.

And I guess that is exactly what the SNP are aware of.
 

Blanco

Member
Nov 28, 2018
991
91
What does make it darkly funny is that no Brexiteer in Westminster can oppose Scotland's right to a referendum on independence without appearing utterly hypocritical.

And I guess that is exactly what the SNP are aware of.

Don't know how you can come to that conclusion , perfectly logical and consistent for Brexiteers to tell them to respect the result of the referendum they have already had.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
Don't know how you can come to that conclusion , perfectly logical and consistent for Brexiteers to tell them to respect the result of the referendum they have already had.
Circumstances have changed. Scotland voted to remain a part of a UK which was also a member of the EU.

Now the UK is (sort of, not really) trying to leave the EU and Guy Verhofstadt has made it very clear that there will be no problems with Scotland continuing to be in the EU after independence.

His wording was very important. Scotland would continue to be in the EU, it is not a case that it would join the EU.

But all of this was brought up in the OP, so either you didn't bother to read the thread or you're just stirring the pot for the sake of it.

Following your argument, a country should have a GE once in its history, and be happy with that result for evermore.

Which is madness.
 

Napper

Member
Dec 4, 2018
354
144
I’m not so sure the Labour Party would be so quick to allow a referendum. If they did, and IndyRef passed, it would be perpetual Tory government for rUK.
"At Westminster, Scotland is represented by 35 MPs from the Scottish National Party,13 from the Conservative Party, 7 MPs from the Labour Party and 4 from the Liberal Democrats. "

id like to see you expand your argument
 

Blanco

Member
Nov 28, 2018
991
91
It as a once in a referendum vote and they bottled it , for all the anti English talk in Scotland they were still too afraid to go in their own and break anyway from the English apron ties. One of the few countries ever to turn down Independence when offered it.

Not sure any new referendum would yield a different result than the last one.
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
England bled Scotland of its oil revenues for decades at least. The Governor of the Bank of England is hardly an impartial judge of Scotland's best interests.
He wasn’t speaking about their best interests. I don’t believe Carney ever expressed an opinion on how Scotland, Wales or NI should vote on independence. He did have to speak to how Scotland needed to be supported. Because Scotland needed support.

The price of Brent crude oil fell to a 12-year low of just below $30 (£23) a barrel in January, from a high of $115 in summer 2014. On Wednesday morning, it was trading at slightly above $46.

Visiting Scotland for the first time since before the 2014 independence referendum, Carney acknowledged the effect of declining North Sea oil revenues on the broader Scottish economy. “It is having a multiplier impact,” he said.

The Scottish government’s North Sea revenues collapsed in 2015-16 to £60m from £1.8bn a year earlier. It was a far cry from the rewards reaped by Scotland in 2008-09, when North Sea revenues were £11.6bn. Income from the oil industry is a key factor in debates over Scotland’s ability to fund its public finances as an independent nation.
Pretending a plan of “sher oil will pay for everything” will sell is a key reason why the independence side lost the referendum. Had they won independence, their economy would have tanked. That’s a reality. And it was ignoring reality that lost the vote last time.

It’s not just the Scots. I’m sure we’ll hear the same zero thought rubbish when the idea to absorb NI into the Republic comes. “ooh SURE it’ll be an economic boon to bring in a bunch of people who generate 1/3 the gdp per person as the republic. Think of the economic powerhouse Armagh can be once the nasty Brits are gone”.

It’ll be rubbish too and should be identified as such. It’s not a reason not to proceed with reunification imo.[/quote]
 

NMunsterman

Member
Feb 18, 2019
1,089
1,129
He wasn’t speaking about their best interests. I don’t believe Carney ever expressed an opinion on how Scotland, Wales or NI should vote on independence. He did have to speak to how Scotland needed to be supported. Because Scotland needed support.



Pretending a plan of “sher oil will pay for everything” will sell is a key reason why the independence side lost the referendum. Had they won independence, their economy would have tanked. That’s a reality. And it was ignoring reality that lost the vote last time.

It’s not just the Scots. I’m sure we’ll hear the same zero thought rubbish when the idea to absorb NI into the Republic comes. “ooh SURE it’ll be an economic boon to bring in a bunch of people who generate 1/3 the gdp per person as the republic. Think of the economic powerhouse Armagh can be once the nasty Brits are gone”.

It’ll be rubbish too and should be identified as such. It’s not a reason not to proceed with reunification imo.
[/QUOTE]


Absolutely no doubt the economics of Re-unification will need to be well mapped out - no doubt about that.
 

Clanrickard

Member
Jan 30, 2019
582
69
It’s not just the Scots. I’m sure we’ll hear the same zero thought rubbish when the idea to absorb NI into the Republic comes. “ooh SURE it’ll be an economic boon to bring in a bunch of people who generate 1/3 the gdp per person as the republic. Think of the economic powerhouse Armagh can be once the nasty Brits are gone”.

It’ll be rubbish too and should be identified as such. It’s not a reason not to proceed with reunification imo.
[/QUOTE]

Rubbish? Really? https://celticcanada.com/report-confirms-massive-economic-windfall-from-reunification-oneill/
 

Clanrickard

Member
Jan 30, 2019
582
69

Absolutely no doubt the economics of Re-unification will need to be well mapped out - no doubt about that.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it does and has. Take a look................http://www.paulgosling.net/2018/02/the-economic-impact-of-an-all-island-economy-a-draft-report-for-consultation/
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch

Seosamh

Member
Nov 29, 2018
10,422
7,162
Those are news stories about a report paid for by "The knights of the red branch". Can you link to where you read the report itself?
?
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
The report. Where's the report? You're saying you've read the report and agree with it. Right?

You're not just saying you've read a story about a report and so you believe the report's contents are accurate, meaningful, realistic etc. Right? Or am I expecting too much.
 

Seosamh

Member
Nov 29, 2018
10,422
7,162
Those are news stories about a report paid for by "The knights of the red branch". Can you link to where you read the report itself?

Ah! It would appear that the quote function malfunctioned somewhat...if you have a look back over the thread, you'll see that I was replying to another poster and that link was contained in their post...I hope that's not expecting too much..I know you don't like in depth reading... ;)
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
I like in depth reading. That's why I wanted the report!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47853228

So it's actually a big week (already) for The Plan. And The Plan is how the economy will work in the event of independence. If you view EU membership as being part of the economy section (as opposed to a social exercise) then problems with the The Plan is why they lost the last referendum.

The SNP's conference is going to debate the currency issue for most of its time, it takes up a huge chunk of Saturday. The SNP management are sticking with their view that they can force the UK to be an unwilling part of a currency union with Scotland. Which no one bought 5 years ago.

This time they're also saying though that "eventually" they'll move to a Scottish currency once 6 test are met. To provide a timeframe: The guy the SNP got to write the economic report thinks this will take about a decade.
  1. Fiscal sustainability - a "sufficiently strong and credible fiscal position in relation to budget deficit and overall debt"
  2. A Scottish central bank with "international and market credibility"
  3. Evidence that the currency would "meet the ongoing needs of Scottish residents and businesses"
  4. Sufficient currency reserves
  5. Proof that Scotland's economic cycle is "significantly out of phase" with that of the UK, so that an independent currency is "feasible and desirable"
  6. The currency must "fit to trade and investment patterns" better than the pound
The other arguments are 1) New currency now to be truly independent 2) Shift to the Euro 3) Just stick with sterling forever. 3 is the clear preference of the SNP membership.

Let's see what they come up with. But there's a lot of Brexit logic going on. "People will do what we want because we want them to do it".

An essential component of any currency decision needs to be how it will impact their EU accession. They will have to commit to adopting the Euro as part of joining. But they also have to be able to demonstrate their own operational monetary policy before joining. Just pointing at Westminster and saying "They do all our thinking for us. Please let us into the EU" won't work.

And all of that needs to be interlinked into a timeline to form The Plan. And a more mature way of approaching might be looking at the long term position in say 10 years time (Scotland is Independent, in the EU and using the Euro) and work backwards from there as to how they think they'll get there.
 

Bonkers

Member
Feb 15, 2019
4,250
4,038
He wasn’t speaking about their best interests. I don’t believe Carney ever expressed an opinion on how Scotland, Wales or NI should vote on independence. He did have to speak to how Scotland needed to be supported. Because Scotland needed support.



Pretending a plan of “sher oil will pay for everything” will sell is a key reason why the independence side lost the referendum. Had they won independence, their economy would have tanked. That’s a reality. And it was ignoring reality that lost the vote last time.

It’s not just the Scots. I’m sure we’ll hear the same zero thought rubbish when the idea to absorb NI into the Republic comes. “ooh SURE it’ll be an economic boon to bring in a bunch of people who generate 1/3 the gdp per person as the republic. Think of the economic powerhouse Armagh can be once the nasty Brits are gone”.

It’ll be rubbish too and should be identified as such. It’s not a reason not to proceed with reunification imo.
[/QUOTE]
When did they say oil will pay for everything?
 

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
The survation poll is interesting. It does clearly show that proceeding with an Indy vote as the SNP want is folly. Encouragingly though it shows that the public doesn’t view the SNP as a single issue party and are REALLY happy with how the MPs are going. Or at least have zero time for labour and the Tories.

The Survation poll was conducted online between April 18-23 with a sample of 1,012.

It asked respondents whether they wanted to leave the UK or remain. 61% said remain and 39% backed leave when don’t knows were excluded.

Asked if there should be an independence referendum within two years, 21% agreed.

But 66% believed there should be another referendum at some point.
Asked how they would vote in a Westminster election tomorrow, the SNP was backed by 41%, Labour 24%, the Tories 22%, and the LibDems 8%.

The Electoral Calculus website said the numbers would translate into 51MPs for the SNP (up 16 on 2017), the LibDems four (no change), the Tories three (-10) and Labour one (-6).
 

Napper

Member
Dec 4, 2018
354
144

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/27/snp-votes-for-scotland-having-its-own-currency-if-it-leaves-the-uk

The Scottish National party has voted to establish an independent currency “as soon as practicable” if Scotland were to leave the UK, as activists rejected a more cautious timetable put forward by the party leadership.

In a narrow victory for the grassroots, the party conference agreed by 52 votes to amend part of a wide-ranging economic blueprint, created by the party’s sustainable growth commission, to allow for a new currency to be fast-tracked and “ready for introduction as soon as practicable after Independence Day”.

The SNP leader and first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, had urged the membership to support a more gradual approach before this weekend’s campaign conference in Edinburgh.
The Guardian and some of the media is painting this as a setback for Sturgeon. I really don't see it that way. She wants a more gradual introduction. The key way of ensuring that gradual introduction isn't an argument over the word "Practicable" or the timing of decisions: It's the requirement for the 6 steps to be met. Well the 6 steps are still requirements.
  1. Fiscal sustainability - a "sufficiently strong and credible fiscal position in relation to budget deficit and overall debt" (I mean...this'll be the SNP deciding that the SNP is managing the economy ok. Really they'd need an independent head of the central bank to pass judgement on this, but there's a LOT to do in the Scottish economy before a cold reader could reasonably judge they're on top of things. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/22/scotland-cuts-its-deficit-but-is-still-outspending-the-uk
  2. A Scottish central bank with "international and market credibility" (This will be fudged and they'll settle for "Establishment of a central bank". It's never going to gain credibility before its actually managed its currency)
  3. Evidence that the currency would "meet the ongoing needs of Scottish residents and businesses"
  4. Sufficient currency reserves (Reserves of...Sterling? Euro? Gold?)
  5. Proof that Scotland's economic cycle is "significantly out of phase" with that of the UK, so that an independent currency is "feasible and desirable"
  6. The currency must "fit to trade and investment patterns" better than the pound
So 5 and 6 are the bits that matter in terms of timing of implementation. Investment patterns and economic cycle. Economic cycles are generally 5-12 years. Let's be optimistic then in favour of the SNP and say it's 5: That's 10 years to measure the cycles.

And to go back to the EU question: At what point do you start accession talks? When you're using sterling and so can't demonstrate you're managing your economy? When you've rolled out your currency (10 years time) and then have to allow a lot of time needed to demonstrate you can manage your economy?

It feels like the currency question is trying to be answered by what the SNP would like as opposed to what the public would like (Which is sterling) or in a way to forward the quickest achievement of the key national goals (Joining the EU). It feels like the question shouldn't be "What sort of currency do we want in independence" it should be "What solution will fastest get us into the EU?"

But it looks to me that Sturgeon's got the vast majority of what she wanted out of today.
 
Last edited:

ruserious

Member
Dec 4, 2018
5,138
4,881

ruserious

Member
Dec 4, 2018
5,138
4,881

Sync?

Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,443
1,091
The Watermelon Patch
That survey also has an even better picture for the SNP electorally. 43% vs 20 for the Tories and 17 for Labour.
 
Top Bottom