Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

The Eurocrisis Squeezes the SNP

Thursday, 25th August 2011

What does Independence in Europe mean in 2011? That's one of the questions Alex Salmond and the SNP have preferred not to ask, far less find an answer to. Way back in the dog days of the Thatcher-era Jim Sillars coined the slogan as a way to demonstrate that Scotland, small and on the periphery of the continent, would not be cut adrift and helpless were her people persuaded to back the Scottish National Party's vision for independence. It was a canny move: reassuring and progressive and other nice and cosy things.

That was then and this is now. The ongoing crisis in Euroland necessarily means things have changed. The euro is not the safe harbour it once promised to be and this awkward fact, like so many other troublesome details, is a problem for Salmond. What sense is there in leaving a currency union that, often, has been sub-optimal for another, larger union that cannot possibly be tweaked to put Scotland's interests first?

As Eddie Barnes reported at the weekend, the SNP's new preference is to stick with Sterling in post-Union Scotland. That's one reponse to the problem, albeit one that prompts more questions than it answers. As Kate Higgins points out, it's tricky squaring this with the Copenhagen criteria requiring new members to "take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union".

If Euroland moves towards tax harmonisation and fuller, deeper, union then where stands Scotland then? The old argument was that Edinburgh, London, Brussels was too long an address and it made sense to cut out the middle man. But, again, times and circumstances have changed. If independence, even in an inter-dependent world, means anything it surely demands that countries must enjoy some flexibility to control their own fiscal policy. But an increasingly-centralised eurozone would seem to rule that out. This may be fine in fat times but, evidently, is less appealling in leaner years.

All of which means that the SNP faces a choice of problem: either it must deal once more with the practical (and psychological) difficulties Independence in Europe was designed to solve or it must address the problems that arise from maintaining that policy. The present course, apparently favoured by the party leadership, of keeping the benefits of Sterling while also being a full and equal member of the EU seems, like much else, to be an attempt to mix and match and have the best of all possible worlds. How realistic this is - that is how acievable - must be a matter of some contention and would, one might think, be something that we might expect Salmond to explain before he has his referendum on independence.

At present, mind you, there's little sign of any such explanation. Salmond, perhaps reasonably, has generally preferred to talk in Big Pictures. But the more probable a referendum becomes so the detail - tedious and awkward as it must be - matters just as much as the grander, broader sweep of history.

Which, in turn, brings us back to the beginning: what does independence mean, how is it achievable, what are you leaving and what are you joining? At present, the SNP don't have many compelling answers to these questions. Which, in turn, helps explain why so-called "Independence-Lite" is the new kid on the block and why - though this is a matter for another day - there is increasingly little difference between the Tory federalist approach and the Independence-Lite favoured by some leading nationalists.

Filed under: Euro (189 more articles) , Europe (749 more articles) , Salmond (83 more articles) , Scotland (500 more articles) , SNP (219 more articles) , Tories (273 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (11)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Mac

August 25th, 2011 1:40pm Report this comment

Full Quote, Copenhagen Criteria, "Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union."

Take for example Poland, joined the EU in 2003 - the earliest date to adopt the Euro 2019 - possibly never.

arnoldo87

August 25th, 2011 1:52pm Report this comment

"If Euroland moves towards tax harmonisation and fuller, deeper, union then where stands Scotland then?"

This prospect is so remote that Scotland will probably qualify for the final stages of the World Cup again before it happens.

Kittler

August 25th, 2011 2:11pm Report this comment

Eurocrisis, I'm puzzled with that. Recently took my sterling pounds to Euroland and found them greatly devalued since the previous jaunt in those parts. Surely some mistake? Entered Switzerland briefly, almost like proffering toilet paper in exchange for their francs. So Mr Massie, there is a third way, a return of the bawbee, to rank up there, alongside the Swiss franc.

Simon Stephenson.

August 25th, 2011 3:08pm Report this comment

"The present course, apparently favoured by the party leadership, of keeping the benefits of Sterling while also being a full and equal member of the EU seems, like much else, to be an attempt to mix and match and have the best of all possible worlds."

Welcome to modern politics, as polluted by the Third Way vote-grabbers, and destined to remain so until, like 1914 and 1939, all the things that have become unsayable are forced upon us by events elsewhere, and/or the decisions of others.

"How realistic this is - that is how acievable - must be a matter of some contention and would, one might think, be something that we might expect Salmond to explain before he has his referendum on independence."

One might "think" this, but it won't happen. Politics is way past the point where reality gives an attractive enough picture to be acceptable to the general public. No, for the foreseeable future, it'll continue to be about applying the window-dressing, making sure that this is done in a vague enough way for it to be deniable later on.

Angus McLellan

August 25th, 2011 3:08pm Report this comment

"Independence in Europe" could be a rather flexible concept. Does it include full EU membership (Norway has done well enough in EFTA) or Eurozone membership (the UK, Sweden, and probably others, have chosen to do without) or Schengen membership (the UK and Ireland are outside)? Maybe.

Even if Scotland were to have a rebate on EU contributions, membership of the EU would cost around £500 million a year more than membership of EFTA. Is 1% of the budget together with the Common Fisheries and Agricultural Policies a price worth paying for the privelege of Scots politicians enjoying a few more days out in Europe and the occasional Eurojob? It seems to me that most Scots voters might not think that it was. So far as the man and woman in the street could tell, membership of the EEA and membership of the EU are indistinguishable.

So, far from being a problem for the SNP, a a focus on Europe should be an opportunity if handled right. The danger here may be for Labour, the Tories and the LibDems, parties committed to the EU and nothing but the EU. The SNP need only announce that they are fully committed to membership in the European free trade and movement systems, but that their position on EU membership has red lines - contributions, currency, Schengen, fisheries policy reform - which will not be crossed under any circumstances. They may also reassure voters, and further discomfort the Unionist parties, by committing to a referendum before signing up to EU membership or a change the currency.

Could the UK government or opposition say the same? Well, yes, but they wouldn't be believed. Remind us, when did you get to vote on the Lisbon treaty Alex?

ndm

August 25th, 2011 5:20pm Report this comment

Alex Massie writes:

-- The present course, apparently favoured by the party leadership, of keeping the benefits of Sterling while also being a full and equal member of the EU seems, like much else, to be an attempt to mix and match and have the best of all possible worlds.

If, say, 90% of your international trade is with a country that uses Sterling it makes practical sense to use that as a currency even if, from a theoretical perspective, it makes more sense to use the Euro. The latter is, of course, the better long-term bet.

Phil Chuds

August 25th, 2011 6:24pm Report this comment

@ ndm
I'll have what you're on please ! Euro , long term bet ? Lol , it might not last the year !

Simon Stephenson.

August 25th, 2011 6:57pm Report this comment

ndm : 5.20pm

"If, say, 90% of your international trade is with a country that uses Sterling it makes practical sense to use that as a currency even if, from a theoretical perspective, it makes more sense to use the Euro. The latter is, of course, the better long-term bet."

In what sense are you using the words "of course"?

ndm

August 25th, 2011 8:57pm Report this comment

Simon Stephenson asks:

-- In what sense are you using the words "of course"?

In the sense that Sterling is already an irrelevant currency. The online Market Center at the Wall Street Journal shows the FTSE 100 along with other major indexes - but Sterling is not in the list of currencies. There are indeed only 2 featured currencies: Yen and Euro.

Simon Stephenson.

August 26th, 2011 12:22pm Report this comment

ndm : 8.57pm

You misunderstand me (or do you?).

There's no "of course" about what you asserted - it's an opinion, not an established truth. You could have legitimately appended "of course" if you had written "Many believe, of course, using the Euro to be the better option" or "Using the Euro may, of course, be the better option", but I suppose neither of these was punchy enough for you.

ThigArLatha

August 29th, 2011 1:14pm Report this comment

The question of "Independence in Europe" could be moot depending on how the EU treat secession.
There is no real legal framework (AFAIK) in EU law for a seceding country. Given this it is equally likely that Scotland would continue in EU membership or that it would have to re-apply.
In the event of re-application it is possible that Spain might object to Scotland in the EU(given their troubles with the Basque and Catalonia regions)
However Scotland would probably be better in the EFTA (as IMHO would England and Wales-rump UK). Re Sterling. Given a reasonable run-up why should Scotland not have it's own currency. We have no desire to be a world power with a world currency so as long as we can keep it stable what would we lose?

Post comment