Is today’s Scottish independence White Paper really an argument for independence? I ask only because the section on currency and monetary policy is essentially arguing for the union. It says:
‘The Commission’s analysis shows that it will not only be in Scotland’s interests to retain Sterling but that – post independence – this will also benefit the rest of the UK.
‘Under such an arrangement, monetary policy will be set according to economic conditions across the Sterling Area with ownership and governance of the Bank of England undertaken on a shareholder basis.’
It argues that a formal monetary union would be in both countries’ interest because the UK is Scotland’s principal trading partner, there is clear evidence of companies operating in Scotland the UK with complex cross-border supply chains, a high degree of labour mobility, similar levels of productivity and similarities on other measures, and ‘a relatively high agree of synchronicity in short-term economic trends’. It argues that this is part of the ‘modern partnership that we seek between the nations of these isles following independence’, which is the SNP’s way of saying that they are so much more mature about independence than their opponents would allow. But arguing that it’s in the best interest of both countries to stick together on currency could feasibly come from the ‘No’ campaign as an evidence that the Union really is better together.
The pound aside, the case for independence could also be read as the case for devo-max, rather than a proper separation. It says:
‘A Scottish Parliament with limited devolved powers has already shown what is possible. The Scottish Parliament has delivered free personal care for the elderly, kept out NHS in the public sector and restored free education for our students. With powers over our tax system, social security, immigration and defence, the Scottish Parliament will also be able to make better choices for Scotland on these issues.’
Amusingly, though, one of the centrepiece policies of today’s launch is a pledge on childcare, which is already a devolved issue. This is an odd way of making Scots yearn for independence. The White Paper also cites the ‘bedroom tax’ as one of the examples of how Scotland has suffered as a result of the ‘democratic deficit’ of being ruled by Westminster governments with no majority in Scotland. This is perhaps a better example, and one the SNP has used vigorously in campaigning. But it doesn’t necessarily prove that independence is the solution. All it proves is that currently decisions on policies that are not devolved are irksome for Scotland. The model of independence that the SNP is selling is independence-lite, which isn’t so far away from devo-max anyway. This would be convenient for Salmond in the event of a ‘No’ vote as it would at least make it easier for him to continue to make the case for more power to Scotland.
The ‘No’ campaign is billing this White Paper as a ‘disappointment’ because it doesn’t answer any of the details that Scots will be looking for. This implies a great deal of speed reading, given the White Paper is 670 pages long. But on first glance, it appears fair to say that this isn’t the stunning game-changer in the independence debate, even if it does eloquently make the case for Scotland being best placed to set domestic policy.
Comments