YET another correspondent, Hugh Michael Eckersley (Letters, August 13), highlights the need for an independent Scotland to have its own currency.
He quite rightly outlines what would have happened to a Scottish currency “pegged” to sterling during the recent fall in the value of that currency. Those who think, for reasons never explained, that the euro would be a much better bet for an “independent” Scotland either do not understand the implications for Scotland of having the value of its currency determined by forces outwith its own political control, or are prepared to ignore what has happened to the countries of the southern EU as a consequence of having to endure inappropriate monetary policies, because the euro is not sterling and Westminster would not be in control. Their mantra seems to be, “We don’t care if we are not independent in the EU, just so long as we are not independent in the UK”.
I have been arguing the case for a Scottish currency since the early 1970s, inside the SNP, until I left in December 1990, and since then at every opportunity. During that period the SNP has taken various policy positions.
It supported the ERM, long past its sell-by date and until the system collapsed. Then it was the turn of the euro, still supported by significant numbers in the party, and of course, the ill-fated currency union with sterling, which scuppered the independence referendum more than did any other single issue. The latest wheeze by the Growth Commission of “sterlingisation” has been blown out of the water to such an extent that any future Scottish Government would be mad to attempt it.
Throughout each of those policy positions, the SNP never explained why any one of them would be more appropriate than a Scottish currency, justifying their stance by claiming “we don’t want to scare the horses”.
If truth be told, those lacking the courage of their convictions were not the Scottish people but the SNP. It has been heartening to see the reaction from a fairly wide spectrum of the independence movement to the whole notion of “sterlingisation” and the increased support for a Scottish currency.
However, support for a Scottish currency on the grounds that Scotland cannot be truly independent without it gives rise to another problem for the “independence in Europe” brigade. I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this question, without ever getting an answer from the europhiles in the independence movement. A significant number of independence supporters – too significant to be simply ignored – now believe Scotland cannot be truly independent without having and controlling its own currency, and monetary policy.
How can the 19 members of the Eurozone, including Germany and France, possibly be truly independent when they have neither their own currency nor control of their monetary policy? If pro-indy Remainers continue to ignore the question or refuse to answer, Scots who have yet to be convinced of the need for independence will provide their own. I seriously doubt it will be one which favours the SNP’s version of independence.
Jim Fairlie
Crieff
READING Alan Riach’s excellent article on Hugh MacDiarmid (Putting Hugh MacDiarmid’s poetry into perspective, August 13) reminded me of when I recorded MacDiarmid reciting his own poems and Burns in a studio in Biggar’s, Glasgow, in 1968.
When we came to his poem on Edinburgh he gave a chuckle, “A wee bit different from Burns’ poem on Edinburgh, eh?”.
If you read both you’ll see what he meant.
Jim McLean
London
THERE are still too many correspondents wrongly talking about an Act of Union in relation to Scotland.
The only Act of Union is the one that took place between the so-called UK and Ireland in 1800. The sovereign nations of Scotland and England, on the other hand, entered into a Treaty of Union comprising 25 articles, the legal interpretation of which is equally Scotland’s right. Article 19 expressly guarantees the continuation of a separate Scottish legal system which is the internationally recognised qualification of a nation.
The English majority, who are our equal partners, and are not sovereign over us, have violated many of the Treaty articles, often using archaic English, pre-Union laws that have no legality under Scottish law. So why is the Lord Advocate not representing that the Treaty has, in fact, been rendered null and void by English violations and that consequently Scotland is no longer in a legally binding union with England?
All we need do is call a free election.
Linda Horsburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel