THE release of the First Minister’s Building a New Scotland, permits voters, businesspeople, and communities to assess the route Nicola Sturgeon has mapped for the economic transition that will accompany independence, and the shift from the Pound Sterling to a Scots Pound.
The First Minster is at pains to reassure and not terrify investors about short- and medium-term stability. London has been doing that; no need to add to the chaos. The plan provides a phased gradualist way forward. Does the paper deliver?
The paper stresses the creation of a central bank upon independence. The Scottish Central Bank (SCB) bank would have a guarantee of institutional independence: This would provide strength, help steady markets, lower interest rates, assuage investors, and reassure voters. Central bank independence is essential, but further institutional details, on senior staff, structure, accountability, responsibilities, and reporting, will be required to judge with certainty that the SCB can deliver. I expect these aspects will be clarified during the necessary legislative drafting the parliament’s committees will undertake.
What of the Scottish Central Bank’s mandate?
The paper states the SCB mandate should focus on financial stability, but it does not say if the mandate should be price stability – this is an unfortunate fudge. The SCB mandate matters. Failing to be clear on the mandate at the outset – even if the full implementation of the mandate must wait until the Scots Pound – would be wrongheaded.
A small new central bank of an open trading economy needs to keep it simple. Today, with inflation the scourge of working peoples’ lives, the case for clarity on the price stability mandate is obvious.
READ MORE: Commentators give their verdicts on the latest Scottish independence paper
Pressure for a broader mandate, such as a full employment mandate (as Prof. Tim Rideout has urged) is unrealistic. Looking ahead MSPs should drill down on the mandate issue when debating the mission of the SCB, even if the First Minister will not yet commit to price stability as the necessary principal goal.
When will we get a Scots Pound?
On the adoption of a Scots Pound the plan avoids hostages to fortune. The First Minister underscores the switch would be “guided by criteria and economic conditions rather than a fixed timetable,” but take place “as soon as practicable.” The First Minister prefers to wait until economic conditions warrant so no date is identified.
This is understandable, but the stance could potentially slow progress. Depending on the interpretation of the objective economic ‘tests’ adopted Scotland might get stuck, as leaders and the parliament argues, endlessly, over when to make the leap, because not all tests will align at any one time.
The lack of a timetable, in pursuit of reassurance, could risk an indeterminate length Pound Sterling interregnum. During this sterling phase the SCB will have no control over interest rates and monetary policy. Scotland’s monetary, and to a considerable extent economic future, would still be determined by decisions taken in Threadneedle Street, over which we have no say. Decisions taken in Downing Street would continue to shock our economy.
How long is long enough? Do we want to use the Pound for many years after independence? While I understand the political calculus for avoiding the “When” question, openness on timetables can be positive forcing factors, for policymakers, voters, businesses, accelerating, pulling forward strategies and plans, to benefit from the managed monetary and currency transition.
READ MORE: Everything you need to know from the Scottish Government economic case for independence
The Euro plan and its creation over a decade is the prime example of this dynamic. Scotland should not need more than decade to get from here to there. In the end Scotland’s voters will need a timeline, at this point they will have to wait.
Getting from the present to independence, a SCB, and a Scots Pound, also requires strengthened fiscal credibility. The First Minister understands this. She and her team are concerned about both SCB credibility and government fiscal credibility, both of which are important interrelated facets of economic stability and Scotland’s future prosperity. Establishing market, regulatory credibility (for the SCB), must come hand in hand with strengthening fiscal credibility (for the Executive). This takes time.
Stability over disarray
Here the messaging coming from Edinburgh contrasts markedly with London’s disarray. The tonal difference is no accident.
The narrative is that independence can provide stability, with credible institutions, prudent fiscal policies, long term economic plans, Scotland can be a talent and investment magnet. In support of this narrative and dynamic, the paper stresses fiscal probity and long-term planning, including a recommitment to transparent fiscal rules and reporting, in line with European norms. Moreover, the government proposes the creation of a fossil fuel “Building a New Scotland Fund” with a program for 1national investments in skills and infrastructure.
Importantly, the paper underscores Scotland would apply to rejoin the European Union, which would be an economic positive, begin to repair the damage wrought by Brexit, and provide additional stability and economic opportunities.
Overall, this latest nationalist government policy unveiling is calm, collected, measured, prudent, and believable. It should help to build investor and market credibility around the Executive’s plan. This careful intervention stands in stark contrast with the chaos in London. Indeed, the myriad of messaging and policy failures in London only serves to strengthen the effect of the contrasting calm signals emanating from Edinburgh.
The First Minister’s paper is just the beginning of a civic debate. It is a good start. We can now begin the necessary and positive political, social, and economic dialogue over Scotland’s next steps, and possible pathways.
Stuart P.M. Mackintosh is author of Creating the National Bank of Scotland and the Scots Pound.
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