Let’s bring the arguments over Indy Scotland’s finances to light

0


[ad_1]

WHEN Dr David Patrick tells us about the UK’s heightened debt level, in large part due to the pandemic – the implication being that the impact on Scotland’s finances in the event of a recurrence could seriously affect the independence debate – isn’t this the most compelling argument for setting the referendum date now, for making the arguments known and dealing with them (the claim that Scotland cannot afford, indy will be used to “scare” during indyref2, November 15th)?

The insufficient capacity to fund independence has been used in each of the roughly 60 instances where nations have torn themselves from British control. Doesn’t it say a lot that none of them “failed” enough to relinquish their independent status and begged to come back under Westminster control?

This referendum will be different, because we know we were lied to the last time; none of the promises made were kept.

WATCH: Presses start printing historic pro-independence paper

We are not in a “partnership” of the British Union; being sucked out of the EU against our will and the Scottish Parliament being ignored and deprived of any contribution to such an important economic measure has proven the lie.

As for the cost of the pandemic being in a way a deterrent through financial insecurity and fear for the future, isn’t it quite the opposite?

We know that much of the extraordinary costs involved have been incurred by incompetent funding and the dismal failure of funded systems and procedures, and considerable sums have been squandered by “largesse” to the friends of this Conservative government – the hijacking. is the kindest way to describe it (public inquiry now, please).

So how many of the 118 countries smaller than Scotland are seeking to relinquish their independence because of the pandemic? Zero, zilch, nada, none!

READ MORE: Washington Post hails Nicola Sturgeon role at COP26

In suppressing the echo of the pandemic, shouldn’t we remember that this British union has had 314 years to demonstrate how it works for Scotland?

Shouldn’t we just relate his historic contempt for Scotland, look around to see these lingering failures and then realize how we could do things so much better with full control of our own affairs?

Maybe Dr Patrick should recognize that because of its own failure this British Union is a dead and limping Union?

Let’s start the debate – set the date!

Jim taylor
Edinburgh

Dr David Patrick is undoubtedly right that Unionists and their media supporters will try to scare Scottish voters in the upcoming referendum by arguing that an independent Scotland facing a future pandemic could not afford to maintain a level of indebtedness comparable to that incurred by the British government. to finance its Covid mitigation measures.

But such a claim is patently false. Much of the money borrowed by the UK government in recent years is now credited to a Bank of England account through the “quantitative easing” mechanism. It is not a debt to foreign financial markets. An independent Scottish government, provided it has its own currency and its own central reserve bank, could follow a similar approach. This was not the case in 2014, when the policy set out in the independence white paper, Scotland’s Future, was to keep the pound sterling.

John Randall
South Lochs, Isle of Lewis

To some extent, the indyref2 issue and Scotland’s choice of currency have progressed fairly steadily since 2014, but not always seemingly in the same direction, for various reasons.

The first real choice, however, is timing, when it comes to austerity, and when should Scotland look to slow its UK-generated acceleration, stop it, and then reverse it.

Hence the need for a central bank, and a Scottish currency, and the need to set a date for these items at the same time as setting the date for indyref2.

READ MORE: Tory Scottish MSPs rake in £ 325,000 combined from second job

It might be prudent to also point out that future EU membership would likely depend on Scotland initially having its own currency.

There is of course the possible subsequent use of the euro, but this would probably only be possible once the austerity is sufficiently reversed, for the economy to be relatively stable and for the economy to grow for the benefit of the citizens. Scottish.

The second real choice is how long Scotland can allow its citizens to be under GBP austerity, while the UK’s burden on Scotland is unblocking. This choice fixes the date on which the central bank will be operational and the Scottish currency will be in place.

The question of the absence of Article 30 and the UK’s refusal to accept democracy, clearly requires both a referendum which allows citizens to register their wish to get rid of the UK, s’ they wish, and also to record their choice of currency and its expected date of implementation.

A democratically forthcoming Article 30 might only require a Yes2 vote for Scotland to become an independent nation state of the EU, leaving monetary issues as overt commitments, leaving some flexibility in any proposed cross-border monetary arrangement .

UK trade deals, chlorinated meat, hormones and GM products would stay with the UK as they would be offloaded by Scotland, as would UK national debt and Trident.

If the UK chooses to move away from democratic reality, the currency issue may well have to be at fault in Scotland using the euro as a freely traded currency, until a Scottish currency is put in place. and be internationally recognized.

Stephen tingle
Greater Glasgow

[ad_2]

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.