Cycling UK Forum

rualexander wrote:

Ben@Forest wrote:There's another angle to post-independence Scottish use of the £ that has become pertinent since Brexit and which I hadn't realised:

A decade ago, pro-independence Scots sought a monetary union with a rump UK. Scotland would then continue to receive the lender-of-last-resort services and reputational benefits of association with the Bank of England. But the UK government quickly put the kibosh on that idea. Anyway, this possibility has been rendered moot by Brexit, because an independent Scotland that was already in a monetary union with an extra-EU country would be unable to rejoin the EU.

Whole Guardian article is here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rling-euro

But the currently favoured option is for the use of Sterling to be temporary until a Scottish currency was established.

I'd agree that that's the logical step; but I'm not sure the SNP are selling that idea. At the beginning of this thread I linked an Andrew Neil interview with former SNP finance spokesperson and chair of the Scottish Growth Commission Andrew Wilson about the party's independence claims. Wilson says that Scotland could rejoin the European Union with Sterling as its currency.... (it's from December 18th 2020).

Ben@Forest wrote:

Jdsk wrote:

Ben@Forest wrote:Yes it is. Just because a country is joining the EU but not the eurozone straight away does not mean it does not have to comply with the Copenhagen criteria. Which in a nutshell include:

Five points are of key interest in a country’s economy, and these are the exchange rate stability of its currency, the long-term interest rates, the government budget deficit, HICP inflation and the government debt-to-GDP ratio.

The two emboldened could not possibly be in Scotland's control if it did not have either its own currency or central bank or a currency agreement with rUK. I highlight them only because they're easy to understand, as Scotland couldn't control the other three either if it was using the £ without an agreement.

I fear we may have two different meanings for "it".

I was saying that joining the Euro wasn't mandatory at the time of Joining the EU...

The Copenhagen criteria are for joining the EU not the euro. Essentially the economics of a country must be sound without even starting the eventual transition to the eurozone the EU is going to expect anyway. It's sensible - given there's an EU budget why would they allow a country with a very poor or uncertain economy to join. It took Spain 10 years and for the first few years after acceding it had to be net contributor, despite the fact it was undeveloped compared to the other contributing nations of the time.

You switch from the Copenhagen criteria:

Five points are of key interest in a country’s economy, and these are the exchange rate stability of its currency, the long-term interest rates, the government budget deficit, HICP inflation and the government debt-to-GDP ratio.

to your interpretation of what they require:

The two emboldened could not possibly be in Scotland's control if it did not have either its own currency or central bank or a currency agreement with rUK. I highlight them only because they're easy to understand, as Scotland couldn't control the other three either if it was using the £ without an agreement.

That interpretation is exactly what the Member States would consider. And so we come to the point of agreement: there is no legal or constitutional bar to an independent Scotland Joining: it depends on the Member States. And to exactly the sort of question that you've asked here:

Ben@Forest wrote:given there's an EU budget why would they allow a country with a very poor or uncertain economy to join. It took Spain 10 years and for the first few years after acceding it had to be net contributor, despite the fact it was undeveloped compared to the other contributing nations of the time.

Jonathan

Ben@Forest wrote:... given there's an EU budget why would they allow a country with a very poor or uncertain economy to join. It took Spain 10 years and for the first few years after acceding it had to be net contributor, despite the fact it was undeveloped compared to the other contributing nations of the time.

Great questions.

1 How does Scotland's GDP compare to existing Member States?

2 Obviously there's enormous harmonisation in the starting position in just about all fields... because Scotland was recently in the EU. This is unprecedented: that harmonisation usually takes many years. It might deteriorate a bit because of decisions by the UK Government but probably not much in the next few years.

3 Would Scotland Joining be a particular problem for any existing Member State? The Spanish government's concerns about a precedent for Catalonia used to be repeatedly quoted but I haven't heard that recently, and I was never convinced.

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:
1 How does Scotland's GDP compare to existing Member States?

Per capita, it is probably somewhere slightly above mid-table.
Similar to the position of the UK at the moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

https://fraserofallander.org/gdp-per-ca ... etter-off/

Thanks.

That removes "poor". How about "small"?

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:Thanks.

That removes "poor". How about "small"?

Jonathan

By population, between Finland and Denmark, slightly below mid-table

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... population

Thanks.

So that's a richer than average, slightly smaller than average country with totally harmonised systems up to a week ago... with every area favouring Membership in a recent referendum.

That would seem to present many fewer problems for accession than any country since the 1995 group, except possibly for Malta.

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:

Ben@Forest wrote:... given there's an EU budget why would they allow a country with a very poor or uncertain economy to join. It took Spain 10 years and for the first few years after acceding it had to be net contributor, despite the fact it was undeveloped compared to the other contributing nations of the time.

Great questions.

1 How does Scotland's GDP compare to existing Member States?

2 Obviously there's enormous harmonisation in the starting position in just about all fields... because Scotland was recently in the EU. This is unprecedented: that harmonisation usually takes many years. It might deteriorate a bit because of decisions by the UK Government but probably not much in the next few years.

3 Would Scotland Joining be a particular problem for any existing Member State? The Spanish government's concerns about a precedent for Catalonia used to be repeatedly quoted but I haven't heard that recently, and I was never convinced.

I wasn't directly trying to compare Scotland to Spain (or any other country) - just saying that the Copenhagen criteria are a sensible approach and that Spain which has been a net recipient for most years of its in the EC/EU spent a few years being a contributor (almost as if the EC wanted to see it prove itself first).

Sure, my reference to Spain was me trying to spot other barriers and possible objections by Member States.

Jonathan

I think that if there was a strong feeling within the EU that they wanted Scotland as a member, a way would be found.

The question seems to be, why would they want it? The reasons might be economic or political. One economic reason might be a nett contributor to replace part of the UK contribution lost through Brexit. A political one might be some French politician's point scoring by reviving the traditional alliance against England. It may sound far-fetched but that didn't stop De Gaulle sticking his large sneck in Quebec.

thirdcrank wrote:I think that if there was a strong feeling within the EU that they wanted Scotland as a member, a way would be found.

I agree, I think the interesting question is how it's achieved, even from the first steps and I think the SNP are being disingenuous. They know for some Scottish voters the idea of losing the £ is worrying; therefore this is downplayed as much as possible. Other Scottish voters are happy to change to a new Scottish currency but don't then want to change to the Euro; therefore this is downplayed too, because following an independence vote and then achieving their aim to rejoin the EU the Euro will be the legal progression from that (the only country in the EU with a euro opt-out now is Denmark).

So the at the moment the SNP is flakey on the Euro because they want to keep as many independence voters on side for that vote.

Ben@Forest wrote:So the at the moment the SNP is flakey on the Euro because they want to keep as many independence voters on side for that vote.

No [inappropriate word removed] Sherlock. Case closed Columbo. You've figured out how politics works.

Jdsk wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:Who's right?

Hmmm... the Bank of England or another source that you can't remember?

That's a tough call. ; - )

Jonathan

No I said it was BoE or another credible source like a banking sector body or trading standards. I might not remember which but the credibility I do remember. If you can't trust trading standards...

The BoE page linked to seemed a bit simplistic, missing something I thought. I've never really looked at the BoE website. Is it dumbed down a bit?

thirdcrank wrote:I think that if there was a strong feeling within the EU that they wanted Scotland as a member, a way would be found.

Of course they would.

It seems to me that there aren't too many barriers to independent Scotland joining the EU but the potential issues aren't being addressed by the SNP. Is that a fair view?

Despite having no real stake in the issue since I'm not Scottish or living there I do have an interest. I also work worry that Brexit has created a political climate that enough voters ignore potential issues? Add in the fact the lead independence party that's in office has failed to me fully address the issues. It was a weakness with the last referendum I think that I don't really understand why they haven't looked at credibly addressing them.

Out of curiosity I've got a question for our Scottish, pro independence posters. Do you see the SNP as a long term, credible party you'd support after independence or do you see them as your best chance to get independence? If the latter do you think people will ditch their support for SNP once independence process and stability has been achieved?

My reason for asking is because I am kind of glad they're not outside of Scotland. As bad as English parties are I think they're slightly better than SNP.