The independence case must be remade in the face of our insecure and turbulent new geopolitics. And that case must rest ever more firmly on being part of the EU & other European organisations.
Why no consideration of the EFTA option? Once we have our own central bank and currency it would give us the fiscal and monetary flexibility we would need to build our regional economy into a national one. It’s impossible to see how this can be done without running a large deficit for strategic and social investment, or else destroying our future by giving all our assets to foreign investors and renting them back. Doing that as aspiring EU members would be seriously constrained if the (non)sustainability and (de)growth pact rules remain anything like they are now.
Thanks Kirsty, but that only addresses the political question not the economic one, which is that it would be deeply damaging to an independent Scotland's nascent national economic architecture if we were to sign up to current EU rules on deficit and competition policy, and on state aid rules as currently interpreted by the Scottish Government (though not by eg the French!) without an extended period of recovery and strategic state led investment after being part of the UK. And given the similarity of our resources to Norway's, perhaps not even then.
We have a very large maritime EEZ, like Norway and unlike almost every EU member. This needs more consideration than it has had to date.
Norway, in the EEA, has to follow EU competition rules but is a rule-taker - no voice or vote in EU and faces a custom border to EU. I can't see any non-EU position for iScotland that is better economically.
I'm not sure this conversation can conclude sensibly in this comment thread, there are too many variables! Norway has good reason for not being in the EU, had a lot of influence though no explicit power, and has protected its own currency and fisheries. In particular there would seem to be significant disadvantages for Scotland in adopting the Euro, at least under the current regime, given that our economy is likely not to be in sync with most of the rest of the Eurozone members'; and that in principle we can no longer join the EU without a commitment to manage our economy towards eventual Euro membership.
This analysis is undoubtedly incomplete and may not be correct. If you'd be interested in digging further into these issues with some members of the Scottish Currency Group, that might be very interesting and useful. You can contact me via LinkedIn if you'd like to pursue this.
A looser confederation, perhaps on the EFTA model, plus close military, security and intelligence cooperation, could be more acceptable and allow Starmer to drop his hyper defensive, terrified of Reform UK, attitude towards the EU. Britain could be a confederation - Belgium, the home of the EU has 3 parliaments...
Do you mean UK joins Efta/EEA? That would make UK and iScotland rule-takers in EU single market. Or do you mean 3 British nations (not NI I guess) are a confederation - but with common defence that would imply common foreign policy, in which iScotland couldn't join EU. Or have I misunderstood your point?
The only way the elite’s and exporters can retain co trim of Scotlands resources is through EU membership. I’m not in your position Kirsty, but I’d ask you to look around and see which actors are most vociferously advocating this EU stance. We will always be European and open to working with all European neighbours so why give up our hard won sovereignty so cheaply. Scotland has the chance to change and shape the world. Humanity badly needs us to.
I don't think EU member states give up sovereignty - unlike with the EEA - they pool (some of) it. Apart from Brexit UK, all European countries are either in the EU, EEA/Efta or are candidate countries for EU membership, so there's quite a wide consensus in favour of the EU and I can't see how iScotland could just be on its own, it would be hit worse than UK with Brexit.
Economic policy may change with the geo-politics in play currently, but as things stand all EU nations must observe the stability and growth pact (that Hillary alluded to in a previous comment). This alone is a huge obstruction to the type of well-being economy, public opinion appears to favour. This is no surprise. An economy geared to benefit people most and relegating business to survival on the free market is exactly what people all over the world need right now. However, £billions worth of lobbying goes into making sure that this is seen as bad policy by politicians.
On Brexit, this has not worked out well for the UK because it is isolationist, but because of poor governance and lack of planning. Had the UK government assessed domestic resilience in the run up to Brexit then implemented policy to mitigate domestic shortfalls, none of the economic doom would have occurred. Scotland, competently run, will be far better off as an independent nation willing to collaborate with 200 nations around the world than it would be shackled to an exclusive group of under 30 nations with economic constraints hampering what the government can offer its people.
well, we disagree - Brexit has been inevitably damaging for UK trade, output and income. And the big difference to Brexit of independence in EU is that Scotland would be part of a big open market. If you want a Scotland facing trade barriers in all directions then an indy Brexit model is your choice but not mine.
I think any disagreement comes from the partial view common discourse allows on the economy, (for all the reasons mentioned above and more). Brexit HAS been damaging for trade but that doesn’t mean it need be damaging for ordinary people and may make improving living standards easier. The narrative is completely controlled by those who need/want growth and trade to continue, despite its adverse consequences for people and planet. There is a whole economic world out there that mainstream economists have been taught and conditioned to ignore. Learning it’s framework changes perspectives on what is possible.
I don't think they stand in the way of talks, they'd have to change or go to meet EU rules but not to get to the start of either accession talks or talks on an association agreement.
Hopefully, they'll only serve to remind people of all we lost when we were dragged out of the EU. Is it wrong to be excited about the opportunity of positive change via chaos?
Why no consideration of the EFTA option? Once we have our own central bank and currency it would give us the fiscal and monetary flexibility we would need to build our regional economy into a national one. It’s impossible to see how this can be done without running a large deficit for strategic and social investment, or else destroying our future by giving all our assets to foreign investors and renting them back. Doing that as aspiring EU members would be seriously constrained if the (non)sustainability and (de)growth pact rules remain anything like they are now.
I've written on the EEA option a lot in the last several years - some of my arguments are in this blog from a while back https://kirstyhughes.substack.com/p/an-independent-scotland-in-the-eu
Thanks Kirsty, but that only addresses the political question not the economic one, which is that it would be deeply damaging to an independent Scotland's nascent national economic architecture if we were to sign up to current EU rules on deficit and competition policy, and on state aid rules as currently interpreted by the Scottish Government (though not by eg the French!) without an extended period of recovery and strategic state led investment after being part of the UK. And given the similarity of our resources to Norway's, perhaps not even then.
We have a very large maritime EEZ, like Norway and unlike almost every EU member. This needs more consideration than it has had to date.
Norway, in the EEA, has to follow EU competition rules but is a rule-taker - no voice or vote in EU and faces a custom border to EU. I can't see any non-EU position for iScotland that is better economically.
I'm not sure this conversation can conclude sensibly in this comment thread, there are too many variables! Norway has good reason for not being in the EU, had a lot of influence though no explicit power, and has protected its own currency and fisheries. In particular there would seem to be significant disadvantages for Scotland in adopting the Euro, at least under the current regime, given that our economy is likely not to be in sync with most of the rest of the Eurozone members'; and that in principle we can no longer join the EU without a commitment to manage our economy towards eventual Euro membership.
This analysis is undoubtedly incomplete and may not be correct. If you'd be interested in digging further into these issues with some members of the Scottish Currency Group, that might be very interesting and useful. You can contact me via LinkedIn if you'd like to pursue this.
A looser confederation, perhaps on the EFTA model, plus close military, security and intelligence cooperation, could be more acceptable and allow Starmer to drop his hyper defensive, terrified of Reform UK, attitude towards the EU. Britain could be a confederation - Belgium, the home of the EU has 3 parliaments...
Do you mean UK joins Efta/EEA? That would make UK and iScotland rule-takers in EU single market. Or do you mean 3 British nations (not NI I guess) are a confederation - but with common defence that would imply common foreign policy, in which iScotland couldn't join EU. Or have I misunderstood your point?
The only way the elite’s and exporters can retain co trim of Scotlands resources is through EU membership. I’m not in your position Kirsty, but I’d ask you to look around and see which actors are most vociferously advocating this EU stance. We will always be European and open to working with all European neighbours so why give up our hard won sovereignty so cheaply. Scotland has the chance to change and shape the world. Humanity badly needs us to.
I don't think EU member states give up sovereignty - unlike with the EEA - they pool (some of) it. Apart from Brexit UK, all European countries are either in the EU, EEA/Efta or are candidate countries for EU membership, so there's quite a wide consensus in favour of the EU and I can't see how iScotland could just be on its own, it would be hit worse than UK with Brexit.
Economic policy may change with the geo-politics in play currently, but as things stand all EU nations must observe the stability and growth pact (that Hillary alluded to in a previous comment). This alone is a huge obstruction to the type of well-being economy, public opinion appears to favour. This is no surprise. An economy geared to benefit people most and relegating business to survival on the free market is exactly what people all over the world need right now. However, £billions worth of lobbying goes into making sure that this is seen as bad policy by politicians.
On Brexit, this has not worked out well for the UK because it is isolationist, but because of poor governance and lack of planning. Had the UK government assessed domestic resilience in the run up to Brexit then implemented policy to mitigate domestic shortfalls, none of the economic doom would have occurred. Scotland, competently run, will be far better off as an independent nation willing to collaborate with 200 nations around the world than it would be shackled to an exclusive group of under 30 nations with economic constraints hampering what the government can offer its people.
well, we disagree - Brexit has been inevitably damaging for UK trade, output and income. And the big difference to Brexit of independence in EU is that Scotland would be part of a big open market. If you want a Scotland facing trade barriers in all directions then an indy Brexit model is your choice but not mine.
I think any disagreement comes from the partial view common discourse allows on the economy, (for all the reasons mentioned above and more). Brexit HAS been damaging for trade but that doesn’t mean it need be damaging for ordinary people and may make improving living standards easier. The narrative is completely controlled by those who need/want growth and trade to continue, despite its adverse consequences for people and planet. There is a whole economic world out there that mainstream economists have been taught and conditioned to ignore. Learning it’s framework changes perspectives on what is possible.
How do recent changes, such as SEZs and Freeports stand in the way of even talks with the EU?
I don't think they stand in the way of talks, they'd have to change or go to meet EU rules but not to get to the start of either accession talks or talks on an association agreement.
Hopefully, they'll only serve to remind people of all we lost when we were dragged out of the EU. Is it wrong to be excited about the opportunity of positive change via chaos?