GORDON MacIntyre-Kemp’s column in Thursday’s paper, arguing that the window to hold indyref2 will open after Brexit, has generated plenty of discussion. Here are his responses to feedback from some of our readers.
We don’t need Article 30 to call a consultative referendum, and there’s no law against the Scottish Parliament declaring independence after a Yes vote.
Malcolm Bailey
via thenational.scot
Gordon: The Scottish Parliament does not have control over constitutional issues – any declaration of independence following a consultative non-binding referendum would be UDI and not internationally recognised, so Scotland would be trapped in a Catalan-style situation and you can’t join the EU if your nationhood is not internationally recognised.
So why go before Brexit? Especially when you can wait till after Brexit and win outright with either a Section 30 referendum or a majority of MPs in a Westminster election (which is sovereign on constitutional issues) as long as it’s in the SNP manifesto, following a consultative Yes vote next year.
---
I think waiting is a big mistake. I hope you are wrong and that Nicola has a better plan than that, because things probably won’t look worse after Brexit. Everything will be done by Unionist politicians and newspapers to confuse the issue. We have to have the courage of our convictions and go for it ... and we should expect it to be a struggle. The British establishment will do everything and anything to stop this happening.
Dennis Nicholson
via thenational.scot
Gordon: I agree when you say “Everything will be done by Unionist politicians and newspapers to confuse the issue”.
Right now Brexit is confusing, no-one knows what the deal will be. The PM doesn’t even know.
If we call a referendum now then the Unionist politicians and media will have a field day confusing the issue. It will be harder for them to confuse and lie when a deal is signed and Brexit is undoable and people lift their heads out of the sand and are forced at long last to accept they were wrong in 2014 – they won’t do that easily and Brexit is the gift that gives in that respect.
---
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp asserts that an independent Scotland would have a balance of trade problem with the rUK if Scotland adopted its own currency. This is an extraordinary claim from an economics expert.
Scotland would have many currency options, all of which have their own advantages and risks. Each option can be managed accordingly. Pegging the new currency to the pound, at least in the short term, would solve the issue facing Scotland of the pound’s volatility after Brexit. Adopting the pound sterling means that we would have no control over our monetary policy, not to mention the problems associated with not having our own central bank. It could be managed but it is not our best option.
Gordon Murray
via thenational.scot
Gordon: Gordon Murray gets the prize for the biggest misrepresentation of what I wrote. I don’t think increasing trade with the UK after independence is a balance of trade problem, it’s an opportunity. When the pound sinks our exports to other countries will rise exponentially – if we use the same currency as the UK they will have to buy from us as we will be 20% cheaper than anyone else.
The right time to launch our own new currency will be on the day that it becomes economically advantageous to stop using our own old currency, which is the pound. Full monetary policy control is needed eventually but in the transition period we would be better increasing trade by using a falling pound to boost international exports.
“Just peg to the pound” is an interesting comment – do you understand the mechanisms of painting a peg with a hugely volatile currency? We would need massive reserves of sterling – we would need to be able to sell government-backed equities to raise funds to maintain the peg if the pound moves outside normal parameters – complicated and genuinely harder than just sterlingising. Collecting lots of pounds from sales to rUK and then, when it’s easy and beneficial to Scotland launching our own currency, is a better plan. Might be a year, might be two, might be five – it all depends on when we decide to stop taking advantage of rUK’s post-Brexit stumbling economy.
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