ACHIEVING independence for Scotland won’t be easy and will probably get tougher, but it will be worth it to build the kind of
country that we want for ourselves and our families.
To date, 63 countries have left the British empire and Westminster did not make it a simple process for any of them. However, none has ever expressed any desire to return to imperial rule.
Now it is Scotland’s time to walk our own path and make the decisions about how we live – just as other normal countries do. In global terms Scotland is classed as a medium-sized, relatively wealthy nation – hence the reason for the debt-ridden Westminster Government’s opposition to ending the Union.
After the 2014 referendum, the two issues cited as the main reasons for the lack of adequate support for independence were:
1) What currency would an independent Scotland use?
2) What form would an independent Scotland have?
Six years on, the politicians have yet to provide meaningful proposals to answer either of these questions. Yet, several professional groups in Scotland have researched and competently defined them.
So then: what about these two big questions that remain unanswered by the politicians?
The answer to 1) is the “Scots pound”. It is normal practice for countries to have their own central bank (all EU countries have them to provide the domestic currency for internal use and foreign currency for paying for imports).
Scotland normally runs a positive trade balance, exporting more than we import, so we will have a positive foreign exchange balance. And remember it is Westminster that has generated and is responsible for the national debt – not Holyrood.
During the transition period (which will last from two to three years) we have ample time to set up the mechanisms to convert to our own currency ready for Independence Day. (The Common Weal think tank and advocacy group which campaigns for social and economic equality in Scotland, has published a number of works exploring an alternate economic and social model). The answer to 2) is “a written constitution”. This would set out the form of government, the rights of the people, authorise the currency and the financial systems, and frame the principles of the nation and its culture.
This would be a constitution to provide wellbeing, justice, dignity and equality for all in a country which, with a good conscience, we can pass on to future generations.
If the politicians are unwilling to take the necessary decisions, why don’t we tell them what we want them to do?
After all, we pay them to work on our behalf – in Scotland it is the people who are the supreme authority, not the Parliament.
Therefore, a written constitution should be a document generated jointly by both the people and the politicians, setting out the rules and regulations for a proportionally representative, democratically governed country; a constitution that will enable decision-making at the appropriate level of national, regional and local community governance.
Shortly, a Scottish charity,
titled Constitution for Scotland (CfS), will be launched with the sole purpose of providing an interactive online platform for you to have your say in how YOU want a self-governing Scotland to be governed and what form of country you want to live in.
In the meantime, you can read about the debate at: www.constitutionforscotland.scot
Robert Ingram is chair of Constitution for Scotland
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