My take on Foreign Affairs Committee report

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP

May 1st 2013 12:05am GMT

Independence will allow Scotland to choose its own priorities, form its own relationships and decide on the policies that are in the best interests of the people of this nation.

That is the fundamental case for independence.  The best people to take decisions about Scotland’s future are the people who choose to live and work in Scotland.

This is as true for the conduct of foreign policy as it is for anything else.

Scotland is already and will continue to be a country which observes international law; respects and promotes human rights, democratic values, equality and good governance; Scotland has a unique proposition to offer the world in the field of climate change and energy; innovates through its approach to international development and aid; and has world leading expertise to offer in education, health improvement and research.  Independence will allow Scotland to have its own voice in the world to promote these issues.

In January I was delighted to be able to present this positive vision of Scotland’s place in the international community to Westminster’s Foreign Affairs Committee.  The Committee is of course comprised of politicians who oppose independence for Scotland (only two represent Scottish constituencies and both are members of parties that oppose independence) and whose primary interest is to protect and promote the interests of the UK so I was not surprised by their approach.

Nevertheless I was also encouraged by the numerous positive contributions made by experts in various aspects of foreign affairs in their evidence to the Committee and I expected that their evidence as well as my own would be given due weight in the Committee’s report.

The Committee has published that report and it includes the following passage:

“our aim was to help inform the foreign policy debate on both sides of the border, to approach with an open mind the issues under consideration, to listen carefully to the Scottish Government’s views, and to work, in the best select committee tradition, on a non-partisan basis.”

There are some constructive aspects to the report.

The Committee accepts that:

“Scotland’s application for UN membership would in all likelihood be swift and unproblematic” (albeit they contend this is dependent on the acceptance of the UK’s assertion of the UK’s status after Scotland secures independence)

The Committee also concludes that:

““We do not doubt that Scotland, as an independent country, could play a valuable role in Europe…”

And that:

“There is no reason in principle why Scotland could not set up a fully functioning

and successful diplomatic service if it became an independent country.”

It also suggests that in many areas supporting Scotland’s ambition is in the UK’s best interests:

“There was a general consensus among witnesses that it would be in the RUK’s bilateral and strategic interests to support Scotland’s NATO membership aspirations.”

But these are rare examples of balance in a report that is clearly written from the partisan perspective of a group inherently opposed to the concept of independence and primarily concerned with protecting the interests – what it sees as the status, the prestige and crucially the pro-trident position – of the UK.

However, there is one aspect of the Committee’s conclusions that I can agree with.  In paragraph 74 of the Report the Committee states:

“We recommend that ahead of the referendum, the FCO does more, when appropriate, to engage with international partners in order to highlight the UK’s commitment to a consensual and broad-based engagement on the Scottish referendum,”

As the committee states “Thus far, it is not clear that the UK is doing this.”

We have continued to press the UK Government to engage in constructive discussions and sharing of information prior to the referendum so that voters are as informed as possible about what happens next.

The Electoral Commission have also made recommendations to this effect.  Yet the UK Government chooses to focus on  the negative case for maintaining the status quo while steadfastly refusing to indicate that it will conduct sensible and consensual negotiations in the event of a vote for independence.

As the report and the UK Government are primarily concerned with maintaining the UK’s international reputation and protecting its position as a nuclear state – perhaps the committee’s encouragement that the UK’s international reputation will be harmed if it continues to take this attitude will be a lesson to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.

The Scottish Government will continue to put the positive case for independence and will continue to set out how an independent Scotland will have its own voice in global affairs and act in partnership with its friends and allies (including the UK) as a responsible member of the international community.

In the meantime I will press UK Ministers once again to reconsider their negative approach to this debate and urge them to accept the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and now the Foreign Affairs Committee to participate in a “consensual and broad-based engagement” on this historic debate about Scotland’s future.

Economic interests will prevail if Scotland chooses Independence

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP

April 23rd 2013 9:45am GMT

In some ways, the real news story today would have been if the Chancellor had come to Scotland to say something other than that, in his view, keeping the pound would be terribly difficult for Scotland.

He is, after all, a member of the UK Government  - which is against independence – and it’s in his interest to imply that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to use the pound.

By contrast, the experts on the Fiscal Commission Working Group have no axe to grind. They simply took a detailed and exhaustive look at the various currency options that would be open to an independent Scotland and concluded that staying part of a sterling zone  would be the best option for Scotland and for the rest of the UK. They also concluded that, notwithstanding the fiscal discipline that this option (and indeed any other currency option) would require, independence within a sterling zone would give Scotland substantial economic levers to grow our economy that we simply do not have at present.

The fact of the matter is that, if Scotland does vote for independence, the frenzied self-interest that we are hearing from the Chancellor today will quickly give way to more rational and hard headed economic interests. They might prefer Scotland not to choose independence (which is their right) but, if we do, here are just three economic reasons why the rest of the UK would also prefer a continuing sterling zone to any of the other options that would be available.

1. Trade. There is about £45bn of trade that flows – in each direction – between Scotland and England every year. Businesses – in England and Scotland – will want to continue to trade in sterling.

2. Balance of payments. Scotland would make an important contribution to a Sterling zone’s balance of payments.  Our onshore economy exports £23.9 billion in goods and services to the rest of the world; whilst oil and gas production, the vast majority of which occurs in Scottish waters, boosts the UK balance of payments by a further £40 billion.  Given the state of the UK economy, they won’t want to give that up.

3. Debt. If the UK government sticks to the line that an independent Scotland has no right to a share of UK assets (after all, it is our pound and our central bank as much as it the rest of the UK’s), then the inescapable quid pro quo is that we won’t be liable for any of its debts either. Somehow, I don’t think that’s an outcome they would be happy with.

Our position, supported by world-leading economists, is that within a monetary union Scotland would be able to use fiscal and other important economic levers to grow the economy and create jobs. The UK government says it disagrees. This means they have, in effect, ruled out any further transfer of tax powers within the current system as we are, of course, within a monetary union now, which the Chancellor says is incompatible with fiscal flexibility.

Business leader endorses case for Sterling Zone

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP

April 23rd 2013 8:17am GMT

I welcome comments on publication of the Treasury’s currency paper from James Scott, formerly Executive Director of Scottish Financial Enterprise (the body which represents the Scottish financial sector), Chief Executive of the Scottish Development Agency, and Deputy Secretary in the Scottish Office, who said:

“This bogus assertion by the Treasury should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

“No one seriously believes that while we have had our own Scottish banknotes for so many years under the current Westminster arrangements, we would not be able to continue  to do so as an independent country. Even the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not in the United Kingdom but have a currency union with it, issue their own sterling banknotes.

“The fact is that the pound is every bit as much Scotland’s currency as it is England, Wales and Northern Ireland’s. The Chancellor should know better than to peddle such silly scare stories.”

Reinforcing the case for Sterling Zone

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP

April 22nd 2013 2:45pm GMT

I welcome the comments made by Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College and former external member of the Monetary Policy Committee, David Blanchflower, reinforcing our view that a monetary union with the rest of the UK is the most sensible currency option for an independent Scotland.

Professor Blanchflower said:

“Should the people of Scotland choose independence in next year’s referendum it would make sense for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the common monetary area.

“Independence within a currency union would represent a substantial increase in the economic responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. A currency union would provide the full flexibility to vary tax and spending decisions to target key opportunities and challenges in Scotland – powers that are currently unavailable to the Scottish Parliament.

“George Osborne would be better off revisiting his misguided and failing policies for growth rather than scaremongering to the people of Scotland.”

Currency in an Independent Scotland

Chairman of Fiscal Commission Working Group Crawford Beveridge

April 19th 2013 9:58am GMT

Earlier this year the Fiscal Commission working group, which I chair, set out its thoughts on independence for Scotland, making recommendations on the currency that Scotland should use on independence and the way in which an independent Scotland could run its financial affairs.

The members of the group have made clear that they will remain impartial in the debate on Scotland’s future. However, in preparing the report there was no doubt in the minds of the four world leading economists – including two nobel prize winners – who make up the Commission working group that Scotland is a wealthy and productive country that has “the potential to be a successful independent nation.”

The working group’s report was clear that the best currency option for Scotland – and the UK – would be to retain Sterling and continue with the Bank of England operating across a Sterling Zone as part of a formal monetary union.

Some commentators, such as the House of Lords report last week, have suggested that a currency union may be too complicated whilst it is widely reported that the UK Government will talk down the prospects of a currency union or suggest the constraints on Scotland would be too restrictive.  As someone who has looked at this closely, debated the question with the Commission members and thought carefully about what this means for business, I cannot see how these claims hold particularly in the context of the proposition put forward by the Fiscal Commission.

A currency union is to me, the most sensible option, the simplest option and is clearly best for Scotland’s businesses and households. It could work seamlessly from day 1, would provide a continuing platform for trade and would help the division of assets and liabilities which are denominated in Sterling. With monetary policy determined at the Sterling Zone level, key opportunities for growth and tackling inequalities would flow from greater access to the key economic levers that would flow from such an arrangement. As the recent financial crisis has highlighted, risks also have to be managed – as they do under any macroeconomic framework including remaining in the Union – and in my view, the balance of opportunity and risk is enhanced, not inhibited, by a currency union.

At the most basic level, as the fiscal commission proposition sets out, a vote for independence would see key economic levers transfer to the Scottish Parliament and it would be for people in Scotland to decide how to use them to grow and rebalance the economy , to counter the geographic pull exerted on finance and jobs by London and the South East,to deliver the infrastructure and services reflecting the
choices of the people in Scotland and to provide greater opportunities for all.

With independence all revenues raised would be retained by Scotland for Scotland. At present only 7% is raised and retained locally and whilst this will increase to 15 per cent with further devolution this still reflects a constrained and centralised system.

Alongside this welfare and employment policies would also be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament under independence with the opportunity to establish a system that reflected the values of the people in Scotland – rewarded work while properly protecting the most vulnerable in Scottish society. There would also be far greater scope to integrate such new responsibilities with our existing powers in skills and education.

At the same time, the Scottish Parliament currently has no influence over the wider economic levers of regulation and competition policy, over markets that affect key areas of every-day life such as the energy market or in determining issues like employment rights or the use of intellectual property and patents to support growth and jobs.  These powers and responsibilities would come to Scotland with independence.

As the Fiscal Commission Working group said in their report, political considerations may cloud pre-referendum comments and policy statements, but these will differ significantly from the actual decisions taken post referendum when it will be clear to the UK, as well as to the Scottish Government, that an agreement would be in their common interests.

A mutual agreement on borrowing and debt levels, something which would underpin a currency union would be good for both economies.  Imagine if we had such effective controls prior to the crisis to stop the build-up of the massive public sector debts we are currently paying for?

Any economist or Chancellor knows that every economy is subject to constraints, either by a formal arrangement such as a Sustainability Agreement or by the power of the markets.  As the Balance Sheet recently published by the Scottish Government sets out, Scotland is in a relatively stronger fiscal position than the rest of the UK and meeting any such realistic targets would currently be easier for Scotland. Ensuring that this remained the case should help focus the minds of policymakers in London and Edinburgh on the importance of growth and ensuring everyone has an opportunity to succeed.

The four economists on the fiscal commission who have designed the currency union have nothing to gain from the decision the people of Scotland take.  In contrast, I fully accept that the UK Government and bodies like the House of Lords have a  very active stake in the debate and are clearly opposed to Scotland becoming independent.

However, I firmly believe that if there is a vote for independence, our proposal for a currency union will be in the best interests of the rest of the UK. This is what particularly disappointed me about the House of Lords report – it lacked objective scrutiny and it’s arguments were not supported by its own data.

As we recommended in our report, the right response to our proposals is for both the Scottish and UK Government’s to engage in technical discussions on the proposals the Commission has made and look at how they would go about delivering them.

My personal support for independence is well recorded.  My experience with the fiscal commission, has made clear to me that independence, alongside a currency union,  will give Scotland the means to strengthen its own economy whilst continuing a cross border market for  both countries and for the people and businesses within them.

Sharing Sterling is common sense

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP

April 18th 2013 12:14pm GMT

An independent Scotland will keep the pound because it is in everyone’s best interests, and to try and suggest otherwise flies in the face of the facts.

The pound is every bit as much Scotland’s currency as it is that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it’s simple common sense that we should continue to use it as an independent country.

There is an overwhelming economic argument for this, outlined in the expert report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group which has backed a currency union in the event of independence.

These economic arguments show that having a Sterling zone will be as much in the interests of the rest of the UK, as it will be in Scotland’s interests. An independent Scotland using the pound will mean Sterling’s balance of payments will be massively boosted by Scotland’s huge assets, including North Sea oil and gas – which alone swelled the UK’s balance of payments by £40 billion 2011-12.

Retaining the pound will also mean that an independent Scotland will still enjoy the huge advantages that the full fiscal freedom of independence will bring.

That means that we will be free to make our own tax and spending choices here in Scotland, to suit our own needs and priorities and to help create jobs and build a wealthier and fairer society for everyone who lives here.

Votes at 16

James Gillespie’s High School pupil and Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament Malcolm Boyd

March 12th 2013 11:05am GMT

In this country, young people can marry at 16 but we cannot elect representatives who can choose who can legally marry each other.  We can join the armed forces but we cannot choose the government which chooses our battles.  We pay taxes yet have no influence and how they are spent.

At the age of 16 we are seen as mature yet not mature enough to vote.  We are citizens and as citizens we should be allowed to vote and not allowing us puts us in the same group as prisoners and Lords.  Young people want to vote and if allowed to vote, voting will become much more of a habit which could improve our low voter turnout.

Young people are victimised in the press and wider society yet do not have a way to reply.  Young people are looking for a reputable way to voice their opinions and voting will allow this to happen whilst also giving less of a reason to rebel.

People argue that 16 and 17 year olds are not well informed.  With subjects like Modern Studies, they are probably more informed then most adults who have not been taught about modern society.  Furthermore, laws made today will have the greatest effect on the young people of Scotland for the longest time.  The referendum for Scottish independence, for instance, will have a massive effect on the young people no matter what the outcome is.  Arguments about lack of intellect, competence and understanding were used in the past against extending the franchise to women, the working classes and 18-20s.

Young people are not just citizens, they are the future of this country and should have a say on that future.

Negotiating a better pathway to Scottish independence

Director of the Center for International Human Rights, Northwestern University School of Law Prof. David Scheffer

March 3rd 2013 12:01am GMT

Earlier this month Whitehall released a report, bolstered with an annexed legal opinion by two distinguished law professors, entitled, Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence.  The Whitehall report followed my own remarks on the legal implications of Scottish independence at the University of Glasgow in late January.

The Whitehall report merits careful scrutiny in the months ahead.  No one doubts that Scottish sovereignty existed more than three centuries ago, whereas in almost all other self-determination movements the clarity of former sovereignty has been absent.  Two sovereign nations entered into the Treaty of Union of 1707.  That treaty united two countries into “One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain,” but the Whitehall report opines that “…Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.”

Some would strongly disagree with this conclusion and argue that the Scottish people retained their right of self-determination within a distinct part of Great Britain that continued with an autonomous national character (particularly in law, culture, and religion).  A major premise of self-determination is to overcome rigid presumptions, particularly where the historical record favors challenging conventional thinking heavily weighted with examples of decolonization.  The sui generis character of Scotland derives from its past sovereignty reasserting itself in a modern application of self-determination culminating in the 2014 referendum.

Nonetheless, the Whitehall report presents a fait accompli for the continuation in law of the United Kingdom as the “continuator state” in the event of an affirmative referendum vote for Scottish independence.  With its repeated arguments for the continuator theory, the Whitehall report develops further positions reinforcing the continuation of the status quo for the remainder of the United Kingdom (known as “rUK”) while Scotland would be cast off as a new state in almost every respect, to initiate its own treaty relations and membership in international organizations.  Thus is built a pyramid of presumptions based upon the initial premise of the continuator theory and yet little of which relates to the sui generis character of the Scottish situation.

Continue reading

Speech to European Policy Centre in Brussels, 26 February 2013

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP

February 26th 2013 2:01pm GMT

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to all of you today here in Brussels.

I’m especially pleased to address the European Policy Centre – an organisation which is currently at the forefront of discussions on subjects such as the recent budget settlement, reform of the banking sector and how to promote economic growth. It is an ideal forum in which to talk about Scotland’s referendum on independence in 2014, and its implications for our relationship with the European Union.

I speak here today as the Deputy First Minister of a European nation with a distinct history, culture, legal system and, of course, a Parliament of our own. However Scotland’s political status is not what I would describe as normal.

Our own national parliament in Edinburgh was reconvened in 1999 after an adjournment of almost 300 years. It has extensive powers over education, health, justice and much more besides. However key decisions about our future – on economic policy, defence, foreign affairs and welfare – are taken, not by the people of Scotland, but by governments in Westminster.

That creates anomalies which are very obvious here in Brussels. On a range of issues, from fisheries and agriculture, to employment and economic development to the digital agenda, the Scottish Government currently has responsibility for policy-making in Scotland, but has no formal or direct representation when it comes to the many decisions made here – decisions that impact, to a greater or lesser extent, on all of these important areas of responsibility.

The Scottish Government’s case for independence is therefore a simple one. We believe that the people best able to represent Scotland’s interests, and to make decisions about Scotland’s future, are the people who choose to live and work in Scotland.

Continue reading