Rideout is a member of the SNP Policy Development Committee who seems to despise Andrew Wilson and his SGC report with a passion - and says that Wilsons baby is not SNP Policy...
For the SNP, one argument FOR Sterlingisation is the same old "economic levers" excuse they've used for decades. "Oh it would all be just fine IF ONLY we had full control of (insert interest rates, monetary policy, etc ad nauseam here)" After all they will have followed the will of the Scottish people in keeping "oor" pound, so nothing can be their fault, yet again. Instead, blame a heartless Westminster and BoE for not looking after Scotland's interests, just as Brexiteers are currently blaming the EU for a situation entirely of their own making.
I think there are two problems with this. While Krugman is right—he will be thinking of dollarisation in Latin America—the reasons that failed were at least in part because as well as stability, it imported wildly inappropriate cost structures.
In the case of Scotland, would underlying economic conditions be so obviously different from remaining Britain as to assume using the same monetary policy was wrong? The issue is to an extent this is already the case: monetary policy is already balancing wide regional dispersion. I am not saying it would be optimal: of course, by definition, it would not be. But I am wondering about real-world concerns,
The other problem with the argument is surely Ireland? The Republic maintained parity with Sterling until 1979. Their system had evolved into a currency board (so, like Hong Kong today), and obviously its economy was quite different. But, the reality is Ireland allowed the Bank of England implicitly to dictate its monetary policy for almost 60 years, including through a world war, the start of Bretton Woods, and its demise.
I am proudly British, and the union is part of my identity. However, I am not sure I am convinced that this is deeply problematic for the leave argument, if it can be presented as a cost, but one worth bearing: in a way wholly analogous to "sovereignty" being "worth the cost" of leaving the EU according to some Brexiteers. What it does do is perhaps underline the pointlessness of leaving the union without one of its most significant potential benefits, but that is both a cold argument, and also quite a technical one.
You should follow Tim Rideout, MMT Evangelist (https://twitter.com/rideouttim) and Sam Taylor, MMT Myth Slayer,amongst many other things (https://twitter.com/staylorish)
Rideout is a member of the SNP Policy Development Committee who seems to despise Andrew Wilson and his SGC report with a passion - and says that Wilsons baby is not SNP Policy...
For the SNP, one argument FOR Sterlingisation is the same old "economic levers" excuse they've used for decades. "Oh it would all be just fine IF ONLY we had full control of (insert interest rates, monetary policy, etc ad nauseam here)" After all they will have followed the will of the Scottish people in keeping "oor" pound, so nothing can be their fault, yet again. Instead, blame a heartless Westminster and BoE for not looking after Scotland's interests, just as Brexiteers are currently blaming the EU for a situation entirely of their own making.
I think there are two problems with this. While Krugman is right—he will be thinking of dollarisation in Latin America—the reasons that failed were at least in part because as well as stability, it imported wildly inappropriate cost structures.
In the case of Scotland, would underlying economic conditions be so obviously different from remaining Britain as to assume using the same monetary policy was wrong? The issue is to an extent this is already the case: monetary policy is already balancing wide regional dispersion. I am not saying it would be optimal: of course, by definition, it would not be. But I am wondering about real-world concerns,
The other problem with the argument is surely Ireland? The Republic maintained parity with Sterling until 1979. Their system had evolved into a currency board (so, like Hong Kong today), and obviously its economy was quite different. But, the reality is Ireland allowed the Bank of England implicitly to dictate its monetary policy for almost 60 years, including through a world war, the start of Bretton Woods, and its demise.
I am proudly British, and the union is part of my identity. However, I am not sure I am convinced that this is deeply problematic for the leave argument, if it can be presented as a cost, but one worth bearing: in a way wholly analogous to "sovereignty" being "worth the cost" of leaving the EU according to some Brexiteers. What it does do is perhaps underline the pointlessness of leaving the union without one of its most significant potential benefits, but that is both a cold argument, and also quite a technical one.