Osborne asks the right questions about Scotland's currency

How would Scotland combine monetary union with fiscal independence? Don't ask the SNP.

Fortunately, and contrary to some reports, George Osborne did not claim in his speech last night that Scotland would lose the pound if it became independent. It is not within the Chancellor's gift to determine what currency Alex Salmond's country uses - that power resides with the Bank of England. Nor would an independent Scotland be forced to join the euro, as is sometimes said. The UK, Denmark and Sweden have all remained in the EU despite retaining their own currencies.

What Osborne did point out (and rightly so) is that if the SNP wants a monetary union with the rest of the UK (Salmond having abandoned his promise to take Scotland into the euro) it becomes much harder for it to argue for fiscal and political independence. The existence of monetary union without complementary fiscal union being the principal cause of the eurozone imbroglio. Osborne said:

In a world in which a separate, independent Scotland wished to pursue divergent economic policies, what mechanism could there be for the Bank of England to set monetary policy, as it does now, to suit conditions in both Scotland and the rest of the UK?

As Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have seen no such credible mechanisms proposed by those advocating independence.

I am not clear they exist.

If the SNP Scottish Government cannot provide answers to these basic questions about Scotland’s currency then the Scottish people are entitled to ask this basic question in return: what path is the Scottish Government leading them down?

A spokesman for the Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney replied that Scotland needed "no lessons from a Tory chancellor whose disastrous economic policies are threatening jobs and investment across this country. The cast-iron position is that an independent Scotland will keep the pound — a position that the Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, has agreed with."

None of the above is wrong (one questions the wisdom of Osborne, the Chancellor who has presided over a second UK recession, leading the charge against independence) but, as you will have noticed, the SNP answered a charge that Osborne did not make - that an independent Scotland would lose the pound -, whilst ignoring one he did make - that monetary union and fiscal autonomy are inherently incompatible. Until it does otherwise, it will have no credibility on this point.

Chancellor George Osborne addresses the CBI Scotland annual dinner in Glasgow. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.