rebooting the case for scottish independence - blank brass name plates

Four years after Scotland's referendum, what has changed?
Thanks to Britain's exit from the EU, three national elections, the rise of the new first minister, the new prime minister, Richard Renard and Reese --
Combined with a slump in oil and gas.
But the number of polls on independence has barely changed. "Why?
"I was a half this week.
An independent nationalist
He replied himself: "Because the argument has not moved . "
At least in public, neither side reflects where their arguments need to be strengthened, especially on economic issues. Until today -25 May 2018.
Remember the date.
It may become very important.
The Commission on Sustainable growth needs some digestion.
This is a document of great weight.
From what I was told about it, it retained most of the optimism that supported the Yes movement in 2014, but on top of that, it added a big chunk of frankness.
As an independent economic prospectus, it acknowledged that people were not fully assured in 2014, especially in terms of pensions, savings and mortgages.
They heard an understatement of smooth negotiations with Westminster at the time, as it was in the interests of Westminster.
Downing Street will meet Scotland's requirements, including joint control of the pound.
The cost of the transition is so low that there is no serious cost.
Higher economic growth rates will come from an enlightened government that takes all the right policy and fiscal decisions without facing any internal contradictions of economic or political resistance or reducing taxes and increasing spending.
I remember one of the "Yes" supporters who had made a heated comparison between the movement mood at that time and the "Summer of Love" in 1967.
All good things are possible and happen at the same time.
Nothing bad needs to happen.
Man, that's great.
Andrew Wilson is not a hippie, although he is deeply attracted to positive and optimistic emotions.
His committee, led by him, took a frank approach to every weakness in the 2014 economic prospectus and admitted some reasons to independent critics for credibility.
Take currency as an example.
The new plan does not seek common control from the Bank of England.
This requires the words of the former governor, the Lord (Mervyn)
King, Scotland can of course be independent, it can use the pound, but the price is great: no matter what monetary decision the City of London makes, Holly Luther must accept that it was made for the benefit of London
Scotland's dominant country is no longer included.
If Scotland's economy is out of sync with Britain's, it will be painful.
This was the case in the 1990 s, and Alex Salmond attacked it.
But London has been an exception in recent years, with Scotland on average or close to the British average.
Therefore, even if there is no Scotland in the UK, the interest rate and financial policy for the UK's middle ground may be well suited to holliluther.
If there is no control over interest rates, the central bank will be set up and the regulators will be set up, but the workload is small, as these banks will at least transfer their brass sheets south of the border to regulate from London.
Any small financial institution still in Scotland has low expectations of a bailout --out -
Although this has been the message to all lenders since the crash.
Or adopt fiscal policy.
The Wilson Commission completely swallowed the stern message from Rogers --
Scottish government spending and revenue.
It is recognized that deficits, including oil and gas revenues, account for nearly 10% of gross domestic product (gdp), which is unsustainable. So what to do?
The answer has done a lot of work.
As suggested by the Commission's name, this is not just about accelerating economic growth.
At least in Europe, the era of Tiger economy has passed.
Best hope for growth in the short term-
Productivity for a longer period of timeterm project -
With the joining of the "come to Scotland" campaign and fiscal stimulus, immigration is seen as a boost.
It's easy for an economist to say: it's not easy for a politician (
I intend to go back to the growth issue once I have a chance to digest these suggestions).
A key factor in Wilson's answer to the fiscal question is spending discipline.
Politically, this seems to be the most difficult factor to manage in an exciting environment where expectations may be far from reality.
This restriction is not a real cut, but a very small increase, 1% lower than cash growth in economic growth.
Let's say, for example, that the inflation rate is 2%,
The actual growth of 5% is not an unreasonable goal, meaning 3. 5% cash growth.
Cut it to a disciplined 2.
Public spending has increased by 5%, and you can guess that this will make the discussion at the Cabinet meeting uncomfortable.
Keep in mind that the goal is to do so over the next few years, when significant pressure is expected to be added on the basis of the medical and social care budget.
The Wilson report added that defense spending, including the nuclear deterrence budget, was cut to 1.
6% of the national economic output value (
What needs to be made clear is that Trident's money will not be spent on other priorities.
It will be used to cut the deficit. .
Then review the tax and bring it to the same level of efficiency as the best small countries.
There was a call for a rigorous review of all expenditures to ensure that the government would not continue to spend on priorities 10 years or 20 years ago simply because that was the case, because those items were too difficult to cut. What about oil and gas?
No, this is excluded and is seen as a windfall and has been invested in future generations funds for a long time. term projects.
All of this assumes a tax and expenditure system, which is not much different from what we are currently doing.
In the early days, this did not encourage people to think that Scotland would either be high
The Scandinavian model of high welfare or low tax, low regulation.
It also did not fight where Britain withdrew from the EU and Scotland might find itself in the next few years.
In five to ten years of such a fiscal plan, it is estimated that an independent Scotland will run a deficit and increase its debt.
According to what they call conservative assumptions, the deficit will fall to 3% in the ninth year.
As is the case with the euro currency rule, this is a safe and stable deficit level that is widely recognized.
Only then can the government begin to consider the other five tests set for the creation of the Scottish currency --
A small bag of tick boxes is intended to be carefully assured to voters and the market.
So while leaving monetary policy to the Bank of England, demanding strict spending discipline, the rhetoric of independence and even "taking back control" began to lose light.
Independent critics are likely to question whether it deserves all the effort, and the estimated transition cost of £ 450, only to find that the change in constitutional status does not change the dial much.
But this is one of the many lessons we have learned from the Brexit process.
"Taking back control" in an open modern economy is a mirage.
Even the Parliament of a sovereign state is bound by international agreements and market orthodox ideas.
Even in the size and depth of Whitehall, the ability of the government to negotiate and manage unrest is itself a major constraint.
In turn, this imposes strict restrictions on other goals that it can achieve in managing or reforming public services.
Whether it's in Europe for 45 years or in the UK in 311, the less critical economic union is much more complicated than it originally seemed.
In negotiations, larger and more mature participants tend to have the greatest influence.
When it is done, independence must be combined with some dependencies and many of them
Need to compromise.
As the Swiss sometimes observe about their relationship with Brussels, negotiations have never stopped.
In this sense, the Brexit negotiations could be good for the Scottish constitutional debate.
In London and Brussels, Scots can see and smell the rubber on the road.
Therefore, voters are likely to be more likely to seek and reward frankness than to join the trend depicted with the brightest red and most populist slogans.
This is one of the major challenges presented by the Wilson Commission.
This report provides some important things for the independence movement, which can be chewed or debated internally, perhaps moving in its direction in the Yes and No votes.
It challenged those who opposed Scottish independence to reflect that their campaign in 2014 was at least as serious.
They make up the majority.
But at least some must be wary of complacency.
After Brexit and opposition to Andrew Wilson's prospectus, will the same campaign and debate work again?
This report is also a challenge for all of us who are participating in the future debate in Scotland.
As far as we know so far, the report of the Commission on Sustainable growth sounds like a serious document for a serious period.
This is a more mature approach than we have seen for a long time and definitely requires a mature response.