Why no "Plan B"?
Aug. 8th, 2014 10:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
As a supporter of Scottish independence, even I sometimes get frustrated that the SNP don't explicitly say what their "Plan B" is (implicitly it's always seemed fairly clear - a currency union isn't the only way of keeping the pound).
Whatever you may think of Alex Salmond, he's not daft, so there had to be a reason for him consistently failing to give the clarification that obviously many people want. I would have guessed that it was something to do with maintaining the strength of his negotiation position after a "Yes". That wasn't a million miles off, but it wasn't wholly right. Here's Alex Salmond giving the clearest explanation I've seen of why the SNP are taking the position they are:
no subject
Date: 2014-08-09 08:54 am (UTC)And as they have no intention of X, all it does is muddy the waters and open the door to other negative campaigning.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-09 09:21 am (UTC)We may not be able to call it pre-negotiation exactly, since there's no talking, but it does seem to be a stance taken with successful negotiation very much in mind, at some risk to making the public, political case that'll establish the need for negotiation.
It must be quite a difficult stance for a politician to take, despite that political argument about the muddied waters in its favour too, and I'm glad that sort of thinking is going on. I think they should make more of a public case of that argument than they have, though.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-09 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-09 11:11 am (UTC)On the specific point of the Euro, I expect we'll retain the UK's opt-out, as will the rUK. Even if we didn't, which I think is vanishingly unlikely, there's a requirement to be in the ERM for a minimum of two years before joining the Euro, for which we'd have to have our own currency.
So the Euro is not going to happen. EU membership will, because there's no easy way to throw us out and no-one wants to. It took Iceland three years to negotiate their way out when they wanted to leave! It may not be the letter of the "law", but it's practical, pragmatic, international politics.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-09 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-09 01:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-09 06:31 pm (UTC)As to your supplemental, D'OH! You're quite correct and I should have checked before posting. It's Greenland I was thinking of, which was a member through its relationship with Denmark. Getting a small country (by population if not area) entirely mixed up with another is a pretty bad mistake to make for someone hoping his own country will be recognised, and I am suitably chastened! Greenland held an in-out referendum in 1982, and formally left in 1985.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-15 11:00 am (UTC)All this talk about currency union and where there is a plan B is about implementation details, and would be resolved through negations later.
The debate shouldn’t get caught up in details (especially ones which are dependent on so many unknowns) — it should be tackling the big issues.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-15 07:44 pm (UTC)Unfortunately, an easy way to attack the principle is to get down into practicalities (real or imagined) and give them a kicking. The SNP's policies are being attacked because they're the big, obvious target, and if they weren't part of the proposal, they'd have been attacked even more than they currently are for trying to sell us a pig in a poke.
The other easy way is to mix personalities up in the principle, which is also a card that's being played pretty hard.