In the post I suggested that Andrew Wilson had claimed SNP policy to be something that it is not in his FT article. As those who follow this issue well know, the SNP leadership was defeated on this issue of sterlingisation in 2019 and a motion from Dr Tim Rideout became policy instead, setting the SNP on a policy of securing a Scottish currency as soon as practicable after independence, with no tests prior to adoption being attached.
That’s not what others say. Like, say, the FT:
The unexpected vote by delegates on the first day of the SNP conference in Edinburgh followed fierce debate over the currency policy the party should use as the basis for a renewed push for independence from the UK.
The 781 to 729 vote highlights dissatisfaction among many SNP members at the relatively cautious approach adopted by party leaders, who worry that moderate voters would be put off by the prospect of any rapid replacement of the UK pound.
Party leaders welcomed the conference’s rejection of more radical amendments to their original proposal that Scotland should aim to “be ready to make a decision on a new currency by the end of the first term of an independent parliament”.
Keith Brown, deputy SNP leader, warned before the vote that any amendment of the leadership resolution would “carry risks”.
But afterwards Mr Brown said party leaders could “work with” the conference’s demand the government must “aim that the [new] currency be ready for introduction as soon as practicable after independence day”.
“I don’t think it causes us any problems,” Mr Brown said.
The new policy retains a set of economic and policy tests that must be met before Scotland would create a new currency, raising the possibility of potentially extended period in which it would continue to use the UK pound, an approach widely known as “sterlingisation”.
Timothy Rideout, a delegate from the SNP’s Dalkeith branch, which proposed the more urgent approach backed by delegates, pointed out that sterlingisation would leave Scotland unable to act as lender of last resort for its financial sector and with no control of monetary policy.
Looks like Rideout’s proposal retains tests then. But what should this matter to a political economist for whom facts and reality don’t matter?