The dependence parties, have been accusing the SNP of ‘constitutional hokey-cokey’ claiming that the SNP has changed its positions since the 2011 election on a number of independence issues – the Queen, currency, financial regulation, Britishness and a shed load of other stuff.
This is just another example of how no-one can trust a word the dependence parties say. Their claims are untrue.
Obviously no-one has bothered to look at SNP policy or Scottish Government proposals, all announced before the historic 2011 election result.
What does this misrepresentation say about the credibility and honesty of other things the dependence parties are telling people? With the help of the SNP records, I debunk a few of these issues here. I shall continue with more items in the next days and weeks.
Retaining the Monarchy has been SNP policy since the party’s foundation in 1934. This position was also clearly laid out in the Scottish Government’s White Paper “Your Scotland, Your Voice” (published in 2009).
“The current constitutional arrangements, with the Queen as Head of State of an independent Scotland, … would provide a robust and tested constitutional framework for Scotland in the event of the transition to independence.” (“Your Scotland, Your Voice”, page 130)
The Queen is already head of state of 16 Commonwealth Realms, and also head of a Commonwealth of 54 independent states - a quarter of the earth's independent countries. I'm a republican, and I dread the idea of Charles Rothsay as the Kind of Scots, but the majority of Scots seem to want the monarchy, and if so that's OK with me. That's democracy!
Using sterling and therefore sharing the independent Bank of England has been SNP policy since 2005 if they had cared to read ‘Raising the Standard” (published in November 2005):
“The currency shall continue to be sterling…”
And ‘Your Scotland, Your Voice” (November 2009) said:
“Scotland would continue to operate within the sterling system...” (page 31)
I would have prefered to have a Scottish Dollar or Crown or whatever, independent of the BoE, but it has been suggested, by economists, that if Scotland, with it's oil, left the sterling zone, it would cause a run on the pound, which would be devastating to the English economy. Contrary to what some non thinkers suppose, we do not wish England to suffer, indeed as one of our major trading partners, as well as allies and friends, we need their economy in a good shape, as we need France's, Norway's, Iceland's, etc...
We cannot NOT be British; our country is on the British Isles. Just like Sweden cannot NOT be Scandinavian; it is a part of the land mass of Scandinavia. Just as Portugal cannot avoid being Iberian because it lies on the Iberian peninsula. No one has seriously suggested carting Scotland off to the Mediterranean or the Baltic . Indeed in an article in the Herald from as far back as 1974 the SNP’s then Vice-Chairman Douglas Crawford wrote:
“For the record the SNP seeks self-government under the Crown, with a Customs and passport union with England and the other countries of the British Isles, and an association of States of the British Isles to look after the mutual interests of all the countries.”