Tuesday, 28 April 2015 / TRUTH-OUT.ORG
  • Challenging American Exceptionalism

    Until we stop invading other countries, changing their regimes, torturing and indefinitely detaining their people and supporting other countries that illegally occupy other peoples' lands, we will never be safe from terrorism.

  • House Gives $334 Billion Tax Break to 25 Richest Americans

    The repeal of the estate tax would allow the nation's wealthiest citizens to pass on all of their enormous wealth to their heirs with no taxes paid.

Is Scotland Prepared for Independence? Not Yet.

Thursday, 06 March 2014 00:00 By Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. | Op-Ed

(Image: TUNIN; Russia / CartoonArts International / The New York Times Syndicate)(Image: TUNIN; Russia / CartoonArts International / The New York Times Syndicate)I don't have a position on Scottish independence; as an American, I like my democracies big and diverse, but I also understand the frustration of the Scots, who are tied to David Cameron's England.

Whether it's overall a good idea or not, however, independence would have to rest on a sound monetary foundation.

And the independence movement has me worried, because what supporters have said on that that crucial subject seems deeply muddleheaded.

According to the independence movement, there will be no problem - Scotland will simply stay on the pound. That is, however, much more problematic than they seem to realize.

It's true that England - I mean the rump United Kingdom, or continuing Britain, or whatever - can't prevent Scotland from using the pound, just as the United States can't stop Ecuador from using dollars. But the lesson of the euro crisis, surely, is that sharing a common currency without having a shared federal government is very dangerous.

In fact, Scotland-on-the-pound would be in even worse shape than the countries using the euro because the Bank of England would be under no obligation to act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks - that is, it would arguably take even less responsibility for local financial stability than the pre-Mario Draghi European Central Bank. And it would fall very far short of the post-Draghi E.C.B., which has in effect taken on the role of lender of last resort to euro-zone governments, too.

Add to this the lack of fiscal integration. The question isn't whether Scotland would on average pay more or less in taxes if independent (probably a bit less, depending on how oil revenues were handled). Instead, the question is: what would happen if something were to go wrong - if there were a slump in Scotland's economy? As part of Britain, Scotland would receive a large amount of de facto aid, just like an American state (or Wales). If Scotland were on its own, it would be on its own, like Portugal.

Now, Scotland would presumably have high labor mobility. Assuming that it manages somehow to join the European Union (although that too would be surprisingly tricky), it would join under The Single European Act, which offers freedom of movement, and Scotland sort of shares a common language with Britain (even if you sometimes wish there were subtitles).

But that's not necessarily a good thing: what we're seeing in places like Portugal is the large-scale emigration of young workers, leaving a diminished population to bear the fiscal burden of caring for the elderly.

Again, I can understand Scots' grievances. But if they really want to do this, they had better get real about money.

© 2015 The New York Times Company
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007).
Copyright 2015 The New York Times.

Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
GET DAILY TRUTHOUT UPDATES
Optional Member Code

FOLLOW togtorsstottofb


Is Scotland Prepared for Independence? Not Yet.

Thursday, 06 March 2014 00:00 By Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. | Op-Ed

(Image: TUNIN; Russia / CartoonArts International / The New York Times Syndicate)(Image: TUNIN; Russia / CartoonArts International / The New York Times Syndicate)I don't have a position on Scottish independence; as an American, I like my democracies big and diverse, but I also understand the frustration of the Scots, who are tied to David Cameron's England.

Whether it's overall a good idea or not, however, independence would have to rest on a sound monetary foundation.

And the independence movement has me worried, because what supporters have said on that that crucial subject seems deeply muddleheaded.

According to the independence movement, there will be no problem - Scotland will simply stay on the pound. That is, however, much more problematic than they seem to realize.

It's true that England - I mean the rump United Kingdom, or continuing Britain, or whatever - can't prevent Scotland from using the pound, just as the United States can't stop Ecuador from using dollars. But the lesson of the euro crisis, surely, is that sharing a common currency without having a shared federal government is very dangerous.

In fact, Scotland-on-the-pound would be in even worse shape than the countries using the euro because the Bank of England would be under no obligation to act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks - that is, it would arguably take even less responsibility for local financial stability than the pre-Mario Draghi European Central Bank. And it would fall very far short of the post-Draghi E.C.B., which has in effect taken on the role of lender of last resort to euro-zone governments, too.

Add to this the lack of fiscal integration. The question isn't whether Scotland would on average pay more or less in taxes if independent (probably a bit less, depending on how oil revenues were handled). Instead, the question is: what would happen if something were to go wrong - if there were a slump in Scotland's economy? As part of Britain, Scotland would receive a large amount of de facto aid, just like an American state (or Wales). If Scotland were on its own, it would be on its own, like Portugal.

Now, Scotland would presumably have high labor mobility. Assuming that it manages somehow to join the European Union (although that too would be surprisingly tricky), it would join under The Single European Act, which offers freedom of movement, and Scotland sort of shares a common language with Britain (even if you sometimes wish there were subtitles).

But that's not necessarily a good thing: what we're seeing in places like Portugal is the large-scale emigration of young workers, leaving a diminished population to bear the fiscal burden of caring for the elderly.

Again, I can understand Scots' grievances. But if they really want to do this, they had better get real about money.

© 2015 The New York Times Company
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007).
Copyright 2015 The New York Times.

Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus