General

  By Martin Kelly
 
UK Chancellor George Osborne’s reasons for rejecting a currency union with an independent Scotland lie in tatters today after a top economist described them as lacking logic.
 
In a withering analysis of the evidence behind Mr Osborne’s recent speech in which the Chancellor claimed he would block an agreement on currency, Professor Leslie Young, of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing, accused the Tory MP of basing his stance on a “lurid collage of fact, conjecture and fantasy”.

In the study, commissioned by entrepreneur Sir Tom Hunter, the world renowned economist is scathing of UK Treasury advice which underpinned the UK Chancellor’s views.

In the wake of a speech in Edinburgh earlier this year, Mr Osborne published a letter from his Permanent Secretary summarising Treasury advice on the currency union issue.  Mr Osborne’s decision broke with convention and led to claims the civil servant who wrote it, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, had expressed politically biased views which failed to take into account the benefits to the rest of the UK of a currency union, or the drawbacks of having no agreement.

In his analysis, Professor Leslie Young writes: “As such advice is normally kept confidential, it is fair to presume that Chancellor Osborne published it to explain his decision, that he felt that it addressed all key issues objectively and convincingly, and that senior Treasury officials had weighed up every word prior to its publication.”

However the academic then adds: “The Treasury letter therefore invites scrutiny, but this it cannot withstand:”

Professor Young then goes on to list and challenge seven key areas he says undermines the credibility of Sir Nicholas Macpherson’s advice.

1. It does not even address the question that it purports to answer: whether the currency union is in the interests of the UK, if Scotland voted for independence.
2. Its references to the Eurozone are misleading as guides to the prospects of a currency union with an independent Scotland.
3. Its claim that Scotland would be an unreliable partner in a currency union is unsubstantiated.
4. Its claim that Scotland’s financial system is “far too big”, and would therefore expose UK taxpayers to heavy burdens, is unsubstantiated.
5. Its claim that the “asymmetry” between the economies of rUK and Scotland makes the exposure of UK taxpayers to “Scotland’s financial system and sovereign” especially inequitable is not merely unsubstantiated: it is the reverse of the truth.
6. Its claim that the likely misalignment of the fiscal policies of the UK and an independent Scotland would put “intolerable pressure” on the currency union is evasive — and unsubstantiated.
7. Claims (4) and (5) assume a legal framework for the currency union that is inconsistent with the framework assumed in claim (6), so these claims do not constitute cumulative arguments against a currency union.

Professor Young says: “The Treasury claims are invalidated, not by errors of fact, but by errors of logic. These errors are subtle and difficult to disentangle. But only subtle logical error could have led Treasury to claim, in effect, that past risky behaviour by investment bankers in London, inadequately supervised by the Bank of England, somehow disqualifies an independent Scotland to be a currency union partner of England.

“There may be good reasons for the UK to reject a currency union with an independent Scotland, but none can be found in the Treasury letter. Yet, that letter is the key justification for the stance of the UK Government.”

Young criticises the advice for refusing to consider the impact on the rest of the UK should a currency-union not happen.

He writes: “‘If Scotland were to vote for independence’, then it must choose some currency option, be it currency union with the rUK, the euro, a currency board or a flexible exchange rate. The Treasury letter and paper never compare the impact on rUK of a currency union with the impact on rUK if Scotland instead chose one of these other currency options. The latter choices would almost certainly be worse for rUK, as I shall argue in Part B of this report.”

Turning the ‘Plan B’ question on its head, the economist says the UK Treasury should itself explain what arrangement it believes would be in the best interests of the UK.

“[The UK] Treasury has a duty to the Chancellor to compare in detail rUK’s transactions costs and microeconomic, macroeconomic and financial risks under Scotland’s various currency options. It has not done so.” he adds.

Other paragraphs in the letter, says the academic, contain “confused thought” and focusses on “non-issues”, having “loose analysis” with “inconsistent assumptions”.

On claims that an independent Scotland could not have withstood the banking crash, Professor Young writes: “…in any replay of the 2008 financial crisis featuring an independent Scotland, the burden of bailing out RBS and Lloyds would have fallen on the rUK taxpayer. That would have been entirely appropriate, since the high-risk, high-fee activities of these banks that expose taxpayers to large-scale bailouts take place mainly in London and benefit mainly the rUK economy.”

A spokesperson for the First Minister said: “This report totally demolishes the Treasury’s argument against a shared currency.

“As the Fiscal Commission Working Group has pointed out, the UK Government analysis to date has overstated the risks but failed to fully capture the benefits of formal monetary union.

“With the Osborne-Balls alliance, Project Fear has been losing the political argument. Now they’re losing the fiscal argument too.”

Blair Jenkins, Yes Scotland’s chief executive, said: “The report states that no good reason can be found to reject a currency union in the Treasury’s letter, proving that George Osborne also knows that a currency union makes sense. The reality is that the economics will trump political posturing after a Yes vote in September.”

Responding to the analysis, a Treasury spokesman said: “A currency union is not going to happen. The UK Government has set out detailed analysis supported by numerous independent voices as to why a currency union is not in the interests of an independent Scotland or the rUK. This decision is not going to change. This means less than six months from the referendum the Scottish Government still has no plan for what currency they would use.”

Comments  

 
#
hiorta
2014-03-23 11:00

‘The Unionist’s lot is not a happy one’
 
 
#
Dundonian West
2014-03-23 11:16

Professor Young’s Report was mentioned on BBC Radio 4 News at 7am and 8am but dropped at 9am.
 
 
#
ButeHouse
2014-03-23 12:05

The trouble with modern communication is you can be heard all over the world as you speak.

So not only do you have to bamboozle experts and pundits in your country you have to hope experts in other countries will keep stum about any ‘minor’ deficiencies which may exist in your arguments.

Westminster’s days of being able to make proclamations from on high without challenge are over so time and time again they are found wanting.

This thing called credibility is hard to quantify because it’s mainly decided at the level of our subconscious.

We are limited as to how often or for how long we can ‘manually’ over-ride our automatic thinking systems and only those with much to lose once the British System goes will be clinging onto facts long since disproven.

And as the Brits will discover – once credibility goes, it’s very difficult to recover.

YES18
 
 
#
RTP
2014-03-23 13:59

Did I see right.
BBC NEWS Scottish Politics

NewsnetScotland  .com
Lamont urged to sort out own party after Scottish Labour leader obsesses over SNP
7 hrs ago

This is on thier website nearly had a fit was I seeing right.
 
 
#
Barbazenzero
2014-03-23 14:50

Your vision is OK.

See bbc.co.uk/…/…

In From other news sites alongside the Herald’s The fight over progressive politics has to stay civilised.
 

 
#
derick fae Yell
2014-03-23 14:11

O/T (but I think you’ll forgive me).

Last night’s Althing Debate, Shetland
Tingwall Hall, Saturday, 22 March 2014

Motion, “The time is right for Scottish independence”
Speaking
FOR
Proposer Mike McKenzie MSP
Seconder Danus Skene (Yes Shetland)
AGAINST
Alastair Carmichael MP, Secretary of State for Scotland
Ian Duncan, Conservative No 1 EU elections

Pre discussion vote
For 58
Against 57
Don’t know 31

After discussion
For 70
Against 48
Don’t know 22

Yes Shetland!
Better Together can put their pathetic attempts at Partition oot a daeks!
 
 
#
gus1940
2014-03-23 17:42

The other day I received a Google alert re a report in the local Dunoon blat re an Independence meeting. As per the Shetland meeting a poll at the beginning showed a significant majority for YES followed by another poll at the end with a substantial increase in support for YES. This pattern now seems to be the norm and makes the published opinion polls look decidedly odd.

RE the main story above does this mean that Sir Tom is now a definite YES supporter? Perhaps he could take The Scotsman off JP’s hands and turn it back into a newspaper.

I couldn’t help noticing that practically every political party known to man had a rep on today’s Scottish Politics but nobody from The SNP.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.