1/ Tim Rideout will doubtless try to rewrite history and claim the Laurentjoye report agrees with his longstanding currency plan. It does not. In the highlighted text, Laurentjoye is explicitly ruling out “voluntary exchange” - the defining feature of Tim’s plan.
An all-time classic from Richard Murphy. A weakening S£ would make private GBP pensions go up in nominal S£ terms. But those pensioners would not be “better off” in real terms. Scotland is very import dependent. Meanwhile state & public sector pensions would crater in real terms.
The Laurentjoye report is a big step in the direction of realism on currency, but the chapter on energy is not realistic. An independent Scotland could not expect bill payers in England & Wales to continue underwriting Scottish CfD & grid costs. That is not independence!
2/ The Scottish Government copied the “voluntary exchange” element of Tim’s plan in its 2025 paper “A Fresh Start with Independence”.
Laurentjoye rejected “voluntary exchange” for the same reasons I told Tim it wouldn’t work at his 2024 conference.
1/ Tim Rideout will doubtless try to rewrite history and claim the Laurentjoye report agrees with his longstanding currency plan. It does not. In the highlighted text, Laurentjoye is explicitly ruling out “voluntary exchange” - the defining feature of Tim’s plan.
Tim’s first tweet is false, but even if it were true, an opt-out system is very different to opt-in. Tim edges towards telling the truth in the second tweet. Under Laurentjoye’s proposals, depositors cannot opt-out, they must *get*-out, and that is profoundly different to opt-in.
@t_chieftan For god’s sake, just tell people the truth. Richard Murphy’s suggestion that pensioners would initially be “better off” with a weakening currency is just nonsense. And you know it’s nonsense.
An all-time classic from Richard Murphy. A weakening S£ would make private GBP pensions go up in nominal S£ terms. But those pensioners would not be “better off” in real terms. Scotland is very import dependent. Meanwhile state & public sector pensions would crater in real terms.
@t_chieftan Those things do not change overnight. In a newly independent Scotland with its own currency, that currency would immediately depreciate, and pensioners would in general be substantially worse off in real terms because of that.
The Laurentjoye report is a big step in the direction of realism on currency, but the chapter on energy is not realistic. An independent Scotland could not expect bill payers in England & Wales to continue underwriting Scottish CfD & grid costs. That is not independence!
Tim Rideout always insisted a new currency could be established with conversion of deposits purely voluntary. But Laurentjoye’s report kills that idea (it always was mad). Deposits convert automatically “without the consent of each customer”. Good luck selling that to voters…
Exactly this. If the SNP wants indyref2 on the same terms as a possible Brexit rerun, the polling on indy is miles away from where it is on rejoin. The SNP is effectively telling itself to shut up about a referendum for the foreseeable future. Good advice, but they won’t take it!
SNP ministers (Shirley-Anne Somerville on the BBC this morning among them) claiming Andy Burnham's flirtation with rejoining the EU and poss second referendum means he should also allow a second independence referendum is comparing apples and oranges in regards to poll trend
@WoSSCrypto Well quite. It’s a recipe for entrenching and widening inequalities. Should be morally impossible to support. Diehard nationalists would vote for it, but few others.
Financially sophisticated people would probably be able to get their savings out, but substantial deposits would end up trapped in the redenomination funnel. And those trapped deposits would disproportionately belong to the poor, the vulnerable, and the old.
Tim Rideout always insisted a new currency could be established with conversion of deposits purely voluntary. But Laurentjoye’s report kills that idea (it always was mad). Deposits convert automatically “without the consent of each customer”. Good luck selling that to voters…
Financially sophisticated people would probably be able to get their savings out, but substantial deposits would end up trapped in the redenomination funnel. And those trapped deposits would disproportionately belong to the poor, the vulnerable, and the old.
Tim’s first tweet is false, but even if it were true, an opt-out system is very different to opt-in. Tim edges towards telling the truth in the second tweet. Under Laurentjoye’s proposals, depositors cannot opt-out, they must *get*-out, and that is profoundly different to opt-in.