By Rab Bruce’s Spider

There has been a bit of a stooshie over the revelation that Caroline Lucas, the only Green MP at Westminster, voted against the SNP’s proposed amendment to the Scotland Bill which would have paved the way towards Full Fiscal Autonomy. As things turned out, her single vote didn’t affect the outcome but, as always in politics, its the act itself which has caused the uproar.

In defending her action, Ms Lucas stated that she was voting in accordance with the policy of her Scottish Green counterparts, which was an interesting revelation in itself.

When challenged on this, Patrick Harvie of the Scottish Greens said on Twitter that fiscal autonomy without monetary control was a bad idea and, as far as the greens are concerned, it seems to be full independence or nothing.

Patrick Harvie is that rare thing in politics, a man of principle and the greens are lucky to have him. His performances during the IndieRef were always a joy and he consistently spoke with reason, intelligence and passion. He was also one of the few who stated unequivocally that an independent Scotland should have its own currency from the start rather than remain in a sterling currency union. In this, his stance on FFA is consistent and he is to be applauded for sticking to his principles.

The entire argument is rather academic since FFA is not, and never really was, on the agenda. However, Patrick Harvie has raised an interesting point and it is worth considering both his argument and the potential impact.

To begin with, I agree with him that an independent Scotland should have its own currency, if not immediately on independence then certainly within a time period of a few years at most. As I’ve mentioned previously on this blog site, the currency issue was one of the major problems for the Yes campaign and, while the SNP clung to the sterling zone argument because they did not want to scare away even more voters who had already demonstrated their fear of change, a new currency would provide long term stability once the short term problems had been overcome.

Patrick Harvie’s argument is that, without control over monetary policy, having fiscal autonomy is not a properly viable way to run a country. He cited the example of Greece as a country with fiscal autonomy but no control over its monetary policy and therefore unable to devalue its way out of its current problems.

While this is certainly true, Greece is a worst case scenario, the result of many errors of policy by Greeks and their creditors over many years. What Patrick Harvie didn’t mention was that countries whose economies are broadly similar don’t have the same issues operating within a currency union. Belgium, The Netherlands and Finland aren’t experiencing the same problems as Greece.

In the case of a non-independent Scotland, though, the issue is whether FFA within the UK would be viable. There seems to be no reason why not. States within other countries with a federal system seem to manage reasonably well. Canada, the United States of America and Germany use federal systems where individual states have a great deal of autonomy yet operate without monetary control. That’s not to say that some States don’t sometimes have financial problems but, equally, fully independent countries often suffer financial difficulties as well. It’s not so much the system as how States operate within the system they have that is important and one thing you can say about Scots is that their reputation for being canny with money is well deserved. Indeed, for all the accusations made about Scotland not being able to cope as a financially independent country, it should be noted that every Scottish Government since the inception of the devolved Parliament at Holyrood has balanced its books and spent its pocket money handout from Westminster responsibly.

From an economic perspective then, I must disagree with Patrick Harvie’s opinion although I do agree that FFA would be cumbersome and problematic to establish and is a long way short of what I really want for Scotland.

However, it is the political aspect to the Greens’ viewpoint that may have the most impact. This is because, whatever you think of FFA, or Devo Max as it used to be known, it has always been the preferred choice of the majority of Scots. I’ve said before and will say it again because it bears repeating, that Devo Max is an odd choice because it leaves foreign policy in the hands of a xenophobic, militaristic elite who will drag Scotland into foreign conflicts we really have no right to be involved in. The reason why Devo Max was so popular can only be down to the same fear factor which contributed to the IndieRef result. People who dislike change will opt for the choice which they believe gives them a security blanket even though that blanket is pretty threadbare when examined closely.

For many other Scots, of course, FFA is simply regarded as another step on the road to full independence. It’s viewed as a simple progression and, with the IndieRef having gone against them, they want FFA as the next best thing. Whether it would actually be the next best thing we will never know because it isn’t going to happen anyway but this belief is what drives many pro-Indie supporters.

What this all boils down to, then, is that, rightly or wrongly, the Scottish public want Devo Max or FFA. The Greens are therefore out of step with public opinion and it is this stance which may affect their chances in next year’s Holyrood election.

The greens would probably be many people’s choice for their vote on the Regional Lists in the Holyrood election. There has been much debate about whether this splitting of the pro-Indie vote could result in the SNP needing to form a minority Government, either in coalition with the greens or perhaps even with the Greens forming the main Opposition. However, by taking a stance against FFA, albeit by using only one inconsequential vote in the House of Commons, the greens may have jeopardised their chances as many pro-FFA voters might decide to stick with the SNP for both Constituency and Regional votes.

Of course, a year is a long time in politics and viewpoints as well as circumstances might change. As things stand, FFA isn’t happening and neither is independence. Come to that, the Vow isn’t even being delivered. In Westminster, the Tories are doing their best to reinforce Scotland’s status as a colony deprived of any real power. Whether the voters of Scotland will resent this enough to give another resounding vote in the Holyrood elections remains to be seen. In the meantime, supporters of the SNP and the Greens should agree to disagree over the hypothetical question of FFA and concentrate on combating the far more serious issue of austerity cuts and the demeaning of Scottish hopes and wishes in Westminster.