I find myself in agreement with those correspondents who argue that there are other important issues in addition to currency union in the referendum debate.
My views are based on the Scottish Government’s disregard for democracy in the currency issue. The SNP makes much play of a democratic deficit but the First Minister has stated that he opposes the people of rUK having a say in a currency union.
Far from being bullies, it is the people of rUK who would appear to be in danger of bullying by what would be a foreign neighbour.
That neighbour seems to be saying that it will insist on the people of rUK using their savings to underwrite a currency union, open their borders to a country that wishes a more relaxed immigration policy despite the security threat to the people of rUK and even insists that rUK buys its warships from foreign yards rather than employ its own people.
The First Minister seems anxious to promote as much distrust and ill-feeling south of the Border as he can by insisting that he can impose his wishes on people who will have become foreigners.
The people in rUK will demand, and rightly so, their say via a referendum on the shape of the relationship between Scotland and rUK – it is what independent, sovereign nations do.
(Dr) Roger I Cartwright
George Byron (Letters, 13 August), referring to possible Scottish independence within the European Union, states that “new members must adopt the euro”. My understanding is that new members have to wait at least two years before joining the euro, even if they want to.
There is also the question of whether Scotland, having been in the EU for 40 years as part of the UK, would be considered a “new” member.
If Mr Byron looks at the currencies list which you publish most days he will see, as well as an exchange rate for the euro, rates for the currencies of Poland, Sweden and Denmark, all EU members which have avoided, so far, joining the euro – though they joined the EU when the “rule” to which Mr Byron refers was in force.
Whatever its failings, the EU appears fairly flexible and pragmatic over the application of rules.
It is clear that the central (and crucial) element of the dispute between the two, rival campaigns in the referendum is focused on the matter of currency and a central bank of last resort.
Although Stan Grodynski (Letters, 13 August) is at one with the Yes campaign’s frantic attempts to change the topic, it is the nub of the matter, even though other subjects such as the uncosted and “back of a fag packet” defence plans illustrate the lack of any intellectual rigour in the separatists’ policies.
However, when it boils down to it, businesses in Scotland, especially those which might be calling for the security of a central bank to bail them out, will not be impressed by the evasive responses by Mr Salmond in the recent debate with head of the No campaign, Alistair Darling.
Since a central bank is a prerequisite of EU membership, if Scotland were to vote Yes, there would need to be an immediate reappraisal of the realities of the financial position on the day following such a vote.
Regardless of the hostility a number of EU member states may have to a part of an existing member state applying for membership (and many have their own separatists too), the lack of a central bank would itself be a block to Scotland joining.
This means that a Yes vote guarantees that Scotland would cease to be part of the EU on day one of independence. In the absence of any solutions to these problems, the Yes campaign is on the slippery slope and it is probably too late for them to change their position.
Andrew HN Gray