THE First Minister is entitled to believe that a currency union will be in an independent Scotland’s interest.
He used to believe that a eurozone union was what was required and, indeed, Alex Salmond’s deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, is on record as saying that a sterling union would only be temporary.
If there is a Yes vote, he is also right that it will be the sovereign will of the Scottish people that he negotiates for a currency union with the rUK, but Scotland cannot force the rUK into such a union, especially when it would be bad for the rUK. Salmond’s threats of transaction charges have been shown only to disadvantage Scottish firms, the threat to default will cost Scotland dear in terms of jobs and interest rates and the UK Treasury has already said that it will meet all debts.
What Mr Salmond, Ms Sturgeon and John Swinney are offering Scotland is a currency union so that they can continue to blame Westminster for any problems, and if it all goes wrong, they will be able to plunder the savings of those in the rUK. Do Scots really think that this is social justice?
This is why there are those in the rUK who will go to court to ensure that the rUK population is allowed to express its sovereign will – something that Mr Salmond believes only Scots are entitled to do.
Dr R I Cartwright
Turretbank Place Crieff, Perthshire
The Scottish National Party wishes Scotland to have financial autonomy. This will be achieved by a Yes vote in September. Alex Salmond is proposing that, even so, he is prepared to continue to use the pound sterling, despite this involving much loss of autonomy, because – owing to Scotland’s relative innate prosperity – it is in the interest of economic stability within the British Isles. This is called statesmanship.
By refusing to even consider allowing the shared use of sterling (your report, 9 August), Labour Party leader Ed Miliband is proving that he is against reason, negotiation, common sense and prudence. But perhaps this has always been the case?
Iain WD Forde