Currency risks

I am puzzled by a central plank of the Nationalists’ argument. They are so indignant at the refusal of Westminster politicians to agree to a currency union in the event of independence that they threaten to default on Scotland’s share of the national debt (thus ensuring the impossibility of any Scottish Government of the future being trusted as a borrower in the international markets).

However, why do they want a currency union?

The shambles of the eurozone makes it abundantly clear that a currency union can only work when the participating states have economies that are broadly similar in their direction.

The whole economic case for independence rests on the 
assumption that the economy of an independent Scotland will do better than that of “Rump 
Britannia”.

In other words, that the economies will no longer be on the same course. Unionists agree that the economies would 
diverge, though of course they believe in the opposite outcome to that suggested by the Nationalists.

If the Nationalists are right, why would they want to share the pound?

The advantages of a single currency between similarly performing economies are evident, but between diverging and very different ones?

Who in Germany, or Greece, if they could choose now, would agree to share a currency?

If both sides in the debate are wrong, and the economies of the two countries would actually stay broadly in line, then of course, sharing a currency would be safe – but then why bother with the risks and expense of independence in the first place?

Mairi Ross

Blanefield

Stirlingshire