Scottish banknotes versus sterling

What is going to be different from the present devolved situation?

Looking at other countries in Europe we see that Switzerland has its own currency and is not a member of either Nato or the EU. Norway, a fringe country like Scotland, has two out of the three.

A sterling zone would be a mini version of the eurozone and we can see how good that has been for Greece and Cyprus. You cannot have a currency union without fiscal union, as the euro has proved.

Part of the Scottish trading position would be the advantage of exchange rates and since Westminster is facing large problems over energy, immigration and a lack of economic growth, cutting the link would be sensible.

Also, not being in Nato would result in a smaller defence budget, and the saving over the proportion of the present Westminster budget could exceed £2.5 billion.

Add in the net cost proportionally of belonging to the EU in contributions and restrictions (ignoring Ukip’s eccentric estimates) and that would add as much as another £1bn, which means around £700 for every member of the population would be available for increased social care or tax cuts.

If you then spread the present oil revenues over a population of 5 million instead of 62 million the economic position gets even better. Perhaps we should thank the Bank of England and tell it that if it does want Scottish banknotes it can buy them on the currency markets. After all, they could prove to be a better investment than sterling.

Bruce D Skivington

Strath

Gairloch, Wester Ross

It seems inconceivable that the bulk of Nationalist  supporters acquiesce in “an independent Scotland adopting the pound” (Perspective, 22 April). Arguably this is one aspect of behaviour where “economic reasons are the slave of the passions”.

Nationalism is about emotion and sentiment and, as one historian said, “not the dry biscuit of economics”. What people feel about a currency is more important than pragmatic arguments about narrow economic advantages.

There are meanings of a currency over and above its use as a means of exchange, or store of value.

Keeping the Scottish pound notes, for example, could be seen as a matter of national pride. However, most important is that a separate Scottish currency would be symbolic of achieving political sovereignty.

Ellis Thorpe

Inverurie

Your headline again gives the impression that the debate with England, Wales and Northern Ireland (or whatever they choose to call themselves after the United Kingdom is no more) which may take place following the independence referendum will be more of an edict from London than a fair and equitable negotiation within the law.

Following the Union between England and Scotland in 1707 the Bank of England should have changed its name to “The Central Bank of the United Kindom” which reflects its true position.

With its correct title its obligations to Scotland or Scotland’s share of its assets (including the gold reserves) would be more transparent. If Westminster wants to negotiate the terms of settlement now it should come out and say so instead of making these ridiculous partisan announcements which are designed to create uncertainty but may achieve the opposite result.

Mike Underwood

Linlithgow