Staying with sterling initially makes good sense but the plan to take complete control of fiscal policy lies at the root of any independent country.
Where a small country shares a currency with a larger (as many do with the US dollar) they must trust that the larger country is going to be stable and that their economy is going to manage to stay in line.
Getting out of synchronisation can happen either way. Greece is already demonstrating what happens when the larger euro, which is more tied to Germany than Greece, is unable to work with its fiscal policy.
Of course it could go the other way when the larger user gets into difficulties and the shared exchange rate penalises the smaller country.
Westminster faces many more problems than Scotland in the fiscal areas in the next 50 years.
England has major problems with population density, fresh water supplies and energy supply and it is not addressing these problems.
Scotland, with its lighter population density, greater sources of renewable energy, more than adequate sources of carbon-based fuels and adequate sources of water, has many more advantages. Staying linked with a Westminster controlled government in any way could drag Scotland down.
In addition, world trade is changing, the new traders are in the Pacific and South America, both of which can trade directly with Scotland without needing to use the channel tunnel or English ports and airfields.
In addition, the distance to deal directly with them is exactly the same and in the case of the northern routes from the Pacific, Scotland has the advantage.
Saving our own currency, allowing direct dealing with any country means that our exchange could be much more stable than sterling where the difficulties which could appear down South could affect its trading position.
Bruce D Skivington
Gairloch, Wester Ross