I WOULD like to step into the argument being carried on at the moment by Jim Fairlie (Letters, August 14), and Douglas Turner (Letters, August 15).

As I see it there is a substantial difference between the members of the EU remaining independent while agreeing to share a currency, in the form of the euro, and agreeing to accept certain trading conditions, and Scotland’s situation. That difference is simply this: the original EU member states all sat down together and agreed certain aspects of co-operation between each other in order to facilitate trade. They also agreed to apply certain conditions or standards within their individual countries in respect of things like workers’ rights. Those who joined later were required to adopt those conditions to gain membership.

It was then left to each individual country to apply those matters in their own individual way. Thus, they are in fact 28 individual independent states acting co-operatively to their mutual benefit. No one state can tell all the others, “You must do this” or, “You must do that.” The policies they are carrying out were mutually decided and agreed upon. I suppose each country had to accept that there would be times that their own personal preference might not be the accepted outcome, but they would adhere to the decision of the majority. However, each of them has its own input and gets the opportunity to put over its point of view. That’s international democracy.

The only independence they could possibly be alleged to have lost is in respect of the acceptance of the four freedoms of movement that removes the control of their borders to allow freedom of movement of trade and people etc. But once again it is only a concession that an independent country is making towards the other independent countries in the group.

Therefore, it is possible for Portugal or Spain or Italy to behave entirely independently of the other EU countries in their internal affairs whilst still accepting and adhering to the limitations imposed on them by their acceptance of common policies. Perhaps the most absolute demonstration of this is the way Spain treated Catalonia over the independence issue. The EU didn’t jump in and say, “You can’t do that.”

This is entirely unlike the UK. Here everything that passes through the government at Westminster is biased to suit England. Little consideration is given to what Scotland needs or wants. In fact, derision is often heaped upon us by the members of the English Government. Please be very clear about this. The government that sits in Westminster is, “The English Government continuing….”.

It’s the fact that there is a level of diplomatic co-operation in setting the boundaries that allows each EU country to participate freely and still retain a level of independence. In the same way they all agreed to accept the euro as their unit of currency again to facilitate trade.

I believe that this differs for Scotland in that there is no doubt that the pound sterling is falling heavily against other international currencies and that any intervention by the Bank of England will only take into consideration what is best for England. That is logical because England holds the majority of the population and therefore it has to be the final deciding factor.

There will be no regional variation for an independent Scotland that remains attached financially to the northern edge of England. The differences that we need will not, and in truth cannot, be considered. That is why we must work towards an independent Scottish currency as soon as possible after independence as we can achieve it. We cannot afford to remain part of a currency that is on a downward slide.

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes

READ MORE: Letters: We must show some courage on questions of currency​

READ MORE: Letters, August 15