OH dear, I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Mr McEwan Hill (Letters, September 24). I can assure him that I understood perfectly well what he actually said in his letter of September 20, and in fact agree with him that all that should be needed for independence to become a reality is a desire among the majority of Scots for it to happen.

Unfortunately, the majority of our fellow countrymen and women are not nationalists or in favour of independence to the extent they are prepared to take it on trust. My concern is that I don’t think Mr McEwan Hill appreciates the consequences of what he says.

He claims: “The SNP’s White Paper detailed four entirely viable currency options.” If by “viable” he means offering independence then it did not, and for him to continue to make that claim distorts what the White Paper said. Any currency option other than a Scottish currency denies us independence. Something as important as the currency for an independent nation is far too important to simply follow the herd, as the reaction of the Scottish electorate highlighted.

Mr McEwan Hill likes to emphasise that “when we are independent” will be the time for us to make whatever important decisions are needed for us to function as a well-ordered and efficient nation state. He includes making the choice of currency “from a range of options, at an appropriate time. When we are independent”. Will he please explain, making it as easily understood as he can, how an independent Scotland’s economy will function between the date we become “independent” and the date the Scottish Government decides which “currency option” will operate? The Growth Commission suggested a decade at least, during which time the newly “independent Scotland” would continue to use sterling. The problem with “sterlingisation” of course, is that Scotland would not be “independent”. Perhaps Mr McEwan Hill can provide us with his option?

We are told daily that a majority of Scots voted to remain in the EU and the SNP insists on linking their campaign for independence with their support for membership of the EU. Unfortunately, the EU insists applicants for membership have their own currency. Over to you, Mr McEwan Hill.

Jim Fairlie
Crieff

READ MORE: Letters, September 24

AS the debate regarding the best initial and ultimate currency for Scotland goes on, I feel I should raise the following issues.

Firstly, there is the issue of a relatively unbalanced economy

of the newly independent and rapidly changing Scotland, resultant in part from the volatile value of its economically dominant new oil and gas reserves. This can materially affect a new currency value, potentially leading to detriment to other parts of the economy. Currency stability also has a high value in risk-managing a rapidly changing environment, and I would not like to see a significant constraint to change develop.

Secondly, there is the issue of a relatively small country’s currency leaving itself open to mendacious or opportunistic play by speculators (national or corporate). The threat may be enough to significantly mobilise enough No votes, coupled with other projected fears, to prevent independence altogether.

Thirdly, there is an advantage to having the same currency as an immediate or nearly immediate neighbours, in that the trading links become less volatile. This does, however, become more difficult in respect of the euro or GBP selection.

I would expect one full parliamentary sitting of the Scottish Parliament prior to any change in the currency of Scotland, by which time the road map for the following two parliaments should be clearer.

Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow

READ MORE: Letters: We cannot predict the policies of a future Scotland