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
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel