The SNP still has sterling work to do

Malcolm Parkin (Letters, 8 August) unwittingly undermined his own argument with his closing analogy: “like divorcing your partner, but retaining use of the joint bank account, plus joint liability for any debts”.

Why would an independent Scotland accept liability for a share of UK debt if it were effectively forced out of a currency union and denied an appropriate share of all UK assets for which Scotland has paid its proportionate share and historically supported through its trade and resources?

Jordan Parkin (Letters, same day), is possibly even more confused or deliberately misleading in his comments. Perhaps he missed the debate the other evening, but it was clear who was doing the bullying and it wasn’t the First Minister.

The question he raised would be more appropriate if reversed: surely the rUK electorate would want to have their say should the  politicians decide to effectively end a currency union with Scotland whose trade and assets underpin the pound.

Perhaps a more apt  analogy might be of a  partner seeking a divorce and requesting reasonable access to the children on the understanding that the bills will be split accordingly but the other partner ruling out any access yet still wishing to have the bills divided.

One wonders what degree of satisfaction would be derived by Alistair Darling and those supporting Better Together who know the truth (as evident from the assessments of independent economists such as Professor Leslie Young) but have still deceitfully called for a “Plan B”, should Scotland be narrowly denied independence on the basis of a lie which surely, like the buried McCrone Report, will come to light one day.

Stan Grodynski

Longniddry

East Lothian

Alex Salmond said that the “sterlingisation” option, of using the pound without a currency union, was attractive because it would mean Scotland would not have to assume part of the national debt.

There is no logical connection between national debt and the currency: national debt is part of national  liabilities, to be divided along with assets.

If Scotland does not assume national debt they will not get a share of assets (or only net share after national debt discounted).

Andrew Findlay

Gordon

Berwickshire

Offering currency union to Scotland would be the UK’s option, not Scotland’s. Put another way, if Alex Salmond met his nine English “best mates” outside a cinema and tells them he wants to see Terminator, but they all want to see Stand By Me, what film do they all go to see?

It’s time to stop the  misleading nonsense – the pound would not “belong” to an independent Scotland, and there are substantial down sides (as well as up sides) for the UK in offering it to Scotland, post-independence.

Anyone serious about independence needs to tell us what we’d give up to join a currency union, assuming we’re invited, and what we’re going to do if we aren’t  invited.

Mr Salmond, an economist, already knows the basic answers to these questions. I wonder why he’s so unwilling to share them with Scottish voters.

Gregor Johnston

Brownside Avenue

Glasgow

Further to the five letters (8 August) on the TV debate, Alex Salmond had to convince Scots that they are confident and competent enough to run their own country, whereas, as a long-time supporter of London Labour, Alistair Darling just had to scare them into maintaining the status quo and continuing to send 40 Labour MPs to Westminster.

Of course his scare- mongering about the currency is a complete red herring at this time, but “fear sells” and it is going to be interesting in the next few weeks to see how many Scots have been gullible enough to buy this desperate, nihilistic Labour Party line.

Irvine Inglis