Sterling could be plunged into the abyss, and Scotland would face unprecedented austerity if country votes 'Yes', warns top banker. Daily Mail

  Alex Salmond said Scotland will be entitled to use the pound if independent

  Westminster claims Scotland will have to seek an alternative currency 

  Salmond has threatened to walk away from Scot's share of the national debt

  Alex Salmond's Plan B would see every British taxpayer paying £5,900 extra 

Scotland risks unprecedented austerity and the pound could ‘plunge into the abyss’ if the referendum results in a Yes vote, economic experts have warned.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research expressed dismay at Alex Salmond’s ‘Plan B’ if an independent Scotland is barred from using the pound.

The think-tank said the SNP leader’s back-up plan – adopting the pound informally and reneging on Scotland’s share of Britain’s borrowings – was ‘opportunistic’ and would saddle every taxpayer in the rest of the UK with an extra £5,900 of debt.

It warned that defaulting on its debts would make Scotland an economic pariah, because it would be seen as too untrustworthy to borrow on the international money markets.

 This would lead to an ‘unprecedented degree of austerity and the eventual collapse in the currency regime’, it predicted.

Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, said this scenario would see Scottish bonds – loans from international investors – downgraded to ‘junk’ status. This happens when it makes no sense for investors to lend money to a country because the risk of not getting it back is too high.

Read more here:

Row breaks out over allegations that Salmond 'tried to gag' leading Scots academic who questioned independence . Daily Mail

  First Minister 'put pressure' on St Andrews principal Louise Richardson

  Source said he spent ten minutes trying to 'put words in her mouth'

  She then rejected the 'suggested statement', according to Daily Telegraph 

A spectacular row broke out last night over Alex Salmond’s alleged attempts to silence a leading Scottish academic who questioned independence.

The first minister tried to force Louise Richardson, Principal of St Andrews University, to tone down warnings about the adverse impact of a Yes vote.

A source said he spent ten minutes attempting to ‘put words in her mouth’

Leaked emails revealed how the SNP leader’s special adviser, Geoff Aberdein, urged Professor Richardson to attack the Westminster government over funding for higher education, the Daily Telegraph said.

He reportedly emailed her press secretary with a suggested statement, reading: ‘The Scottish Government has risen to the challenge on fees in stark contrast to the government south of the border and I’m sure they can rise to the challenge on research funding as well.’

But in a reply, Professor Richardson wrote: ‘I’m sorry but I’m afraid I cannot agree to this statement.’

It is also claimed the First Minister called Professor Richardson, the first female principal of the 600-year-old institution, and told her to rectify remarks she made about the consequences of Scotland leaving the UK.

Read more here: 

Scottish Independence Vote Triggers Mass Banknote Shift Amid Fears Of Run On ATMs

Millions of banknotes have been rushed to Scotland amid growing fears a Yes vote on Thursday could trigger a run on the country's ATMs, it has been reported.

As the future of the union hangs in the balance, Scottish businesses near the border have also purportedly been moving their money into English accounts in Cumbria.

Fearing people will run to withdraw money and put it into English banks, the cash has been moved to ensure the banks and , ATMs do not run out.

The Bank of England prints bank notes and circulates them in high-security vans to where they are needed, depending on the demand.

One source told the The Independent there had not yet a surge in withdrawals: “We have seen a big rise in customers coming in and asking us what would happen, but there is no sign of any significant flow of deposits from north to south.”

Another said: "We are, of course, monitoring the situation very closely from hour to hour.”

Rob Johnson, the chief executive of Cumbria's Chamber of Commerce, said many firms were transferring funds from banks registered in Scotland to those headquartered in England.

"We know it's happening, but we can't give names," he told The Guardian.

"It's inevitable that people would start to do this because uncertainty is something businesses can't handle … It's not about businesses being pro or against independence, it's businesses saying: 'There are some real issues here and we don't know what's happening.'"

Read more here:

Alex Salmond's Independent Scotland Could Fail In A Year, Warn Experts, Huffington Post

An independent Scotland "would fail within a year" if it kept the pound informally and refused to take on its share of the national debt, according to an influential think-tank.

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research warned that such an approach would lead to "unprecedented" austerity in a newly-independent Scotland. Meanwhile, any attempt to effectively default would see Scotland get a "junk" credit rating from international investors, who would then push up borrowing premiums or bar Scotland from capital markets.

The think-tank also indicated that it either risked isolating Scotland in Europe or setting off a "domino effect" of other European nations defaulting on their debts.

The think-tank said: "If Sterlingisation is combined [with] repudiating Scotland’s fair share of UK debt, we expect this regime would fail within a year."

This comes as Mark Wilson, the head of insurance giant Aviva, warned that the cost of borrowing would "almost certainly go up to cover the increased risk of being a smaller independent country".

The three main Westminster parties have ruled out sharing the pound in a formal currency union arrangement, but pro-independence campaigners have insisted that an independent Scotland would still use it informally, which has sparked warnings that it would need to make drastic cuts or tax rises to build up sufficient currency reserves.

Meanwhile, Alex Salmond has reportedly laughed off questions of how the UK government would react if a newly independent Scotland refused to shoulder its share of the national debt, saying: “What are they going to do – invade?”

Read more here:

Home Currencies Scottish independence: The cost of breaking the union Scottish independence: The cost of breaking the union, Moneyweek

Could an independent Scotland become the next Singapore, or would a ‘Yes’ vote be an act of national self-harm? Merryn Somerset Webb investigates.

In the late 1690s, Scotland’s government granted a charter to the Company of Scotland to set sail and attempt to establish a colony on the coast of Panama.

The interesting thing about this adventure is not so much its miserable end (most people died and only one ship returned to Scotland)*, but the way in which Scots of all sorts took part in it.

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography puts it like this: “While Williamites and Jacobites remained implacably opposed over the monarchy, they came to be united in a belief that the Company of Scotland offered the prospect of national and personal prosperity. The original joint-stock company of 1695 was now the vehicle for the Scottish colony of New Caledonia, supported by a remarkably diverse group of Scots who had set aside their many and varied differences in pursuit of national glory and personal wealth.”

They didn’t get either, of course. The wealth was lost and the union (which allowed participants to recoup their losses via a payment from England to Scotland known as ‘the equivalence’) was found.

Read more here:

Independence referendum: Top economists spell out 13 ways a Yes vote will hit us in the pocket, Daily Record

Sep 15, 2014 08:25 By Torcuil Crichton

THIRTEEN experts have written a joint letter to the Daily Record explaining exactly why they fear Scotland will not be richer or fairer after a vote for independence.

A BAKER’S dozen of top economists have listed 13 reasons why the people of Scotland will be worse off if there is a Yes vote.

Academics from universities across the country joined forces to spell out why they believe

independence would be a “big mistake”.

The 13 experts include the heads of economics at Edinburgh and Glasgow universities.

They warn a Yes vote would require more austerity and harsher cuts than those planned by the Westminster government – a threat that would see the poor bear the brunt.

In a joint letter issued to the Daily Record, the economists say: “Our main contention is that Scotland is unlikely to be richer and fairer if there is a Yes vote in the referendum.

“The irony is that within the Union, Scotland has a higher level of income per person than the UK.”

The academics add: “When we add up these 13 reasons not to vote for independence, we are extremely concerned that to do otherwise would be to gamble with the economic prospects of the present generation.

“As experienced and respected economists, we would urge you to vote No on September 18.”

Get all the latest independence referendum news right here.

The warning came after a leading think-tank claimed Alex Salmond has severely underestimated the economic risks of independence.

Read more here:

Expert confirms ‘There will be no oil bonanza’,

12 September

The nationalists want us to believe that we are on the verge of another oil boom and that oil will pay for everything.

The problem with this argument is that it is simply wrong. Now one of the experts that nationalists rely on has corrected the record. Professor Alex Kemp the oil expert relied upon by Alex Salmond to give credibility to his oil estimates , has today said that a separate Scotland would have no oil bonanza.

In a letter to the Press and Journal Professor Kemp wrote;

“SIR, - In Wednesday’s Press and Journal, there was a headline attributed to myself predicting an “oil bonanza” from the North Sea. Nowhere did I say this.In our research, our economic model predicts that investment will fall off in the near future, while oil/gas production could increase for a few years, but then enter long-term decline. The total recovery we predict to 2050 is in the 15-16.5billion barrels of oil equivalent.

By 2050, production is in the 200,000-250,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. But production can continue well beyond 2050. Our current estimate of the ultimate potential is certainly less than the 21 billion barrels of oil equivalent which is at the upper end of DECC’s most likely range. There will be no bonanza.”

The timing of this letter will come as a blow to Alex Salmond who in recent weeks has used Professor Kemp’s name to deflect criticism that his oil forecasts have been overestimated .

Why not read more here?

Peevish and bristling, Salmond exploded at man from the Beeb. Daily Mail

Scotland do you really want this arrogant,  little man to lead you ?

This was meant to be the day Alex Salmond showed off his statesmanlike qualities to the world.

But instead of meeting the founding father of a brave new nation, the world’s media came to his grandly-named ‘international press conference’ to find a peevish man bristling with indignation over the parochial details of a very inconvenient truth.

For the grandest bank in Scotland had just announced it would pack up the boardroom and move its HQ to London if Scots vote for independence next week.

The RBS has been domiciled in Edinburgh since the days of George II. It could hardly be worse if Scottish Widows became Surrey Widows or Nessie suddenly moved ponds to Windermere.

Not so, according to Mr Salmond. The loss of the RBS would be a footling matter. The real scandal was that the news had been leaked to the BBC.

And they could only have got it from one source: ‘scaremongering’ officials at the Treasury. The fact that market-sensitive information had ended up in the hands of the media, he said, almost quivering with displeasure, was a matter of ‘extraordinary gravity, as serious a matter as you can possibly get’.

As journalists argued that RBS’s vote of no confidence in its motherland was the bigger deal, Mr Salmond was having none of it, particularly when questioned by BBC political editor Nick Robinson.

Arguing that it involved little more than the relocation of a ‘brass plaque’, Mr Salmond demanded that the BBC be dragged before an official investigation and made to blab.

‘Scotland is on the cusp of making history,’ Mr Salmond went on. ‘The eyes of the world are upon us. And what the world is seeing is an energised, articulate and peaceful debate.’ The ears of the world only had to wait five seconds longer before they heard the day’s first attack on ‘the blatant bullying and intimidation of Westminster government’.

Pretty much any irksome statistic could be attributed to ‘scaremongering’, ‘bullying’, public schoolboy politics’ and so on from That Lot.

Until very recently, international interest in this debate had not extended much beyond the provincial press in countries with an ongoing separatist squabble – principally Spain and Quebec.

Yesterday, there were earnest questions about future Scottish relations with Russia, Brazil and India. Perhaps the trickiest came from a German television presenter. She asked Mr Salmond to explain in what ways the English had a different identity from the Scots ‘because our audience don’t see it’.

‘This campaign of ours does not depend on identity,’ he replied.

Out in the streets right now, it seems to depend on little else.

Read more here:

Rattled Salmond launches rant at the BBC after it revealed Royal Bank of SCOTLAND will quit country after 'Yes' vote. Daily Mail

  First Minister lashes out at broadcaster to deflect row over threat by banks

  RBS one of four major banks to turn its back on independent Scotland

  John Lewis, Waitrose and Asda say prices will rise if there is a Yes victory 

  SNP leader was accused of lying about oil reserves by industry members

  He calls for official inquiry into Treasury source who leaked RBS story 

  Insurance giant Standard Life said it would move south days after Yes vote

Alex Salmond today launched an extraordinary rant at the BBC after the broadcaster reported how even the Royal Bank of Scotland planned to relocate to England in the event of independence.

In a bizarre press conference he launched a series of petulant attacks on the BBC, Westminster leaders and the Australian prime minister.

And he revealed he has called for an official inquiry into the Treasury's 'deliberate attempt to cause uncertainty in the financial markets' by leaking details of RBS's fears about the break up of the Union.

The First Minister presided over an astonishing press conference for the world's press corps in which he was tetchy, rattled and – according to several observers – 'losing the plot'.

Another observer suggested this was Mr Salmond's 'Sheffield rally', a reference to Neil Kinnock's ill-fated cry of 'We're alright!' before he went on to lose the 1992 General Election.

At one point there was an ugly clash between the SNP leader and BBC political editor Nick Robinson over the fate of Scotland's banks if there is a Yes vote in next week's referendum.

Read more here:

Now the Union strikes back: Poll puts No campaign in the lead as Scottish separatists suffer a series of hammer blows on Salmond's Black Wednesday. Daily Mail

  SNP leader was accused of lying about oil reserves by industry members 

  Insurance giant Standard Life said it would move south days after Yes vote 

  Poll found 53% of Scots would vote against splitting up the United Kingdom

  Will ease panic on Sunday that put the Yes campaign ahead  

  Leading oilman also dismissed Mr Salmond's energy-rich future as 'fantasy'

Scottish separatists suffered a series of hammer blows yesterday in the battle for the future of Britain.

On what was being dubbed Alex Salmond’s Black Wednesday, the SNP leader was accused of lying about oil reserves, a poll put the No camp back in the lead and big firms admitted they were considering moving to England.

The poll found 53 per cent of Scots would say No in next week’s referendum on independence. The Survation survey put the Yes camp on 47 per cent. One in ten are yet to decide.

Mr Salmond’s vision of an energy-rich future was dismissed as a fantasy by a leading Scottish oilman and BP and Shell also came out against independence.

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney piled on the pressure by warning that Edinburgh would have to set aside around £130billion to guarantee savers’ bank deposits.

Read more here:

Further Reading

Exposed, Alex Salmond's great oil wealth fantasy: Experts attack claims that an independent Scotland could become rich on its oil and gas resources

Alex Salmond’s biggest lie, that an independent Scotland could float onward and upward on the strength its oil and gas resources, has finally been nailed.

The greatest authority on Scottish oil, Sir Ian Wood – together with the bosses of BP and Shell – has exposed it as pure fantasy.

Wood, founder of Scotland’s world-leading oil services firm Wood Group, has accused the Scottish Nationalists of misleading voters with ‘highly inaccurate forecasts, false promises and misleading information’.

His intervention, along with that of Bob Dudley of BP and Ben van Beurden of Shell, delivers a devastating blow to claims being made by Salmond and his acolytes that North Sea oil, augmented by unexploited opportunities using relatively new ‘fracking’ techniques, could turn Scotland into the next Norway.

The slogan ‘It’s Scotland’s Oil’ has, in the four decades since the first North Sea crude was brought ashore, been the most powerful weapon in the armoury of the SNP.

Nationalists like to compare Scotland to Norway because the Nordic nation has become rich on its oil and gas revenues, and has built up investment funds of more than £460billion on the back of its energy bonanza.

But the bitter truth is that an independent Scottish economy based on North Sea oil riches is a canard. Even on the most optimistic projections, with the exploration companies using the most modern techniques to frack for oil and gas deep below the oceans, the UK and Scotland’s energy boom is over.

Brian Wilson: SNP’s NHS scaremongering won’t work. The Scotsman

SOMETHING OF a pattern is emerging, is it not? The Nationalists’ claims have now become so cynically outrageous that non-politicians, who probably did not want to be drawn into the debate, are feeling obliged to rebut them in the plainest possible terms.

Last week, it was the Bank of England that issued a magisterial put-down when an SNP press release in John Swinney’s name claimed that “technical discussions” were taking place about currency union. It was untrue, and Swinney now says that he did not mean to give that impression. Doubtless he will be dealing internally with whoever took his name and reputation in vain.

Then Sir Ian Wood had a good shot at being even more magisterial with his remarkable interview in which he hazarded that Alex Salmond’s fabrication workshop had overestimated future North Sea resources by around 60 per cent and short-term revenues by 40 per cent. Chunky numbers, indeed, when translated into schools and hospitals.

Salmond’s audacity had provoked Sir Ian Wood into going far more public than he might otherwise have done, with his conclusion that, in economic terms, “the case is heavily weighted towards Scotland remaining in the UK and getting the best of both worlds. I want the best for future generations of Scots”. You don’t get much more unambiguous than that.

While currency and oil might be regarded in some quarters as fair game for misrepresentation, it is the Nationalists’ appalling behaviour over the National Health Service that merits the greatest contempt. In this case, the woman who headed the Scottish Government’s own cancer reduction strategy has felt moved to hit back at the pernicious nonsense they are promoting. By her own account, she would not have intervened if the claims had not been so outrageous.

Dr Anna Gregor said: “The thing that made me decide to talk about this subject is that both the politicians and, to my chagrin, some of the clinicians are now scaremongering and telling the voters and patients that the only way to protect our NHS is to vote Yes. That is a complete and utter lie.”

Read more here:

Independent Scotland Could Fall Into 'Parlous' Financial State, Warns HSBC Boss, Huffuington Post Uk

Scottish independence could lead to "capital flight" as savers rush to move their money out of the country, the chairman of HSBC has warned.

Douglas Flint, head of Europe's biggest bank, said that such a move, brought about by uncertainty over an independent Scotland's currency, would leave the country in a "parlous financial state".

The HSBC chief's remarks come just weeks after another bank, UBS, warned that Scottish independence could trigger a rapid withdrawal of savings.

UBS economists said in a research note: “It probably does not matter that the Bank of England will act as lender of last resort during the transition period - history has shown that small depositors will queue to withdraw their money from a bank even when those deposits are fully guaranteed.”

Read more here:

UK Ministers want answers on independence currency, The Scotsman

TWO UK CABINET Ministers have today challenged the SNP Government to provide answers on currency after Alex Salmond’s top adviser said that his post-independence plans may be blocked.

The SNP Government wants to share the pound in a currency union with the rest of the UK but this has been ruled out by the Coalition Government and Labour opposition. Crawford Beveridge, who heads up Mr Salmond’s fiscal commission working group, admitted in a keynote speech last night that “politics” could see the plans blocked and suggested using the pound without UK agreement - so called sterlingisation - could work as an alternative.

With only a week to go until postal voting starts in the referendum both Chief Secretary Danny Alexander and Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael are now pressing the SNP Government to set out its currency ‘Plan B’.

Mr Alexander said the Scottish Government is ‘fast running out of time’ to come up with a Plan B on currency.

Liberal Democrats at Holyrood have this morning called for an urgent ministerial statement from Alex Salmond on the currency after Mr Beveridge suggested the SNP’s threat to walk away from Scotland’s share of UK debt after a Yes vote “looks like a default and it smells like a default” to credit ratings agencies.

Read the full article here:

John Swinney sets record straight after claiming Scottish Government were involved in currency union talks with Bank of England, Daily Record

SNP finance secretary John Swinney yesterday made a climb-down six days after claiming the Scottish Government were already having technical talks over the use of the pound after independence.

He set the record straight in Holyrood by conceding he did not mean to make people believe discussions are under way.

Swinney told MSPs: “If by my choice of words last week I have given the impression that the Bank of England has been in negotiating a currency union, I can say to Parliament that was not my intention.”

Technical and factual discussions have taken place between government officials and the bank in the run up to the referendum - but not on the specifics of the SNP’s preferred deal, he admitted.

The bank had taken the highly unusual step of publicly rubbishing his original claim at the end of last week.

At the time, Swinney’s aides said they were baffled by the reaction.

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser - who raised the issue in Holyrood yesterday - said Swinney was at risk of losing his reputation as a “straight talker”.

Fraser said: “I cannot understand why it has taken six full days for the finance secretary to set the record straight on such a critical matter.

Read the full article here:

Why is everything going wrong for the Scottish Yes campaign?, The New Statesman

With little over a month to go until the referendum, the No campaign is buoyant. Alex Salmond’s unexpectedly weak performance against Alistair Darling in the first televised debate has convinced unionists they are winning the argument as well as the vote. The polls are consolidating in favour of the Union. The currency issue is eating away at the SNP’s economic credibility. The Yes activists I speak to are uncharacteristically downbeat as they begin to accept, some of them for the first time in 24 months, that they might actually lose.

Amidst the gloom, nationalists are telling themselves comforting stories. One is that polling companies haven’t picked-up what’s happening "on the ground"; that the network of Yes groups in poor neighbourhoods will deliver a burst of working class enthusiasm strong enough to propel independence over the line on referendum day. Another is that the SNP has been in this situation before – three years ago, as the last Holyrood election approached – and will turn things around now as it did then.

We won’t find out how credible the first story is until the vote itself, but the second one just doesn’t stack-up. "The difference between 2011 and 2014", one senior Better Together figure told me recently, "is that in 2011 [Scottish Labour] knew the fundamentals, like leadership and the economy, weren’t on its side. This time we know they are." This is surely right. At the end of June, 49 per cent of Scots said independence would make them worse off, compared to just 27 per cent who said it would make them better off. It would be difficult for any party to win an election battling against these sorts of numbers, let alone a referendum on something as far-reaching as national sovereignty.

So where did it all go wrong for the Yes campaign, which only a few weeks ago was fizzing with confidence? The left claims Yes Scotland and the SNP have spent too much time trying to persuade voters that independence will be achieved seamlessly, with little or no disruption to Scotland’s economy or its institutions, when it should have been emphasising Scotland’s bleak prospects as part of an austerity-bound UK. Had the SNP made September 18 a referendum on the current state of Britain, rather than the future state of Scotland, Yes support would be higher than it is now, they argue.

It’s a legitimate point. The weakest feature of the SNP’s independence prospectus – its plan for a post-UK sterlingzone – is also the centrepiece of the party’s "continuity strategy" – the various triangulating gestures the SNP leadership has made over recent years to reassure undecided voters that radical constitutional change needn’t entail radical political change. But the public knows, intuitively, that this isn’t true. You can’t sell a grand political vision like self-determination with a series of (supposedly) pragmatic compromises. Why bother with all the upheaval – and, for some, the trauma – of creating a new state if it’s going to look just like the old one?

Read more here:

Scottish Independence essay: Nordic model a fantasy, The Scotsman, Updated, SNP Government Oil and Gas Figures, spectacularly wrong

ADRIAN Wooldridge says there is no evidence the Nordic countries want to engage with Scotland

THE STORY is all too familiar. The marriage grows stale with the years. Those charming idiosyncrasies become intolerable irritations. The unhappy husband or wife catches the eye of a comely stranger. A glance turns into an affair. After a lot of rowing the unhappy couple finally divorces and life begins again.

This is half the story of the possible divorce between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom: a significant number of Scots think they would be much happier with the comely Nordics than with the dowdy English. But the other half of the story is more complicated. The Nordics show no sign of reciprocating the suitor’s affections. And the Nordic model that the nationalists have fallen in love with disappeared 25 years ago.

Evidence of the affair can be found all over the place. The Scottish National Party cannot get enough of the Nordic model. The Nordic model is not only vastly superior to the English model – it provides people with a higher standard of living while guaranteeing a safety net that is so generous that fathers get a year’s worth of paternity leave. It is also more in tune with Scotland’s collectivist and egalitarian tradition. The Jimmy Reid Foundation argues that the Scottish idea of the Common Wealth is the local equivalent of the Nordic ideal of the “folkhemmet” or People’s Home. Lesley Riddoch, a columnist on this paper, has established a thinktank, Nordic Horizons, to push for closer links between the Holyrood parliament and its northern neighbours. Angus Robertson, the SNP’s spokesman on foreign affairs and one of its leading Nordo-philes, says that one of the first things an independent Scotland will do will be to apply to join the Nordic Council, a steering group of Nordic countries.

Scotland’s infatuation with the Nordic model is not hard to understand. The Nordic countries routinely come at or close to the top of every official measure of success, from economic success to social wellbeing. It is common to argue that countries face a trade-off between economic growth and quality of life. The Nordic countries show that it is possible to have the best of both worlds.

Scotland and the Nordics are also drawn together by powerful ties of culture. Some ties are direct and genetic: the Viking raiders of the early Middle Ages left a profound mark on the country. The Shetland islanders still burn a Viking longboat every year. The language is littered with Scandinavian words. Other ties are cultural and geographic. Both Scotland and the Nordics are profoundly shaped by the Protestant religion and a frequently challenging climate and geography (asked to list his nearest railway station on a parliamentary expense form Jo Grimond replied “Bergen, Norway”).

Both the Scots and the Nordics lead the world in extracting natural resources. Both have a marked taste for the grain and the hop. And both excel in producing the modern equivalent of Viking sagas. Henning Mankel’s Inspector Wallender and Ian Rankin’s Inspector Rebus are cut from the same cloth: brooding individualists determined to get to the bottom of the blood-soaked story whatever the higher-ups tell them.

There are all sorts of obvious problems with this Scandimania. The Vikings left a more profound imprint on Northumbria, Cumbria and Yorkshire than on Scotland. Scotland’s west coast is more Irish than Scandinavian. Denmark and Southern Sweden look more like East Anglia than they do the Scottish Lowlands, let alone the Highlands.

Read more here:

Further Reading:

Alex Salmond’s currency dilemma: Climbdown or lose

Daily question: How big is Scotland’s economy and what's important to it?

Empire shadow still hangs heavy over Scotland

Scots Are Divided Over Independence, and Its Economic Costs

Oil forecast 'spectacularly wrong'

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective

Go-it-alone Scotland ‘defenceless’: Nation will be left without any weapons if it votes for independence and refuses to take its share of UK debt, MP warns Daily Mail

  Chairman of Scottish affairs committee said Alex Salmond’s ‘cavalier’ plan to renege on Scotland’s debts would ‘poison’ negotiations with UK

  Mr Salmond has insisted monetary union with rest of UK would go ahead

Scotland  will be left without any weapons to defend itself if it votes for independence and refuses to take on its share of UK debt, an MP has warned.

Ian Davidson, the chairman of the influential Scottish affairs committee, said that Alex Salmond’s ‘cavalier’ plan to renege on Scotland’s debts if he does not get his way on the pound would ‘poison’ negotiations with the UK.

He warned that Scotland would be denied access to military equipment and could be left with ‘a navy with no ships, an air force with no planes and an army with no guns’.

Mr Salmond has been under intense pressure to give details of an alternative if Westminster does not agree to the share the pound, but he has said he has no intention of proposing a ‘plan B’.

All three main UK parties have promised to veto a currency union if Scotland votes for independence on 18 September.

But Mr Salmond has insisted that monetary union with the rest of the UK would go ahead and promised not to help repay British debt if it does not.

Read more here:

Further Reading

Treasury: Tenth of Scots jobs at risk after Yes

Labour question how an independent Scotland would fund state spending after 37% fall in revenue from North Sea tax

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective

Peter Jones: Independence or the pound - which?. The Scotsman by Peter Jones

WHEN POLITICIANS accuse each other of desperation and panic, I tend not to listen, reckoning that it is the usual campaign hyperbole that tries to turn a minor slip of the tongue into a monumental credibility-destroying gaffe.

But I begin to think that it is an accusation that can be fairly levelled at Alex Salmond over the currency issue in this referendum.

There are certain tools that can be used to make the political equivalent of a clinical diagnosis of desperation. One is whether the arguments being used to shore up a position that has come under attack are robust or fatuous. And Mr Salmond is now making claims which, under any serious inspection, are complete nonsense.

In an article in a Sunday newspaper, he wrote that Labour leader Ed Miliband’s “hasty gambit to include a block on Scotland’s continued use of the pound in Labour’s next Westminster manifesto” would be “saying to Scots ‘I will defy the sovereign wish of the people in a referendum’”.

On umpteen grounds, this is gibberish. Actually, the only sovereign wish that will be expressed in the referendum will be the answer to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” If it is Yes, the sovereign will of the people will be that Scotland becomes independent.

If Mr Miliband said he would prevent Scotland from becoming independent, then that would certainly defy Scotland’s sovereign will. But he isn’t saying that at all. He is saying that Scotland can be an independent country if that’s what people want, but they won’t get a sterling currency union.

Read more here:

Further Reading:

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective,

Promise of £348m shipyard contract for No vote

Independence issues: Financial, economy & currency

Brian Monteith: Rushing towards fiscal uncertainty, The Scotsman

IT’S difficult to trust Salmond’s economic judgment after his previous prevarications and u-turns, writes Brian Monteith

WHILE pundits and spin doctors seek to suggest who won the first referendum debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, what is self-evident is that the debate helped to distil the question down to one single issue. In the event that Alex Salmond cannot get the currency option of his choice (a formal currency union using sterling) what is his Plan B? The answer, there was none.

As we hurtle at break-neck speed to the vote on 18 September I am sure we can expect more of the same; the personal but small distractions will be tossed aside and we shall focus more on what for the majority of us are the big issues. Such as what will be the new more expensive price for Scotland remaining a member of the European Union, or how will Scotland pay for the cost of its pension liabilities when our workforce will be shrinking and our pension bill rising (before even considering Nicola Sturgeon’s promise of a lower pensionable age in some parallel universe that only she inhabits).

There may be others, such as the pick-and-mix sweetie shop of freebies and goodies that nationalists have been dreaming up to be paid for by the munificence of oil revenues – while at the same time telling us we can have a sovereign oil fund that by implication requires a more austere approach to public welfare.

We shall see what matters most, but for all that, the one crucial issue that Scots residents (as opposed to the broader body of Scots that would more usually have a say in the future of their country) are already well tuned into is how our economy might or might not work if we secede from the United Kingdom and choose the SNP’s offer of independence without independence. (For those of you not used to reading my column let me recap that there will be no referendum on the new price of EU membership and its tighter straightjacket, there will be less influence than present with any formal currency union and even less still with any unofficial use of sterling, while many other institutions that we shall seek to keep access to such as the BBC we shall have no say in).

Read more here:

Further reading:

Scottish independence: ‘Mortgages up £1600 if Yes’

Scottish independence: No campaign 'playing with fire' says Salmond

Alex Salmond goes on the counter attack over pound claiming: No camp's tactic of ruling out currency union makes no economic sense

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective,

Labour question how an independent Scotland would fund state spending after 37% fall in revenue from North Sea tax

Alex Salmond demands Danny Alexander apologises for a missing 'mountain of black gold' as the two trade blows over oil figures

Scottish independence: FM stands firm on currency, The Scotsman

“An independent Scotland would keep the pound because it’s our currency and it would be in the interests of the rest of the UK to agree to currency sharing. But if the rest of the UK won’t agree, an independent Scotland would punish it by repudiating its pro rata share of UK debt…..Yes, it would remove a hefty burden from our shoulders. But an independent country that began life with debt repudiation would find it could not raise money in international markets without lenders demanding substantially higher interest rates. Scotland’s credit rating would be rock bottom.”

Scottish independence: FM stands firm on currency, The Scotsman, Updated

ALEX Salmond is standing his ground and refusing to name a Plan B for Scotland’s currency after independence, despite mounting criticism of his leadership and unprecedented pressure from his opponents.

Amid growing unrest among his own supporters and a slump in the polls, the First Minister is refusing to back down on his policy, which will be given a final seal of approval by his hand-picked group of economic advisers next week.

Last night there was no sign of the issue going away when leaders of the three opposition parties at Holyrood wrote to Salmond demanding that he sets out a Plan B, arguing that his proposal for a formal currency union with the rest of the UK is “impossible”.

Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have said an independent Scotland will not be entitled to insist on a formal currency union – sharing the pound and the Bank of England with the rest of the UK.

Salmond’s failure to deal with Alistair Darling’s criticisms of his currency plans during last week’s STV televised debate has led to discontent within the Yes movement and support for independence falling in the polls.

His display has also encouraged the No campaign to concentrate even more of its efforts on attacking his currency plans, sensing a fatal flaw.

Read more here:

Further Reading here:

The Five Tests for a Currency Union

Bill Jamieson: Shedding debt is financial suicide

“An independent Scotland would keep the pound because it’s our currency and it would be in the interests of the rest of the UK to agree to currency sharing. But if the rest of the UK won’t agree, an independent Scotland would punish it by repudiating its pro rata share of UK debt.

For the avoidance of doubt, Scotland’s Finance Secretary John Swinney told BBC Radio Scotland last week that failure to agree a currency union would “absolve the Scots of a £120 billion share of UK debt, which translates into an annual cost of £5bn a year”.

There are other things into which this would “translate”, as Angus Armstrong of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research pointed out last week. If it is this easy to walk away from debt obligations, secessionist movements in Europe would jump at the precedent. How might Scotland’s EU application stand then?

Yes, it would remove a hefty burden from our shoulders. But an independent country that began life with debt repudiation would find it could not raise money in international markets without lenders demanding substantially higher interest rates. Scotland’s credit rating would be rock bottom.”

The Fiscal sustainability of an independent Scotland

Polly Toynbee: Scotland remains Europe's basket case for health inequality showing real marker for poverty

“Scottish politicians seem as unwilling as Westminster to tell voters they must pay Scandinavian taxes if they genuinely want a social democratic future…. Are the people of Scotland genuinely willing to tax themselves towards social democracy?”

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective