SOMETIMES when a political choice has to be made it is useful to look at your opponents' views.

Often the one they appear to despise and disparage is the one they fear. In the context of Scotland using the pound, it was noticeable in Tuesday's debate that Alistair Darling was quick to dismiss the idea of a Scotland using the pound outwith a currency union … I seem to remember Panama being mentioned in a rather dismissive manner.

However, let's look at this option. After all, the Danes are not in the eurozone, but the euro serves as a reserve currency for the krone. So why do the Danes take this approach, so readily dismissed by Mr Darling?

The operation of this system is quite straightforward. The central bank buys pounds to the value it needs, then issues notes which have parity. This is what the Scottish banks do today.

There are obvious advantages in using the pound as a reserve currency. Trade within the sterling area is easy and uncomplicated (as indeed it is at present). Also, unlike in a formal currency union (and unlike at present) the country using the reserve currency has a high degree of independent control of fiscal policy and political decision making.

There are disadvantages. The reserve currency is under foreign control, and the Bank of England can vary the pound to suit the situation in England (as at present). To counter this the Scottish central bank must have the flexibility to buy sterling on the open markets in order to maintain the reserve. However, in the case of Scotland, this disadvan­tage can be offset by using Scotland's wealth (14th wealthiest in the world we are told) as collateral for borrow­ing purposes.

And this is the reason the Unionists wish to ignore this option. At present the UK can call on Scotland's wealth to act as collateral for borrowing to maintain the value of the pound. The removal of some 10 per cent of this collateral if Scotland is not in a currency union would have a serious impact on the UK's borrowing power, resulting in serious issues for the stability of the pound (even at present the UK has lost premier borrowing status).

So why is Alex Salmond so set on a currency union? One word: stability. He knows, as does George Osborne and Ed Balls, that this is vital in the entire financial system. He knows, as do the Unionists, that this naysay to currency union is a bluff.

I suggest that Mr Salmond calls this bluff andannounces that, in the absence of a currency union, an independent Scotland will use the pound in the same way as the present Scottish banks. Everyone under­stands this. He should have his economic advisors compute the effect of a 10 per cent shortfall on the financial stability of the UK and compare the borrowing collateral needed by the UK with that of an independent Scotland. Perhaps this will show the currency union naysayers the real effect of their position on the finances of the Westminster government.

Donald MacRae,

38 Marchfield Avenue,

Paisley.

DURING the TV debate the First Minister claimed that Alistair Darling, in a TV interview in January 2013, supported Scotland keeping the pound. Mr Salmond made so much of this I assumed the full transcript would be prominently displayed on the SNP and Yes Scotland's websites. Much to my surprise it was not mentioned on either, and even a phone call to the SNP's HQ failed to illicit this information. I eventually tracked it down on the Better Together website. Any reading of the full text makes it clear that Mr Darling argued exactly the opposite. He illustrates the problems for a country like Portugal having its budget dictated by Germany as part of the Euro arrangements. To quote one sentence from an interview may be alright for a school debating society. However, in something as important as the future of our country, it diminishes the person using this tactic. Unfortun­ately Mr Salmond, as we know when he claimed he had legal advice on Europe, is not averse to using such tactics.

Phil D'Arcy,

14 Glen Avenue, Dyce, Aberdeen.

AS Alex Salmond states at every opportunity, the SNP position is that their arguments will prevail and in the event of a Yes vote an independ­ent Scotland will share the pound in a currency union with the rest of the UK. Assuming this is realised, it could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.

The White Paper states (page 110) that after independence ownership and governance of the Bank of England will be on a shareholder basis. The basis for calculating the level of shareholding an independent Scotland could expect to negotiate is not settled, but if it was based not unreasonably on respective populations of around six million and 55 million, pro rata that would give Scotland a 10% shareholding.

Surely in practical terms that would be insufficient for an independent Scotland, wishing inevitably to pursue in some respects a differing monetary policy from the UK, to be able to exert any decisive influence on the decisions on monetary policy by the Bank of England? What then: dissolve the currency union?

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View,

Dunlop.