The economy, not the currency, will be what is really important

Just for starters, we already have a functioning economy, a discrete legal system and (still) a highly respected education and training system; all the essential components for an independent nation. Since we also have issuing banks, there is nothing and no-one to stop us continuing to run on pounds and pence as we do now, if we so choose; and whether the Scottish pound will maintain parity with the English (and Welsh, and Ulster, and Channel Islands, and Isle of Man) pounds will be largely a matter of how well we make our economy work when it has been cut free from the mishandling inflicted on it by various Westminster governments.

If, as I would argue, Scotland has a much better chance of thriving when it is run by Scots, for Scots, the Scottish currency might well outperform its bigger (but not better) southern cousin; and in that case it won't matter tuppence (or two pence, or a groat, or a merk) if we are operating in pounds or euros,or merks, or kroner. The question will be whether our currency is underpinned by a functioning economy - and I can't be the only one to have noticed that these so-called fiscal heavyweights are confining their current argument to the wrapping, not to what's in the parcel.

None of our current trading partners is likely to suddenly stop trading with us: they need our products, or our skills, or our custom. Compared to the much bigger question we must answer in September - whether we are grown-up enough to run our own affairs - this one is trivial, empty scaremongering.

Colin Stuart,

84 Upper Kinneddar,

Saline, Fife.

FOLLOWING the Chancellor's unequivocal statement that there will be no currency union if there is a Yes vote, the First Minister is now claiming that the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement are not being respected ("Yes does not mean Yes", The Herald, February 14).

This is a surprising interpretation of the conditions within the Edinburgh Agreement which paved the way for the referendum with the firm understanding that whatever the outcome it would be accepted by all sides. It certainly did not provide a cast-iron assurance that every assertion in the Scotland's Future White Paper would be tacitly agreed without challenge. Think again, First Minister.

Ronald J Sandford,

1 Scott Garden, Kingsbarns.

FOR a time I served in a minor role as a public servant, offering advice at times to ministers. The one thing I know is that such advice, however carefully prepared, takes account of the likely perceptions of the recipients. One wants one's advice to be listened to and, ideally, taken and so, without overly offending the facts as one sees them, a good civil servant, in the words of an experienced and distinguished colleague of mine, "knows the mind of the minister".

With that crucial proviso, one is as honest as one can be, but one of the conditions of that kind of honest advice is that its confidentiality is respected. When a civil servant is drawn as Sir Nicholas Macpherson has been into this kind of debate that figure ceases to be in any sense dispassionate. He or she becomes part of the combat, probably as a compromised political football. And of course a previous Macpherson's rant ended with his fiddle broken.

In fact, if Scotland votes Yes the first duty of those representing the former UK will be to act in their own best interests and those will at the least include coming to terms with new realities, rather than playing out attitudes based on the conventions of the current Westminster bubble, now often passed off as reality.

And, in presentational terms, one does wonder who advised George Osborne to be filmed standing in front of a bright window. The effect was not charming. The poor man looked, because of the contrasts of light and shade, like something of a minor prince of darkness, an embodiment, in the words of the late great Bob Crampsey, of stygian gloom.

Professor Ian Brown,

2/1, 2 Darnley Road, Glasgow.

The whole purpose of independence from my perspective and the sole reason for me voting Yes, were I to do so, would be to create a more egalitarian Scotland, a different kind of society. That would require different economic and fiscal policies from those likely to be implemented for the foreseeable future in the UK. Would that be possible within such an unbalanced sterling zone as that proposed by Alex Salmond? I have always wondered what kind of independence he is really proposing?

As Alison Rowat suggests in her excellent article ("SNP must realise Osborne's pound stance has currency", The Herald, February 14) just because we are being bullied by Bullingdon Man, not to mention Mr Balls and Mr Alexander, that does not necessarily mean there are not real issues here to be addressed.

I call on the SNP to address these issues in a more mature, thoughtful and responsible manner than has been their practice to date.

John Milne,

9 Ardgowan Drive,

Uddingston.

IN 1962, I joined the Labour Party expecting it to promote democracy, with MPs reflecting the educational and occupational diversity of Britain. I remain a Labour member but am disappointed that both the Commons in general and Labour MPs in particular have even fewer MPs from working-class back­grounds. One of the reasons I am backing independence is that a Scottish Parliament is less likely to be dominated by those chosen from the tiny number educated at public schools and Oxbridge.

Noticeably those now threatening Scotland with dire financial conse­quences if it votes for independence are the Conservatives David Cameron and George Osborne, Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, Labour's Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, all supported by top civil servant Sir Nicholas Macpherson. All have reached their positions via fee-paying schools and/or Oxbridge.

As a democrat, I prefer to be in a country governed by a diverse body of MPs, not one controlled by the elite represented by these men - yes, all men, of course.

Bob Holman,

76 Balgonie Road, Glasgow.

THE inevitable and clear message from the Bank of England via the UK Government that an independent Scotland could not expect to continue with the pound sterling has been so obvious from the start of the SNP independence campaign it should have surprised no-one. The First Minister might as well have announced that he would adopt the Norwegian krone for all the sense in thinking a separate new national state of Scotland could hang on to the UK sterling standard. It is obvious that sterling only has controllable value through the interdependency of all the nations united within the existing UK.

However, the worst part of anyone believing, as Gerry Seenan (Letters, February 14) says, that the "gloves are off" is that it implicitly suggests that Scotland and perhaps the rest of the UK have already anticipated divorce and we are now living through a period of irretrievable breakdown in our relationship. The gloves must be kept on and they must be of velvet.

As I personally anticipate a clear and resounding No win on September 18 I am very conscious that thereafter it is in the interests of all Scottish people that Holyrood and Westminster feel able to co-operate and work closely and calmly together on amicable and positive terms. There will then be a period of very considerable mending of fences on both sides of the Border after September.

I shudder to think what foreign nations make of the recent frisson between the Chancellor and the First Minister. If a moratorium cannot be negotiated on such churlish behaviour I hope that the Inter­national Court of Justice is prepared to appoint itself as the referee in such matches.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

IT does not seem to me a constructive ploy from the No Campaign to deny Scots something that already belongs to them, especially when it's connected with money.

We are still waiting for the Mint, promised to us in Clause XVI of the Act of Union; now we are threatened with the loss of the pound should we have the temerity to vote Yes.

This all smacks very much of the pre-devolution 40% rule. Any impediment, plausible or otherwise, will be thrust into place to continue the enmeshment of Scotland.

The Bank of England, founded by a Scot, and all its fiscal powers belong to Scotland as much as the rest of the UK. After independence, we are just as entitled to a share of assets, such as they are, as we are of liabilities.

Joseph G Miller,

44, Gardeners Street,

Dunfermline.

GEORGE Osborne's "declaration of Edinburgh" was, ironically, given in a location used in the film Sunshine on Leith. To misquote PG Wodehouse, it is never difficult to distinguish the difference between an English Chancellor with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.

FOR years, Alex Salmond told us that, having been divorced by us, England would "lose a surly lodger but gain a good neighbour". This was, and remains, an insult to all Scots. As an integral part of Great Britain, we helped to shape the modern world (exploring, trading, building, reforming, defeating evil ideologies) - we were never a "surly lodger". But the analogy never even made sense, as Mr Salmond is perhaps now beginning to realise. How would you feel towards a next-door neighbour who had recently divorced you for no good reason? I wouldn't even take in a parcel for them.

On a national scale, I certainly wouldn't share a currency union, offer investment, or let them wander in and out whenever they pleased.

Keith Gilmour,

0/1, 18 Netherton Gardens,

Netherton Gate, Glasgow.