A VOTE for Scottish independence in 2014 would result in a second referendum in England, Wales and Northern Ireland if Westminster were to agree to Holyrood's demand for a currency union, it is claimed.
The warning came from a senior Coalition source who said that a referendum would "obviously" be needed if the UK Government wanted to take the 'huge step' of taking Britain into the euro.
Stressing it is a personal view, the insider added that if Scotland backed independence and a currency union was eventually agreed with the rest of the former UK "there would have to be a referendum south of the border to see if voters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland wanted to join."
George Osborne has not ruled out the possibility of acceding to Alex Salmond's desire that an independent Scotland would keep the pound and join the rest of the UK in a currency union but he and other Coalition ministers have stressed how it would be "unlikely" because it would pose risks to those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In April, when launching a Treasury analysis paper on independence, the Chancellor pointed out how in a currency union the rest of the UK's 58m people would have to give up some of their sovereignty to a nation of just 5m and expose themselves to new economic risks in any formal deal between the two countries. "Why would the citizens of the rest of the UK think it's worth the risk? It is unlikely the rest of the UK would agree to this arrangement of that this arrangement could be made to work," he said.
A No 10 insider pointed out that the idea of a second referendum was a "hypothetical piled on top of another hypothetical" and what the UK Government was concentrating on was winning the "only poll in town", that is, the one taking place in September 2014.
Meantime, a Whitehall source admitted that the UK Government expected the consistent poll lead of around 10 points enjoyed by the No camp to fall. "There will be peaks and troughs, we know that," he said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article