Economic advisers behind the Scottish Government's plan to join a formal currency union with the UK after independence are standing by their recommendation despite it being ruled out by the Chancellor.
Sharing sterling after a Yes vote in September remains in the best interests for both sides of the border, the fiscal commission working group insists.
The group met three weeks after George Osborne, backed by Labour and Liberal Democrats, rejected the key proposal for independence.
In a statement, the group said: "While we have also noted the statements from the Chancellor and other political parties our remit remains concentrated on economic merits.
"In this regard we believe that the analysis to date by the UK Government overstates the risks of a formal monetary union, for example, their analysis of Scottish financial sector risk is overplayed. At the same time, it fails to fully capture the benefits."
The group reflected on comments made by Mark Carney, governer of the Bank of England, who set out the pros and cons of monetary union earlier this year.
The conclusion is also based on the UK Government's decision to honour debt up to the date of possible Scottish independence, earmarked by the SNP administration for March 2016.
The group says it will provide more analysis to demonstrate the "clear advantages" for the rest of the UK.
Commission leader Crawford Beveridge insisted yesterday that Mr Osborne is not being serious by saying he rules out a union.
"In our opinion economics will trump the politics on this, and good heads will prevail if there happens to be a Yes vote," Mr Beveridge told Holyrood's Economy Committee.
Before today's meeting, Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael urged the commission to think again.
In a letter, he wrote: "This decision is no bluff, as has been claimed by the First Minister.
"This was the three principal economic spokesmen of each of the main UK political parties setting out a clear position: a currency union is not going to happen.
"Your commission's work needs to be based on this reality, not repeated recommendations for an option that is not going to happen."
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