THE SNP's plan to keep the pound in an independent Scotland would be a worrying prospect for the rest of the UK, a think-tank has warned.
It would create an enormous risk for UK taxpayers, who would have to bail out stricken Scots financial institutions with little benefit, according to macroeconomic research firm Capital Economics.
An independent Scotland's oil and whisky exports would also keep the value of the pound high, hitting other UK exporters who might have hoped for a more favourable exchange rate, analysts said.
The comments came in a report on the impact of independence, seen from the rest of the UK's viewpoint.
Report author, former Treasury economist Martin Beck, said it would be difficult for the Bank of England to avoid becoming the lender of last resort to Scots financial institutions given their importance to the UK.
It is predicted the UK Government would impose strict fiscal rules on Scotland in a bid to limit the risk.
The report said such a pact could be unenforceable, leaving the UK facing the prospect of acting as backstop to the Scots financial sector but with little in the way of benefits.
It adds that while an independent Scotland's continued use of the pound would avoid disruption to UK firms selling goods north of the Border, British exporters would suffer as global oil and whisky sales would keep the pound's value high.
The firm believes there would be little difference in whether Scotland or the UK would be better off.
A spokesman for the pro-UK Better Together campaign said: "This report raises a fundamental question that cannot be ignored. What would happen if the rest of the UK refused to agree a currency union with Scotland?"
A spokesman for the pro-independence Yes Scotland campaign said: "The contribution North Sea oil and gas make to the balance of payments is very significant."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "It is in the interest of the rest of the UK to have Scotland in a currency union given the huge benefit Scottish exports, North Sea oil and gas included, would bring to a sterling zone's balance of payments."
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