The Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Dr Eamonn Butler, wrote a letter to The Herald arguing that if Scotland votes for independence, there is nothing to stop them from continuing to use the pound:
I HAVE no wish to argue for or against independence, but as an economist I would like to separate the economic realities of the currency issue from the political bluster that obscures them.
The Chancellor has ruled out a formal currency union, though some say this is just negotiating bluff. Either way, there is nothing to stop Scots continuing to use the pound if they choose. A Westminster government with no jurisdiction over an independent Scotland has no power to stop them.
Several independent countries, including Panama, use the US dollar, without seeking the permission of America's central bank, the Federal Reserve. In the absence of a formal currency union agreement, Panama has no say in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, which is conducted solely for the benefit of America. Some argue, by analogy, that if an independent Scotland continued using the pound without a formal currency union, Scotland would have no say in Bank of England policy, which could be potentially damaging for Scotland's economy.
Nevertheless, as a result of using the dollar, Panama - a country comparable in population to Scotland - has one of the world's most stable banking sectors. And the economic interdependence between Scotland and the other countries of the present United Kingdom is so deep that the Bank of England would, in reality, have to take Scotland's welfare into account when setting monetary policy. Not to do so would risk damaging the other UK countries just as much as Scotland.
Another suggestion, from Jim Sillars, is that Scotland should print its own currency and tie it to the pound. There is no substantive difference between this idea and using the pound. As the two are pegged, the only difference is the design on the currency. And why (apart from national pride) go to the expense of printing Scottish notes, exactly equivalent to the pound - but which people south of the Border might be reluctant to accept?
The other option, switching to some other currency such as the euro, would be even more costly and difficult, and would raise huge, business-damaging uncertainties. It would also leave Scotland subject to the monetary policy of a country or agency with a very distant interest, if any, in Scotland's welfare.
The easiest solution, therefore, would be for Scotland to continue using the pound, with or without a currency union, safe in the knowledge that, as an important part of the sterling economy, the Bank of England would have to take Scotland's interests into full account when setting policy. The currency problem just isn't a problem.
Director, Adam Smith Institute,
23 Great Smith Street,