Nat Myth No.4: An independent Scotland could still use the pound in the same way we do now

As the charming George Galloway beautifully put during his Just say Naw tour: “When you get divorced, you argue over the CDs, the DVDs and even the dug. But never, when that person walks out the door, do they say to you: ‘You can still use the joint bank account.’”

The argument is not whether or not a separate Scotland can use the pound - it can use the tiddlywink if it wants – it’s just that it would be unable to use sterling in the same way it does today.

So far, everyone whose power will determine what currency deal – if any – Scotland would get in the event of separation, has ruled out a currency union. For anyone who is unclear who that is, it includes: Chancellor George Osbourne, the possible future Chancellor Ed Balls (his name still makes us snigger), Prime Minister David Cameron, the possible future Prime Minister Ed Milliband, and Governor Mark Carney of the Bank of England.

The only people who say there will be a currency union are the Nationalists. That is all very nice but what they want is about as relevant as bringing a roll of bog paper to a job interview.

The tiddlywink: not a currency option (image from Hgrobe)

Sure, a currency union has been mentioned as a potential option by a number of experts. But it has been outright rejected by the big guys whose decision it ultimately would be.

Nevertheless, the Nats like to hang on to anyone who says anything even remotely in their favour. Even the tiniest positive 'analysis' for them from anyone – no matter who it is - is latched onto like it's the gospel. If a sheep opened its mouth and said there could be a currency union, the Nats would no doubt cling on to that.

Let’s just think like a Nationalist though and assume that Westminster is pretending. A currency union is not in Scotland’s - nor the UK’s - best interests, so why, in the name of the wee man, do the Yes camp say it is?

Only last week, Mark Carney stated that a currency union is “incompatible with sovereignty.” Then again, he said something similar during his other big speech at the start of the year and the Nats ignored him then.

It seems that even if the sky lit up and a voice boomed from above: "THIS IS GOD. A CURRENCY UNION IS OFF," the Nationalists would still assert they were right. 

As Little Britannia reported after Governor Carney's January speech, leaving the UK would mean leaving behind any influence our Scottish MPs can have on our finances. We wouldn’t be losing Westminster, we’d merely be losing a say in it.

Nobel Prize winning economist, Professor Paul Krugman, described the Nationalists’ currency plans as a “recipe for disaster.” (That’s not a good start, is it?) 

Krugman, who is Professor of Economics at Princeton University, explained that the experience of the Euro-zone had “demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous” and that “an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.”

And it gets worse. Professor Krugman then went on to say that “if Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled.” (We wonder who by?)

The next scaremonger, whose sole purpose must surely be to annoy the Nats (like every other expert stating the facts), is one of Scotland’s most senior economists, Professor Ronald MacDonald (no, not that Ronald MacDonald. And yes, we were disappointed too when we realised it wasn’t him).

Professor MacDonald, Adam Smith Chairman of Political Economy at the University of Glasgow, said: “There are good economic reasons for saying that a sterling currency union post-independence is a non-runner for Scotland. 

"This is essentially because a post-independence Scotland would have a different economic structure and profile to that of today because it would no longer share tax and spending with the rest of the UK. All independent economic analysis that I have seen confirms that this is the case.

“So if an independent Scotland were to have such a currency union imposed it would break-up, at great cost to the people of Scotland – I have estimated in the region of £30bn, and that is a conservative estimate.

“The inevitable break-up of the currency zone would also result in a steep upward rise in Scottish interest rates, with the knock on effects this would have for mortgages and the cost of servicing the large debt levels held by households.”

Imagine me in your wallet

And to think that this is the Nats’ preferred currency option. Let’s look at Salmond’s unconfirmed Plan B: sterlingisation.

Imagine the Scottish Government went over to America, acquired a gargantuan cargo of dollars, shipped it back here and said: “Right, we’re using these from now on.”

While it would be pretty cool having the likes of big Abe on some of our notes, we would have absolutely no control over our interest or exchange rates. We would also have no lender of last resort should everything go boobies-up and no say over the flow of our cash. It would also be impossible – not to mention illegal – to print our own money.

In other words, we’d be up crappy creek without even an inflatable flamingo to keep us afloat.

To sum up what Gorgeous George said in his Just say Naw speech: “At least when you get divorced, you can get remarried. Independence is forever.”