So, the SNP says an independent Scotland will use the pound. Labour, Tories and LD's all say, unequivocally, it "will not happen". No if's, but's or caveats, just a simple absolute rejection of any possibility.
The SNP response .... "they're bluffing, and we won't explain what we will do if they aren't, because they are".
Let me just clarify. What they're talking about is a formal currency union.
There is no way to stop Scotland just using the pound. But if they do that, they have NO say on interest rates, quantitative easing, no recourse to a "lender of last resort" central bank, and so on.
All the strengths of a "formal" currency union require explicit agreement between both states. It is not in the SNPs gift to guarantee it will happen, and as for their claim that it's in the rest of the UK's interests, well, excuse us, Mr Salmond, but we'll make up our own mind about that, not take your distinctly conflicted-interest opinion. And the advice, and decision, from Westminster is .... it is not.
At best, it'll be hard to negotiate the terms of it, and that ignores the fact that all three major RotUK (Rest of the UK) parties have caegorically ruled it out.
Moreover, the SNP want to join the EU. Not one accession state in 30 years or more has been allowed to opt out of a commitment to join the Euro, and to prepare for doing so, at a minimum, where they don't qualify right now.
To join the EU and not the Euro would require EVERY current EU state to agree that exception, including all the recent accession states that had the Euro commitment forced on them, like it or not.
And they cannot be a member of the currency union with RotUK and use the Euro. At best, this implies any independent Scotland's desire for currency union is a stop-gap until Euro membership.
I'd love to hear any Scot's views on the SNP stance that they aren't even going to outline a plan B for the case that the Westminster parties actually mean "no way in hell".
Given those unequivocal rejections of any chance of a formal currency union, is voting on indepence viable without knowing what the plan is if that union doesn't happen?
My own view, for what it's worth, is that such a formal currency union is absolutely not in RotUK's self-interest if Scotland goes independent. There will be costs of not having one, but they're tiny compared to the potential downside of having one.
And any "costs" would only be deferred, not avoided, because of the EU/Euro situation.
Make no mistake, the formal union is not Scotland's only option. There are others, including a formal union with another currency (Euro), having their own currency pegged to either the pound, Euro, or whatever, or their own entirely floating currency.
Westminster is NOT, as the SNP would have it, "laying down the law", or dictating to an independent Scotland what it has to do.
It IS pointing out that ANY formal agreement, sterling or Euro, rewuires BOTH parties to be prepared to enter an agreement, and if Scotland goes independent, it can't mandate that RotUK enters an agreement purely because either the SNP or an independent Scotland wants it .... temporarily.
My view is that Cameron, Balls and Alexander meant precisely what they said .... a formal union simply isn't going to happen.
Why?
Politics, if nothing else.
A formal union implies the lender of last resort, the BofE, underwriting both independent Scotland's banks, and public spending. Scots thinking of voting should consider the political implications of ANY Westminster government trying to explain to RotUK electors, and more importantly taxpayers, quite why they are on the hook to bail out either banks or public spending in a foreign state, after the people of that foreign state have just voted to walk out of our existing union.
At the very least, were I voting on independence, I'd expect a credible SNP stance for what they'll do if a currency union doesn't emerge.
Again, for the record, I want Scotland to stay in the UK. Personally, I think we're better off together. But if Scotland wants independence, fair enough. But then, don't expect to coming running back expecting to pick the bits of the UK you want, like RotUK taxpayers underwriting your banks. Independence means independence, good, bad or indifferent, not just the bits of it that you want, and avoiding the tricky aspects.
And that's just ONE of the tricky issues involved in independence. And, so far at least, I'm not seeing any real debate or explanation from the SNP. They're published a wildly speculative and presumtuous position paper on the Elysian Fields scenario, and when asked what happens if they don't get they're preferred picture (and neither party will get exactly what it wants) their reaction has been to stick their fingers in their ears, and hum loudly, pretending there is no other conceivable outcome than that they get 100% of their wishlist.
I've yet to come across a Scot that isn't pretty canny, and that just seems to be an unacceptable way to react to legitimate questions.