George Kerevan gives a brief look at the main economic arguments of the 'yes' debate:
It's the economy stupid. Modern governments are about economic growth, not waving the flag. Unfortunately being run from London has not proved an economic success for Scotland - or elsewhere outside the M25! Despite having North Sea oil, Scottish economic growth has under-performed the UK average for a generation, and is considerably lower than in most other small West European economies. Why? Because UK economic policy has favoured the banks and the City of London over manufacturing industry. Result: the Crash of 2008 and the worst recession since the Thirties. Scotland needs to be independent so it can re-build its domestic economy and boost growth.
But Scottish independence will also be good for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Westminster elite ignores England as much as the rest of the UK. Scottish independence will give birth eventually to a new English Parliament and a new partnership between the individual nations of the British Isles. That is why an independent Scotland wants to keep the Queen as head of state and continue to use the pound. A common currency means we can jointly regulate the banks, while a separate currency leads to unnecessary business costs on both sides.
In considering the economy, Alan Cochrane puts forward one of his reasons for a 'no' vote in the referendum:
Of course Scotland could be economically independent but how successful that independence might be is entirely contingent on Alex Salmond’s ability as a poker player. He is currently sitting in a high-stakes game with, frankly, not much of a hand but he is banking on the fact that he can stare down his opponents and win the pot.
There are several major bluffs he has to maintain. The first is on Scotland’s currency in the event of his winning the referendum. From being a enthusiastic, even fanatical, supporter of the euro when things were going well for the currency of most of the EU he slid away from it when the going got bad, latching onto sterling instead.
But, as usual with Mr Salmond, this is a move not of principle – such a word doesn’t sit well with the SNP leader – but of convenience. And when all of the main Unionist party leaders, as well as the head of the UK Treasury, said it wasn’t in the interests of the rest of the UK to allow what would be a foreign country to share the pound, Mr Salmond didn’t blink. Instead he said everyone else would fold their hands and cave in if he wins the referendum.
His arrogance is in a similar vein over North Sea oil and gas revenues. When the independent Office of Budget Responsibility says that his estimates are grossly exaggerated, he merely maintains his poker face and says, in effect, everyone’s wrong except him.
All of which proves conclusively that an independent Scotland under Alex Salmond would be no better than a massive gamble. Does anyone really believe this man’s promises?
For the full debate on a range of issues including defence, culture, governance and,of course, the economy, please see Scottish Independence: Yes or No? by Alan Cochrane and George Kerevan.