IF ever proof was needed of the confusion which exists in Yes/Remainers ranks, over currency and the EU, and the impact that confusion is having on SNP policy, the correspondence from participants in the discussion, in Friday’s National surely provides the perfect example. David McEwan Hill avers Scots “have a multitude of choices” on the currency. We don’t, not if we are serious about independence. He then claims “we will choose the one best suited to us, when we are independent”. How does Mr McEwan Hill propose Scots conduct business on day ONE of independence – use sterling? Which of course would mean we would not be independent. This trite, meaningless but not uncommon, dismissal of the issue of currency, which Mr McEwan Hill considers “peripheral”, is worse than useless.

Where to start on the contribution of Mr Hugh Michael Eckersley, who seems to argue there is little wrong with the Eurozone and any problems faced by several of the members are problems of their own making and nothing to do with the euro, the European Central Bank (ECB) or the EU. Are we to simply ignore the fact that the Eurozone is not, and never has been, an optimum currency area, a prerequisite for a successful currency union? Yes/Remainers like Mr Eclersley are fond of claiming Greece should never have been allowed to join the euro, so if the conditions of membership don’t suit, that was known from the outset. The same could be said for Italy, Spain, Portugal and even Belgium, where the rules were “bent” out of all recognition, to allow them to join. The one question which is studiously avoided, is “why were they all allowed to join”? The answer of course, is that the euro had far more to do with political union than it had to do with economics.

READ MORE: Letters: Why do the SNP keep dodging the big questions?

Mr Eckersley points out the ECB sets out only two conditions to which euro members must adhere. They are a budget ceiling and a ceiling on national debt, which he sees as hardly a problem since members are allowed to spend money and raise taxes, so long as the ceilings are observed. The fact they have no ability to set interest rates and the value of the euro may be completely out of kilter with the rest of the economy, with no power over monetary policy to address the problem, is apparently of no consequence. Mr Eckersley goes on to point out “even small countries like Luxembourg or Holland will be listened to” – just as Greece, Italy and Eire were all listened to. Italy has suffered an actual fall in per capita GDP since 1998, while after the UK left the ERM in 1992, it experienced a decade of growth. If those “problem” countries in the Eurozone are responsible for their economic problems, why the hell are Yes/Remainers bursting a gut to have them have any control over the Scottish economy?
Jim Fairlie
Crieff

I HAVE been following intermittently the current series of letters (Why do the SNP keep dodging the big questions, The National, August 17). I have no criticism of Jim Fairlie, who has been a friend of mine for many years, and who has not moved his position. However lately I have been thinking as to how Ireland behaved.

Ireland gained her independence, apart from the North, after resorting to the gun, as democracy was in short supply in those early days. She retained the pound for a few years, then switched to the punt. Much later she also joined the EU and the euro. There has been very little criticism of that country; she fell into economic trouble like every other country, but got out of it fairly quickly, unlike the UK.

I only hope we can emulate her, without the bloodshed – the EU situation is for after independence.
Jim Lynch
Edinburgh