Indy Scotland must have its own currency and central bank on day one

The National

10-07-2025

That way, the UK banking system would quickly take over, and Scotland would find itself in debt and paying interest to banks, and would lose control of financial decision-making, and soon end up in the grip of interest-bearing debt, just as the UK is at present.
From the start, Scotland should have its own central bank, and create its own currency – let's call it the Scottish Pound – but this currency would be for internal use only, to avoid money market distortion. The Scottish Pound would initially have the same value as Sterling.
READ MORE: Ross Greer calls for Scotland to pivot towards wealth taxation
The Scottish Pound would be issued by the Scottish Central Bank, for people and businesses to change their Sterling to the new currency. The Central Bank would then – over time – build a stock of other currencies for use abroad, these mainly gained from Scottish exports paid for in euros, dollars, or whatever. Obviously, the Central Bank would have some stock of Sterling immediately, from Sterling exchanged by those who wanted Scottish Pounds.
As stated, the internal Scottish Pound would deliberately not be recognised outside Scotland, and could not be used outside Scotland, or traded on money markets, thus protecting its equity with Sterling. Scots would still have the use of Sterling, or indeed any other currency, and shops and businesses would accept both Sterling and Scottish Pounds. Remember, the Scottish Pound and Sterling would have the same value, and one could be exchanged for the other by the Central Bank. There would be no compulsion to switch to the Scottish Pound in entirety, or indeed at all. People would not be forced into a sudden currency switch.
The Scottish Central Bank would issue money in Scottish Pounds to finance building and other capital projects, and there would be an increasing volume of Scottish money in circulation as wages are paid and purchases are made in Scottish money, and familiarity with Scottish money increases.
READ MORE: Ross Greer launches leadership bid after fiery BBC Donald Trump clash
There would be one vital difference, however: Scottish money, issued and used for public undertakings and capital projects, would be interest-free. The banking system would no longer be making huge interest profits as in England. This would reduce the cost of all public and other government undertakings. Development would thus increase in the absence of an interest burden. Inflation would be avoided by restricting the creation of Scottish money to the actual growth and value of assets in the new independent Scotland. Building a new bridge, or rail link, or airport for example. These could all be valued in economic terms.
The Scottish Pound would still be a fiat currency. That is to say, a currency sustained by faith in its issuer – the Scottish Government – just as Sterling is sustained by faith in Westminster, but this time without interest charges and bank profits. It would be a currency for the benefit of Scotland, not for the benefit of banks.
In the future, a decision could be taken to float the Scottish Pound, when its acceptance and use was familiar and trusted, or if Sterling was to weaken.
Malcolm Parkin
Kinross
THE proscribing of the group Palestine Action last week may have made this letter illegal, depending on who interprets it and how.
Most other countries and the UN interpret the use of the words 'terrorism' and 'terrorists' as those who engage in dangerous actions where life and limb are put at risk.
A professional writer opined last weekend that to throw soup over a protected 'Old Master' is not terrorism, and neither is spraying paint on a plane.
READ MORE: Bob Vylan singer warns 'you'll get me in trouble' after IDF chants
Damaging, yes, in the case of the paint in the engine air intake, but I am very sure that life and limb would not be at risk, unless of course the RAF decided to take the Airbus Voyager plane up for a spin. Why didn't the RAF police stop the attack? It could have been the Russians.
Is supporting the people of Palestine by donating to charities like Medical Action for Palestine, against the brutality and inhumanity of this far-right Zionist Israeli government, also illegal? I think not, and rightly so.
Alistair Ballantyne
Angus
I AGREE with Jim Taylor (Letters, Jul 9). I too am Palestine Action. At my age I doubt if there would be much in the way of action, but the agreement is solid.
Grace Chilles
via email
I'M with Assa Samake-Roman on the nauseating spectacle of Macron's state visit (State violence is no answer to migration issues, Jul 9). Unfortunately, her take on the right of migrants to turn up illegally in anyone's country won't gain much traction with voters, even in Scotland. Right reason or wrong, the public perception that illegal immigration isn't good for our country will mean more votes for Reform.
Jim Butchart
via email