Scottish Independence

This is nonsense, of course. The report does NOT say that Scotland would be bound to the regressive and socially corrosive policies currently being imposed by the Tories and promised by British Labour in the increasingly unlikely event that they can form a government in 2015. What the report says is that Scotland and the rest of the UK (rUK) would be likely to find it convenient to operate the current system for making welfare payments during a transition period.

There is nothing new or surprising in this. Indeed, for those of us not mired in unionist fear-mongering myth, it amounts to little more than a statement of the blindingly obvious.

Operating within the existing system will inevitably place some constraints on the extent to which welfare policies in the two countries can differ. But there is absolutely no reason to suppose that these constraints would, for example, prevent a Scottish Government from abolishing the "bedroom tax". After all, if the system can cope with being devolved in Northern Ireland there must be significant flexibility. Or are we now being told that such devolution is meaningless? And, if so, does this not have rather obvious implications for the British parties' jam-tomorrow promises of more powers for the Scottish Parliament?

What about the passion, Stephen? What about the inspirational belly-fire of heartfelt conviction? What about the rousing rhetoric of dreams aspired to and injustices condemned? Is all to be subordinated to the coldly mechanistic calculations of professional media manipulators?

The person who never said anything that offended never said anything very much at all. Your list of things that turn off voters is missing a very important item. The mealy-mouthed, meandering vacuousness born of a spirit-sapping fear of saying the wrong thing.

This is no mere election that we're involved in. It is a fight for fundamental ideals, not transitory political power. What is at stake here is the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, not the piffling reputation of some political clique. If that's not worth getting passionate about then what is?

Another stunning example of the paucity of thought in the anti-independence campaign. Apparently, it didn't occur to any of them that they were going to look really stupid when asked who they imagined was paying for Scotland's embassies etc. NOW.

The unrelenting scaremongering goes on. 

Vote Yes in the 2014 Referendum on independence for Scotland.

It will be worth voting YES just to see how quickly the Brits switch to DEMANDING a currency union.

I thought Simon Johnson's ignorance of Scottish politics was striking. But this character may well have the beating of him.

There's a simple answer to all those question the fool asks in his penultimate paragraph. This will be decided by the people of Scotland through the government that they have elected.

Like most British nationalists, even the few who aren't afflicted with the tunnel-vision of  pathological metro-centric parochialism, Jake Wallis Simons conflates and confuses the SNP and the much wider Scottish independence movement. Long experience tells me that it is pointless trying to correct this erroneous thinking. Reason is futile in seeking to move a person from a position not arrived at by reason.

Another unionist politician makin a complete fool of himself.

About time somebody started looking at the implications of a No vote.

See also: What does no really mean?

This is all nonsense, of course. Not the least of the clues to this is the use of the overly contrived  rather than term "Eurozone-style currency union" instead of simply referring to a currency union or sterling zone.

Because the focus has been entirely on trying to spin yet another silly scare story rather than on informing the debate on Scotland's constitutional future, some rather important points are not addressed. For example, there is no explanation of why the government of rUK would go out of its way to render impossible an arrangement that would be in the best interests of all parties. The assumption appears to be that the rUK would indulge the same sort of pettiness as we see from Better Together even at some cost to its own economy.

Alistair Darling may well genuinely believe that this is the level at which UK Governments operate. If so, he might like to explain why he cannot aspire to better for Scotland.

And suppose we put in enough effort of imagination to take these scaremongering claims seriously for a moment. The worst-case scenario is that Scotland would have its own independent currency. The immediate question that springs to minds not paralysed by fear and blind prejudice is, so what? Having your own currency is normal for nations. This has proved to be no impediment at all to international trade.

I have not the slightest doubt that Scotland will continue to trade with other countries whatever currency we use using the systems and procedures that are already well established. It is for Alistair Darling to explain why he thinks rUK would be as incapable of dealing with such a situation as he suggests.

Returning to the silly use of the term "Eurozone-style currency union", we might ask what similarities Alistair Darling sees between the Eurozone and the kind of currency union being proposed by the SNP? Given the proven budgetary prudence of the Scottish Government we can only suppose that he he envisages rUK being the problem. In which case, he really needs to explain why he wants to entrust Scotland's economy to an administration that he seems to consider innately incompetent - even without his own hand on the tiller.

While our imaginations are already stretched by the effort required to take this article seriously, let's consider another point. Let's imagine that we can give some credence to the various mealy-mouthed "jam tomorrow" promises sort of oozing out of some bits of British Labour and their Tory allies. Were something approaching what has been called "devo-max" actually to be delivered, would this not itself produce something even worse than a "Eurozone-style currency union"? We would have a situation where Scotland and rUK would be implementing distinct fiscal policies alongside a common monetary policy. The very fiscal autonomy+currency union that Alistair Darling is going to great lengths to persuade us would be a disaster for Scotland. But without the advantage of Scotland being in a position to negotiate the terms of that currency union or leave it should that be what best serves Scotland's interests.

Mr Darling has a lot of questions to answer.

This whole article begs an obvious question. Why should England's constitutional problems be Scotland's constitutional problem? For Scotland, the solution is simple and obvious. And when Scotland's constitutional status is normalised perhaps that will trigger the necessary reforms in the rest of the UK.