Sigh. If you had even a tiny atom of knowledge of what you were talking about, then (a) that would be a refreshing change, and (b) you'd already know that explicitly-stated SNP policy is to retain Sterling initially, until such times as joining the Euro is deemed attractive, and then to put that decision to the people in a referendum. If the Euro fails or is rejected, a Scottish currency will be created.

Any more questions we can help you with, or is there an adult nearby who can explain how to use Google to you?

"Lots of ifs and buts there Marbles, your telling me at the creation of a Scottish nation will not have it's own currency? "

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Do I need to go slower?

If we'd listened to fundamentalist unionists like Cameron in 1997, where would the Scottish NHS be today? Devolution has enabled us to keep our NHS public, while down south the people are seeing their health service sold off, piece by piece.

It's a sad day for some, but it's becoming clearer that the best of British (the post-war consensus) is better served outside the union than in it.

This reminds me of the 2010 TV debates: "I agree with Dave". So little wonder that Miliband and Lamont tried to lie low. Agreeing with Dave worked out well for the Lib Dems after all - down from eleven FPTP seats at Holyrood in 2007 to just two in 2011.

The view that the Labour party has 'most to lose' from Scottish Independence says much. They can only have 'most to lose' if viewed purely from a Westminster perspective. In fact, were Scottish Labour to listen to the Scottish electorate and move to a pro-Independence stance they would stand to gain much. If only they would cease with the lemming impersonation...

As for Milliband's 'shared institutions', it is only thanks to Holyrood that Scotland retains an NHS, while England's is sold down the river. And the BBC? Dinnae get me started...

Why won't Salmond be honest, and tell the Scottish people, they would be signing up to the euro?

The battle between the Coalition and the SNP is a golden opportunity for Labour. Labour has reverted to its historical norm. More Scottish and Welsh than the country at large. But overwhelmingly English. And heavily concentrated in the North of England, which has a population significantly larger than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

The North also has a highly distinctive culture of economically leftish social conservatism serving and served by agriculture, manufacturing and small business, with its roots in Catholicism, Methodism and a form of High Churchmanship very different from that in the South. Labour support and Labour membership are proportionately, even dramatically higher than in Scotland. Last year, heavy Labour losses to the SNP in Scotland were matched by heavy Labour gains from the Lib Dems in the North.

So Ed Miliband should propose that each of the present or, where they have been abolished in the rush to unitary local government, the previous city, borough and district council areas in the North be twinned with a demographically comparable one in Scotland and with another in the South East. Across each of the key indicators – health, education, housing, transport, et cetera – both expenditure and outcomes in the Northern area would have to equal or exceed those in each of its twins, or else the relevant Ministers’ salaries would be docked by the percentage in question.

And he should propose that in any policy area devolved to Scotland, no legislation would apply in any of the three Northern regions unless supported at Third Reading by the majority of its MPs. Such a legislative patchwork would obviously be impractical, so instead governments would always have to ensure that any proposed legislation already enjoyed such support.

The Lib Dems might then insist on the same for the South West. Fine. After all, no one would lose under any of this. There would be no more politicians than there already are. Both expenditure and outcomes in Scotland and in the South East would have to be maintained for the twinning system to work.

What if either or both of Scotland and Wales really were to secede? The South holds us in undisguised cultural contempt despite depending on us for something as basic as water. But when the City needs to be bailed out, then the South East is happy to take the money of people who have bothered to maintain as much as we can of a proper industrial base, in the teeth of governments of both parties over 30 years.

Without the farming, fishing, manufacturing and shop-keeping land of an economically leftish social conservatism rooted in Catholicism, Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism; without the farming, manufacturing and shop-keeping land of an economically leftish social conservatism rooted in Catholicism, several varieties of Nonconformity, and the sane High Churchmanship that provides the background music to the Church in Wales; then what, exactly, would there be in the Union for our enormous population and, compared to the South East, our vastly more reliable economy?

George, you are clearly a Unionist and are terrified of the 'breakup of the UK', but I am not aware of your having written anything explaining why you think the status quo is preferable. There is an appetite for change north of the border, and a growing crisis in English identity (brought about, apparently, by devolution and immigration). Perhaps England may discover the appetite for independence since the received wisdom would have us believe (incorrectly) that it subsidises Scotland and everywhere else.

What is clear is that Cameron and (now) Milliband do not understand Scotland, never mind the issue at hand, and that the 'positive case' for the Union appears to be non-existent. Also, Cameron (a leader in a coalition with no mandate) is trying to force the leader of a majority government into a position other than one on which he was elected. Very bizarre.

Benjamin Rae, I have no doubt that much of Scotland hated Thatcher personally, but both her policies and her party were far more popular there than in many comparably populous parts of England.

Proportionately more people in Scotland than in England bought shares in the privatised industry, the Tories' number of seats was respectable, their share of the vote was more than respectable (at one in six on a four-way split, it is still quite healthy), their municipal base experienced nothing like the devastation that it did in much of England, and so on.

The Poll Tax was imposed early by popular demand, there was a never a riot against it, there was nothing like the problem of mass non-payment that there was in much of England, and at the subsequent General Election Scotland was the only part of the country to experience a net gain in Tory seats. People who shout the loudest are not necessarily representative of anyone but themselves.

All in all, it is no wonder that over half the Scottish electorate now supports possibly the most uniformly pro-big business party in the world, with its base in one of the richest areas in Europe, where private sector employment is higher than in the South East of England.

But then, per capita income in Scotland as a whole is 100 per cent of the national average. Poor Scotland is as much a myth as left-wing Scotland.

Really Marbles, so remind me what currency Scotland will be using then?

Well done Marbles, you want to have a nation which will not know its owncurrency, congratulations what a brilliant idea.

Have you heard of South Sudan? They had the bright idea of establishing a currency on the creation of statehood.

I see you have no comment on the Euro, worried that it not going to be around, is that an attractive idea?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4143731/Alex-Salmond-Eur...