Why currency uncertainty should make you vote Yes

In relation to the Scottish Independence referendum, does the No campaign's monomaniacal obsession with currency mean they have conceded every other point of contention, for example,

• Nuclear weapons and the removal of Trident from the Clyde
• Responsible stewardship of oil and renewable resources
• Saving the NHS from privatisation, dismemberment and the TTIP
• Foodbanks, social justice, and reducing our society's obscene levels of inequality
• The imposition on society of artifical austerity in the midst of corporate greed
• Self-determination and the sovereignty of the people
• EU membership and the fact that an Independent Scotland does not require accession

and so on? Are we to believe that currency must be given priority over all other considerations?

Until recently, when EU Commission President Jean-Claude Junker flatly contradicted their assertions, the No campaign placed equal emphasis on the uncertainty over an Independent Scotland's membership of the EU. Now that they have been found out about that, it seems they are left with one remaining big lie to use for all it's worth.

The uncertainty regarding the currency does not arise from the prospect of Scottish Independence. It is introduced by the actions of the No campaign. By threatening a veto on a currency union, which all independent and impartial experts identify as the preferrable option, Westminster raises the possibility it will act out of vindictiveness rather than pragmatism.

This uncertainty relates to whether or not Westminster will be pragmatic or vindictive in relation to a currency union actually features in my decision to vote Yes, rather than No.

I reflect on history and see

• The narrow failure of the referendum in 1979, followed by 
• Two decades of punishing Tory policies towards Scotland and then 
• A decisive victory in the referendum in 1999

The choice before us now, as I see it, is not between Yes and No. It is between

• A narrow victory now, or 
• A temporary set back followed by a decisive victory after another two debilitating decades. 

I would take the narrow victory now to avoid two decades of punishment. Why vote No and then throw the dice every few years and hope for the best at Westminster when they

• Refuse to pre-negociate, even to the minimum extent required by the Electoral Commission,
• Refuse to seek the clarification from the EU which only they, as the government of the current member state, are able to do, and
• Veto a currency union out of spite, against expert advice

and choose at every turn to adopt an approach that introduces uncertainties they can attribute to their opponents.