|I know the image quality is crap, I'm still on Win XP so no handy snip tool.|
Here's the thing about a currency union.
Independence nay-sayers tell us (as this twitter user did) that since the SNP want a currency union (although I'm fairly sure if they could choose, they might not) it means it wouldn't be 'real' independence and because of that, the SNP (really meaning the evil Alex Salmond) are lying about the entire escapade and we should vote no in disgust.
While there are those on the pro-independence side who favour Scotland having its own currency, real politik says it could potentially scare some of the more skittish yes voters back over to a no vote. The SNP/Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon/etc realise this so are not lying, they've made it quite plain - they prefer a currency union for now.
Even although not having one would damage English as well as Scottish interests, there are those in England who would reject it - doing untold damage to its own business sector selling into and buying from Scotland.
Its a daft position to take.
The vision those who support independence have is of an open country engaging with its neighbours, entering in to agreements and treaties that are mutually beneficial - yet - we are constantly told by the no camp that none of it will be possible or likely. An independent Scotland would be like North Korea (Salmond is/was often compared to Kim Jong Il, presumably another dictator of a similar age needs to be found, Kim Jong Un is too young.) The vision - if it can be labelled so - the no camp have is of a closed country having little or no contact with neighbours or the global community. This is a vision not supported by reality where the preponderance of countries do enter in to treaties and agreements with neighbours all the time. It isn't Scotland who's behaving like a 'North Korea', its the No Campaign on behalf of the rest of the UK.
The entire point of 'agreements and treaties' is that you do compromise and in terms of a country or state, you're compromising to some extent with your independence. Crucially though, it should be mutually beneficial -which a currency union would be. As usual, in keeping with the attitude of empire, it doesn't suit Westminster and the No campaign, they don't just want to have their cake and eat it, they feel they should have the bakery too.
More and more, unionists fronted by Better Together are behaving like petulant old aristocrats way past their prime - no money, tattered clothes - spending money they don't have on shoring up the facade of an old stately home while the interior falls to bits.
Since Cameron made his fateful 'hug-a-Scot' speech at the London Olympic village, there has been something of a renaissance of genuine English support for Scottish independence, not the fuck-off-you-scrounging-jocks type, more the run-for-your-life type sentiments.
I can't be sure what camp the twitter user above falls into; I think the latter though, not the former.
Suffice to say, the 'in a nutshell' bit - currency union would be good (probably crucial in the short to medium term) for both Scotland and the rest of the UK, Scotland staying a part of the UK would be better for the UK but infinitely worse for Scotland - which is why Westminster and the benighted Better Together Campaign won't say openly that a currency union would definitely, even probably happen without adding silly caveats.
In terms of independence with a currency union; Scotland would have control of tax and spending, welfare, defence spending & policy, foreign policy, energy policy, immigration policy. Most importantly we'd have full control of our natural resources and industry - free to do what we feel - not Westminster - is right with the income.
What would the compromise be? Hard to say exactly as its all up for negotiation, it'll be a novel experience though because those doing the negotiating on Scotland's behalf will actually have the interests of people living in Scotland at heart, as opposed to the interest of people involved in re-electing Westminster governments.
(Prevailing opinion thinks it'll mostly consist of government borrowing limits, which in hindsight, probably wouldn't be a bad thing. We're supposed to trade away all the things listed two paragraphs above, possibly only because an independent Scotland and rUK would have to agree to some borrowing limits which would be a good thing anyway?)
As for the truth about independence, you need to go online for that because you won't get it from a media mired in unionist slime. The twitter user above has no chance, living as he does down south where the gloop is thick and impenetrable.