15th September 2026
The leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are meeting to discuss their constitutional futures and what they believe should be the right of their people to decide whether they remain part of the United Kingdom.
For Scotland, that immediately raises a much bigger question.
If Scotland voted for independence, what would people actually spend on Monday morning?
It may sound like a deliberately simple question, but currency could become one of the most difficult and important issues in the whole independence process.
The SNP's current position is that an independent Scotland would initially continue to use the pound sterling before moving to a Scottish currency "as soon as practicable". The Scottish Government says this would provide continuity during the transition while eventually giving Scotland control over its own monetary policy.
But there is a problem.
Using the pound does not necessarily mean Scotland would have control over the pound.
If Scotland continued using sterling without a formal agreement with the UK, the Bank of England would continue to set interest rates and control monetary policy.
An independent Scotland would therefore be using another country's currency.
That might work for a period of transition, but it raises some very important questions.
What would happen to Scottish banks?
What would happen to mortgages?
What would happen to pensions and savings?
And who would act as lender of last resort if a major Scottish bank got into trouble?
These are not theoretical questions. Scotland has a financial sector far larger than the Scottish economy itself, with banks and financial institutions operating across the UK and internationally.
The currency union problem
During the 2014 independence referendum campaign, the SNP proposed that Scotland and the rest of the UK should continue to share the pound through a formal currency union.
The UK Government rejected that proposal and the issue has never completely disappeared.
A formal currency union would potentially give Scotland greater influence over monetary arrangements, but it would also require the UK Government to agree.
That cannot simply be assumed.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh concluded that the experience of the 2014 referendum had effectively made a formal sterling union an unrealistic option.
That leaves Scotland with a choice between continuing to use sterling without controlling it or establishing its own currency.
Neither option is entirely straightforward.
A Scottish pound
An independent Scottish currency could eventually give Scotland something it currently does not have: its own control over interest rates, money supply and exchange rates.
But creating a currency is considerably more complicated than printing banknotes.
Scotland would need a central bank capable of managing monetary policy and supporting the banking system.
It would need foreign-exchange reserves.
It would need a credible fiscal and monetary framework.
And, most importantly, international investors would need confidence that the new currency was stable.
The value of a Scottish pound against sterling would be determined by markets unless some other arrangement was established.
That means it could be worth more than a pound sterling.
It could be worth less.
And that difference would matter to every Scottish household.
What about mortgages?
Imagine someone in Caithness with a £150,000 mortgage when independence takes place. If the mortgage were converted into Scottish pounds, what exchange rate would be used?
Would the interest rate be linked to the Bank of England or a new Scottish central bank?
What would happen to someone whose income was in Scottish pounds but who worked for a company based in England?
There would be similar questions for businesses importing goods from the rest of the UK.
A currency falling against sterling could make imports more expensive. A stronger Scottish currency could make Scottish exports more expensive for customers elsewhere.
Currency movements would therefore become part of everyday economic life.
And then there is the national debt
The currency question cannot really be separated from Scotland's share of UK assets and liabilities.
An independence settlement would have to address the division of UK debt, public assets, pensions and other financial commitments.
The precise numbers would have to be negotiated.
That is one reason why the financial arrangements surrounding independence could take years rather than months.
The Scottish Government has argued that an independent Scotland would inherit significant assets as well as liabilities. But markets would ultimately judge the credibility of the new state's finances.
And here lies another difficult issue.
The Scottish Government's own figures have shown a sizeable fiscal deficit. That does not make independence impossible, but it would mean that Scotland would begin its existence as a new state while needing to convince investors that it could finance its spending and service its debts.
That would make the credibility of a new currency particularly important.
What happens to pensions and savings?
For someone approaching retirement, the question may be even more important. A pension could be denominated in sterling today. Would it remain a sterling pension after independence?
Would it be converted into Scottish pounds?
What would happen to private savings held in UK banks?
Would deposits remain guaranteed by a UK-wide deposit protection scheme, or would an independent Scotland create its own?
These are exactly the sort of questions which can seem remote during a constitutional debate but become extremely important when people have to decide what happens to their life's savings.
This is where the Brexit comparison becomes uncomfortable
The independence debate is sometimes presented as though the referendum itself is the destination.
It isn't.
A Yes vote would actually be the beginning of a negotiation.
Brexit demonstrated how complicated it can be to turn a referendum result into a functioning new relationship.
Independence would involve an even wider range of questions because Scotland would be creating a new state rather than simply changing its relationship with an existing international organisation.
There would be negotiations over currency, debt, pensions, defence, borders, trade, energy, government assets and international organisations.
None of this means independence cannot work.
Countries become independent all the time.
Nor does it mean that Scotland could not eventually have a successful Scottish currency.
It does mean that voters deserve to know considerably more about the route from Yes to independence before they vote.
The Monday morning test
Perhaps the simplest way of looking at the whole issue is to forget the constitutional arguments for a moment.
Imagine that Scotland votes Yes.
The next Monday, someone in Wick goes into a shop and buys a newspaper.
They have £20 in their wallet. The shopkeeper has a bank account. The shop's electricity supplier is a UK-based company.
The goods on the shelves have come from Scotland, England, Europe and elsewhere.
The shopkeeper has a mortgage. The customer has savings and a pension. What currency are they using?
Who sets the interest rate? Who guarantees the bank? Who controls the exchange rate?
And what happens if the value of the new Scottish currency changes sharply against sterling?
These are not arguments for or against independence.
They are simply questions that need answers.
The SNP may ultimately be able to provide convincing answers to all of them.
But the currency issue was one of the biggest unresolved questions in the 2014 referendum, and it remains one of the issues that deserves much more attention if another vote is now being contemplated.
Before Scotland decides whether to leave the United Kingdom, voters should know not just what independence means in principle, but what it means for the pound in their pocket.
Because independence day would not be the end of the argument.
It would be the first day of a very different economic journey.