New Economic Perspectives has the article Mick Jagger, Gordon Brown, and Paul Krugman Lead the Charge for British Rule of Scotland by William K. Black. <spoiler-alert>

Krugman is correct that not having a sovereign currency is a risk and that Scotland would be far better off recovering all aspects of sovereignty, including its once sovereign currency.  That is politically impossible in Scotland (as it is in Ecuador as I have explained previously).

What Krugman does not explain, however, is that Scotland already lacks a sovereign currency because it lacks sovereignty and is part of a “union” in which it is a small, permanent, and often scorned minority.  Regardless of the vote on independence Scotland will lack a sovereign currency.  The English have a sovereign currency, the Pound, and they have had at all times under the “Union” the votes to set the UK’s economic and currency policies.  Scotland was helpless to prevent the insane austerity that crippled Scotland’s recovery from the Great Recession and forced it back into a gratuitous second recession.

</spoiler-alert>

I have not been following the situation in Scotland at all, but any time Bill Black takes Paul Krugman to task, it is worth reading.

Of course, I suppose I have put up a spoiler as the quote.  In the article Black tantalizes with hints as  to what is wrong with what Krugman says.  It is the anticipation of waiting for him to actually state the case that makes the article such a good read.