Dear Mr Kettle of the Guardian:

Dear Mr Kettle, -

Having read your article, do you understand the psychological phenomenon called 'projection'?

From where I am sitting the 'Yes Campaign' in combination with the SNP's White Paper Scotland's Future have clearly established the case for independence as opposed to the status quo. There is a lot of independently authored articles and by Nobel Laureates, looking at the pros and cons of finance and other issues as well as the Yes Scotland web site.

For folk who have bothered to read and digest what has been objectively evidenced and written against what has been said by Osbourne in his Thursday morning temper tantrum - this is simply another piece of hate mail to Scotland from a journalist seeking to jump on the 'Scotland is stupid to believe Salmond' band wagon.

In July 2013 the UK Treasury in answer to a written question produced a report on the impact of a potential currency union on Scottish independence and uses word such as advisable, mutual benefit, sensible - much as did the McCrone report in 1974 when a UK Government was last worried Scotland was going to skip it from the Union.

Lets look at one of the major financial traders in the City of London - Deutches Bank whose CEO is on record on saying a currency union is sensible and will help to keep Sterling stable, "..we would prefer that a currency union is put in place". The funny thing is the international markets also want a currency union and told Osbourne, after he threw his toys out of the pram, exactly that by dropping the London Market 51 points in a Thursday afternoon. Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post both explained to US readers just why Osbourne was talking 'mince' as did the Irish Times, le Monde ... you get the drift.

In January when speaking to a group of Scottish business men and women, Ed Balls made clear he would be negotiating a currency union if Chancellor of the rUK in May 2015.

This leaves the question: since all the published economic research shows that a Sterling currency union will be to the mutual benefit of both countries post a Union break up and the international markets are advising they would prefer a currency union to happen to ensure Sterling's stability; just why is Osbourne acting the daft laddie?

All the objective evidence from economists and the international markets suggests, Mr Kettle, you are being taken for an idiot by Mr Osbourne on the currency union issue, just like the majority of raving Unionists on your article's thread.

The problem is that your claims are based on a series of constitutional errors to do with the UK Parliament:

1. No - the Treaty of Union does not mean that Scotland was subsumed by England and only English law applies in Parliament (ask Tony Blair and Jack Straw about the Megrahi prisoner transfer disaster where they were told to take a hike by Scots Law instead of whisking Megrahi back to Libya as was their intention)
2. Only the two original sovereign parliaments who were signatories can negotiate the end of the Union - this means on a Yes vote the sovereign parliament of England and Wales will have to be recalled from its current, temporary suspension - there is no role for the UK Parliament in its own demise
3. In effect, on a yes vote, Osbourne becomes the Chancellor for England and Wales (with NI) or he or any other claiming to be a member of the UK Parliament can not be involved in the negotiations
4. The recalled sovereign parliament of England and Wales is a very different constitutional and legal construct to the current UK Parliament and puts the whole issue of rUK in a legal and constitutional quandary; claimed, as it is, to be a remnant of the current UK Parliament which with the resumption of the two separate sovereign parliaments ceases to be sovereign
5. Not forgetting that an rUK parliament can not conduct negotiations under the articles of the Treaty of Union because as part or remnant of the UK Parliament it has no place or role in the negotiation to end the UK Parliamentary Union (The issue of the role of the UK Parliament not having any role in any negotiation to change or alter the Treaty of Union was conceded in law in 1953 by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the UK Parliament - before Lord Cooper in the Court of Sessions).

Mr Kettle your diatribe has no basis in fact, no basis in law or constitutional practice. As for his libeling of Wee Eck ... Wee Eck has demonstrated to the media and press, time and time again, he is more than a match for you and your hysterical and ignorant ranting, so I can safely leave him to defend himself.

Time to start dealing with what is and not the table thumping hubris of a light weight like Osbourne, as the increasing likelihood of a 'Yes vote' on the 18th of September looms ever larger.

If you are real journalist maybe from now on you will indulge in some fact checking before you post such complete and utter bilge as 'Unionist Troll' bait.

Yours sincerely,