Personally, I think it's pointless arguing, at this stage, about the economics and finances of independence, for the simple reason that a lot of that is going to have to be sorted out in the detail of any independence agreement, and so far, it hasn't been.

And when it is sorted out, neither we (the Man in the Street in the non-Scottish bit of the UK, nor the Man-in-the-Street in the proposed newly independent Scotland), are going to get much of a say in the matter. Actually, I'd be a bit surprised if we actually got told of all the details, much less had a say in it.

So I suspect a lot of it is going to be decided, by many at least, on idealogical grounds, not pragmatic ones.

And let's face it, if you're a Scot that believes Scotland should be independent regardless of economic consequences, then that's a fair point of view to hold. I certainly won't criticise that, not least because I don't believe in the UK as part of a unified United States of Europe, regardless of the economic consequences of that, and I'm not about to sell out what I believe is right in principle, on the basis of claims of economic benefit.

So while I wouldn't agree with those that want an independent Scotland regardless, I sure understand where they're coming from.

I also think that arguments over, for instance, a Navy, can be taken out of context. Even if you grant that the ships, etc, remained with the UK and Scotland was ship-less, does that mean we cannot simply come to an arrangement whereby practical operations carry on pretty much as they are now? At least, in the short term. That is, bases are leased, costs shared, etc. I don't see why not.

The problem will come, of course, the first time "assets" need to be used and the Westminster government says "yes" and a Scottish one says "no" .... or vice versa. So whether that arrangement will last, long term, is more problematic.

My bet is that Westminster will not be prepared to agree to give a Scottish government a veto over operations, and that a Scottish government won't agree to simply rubber-stamp a Westminster decision to act, or to not act. But, IIRC, we've an agreement to asset-share with the French, and the UK and France have been at each other's throats, and fought wars, far more recently than the English and Scots have (or more openly, anyway ).

The currency, and the implications of it, are a more serious issue. While some kind of military arrangement may be mutually pragmatic, I'd bet my boots that no such formal arrangements will happen over interest rate policy, inflation targets, QE policy, etc. If Scotland leaves the UK, I see no chance that a UK Chancellor will take any notice at all of the interests of Scotland in determining UK policies. And I'm sure a lot of Scots would say that nothing will have changed in that.

Quote Originally Posted by specofdust
but I agree that people need to recognise that does mean it's not going to be simple to do.
I suspect that's about the one thing almost everybody of almost every viewpoint will be able to agree on.