Well the oil is running out, how soon is open to debate but it will run out, no question... so then what? A nation supported by the whiskey industry?

As for "We'd have our own army" do you have any concept of just how difficult that is to set-up?
What are you expecting to happen? That all the Scottish soldiers will just chuck their kit in, make their way back to Scotland and set up their own little army? What regiments? What C&C structure? Where's the equipment coming from? Where's the pay coming from while all this gets sorted out? Will you be expecting, the now English army, to pay for it all?

Should the Scots get their vote and then go on to chose to stay in the Union, they might find that the English tell them to bugger off anyway. The very act of the vote is likely to start a chain of events that could end with Scotland outside of the UK, whether they like it or not.

It wouldn't be negotiation between equals though, would it? And when one party is economically so much bigger and stronger than the other, there is a very fine line between negotiation and dictation.

There is a story about a British statesman in the days of Empire, whose contribution to "negotiations" over a treaty was to present his draft and then, pointing with a finger, say in diplomatic french "Vous signez ici". Then he left the room.

Does germany approve all eurozone budgets?

I think the assumption that scotland will start in as weak a position as the PIIGS is false. That will only happen after a year or two.

The likely outcome for an independent scotland is that it will use the pound; the BofE will take the scottish economy into account when setting interest rates and there will be some agreement between westminster and holyrood about borrowing levels. I doubt there will be any agreement on taxation and spending beyond that.

I can't disagree with that.

The new treaty is intended to address that by impossing limits on budget deficits isn't it?

The BoE would take the Scottish economy into account when setting interest rates but would have no obligation to act in the interest of the Scottish economy other than to the extent that the English economy benefited. Scotland could certainly tax and spend as much as it wanted but using a foreign currency like a GB pound certainly restricts the options available - effectively the Eurozone countries each now use a foreign currency which is ok until the weaker ones start to struggle.

There's was interesting summary of the problem on the FT blog yesterday:

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2012...#axzz1jN6oPlWF

And that's the thing. What happens then depends on the agreements in place beforehand.

I think the situation might be closer to munis in the US rather than countries in the EU. What affect would a Scottish default really have on England as opposed to other creditor nations? I guess everyone in scotland would move south of the border ... hmm, I don't appear to have thought this through very well

I wouldn't fancy being a Scot and living in England after any split. Nothing is more guaranteed to piss people off, than the feeling that they have been dumped. There are plenty in England who wouldn't react favourable to it.

Neither would I.

Although I know they were not built to keep the Scots out I suggest a rebuilding of the Antonine and Hadrians Walls

I'll get back to you on that one. Burns Night is my birthday. Each year a lawyer offers to take me out to a whiskey laden piss up. Each year I decline. When he calls me I will ask him. He will now about such things.

This has been an interesting discussion, which has diverted me from what I ought to be doing. But before I leave it, I realise I haven't answered the original question.

My perspective is that of an English ex-pat, who will be returning to England in a couple of years time.

I think the Scottish people have the right to self-determination, and so whatever they decide, independence or devo-max, the rest of Britain must accept their decision. I think David Cameron was wrong in principle, and also politically inept, to try to control when the referendum occurs or what questions are asked.

I hope that the Scottish people decide to go for devo-max. That's because it would be a step towards a federal United Kingdom, which would include greater autonomy for English regions, which I support.

As far as devo-max is concerned, a relevant question, is whether Scotland would win or lose financially. Whether or not Scotland currently receives more in subsidy than it pays in revenues is hotly contested, and it is difficult to know who to believe. Personally, I'm satisfied, that since, firstly, North Sea Oil is a wasting asset, and secondly, that the British government will make sure that if Scotland keeps the oil revenues, it will also pay for the RBS bailout, then the rest of Britain will be the winner.

Full independence for Scotland is far more complicated. Personally, I think both Scotland and the rest of Britain would be losers. As far as Scotland is concerned, several thousand defence industry jobs would move south, there would be huge expenses in setting up an independent state, and there is a problem about which currency they'd use. As far as the rest of Britain is concerned, we would be a diminished world power.

If, despite the difficulties, the Scots do decide on independence, I confidently expect the British government will take a firm line in negotiations. British assets should be protected. Scotland will have to shoulder the burden of its debts, including RBS. It should not be allowed monetary union with the UK unless it will agree to our fiscal discipline, and so on.

From what I've read of Alex Salmond's statements, I think he tends to gloss over the downside of independence. He claims, for example, that Scotland is entitled to 90% of North Sea oil revenue, but only responsible for 5% of the RBS debt. So, I hope that the realities are properly explained to the Scottish electorate before they vote.

I think that article is a fair assessment.

In the end though all the technical arguments go out the window and people will decide on less tangible issues. Salmond has a clever answer for everything and for him I suppose this period is the culmination of a lifetimes work.

I agree with most of your post, except this bit. I guess you weren't here in 1995, when the Quebec separation referendum posed only this question,

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

I mean, eh? A large number of people had no idea what that meant.

Hence Chretien's Clarity Act thereafter.

lol