There will be no mercy for the Scots

I think that's the way a lot of Scottish people see it, yes. They consider it unpatriotic if you do not want independence

Well thank God for that. Do you see many "we're better together"'s in people's windows? Or is this just from friends and family?

I'm an Englishman from the Midlands with some Scottish heritage who is currently on holiday in Scotland - somewhere my family frequents. As an Englishman and UK citizen it has been very alarming to see how the issue of Scottish independence has been discussed and debated in Scotland. The most important issue has not been raised in the debates or by the talking heads on TV. How the UK government will negotiate in the case of Scottish independence.

(1) Capital Flight
If the Scots do decide to go independent they will firstly be in a very weak negotiating position. The Scots will have to negotiate to get the pound. During the negotiations there will be massive uncertainty and there will be significant capital flight from Scotland to Britain (as Britain will be seen as a safe bet). This will obviously be to the benefit of the British, so during negotiations the British will deliberately drag them out and induce uncertainty so that wealthy Scots in Edinburgh and Aberdeen move the money at least down to Leeds and probably into London.

(2) The British will negotiate very tough terms
If the Scots insist on keeping the pound there will be massive costs to pay for that. Obviously the shipbuilding, submarine building, UK tax collection work and various UK government operations will be moved South as soon as possible. The UK may insist on receiving some of the tax revenue from North sea oil. They may also insist on the Scots bearing significant debts of the UK government (the UK will definitely play the card that it was the Scottish banks - RBS and HBSO - that got us into recession). The UK will also block the Scots entry to the EU until they get what they want.

A Scot reading this might think this is all hokum and the UK gov wouldn't do this. The problem is that in England there is strong feeling that foreigners (the EU) are screwing the UK over - vis a vis UKIP. An incumbent UK government would play hard ball with the Scots (a now foreign nation) to show their strength in negotiating terms for the UK .

(a) if David Cameroon is in power he will screw the Scots over partly because the Tory party won't care about the Scots once they leave the union and because Cameroon needs to appear strong in foreign negotiations to undermine UKIP

(b) Ed Milliband will face similar pressure to appear strong in negotiations with foreign countries - and let's remember that Ed Milliband is willing to really screw people over, remember his brother...

(3) Remember what forced you into the union
The reason why Scotland and the UK came together was because the Scottish tried to build a strong nation to compete with the English. The Scots made risky investments into South America - the Darien scheme - to do this. This risky speculative endevour went terribly wrong, the Scots were completely broke and were forced to accept unification with the UK in exchange for reinstating the wealth of Scotland (at the expense of the English it is worth noting).

There are parallels between the Darien scheme and Scottish independence. Both of these were and are, respectively, stepping into the unknown, taking a big gamble on an otherwise decent situation - and ultimately, both end up with the English getting what they want.


If you are Scottish and thinking of voting yes - and you think England has been screwing the Scots over since the union - how'd you think the English will treat you if you betray them?

Betray? A pretty strong word. The Scots aren't betraying anyone. They don't owe loyalty to any concept of nation-state or overlordship. The universe ins't fixed, so neither should nation-states.

I think that's the way a lot of Scottish people see it, yes. They consider it unpatriotic if you do not want independence

Not much choice with the oil. It lies within Scotlands territory under accepted international law. Any attempt to seize it would eventually be struck down by the ICJ and waste tens of millions of taxpayers money on lawyers.

Well they could just walk away and refuse to accept it. It would be financial suicide as the markets would take it as a default, but in theory it`s perfectly possible.

Refuse to take a fair share of the debt, then don't give Scotland the oil or any military equipment, simples.

They can. But it's not uk debt they're waking away from at that point is it? It's scottish debt, and it's completely up to their creditors what the deal is if they do that.

Now if the uk decided that what it was going to do was dump all if it's debt upon Scotland and set it free there would be outcry from the international community that this is absurdly unfair etc. and that we aren't acknowledging Scotland actually being responsible for that debt. But when the fact is that we'd be giving Scotland it's fair share of the debt it would be accepted pretty much universally that this portion of the debt it's now defaulting on is not an issue to do with the uk.

So I mean... A Scotland defaulting on its debt is not really a factor rUK needs to consider.

I find it very bizarre that people are willing to exude platitudinous praise for our growing integration with entirely alien countries like Bulgaria and Finland (even the 'nationalists' in scotland desperately want this) while the idea of two English speaking countries with essentially the same institutions and cultural norms remaining one state is so controversial.

The fact is there is very little difference between England and Scotland and that will remain true even if they formally separate. This entire issue is childish.

It's only 10% - the UK can live with taking all of the Scottish debt.

How about the UK government stops funding Scottish pensions. How about the UK takes all RBS operations out of Edinburgh. How about the UK moves all ship building operations down to Plymouth.

The UK will make the Scottish play ball.

I completely agree! It's what I've said all along!

The Yes campaign basically relies on people in Scotland wanting independence for no reason other than "we don't want Westminster setting our budget".

Just because the budget will be set in Glasgow does not automatically mean there will be any noticeable difference (presuming nothing will go wrong).

And getting control over 1/3rd of Government spend which it doesn't at the minute.

it will most likely be much simpler.

If Scotland throws it's dummy out of the pram and refuse to pay their share of the debt unless they have a currency union, their rating hit due to defaulting on the debt would most likely force them to pay it in the end.

Except it wouldn't be a default...

Even if you take Argentinas borrowing yield (having just defaulted for the second time in 15 years) is under 12%, four times that of the UK. At that rate it would need Scotland to borrow £50bn for it to be advantageous to take on the debt.

Well according to the "no" party it could turn out perfectly well after independence that the money Scotland would receive via taxation could actually be lower.

And while the "YES" party argues against this, no-one will know for sure until after independence.

Personally I think Salmond relies too much on oil to support his higher public spending claim.

What higher public spending claim?

Pensions going up by 1% is the only spending claim I saw in the White Paper.

It would be regarded by most banks and most of the international community as a default. If the UK say's a condition of your independence is to pay Scotland's share of the UK's debt and Scotland refuses.... well who is going to honestly trust them enough to lend them money?