re: #28 CarolJ

Burns, I think they have figured it out regarding finances. An independent Scotland won’t need all that much for military defense. No natural enemies and an pretty peaceful neighborhood. If things light up enough for a real war, the United States would likely be in the thick of it. Then the Scottish will simply provide their share of local policing and defense. And even that is nothing like what they have to pay for now.

Also Scotland has a smaller population of 5 million or so. The money not sent down to London will subsidize health and welfare quite well, and add in oil revenues, they are not going to do poorly at all. Unburdened by having to provide resources to British military adventures or diplomatic adventures will help sufficiency. They will also be able to keep more of the money they earn from tourism as well. Scotland is considered safe and pretty peaceful for a tourist.

The more I think about it, an independent Scotland has the potential of being the Iceland/or Costa Rica of the area: a small prosperous nation, peaceful and in short a refuge for some folks from the more restless world.

As for not being in the EU or Nato, their proximity to Great Britain will allow them to be protected as well.

Depending on the whims of the US or the proximity of England for defense isn’t independence—that’s a ‘protectorate’.