It’s 50/50 want independence at the moment - then that's not a majority, as you falsely implied in a previous post.
The other parts of the UK should get their own votes on whether to remain in the UK - weasel words. Do we ask this referendum UK-wide and tally up the yes votes and no votes with one side winning, or do we separate off all the countries and territories arbitrarily?
Like any normal country Scotland will decide what is in its best interests in terms of currency and economic and foreign policy at the time - but what if Scotland's best interest is to stay within the UK, and have the British pound as its currency?
I agree both the assets and the liabilities of the UK state will need to be settled equitably - nice words, but what does this mean in practice?
As far as I can make out, you want Scotland to discontinue with the Barnet Formula, and have a proportionate share of Westminster's riches, plus a proportionate share of the UK debt.
Is this viable?
Scotland has a population of approx. 5 million, give or take. Some of those people are kids in schools, some are drug addicts or otherwise unable to make a net benefit to the Scottish economy.
How many people in Scotland are a net benefit to society? Maybe 3 and a half million, something like this.
How can Scotland survive - and more importantly - thrive independently from England?
Have you genuinely thought this through, or is it 'independence at all costs'?
I'm sorry, Slim, but you're not really dealing with the issues I raised. Rather, you're just batting them away, saying 'what about Ireland, what about Norway!'.
Still, it won't be my loss, it will be Scotland's ...