Is that fear not valid?

From what I've read thus far, it seems like a split could really hurt the UK economically...

And even in an independent Scotland was viable and could in time grow to be strong economically, at least initially, I can't believe that they'd be better off in the short-term economically.

Is the idealism of independence really worth the gamble and betting on the long game and North Sea oil?

I don't know myself, but at least right now, I have a hard time seeing how independence would be better than the UK just granting Scotland more in-union autonomy (unless, again, we're all just William Wallace-ing, as it were, and the idealism really does outweigh any other short or long-term domestic or international concerns.)

Those concerns are perfectly valid. But the reason why that message isn't resonating is because there is nothing positive to go along with it. No cultural, historical, or political arguments are being made.

Well, the possibility of independence is also a lot sexier a sell than the status quo, just in general.

Dunno, from the outside looking in, seems a shame to break up the UK, and weaken an important Western power, but if I were Scottish, I might be more impassioned for root for that, so we shall see.

If a majority of Scots are stupid enough to go for independence despite these obvious economic problems then the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish are better off without them. Screw a "positive message." With real economic dangers ringing the tocsin ought to be enough.

I don't know why you're so angry about this. It doesn't comport with your usual apathy towards issues that don't concern you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk

^And now, a word from one of the most famous Scots in television...

(Great joke about America in there.)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/12/david-cameron-rallying-call-deny-scots-independence1

So it turns out all this information the No campaign is putting out about the doom and gloom economic scenario is just Cameron giving orders to lie.

Sorry wrong link.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/9728-david-cameron-secretly-urged-retailers-to-issue-indy-price-scares

"No cultural, historical, or political arguments are being made."

It's a shame that those types of arguments should be necessary. For Scotland the UK has been a pretty reasonable marriage of convenience, I reckon. But, if Scottish people want to chuck it in order to go "find themselves" that's their prerogative. Seems kinda impractical though.

While I wouldn't put it past Cameron, perhaps a non-Scottish publication would be a better show of objectivity?

@ Obi

The facts of the matter are that Cameron did encourage the announcements, but the announcements are largely true. It is a case of simple economics.

Using small words and keeping in mind I defy all Jewish stereotypes and am not bank-savvy or a walking economist...

How big a blow would it be to each, the surviving UK and Scotland, if they split?

Seems a big gamble on Scotland's part to bet so heavily on their oil reserves, especially if things like this happened...again, not an economist, but that can't be a good sign... http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/two-banks-say-theyll-move-if-scotland-votes-for-independence/

"No cultural, historical, or political arguments are being made."

I should think the argument of "Your economy could be in the crapper and you're betting everything on oil reserves" would be enough...that's not a strong enough political statement?

The fact the UK, unified, is the world's 6th biggest economy, that's not a strong enough statement?

The fact Scotland as part of the UK was part of a British Empire that saw 1/4 of the world under its control to some degree at its height isn't a historical testament to the nation's potential unified?

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight other than the shameless UK fan in me would be sad to see it split up, but that's not a real reason to deny people independence if they want it...

That being said...this move seems to me like a 18-year old thinking it'll be great to go out to a high-cost liberal arts school and take out a ton of student loans, because, hey, independence and all...and then 5 years later realizing that economy > idealism in the Real World 9/10ths of the time.

Did you seriously find anything funny about the Groundskeeper Willie video, obiwanobiwan?

Seeing as you guys are failing to discuss the most important issue - Democracy - you may want to touch on this. It's what people in Scotland are talking about while the Unionist media focuses on negative economy stories. See if you can handle this, warning it contains political theory http://mantlethought.org/content/scottish-referendum

I have developed a very useful trick for filtering out propaganda.

Open an article, press the Ctrl and F keys at the same time, and search for the word "elite". If it features more than two or three times you can save yourself the trouble of reading the nonsense and close the page.

What do you mean by "democracy"? There's obviously democracy. The referendum is happening.

So what do you want? To just ignore the unpleasant economic truths and talk about political theory instead? That's not terribly mature.

And what's that link supposed to prove? It's just an opinion piece. Show something disproving the economic dangers of independence.

Yes it's an opinion piece, but if you think the interests of capital (meaning the power of the big shareholders) are not a factor in this you are mistaken. Agenda-setting is a key political tactic and the No campaign has coordinated to receive similar statements - price scares - from several retail chains, and these have got publicity. Meanwhile stores reporting expected prices decreases get no coverage.

Scotland will be a social democracy post independence, and social democracies, which are run along Keynesian principles do not devolve systematically political power after power to the markets. They regulate the markets. The basics are explained in the previous article if you would care to read it. Also they do not generate apathy - which markets enjoy as it increases 'security'. If you've read any economics outside of what is taught in establishment universities - if you've read Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments, you might know why. However, here is one article which reports the thrid biggest asset management firm in Europe reporting no fears: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29155827
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/11/aberdeen-asset-management-boss-backs-independent-scotland
You understand that national newspapers are unionist right? Only one national paper, the Scottish Sunday Herald, is pro yes. And thats only a Sunday paper. But do bear in mind, the agenda setting in the newspapers is not the same as the public discussion which I've tried to point out. Yes voters prioritise the issues differently and aren't interested in No's tactics. If you were in Scotland and attending events you might appreciate this.

What am I supposed to gleam from that word salad?

This video protaganizes the SNP's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o6bNNsHzpE

That's an amazing vision.

I love how a bunch of Americans are behaving as if they're hard-headed practical types who don't make political decisions based on idealism. Especially a bunch of neoliberals who talk about the constitution and liberalism and that shit.

US independence was economically suicidal, the UK could have strangled the upstart North American separatists in their cradle. Luckily for the Americans, the British had the French and Spanish to worry about.

Don't pretend like you're a raving Loyalist now all of a sudden.

Ha ha, Putin33. All of a (200+ year gap) sudden. ;-)

Thanks for including the Spanish.

"Don't pretend like you're a raving Loyalist now all of a sudden."
Done, sir!

@Kofi
I admit that I did see a bit of political-theoretic name-dropping in the Mantle article you linked to. But then there was also this: "The ballot paper on September 18th could just as well read: would you like to be governed by technocrats, none of whom are experts in democracy, or would you yourself like a larger share of the power? Democracy is actually that radical. In any political shake-up those in power risk losing their own status when power is shared out more broadly. In terms of their own self-preservation, it seems natural and justifiable for establishment employees to work against an increase in democracy."
Huh! It turns out the SNP and an independent Scotland are going to turf Parliament and go for direct democracy on all fronts, with a rotating-door civil service made up, by statute, of non-career quasi-professionals and politicians who, again by statute, will permanently abjure party labels. Who knew?!

Oh wait, I just read the rest of the article. "With a Scottish representative democracy, where our politicians prioritize Scottish interests before those of a capital class based in London, there will be an increased chance for an ideological change at the top and a gradual shift away from oligarchy." So actually, what you'll get from voting Yes is a class of politicians who actually won't act like politicians but rather like broad-minded progressive activists, and not only will the major banks (and perhaps other industries) get gone, they'll also STAY gone, which will thoroughly cleanse the air of its plutocratic stench, while the broad-minded progre--er, Scottish politicians finally get to have their say on what's what and keep the remaining industries and businesses at home properly in line. At least, you know, maybe that could happen.

The problem is, Scotland is sort of being abused by Britain.
First, Britain is messing with the health service. So, Scotland can either chose to keep the NHS, but pay lots of money to, or to make their own.
Next, Britain is stealing the oil. There is no other way to say this, honestly. The oil is leaving Scotland with a minimal amount of money staying.
These are two strong economic arguments for leaving the union. Banks might leave, they might not. I don't see why they would, but whatever. Scotland is probably better off without them, seeing what happened to Cyprus.

My main reason for supporting independence is the better together campaign, actually. They've been behaving really funnily. "We'll change, honestly." "We love you." "Please don't leave us." "Remember the good times?"

What always puzzles me about the Yes side is that the people who one minute are saying Scotland has a wealth of clean renewable energy that will support a modern green economy are exactly the same people desperate to extract and burn every drop of oil possible.

@ OutsideSmoker, the key idea in that article is about ideological change. I think that's what lots of people are voting for. I thought its explanation of why ideology changes, usually, was interesting.

@phil a s, Yes fair point. No one want to see the NHS run for a profit. And oil revenues will grow. The love-bombing of BT has changed now to intimidation again with a core focus on the economy. As usual they get the best of it in the press but not on social media.

I quite like this too:

"Thanks to BP, Standard Life, Royal Bank of Scotland, TSB, John Lewis and the mad Gadarene dash to Scotland of the Westminster elite, the final few days of the journey which had once promised to be rocky have been a breeze.

I am grateful to all of them. Together they are a microcosm of what the entire no campaign has been all about: money; raw corporate power and a naked sense of absolute entitlement. So I will be voting yes for an independent Scotland on Thursday, with a confidence and certainty that, until last week, I would never have thought possible."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/14/kevin-mckenna-why-i-am-voting-yes-for-scottish-independence