The union of England and Scotland dates back to 1603 when King James I took the English throne from the heirless Elizabeth I. Over the next 100 years the Stuart Dynasty saw the two nations through good and bad times. Military action and tensions were not rare in the 17th century as politics and religion drew the nations further apart, but the Glorious Revolution of 1688-9 and the liberties it restored helped to foster a better relationship between the two countries. England was the main importer of Scottish goods and they both enjoyed trade benefits.

Following the Glorious Revolution, many Scottish politicians, merchants and nobles advocated a political union between the two kingdoms. Scottish aristocracy had already started referring to themselves as Northern Britons rather than Scots and were emulating the English lifestyle. In 1707 the Scottish Parliament ratified the Act of Union which represented a parliamentary merger between the two, but this did not align the church, legal system or universities.

History has shown that Scotland has traditionally been alienated from the Union for pragmatic rather than patriotic reasons. In 1977, Scottish people voted in a referendum on devolution. 52% voted in favour and 48% voted against, however the turnout was low and the ‘yes’ vote did not reach the minimium of 40% of the electorate required. It would be deceitful to interpret the low turnout as mere political apathy, considering the ‘no’ campaign had informed the people that not turning up was as good as voting against.

The Scottish people had spoken. However, eleven years' rule by a Tory increased resentment in Scotland, as the policy of de-industrialisation hit the country very hard. Adding to the confusion was the discovery of oil in the North Sea and patriotic campaigns such as ‘shall we be poor Brits or rich Scots?’. These circumstances led to yet another referendum in 1997 and this time, the ‘yes’ majority was a crystal clear 74.3%. As a result, the Scottish parliament was summoned for the first time since 1707.

More recently, when the SNP went on to win the 2011 Scottish General Election, the idea of Scottish independence became more than just the romantic dream of nationalists. Since then the Scottish government has made pressing for a referendum on Scotland’s independence a priority.

However, a very important aspect of the implications of Scottish independence seems to be overlooked by the general public. This is the issue of Scotland’s membership in the EU. Alex Salmond has promised that an independent Scotland would retain the Pound Sterling until a referendum on the adoption of the Euro could be held. However, there is no precedent in the EU for this scenario. Only two weeks ago the House of Commons commissioned a briefing on the issue of Scotland's EU membership and the rest of the UK. This found that it states in EU law:

“When a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of the state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the [European] Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.”

The briefing also states that it is very likely that the decision will be a political rather than constitutional one. It should be kept in mind that if Scotland were to remain in the EU, this would require all current member states to agree to it. As European countries with major separatist issues of their own, such as Spain, historically show a lack of sympathy for regions wanting independence, one must wonder whether the European community would welcome an independent Scotland with open arms.

Spain has shown its hostility towards seperatist regions by being one of the few EU states not to recognise the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. A Spanish, Italian, or UK veto would indeed suffice to keep Scotland outside the EU. As a result, outside of the UK may well mean outside of EU for a Scottish independent state.

Even in the case that all EU member states accept Scotland, it is almost certain that, like any new member state, joining the Eurozone and adopting the single currency would be a condition of membership. Joining the Euro is a contentious matter, although not necessarily a bad thing, but do Scottish people know this? Do Scots know that an independent Scotland as an EU member almost inevitably means a Scotland in the Eurozone? The mere fact that the Scottish government is avoiding this topic with short and unclear declarations, and by hiding legal advice, means that they may want to hide a few facts from the public. Keeping legal advice documents secret even after pressure to release them doesn’t seem like a good start for a transparent state.

If Scotland re-applied to join the EU, the procedure could mean that it would take up to four years before its admission as a new member state. The House of Commons' briefing mentions that the time scale could indeed be longer, citing previous examples of Sweden (the quickest so far at four years) and Turkey (decades and still counting).

Even in a best case scenario of two years outside the EU, this could mean mean two years of disastrous consequences for the Scottish economy. Scotland could lose its privileges of free trade with the rest of the EU, and indeed the rest of the UK, unless bilateral agreements were signed between the two parties. Firms and businesses from the rest of the UK operating in Scotland might leave the country as their variable costs would increase with the removal of free trade and the rest of the benefits of the Single European Market.

Regardless of the Eurozone issues, it seems that the Scottish economy may face very hard times being on its own. The UK Treasury in London has been using the so-called Barnett formula since the late '70s to allocate public expenditure in each of the constituent nations. Under this formula, using figures for the financial year 2006/2007, if a UK-wide per capita average were a notional 100%, identifiable per capita expenditure on services in England would be 97% and the Scottish amount 117%. In actual monetary figures, this would work out as (per person): England £7,121 and Scotland £8,623.

In Scotland, the public sector is a bit larger than the rest of the UK, providing employment for 25% of the workforce, above the national average of around 21%. Scotland’s economy is more sluggish, growing by an average of 2% a year between 1997 and 2007, against 2.4% for Britain as a whole. That may not sound much, but over the decades it adds up to a significant shortfall.

The last set of figures from Holyrood statisticians show that for 2008-9, Scotland provided £1.3bn more in revenue than was spent north of the border. At less than 1% of Scotland’s GDP, that’s not a huge surplus, and it does include a due share of North Sea revenues. Strip out crude oil and the deficit goes up sharply, to £10.5bn (or 9% of GDP). Those who say the oil is running out overstate rather than fabricate: more than half the local reserves have already been extracted and what’s left will be harder and more expensive to pump out. Re-energising Scotland is a very catchy slogan but the question remains whether energy is a reliable resource upon which to base an entire economy. With oil prices so variable, the revenue of the state could drastically change in very short periods of time and managing public expenditure would be out of Scotland’s control.

It is hard to cover both sides of the argument in a page and oversimplification is difficult to avoid. It is very important that if a referendum takes place, people are very well informed. Manipulating the crowds with nationalistic fervour, on either side, leads to decision-making from the heart rather than the mind, and could yield results that people regret later on. In the 21st century with our accessibility of information, we expect an informed and sensible electorate rather than a naïve, ignorant one.

In order to achieve the best for Scotland, we should avoid focusing on the idealistic and biased Yes and No campaigns. We should also, as a community, be more concerned with cultivating informative initiatives that will help people to understand the real implications of an independent Scotland, and decide with their minds rather than with their hearts.