i hope that Scotland vote for and succeeded in Independence
as then our agreement with the 4th Reich of Europe would be null and void ...

Yay for rabid Europhobia.

I too hope Scotland succeed in their bid for independence, mostly because I'd like to see as much power taken away from Westminster as possible. More powers for the Senedd and more powers for local authorities (or bring back regional assemblies, but directly elected). I also want to see directly elected mayors for cities and unitary authorities (and all authorities in England made unitary).

I'm hoping Scotland decide that they can go ahead on their own as an independent state. After the messy divorce that will follow then they will find out if the SNP are right or not. If they are then good for Scotland if not

clicky

and all the jobs as well.

I can't help but feel it's all rather a step backwards in the evolution of humankind.

If you look at Alex Salmond you do get the feeling that he is in fact a step backwards in the evolution of humankind.

Salmond. Sturgeon. The place will be run by fish.

Well, Cameron and Clegg are making a right pollock of it on this side of Hadrian's wall to be fair.

I rather want the Scots to get their independence. If only because then they will finally have to shut up about it.

Even if they vote yes, there'll still be years of arguements over how to split national debt etc. I'll bet you any money Salmond won't willingly accept an even split based on population.

Well he could claim a share of decades of oil revenues so that would more than balance the books.

And he could be told to [LIFTED] off. The English are already pissed off with the ever increasing subsidies Scotland are getting through the Barnet formula. It's not like Scotland haven't seen any of the oil revenue. Plus a lot of the gas fields are closer to England than Scotland.

As far as I'm aware, even if they vote for it, Scotland will be going independent in 2014, not 1974. Independence can't be applied retrospectively.
The idea that going independent now somehow means they were in possession of something at some point in the past is, frankly, idiocy.

They could use it as a way of avoiding taking any UK national debt, as you said the debts were accrued by the English parliament.

Well that's not going to fly in any court of law. Both the oil revenues and national debt were acquired as the United Kingdom, therefore not only is it fair that the revenues went into the Treasury's coffers, but as Scotland has been a beneficiary of UK public spending it's only fair it takes its share of the national debt.

Furthermore, there hasn't been an English parliament since 1707. The Westminster Parliament is the British parliament and no more represents England than it does Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In fact, historically Scotland sends more representatives to Westminster on a per-head basis than England does, and I'm sure I need not remind you that the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland between 1997 and 2010 both hailed from Scotland.

British Parliament I think you'll find.
Legally they can't just walk off with as little debt as they think is okay. It'll need to be agreed by both sides.

Is it even economically feasible? Without taxing people back to the Stone Age?

Better the devil you know, especially if it gives Gerry and the Peacemakers over here succour