Thank you ! I ' ve been trying to improve for a while ~<| sep |> I found point 4 We ' d Be Defaulting on the UK ' s Debt really interesting . I ' d always been dubious about the idea of an iScotland walking away from it ' s share of the UK debt , it just seemed morally wrong to me and I ' d dismissed it as some fanciful nattery thinking . However , Dalzell goes over some of the concepts of the legalities of the rUK being a continuing or , at least , the successor state . The stated objective of the Westminster government in the 2014 campaign was to have the rUK recognised as the continuing or , at least , the successor state to the United Kingdom and for Scotland to be recognised as a new state . This state of affairs would carry with it significant advantages for rUK notably , it would lessen any serious challenge towards their holding the UK ' s permanent seat on the UN Security Council which was the case when Russia became the successor to the USSR but carries with it many obligations also . Essentially , where one country successfully claims continuing or successor status then it accepts that all of the mobile debts and assets of the former state belong solely to it nonmobile assets like mineral rights , military bases and public buildings including public companies and any mobile assets deemed essential to their running are almost always split geographically . This means that a continuing rUK owns all of the UK ' s debt in its own name . Scotland can no more default on them than can a former lodger default on your mortgage . Now , if the side negotiating on behalf of the UK wishes to make the case that Scotland should take on a share of debts , perhaps by offering a share of assets to their value , then this is something that Scotland could consider , accept or refuse . There is a very good case to be made that Scotland doesn ' t actually need or want a population share of the UK ' s mobile assets . We may need a few billion worth of military equipment assuming we can ' t buy newer or more appropriate equipment elsewhere . We may need a couple of billion those stalwart supporters of independence , Scotland in Union , estimated not more than 1 billion to set up essential government departments currently lacking assuming we can ' t borrow the money at better rates on the open market . We may need a couple tens of billions to support our new currency and set up the investment banks we ' ll need to start rebuilding our economy . After that , it really does start to become a stretch to consider what other assets we would actually need which would justify accepting over 130 billion worth of debt . So maybe it wasn ' t just nat sophistry well that technically wasn ' t our debt as I ' d assumed it was and it turns out there are precedents from other successor statesnew countries being born . So does this mean that Scotland should just walk away from it ' s debt ? Certainly as part of any negotiations this would be just one of many things discussed . I ' m reminded of the title of a book I once read , Everything ' s Negotiable . And as it turns out , everything is indeed negotiable .