Actually, before the events and after the events of William Wallace's rebellion, Scotland was independent.

The reason why King James I of Scotland/King James V of England created the Union was to end the fighting between England and Scotland. 

Spoke to a guy from Scotland and he reckons it'll be close, apparently they are allowing 16+ to vote, me being Irish I think it would be a good thing for the country.

Well, honestly this has been an issue for about 1000 years.

Scotland currently enjoys some independence from Westminster, it wants full independence.  Currently taxation is controlled by Westminster, where in the House of Commons, the overwhelming majority of MPs come from England.  So while Scotland contributes more than it's fair share in revenue, it has no say in what that revenue will be or how it will be spent.  It harkens back to the old colonial days in the Americas where colonists fought against taxation without representation and unfair revenue distribution. 

One reseaon why the colonies refused the crowns offer for representation was that raw materials still had to be sent to the UK, converted to goods, and then sent back to the colonies.  Thus inflating the cost of goods and putting all the revenue back into the UK.

The Bedroom Tax is the current hotbed issue.  Westminster imposed the Bedroom Tax on Scotland in an effort to collect revenue to offset expensures for housing costs, whereby council housing tenants who have a spare room are charged a 14% tax.  Two, and a tenant loses 25% of their benefit.  Likewise back in the 1980's the disasterous Poll Tax was imposed whereby tenants were taxed based on the number of people occupying the residence.

Back in the 1970's, after oil was discovered in the North Sea (Scottish waters) the question was once again raised about Scottish independence.  Scottish MPs force a review, which both the Labour and Conservative Party held from public knowledge that suggested that Scotland could in fact easily become independent based on oil revenues alone at the time.  The outlook is bleaker today than it was back then, but based on some projects Scotland has about 24 years to bankroll revenues from oil.

England, for its part, has more to lose from Scotland going independent than Scotland does.  Right now, Scotland contributes more to UK revenues than Scotland receives.  If Scotland became an independent country, than England, Wales, and Northern Ireland would have to make up for the shortfall in revenue.

Scotland would likely remain a member of the Common Wealth, and more than likely would remain a member of NATO, despite the suggestion that Scotland would close British bases and or have nuclear missles removed. 

That's the result of the same crazy first past the post, single seat constituency system that the US and Canada uses,
which distorts the idea that all votes are equal, in fact in many US states that are Republican leaning,
nearly 1.5x as many votes are needed to gain 1 Democratic Party representative as votes are needed to gain 1 Republican representative.

It just happens that when 3rd parties draw significant support the gross failings of such a system become harder to ignore.
Such as Canada which has had Conservative majority governments with less than majority vote support for that party.
But it also shows up in the US, Bush did not win popular vote for Presidency,
and the House of Representative vote has been popularly won by Democrats despite returning large Republican majorities in seats.
The US Senate, despite being less granular (in ratio to population), is MORE representative because it doesn't split the electorate into districts,
which either gerrymandered or "natural" will always create "ghettos" where votes are "wasted" (leading to the 1.5x figure quoted above)

So with or without Scotland, the rest of the UK would have normal motivation to induct a different voting system.
The Lib-Dems tried to do this but did a horrible job conveying why it should be done, beyond that it would benefit themselves,
and they already alienated their own support base by joining with the Conservatives in coalition.

But even if that is not changed, and the winners of the current system have no motivation to change it, all is not lost,
because if one considers the outcome of a Scotland-less UK, with an apparent structural advantage for Conservatives,
then that means that the Conservative constituency then has much less reason to create a unified front vs. a Labor opponent,
which leads to Conservative splinter groups having all the more reason to split off to more clearly pursue their agenda.
The first past the post system will screw that up too, but nonetheless return the system to a state of play...
Possibly at that point motivating enough parties to change the system to a more representative one.

IMHO, the openlist mixed member proportional representation system is ideal, avoiding top down party lists,
retaining a link between each representative and their local district, while keeping each vote equal in value (proportionate outcome).

------------------------------------

FYI, the controversy over currency is a canard, any country can use any currency they want regardless of the issuing country's opinion.
Scotland is already full of Pounds, and can continue using them. 
Bosnia has long been using Euros without being a member, likewise for some other countries.
The only issue is having a say in determining interest rates, but potentially losing that say is not really that big of a change,
because as only about 10% of the UK's economy, Scotland's unique situation is just not crucial under the current system.
Scotland in fact will have sovereign ability to regulate banks, control reserve ratio, which have similarly effective importance for monetary policy,
so the remainer of the UK very well may be motivated to allow them a say over interest rates in exchange for unified bank regulation.

Which seems silly because removing those would seem more than in line with Scottish sentiment,
weakening British warmongering and removing a nuclear threat from the world.  If the nukes were removed and NATO withdrawn from,
anybody who takes those issues seriously would have reason to vote for Scottish independence just on those grounds.
I've seen talk about Scotland continuing to operate  expensive Eurofighter jets, which likewise is silly,
Scotland has no inherent need for that type of thing, which were created to fight the Soviet Union,
Cheap jet trainers which can be leased can suffice if some intercept capability to deal with hijacked airliners is desired.

Eh, I don't really think it is crazy.   It just needs better districting laws... though it does tend to bend  both ways.  Last Presidential Election Romney would of needed 53% of the popular vote to have won.  (Though he was such a terrible cnadidate that wasn't an issue.)

A propotion based system better represents the national vote sure, but it hurts local communities.  Someone who votes Democrat gets a Republican senator or vice versa.

This is espiecally imporant in a US like system where large importance is put in the federal politcians to bring back things for their states and districts.  A politician who won because of votes in other districts isn't as likely to look out for his own

Scotland threatening to remove our nuclear weapons is frankly an issue of national security, and we should be able to invade them by force and regain them as part of the United Kingdom should this happen.

If they want independence we should give it to them, it's done by referendum, like independence should be.

I always identified as British, not English, yet many of people in Scotlnd see themselves as Scottish. I always thought our unison was because of the same King (James). But the breakup will be interesting.

That said, it won't happen.

Sean Connery begs to differ. /David Bowie

Because you think britain has the right to plant there nukes in any country they please? Good look trying to invade scotland considering how much of the uk army is made up of scots. :P