When a country splits, the organisation decides which is designated as the successor state. After the Communist Revolution that split China into the People's Republic and the Republic (Taiwan), the People's Republic inherited China's Security Council seat.

I know, who in their right mind would give Scottish people an opportunity to decide if they want to be independent eh? Given that it was that very same idiot Cameron who actually allowed the referendum.

As for the economic argument. Cameron's government inherited an utter dud. I was actually in favour of the decisions made post 2010 having studied economis and business at degree level and they are currently proving to be the right ones. We are currently one of the strongest Western Economies and our  recovery is outpacing pretty much anywhere else that was impacted by the financial crisis.

Kowenicki is a economics expert?  Considering you support the Conservatives, I would say hardly so.

The two things that drive the economy more than anything else are consumer spending and government spending.  The people who spend the greatest percentage of their income, and offer the greatest benefit to the economy are the poor and working class.  The girl working the counter at McDonald's actually has a greater impact on the economy than you do, because a larger percentage of her income goes back into the economy than does yours.  Even depsite the fact that you may purchase more expensive items.  That's because that Xbox One, or that new laptop you purchased had to be imported.  That hardly does anything for GDP.  Where as, her food, her nappies for her baby, those are likely all locally produced or manufactured and 100% of that goes back into the economy.

Conservative ideals are nobel, but ill-informed.  At least that holds true for modern conservatives. 

Scottish independence is a bigger threat to the UK because of the reduction in revenue Westminster would have.  Westminster receives more in revenue from Scotland than it gives back to Scotland.  Thus, take that revenue away from Westminster and the England, Wales, and Northern Ireland suffers.  That's the reason for the scare tactics.  Westminster has more to fear from an independent Scotland than Holyrood has to fear from an independent Scotland.

That isn't to suggest that Holyrood wouldn't have some things to consider in the long-term, and in the short-term there would likely be some adjustments that independence would require, but the fact that Scotland would be better off as an independent concern in the long run.

BTW...Don't think of me as a supporter of Labour.  I've seen first-hand the problems that a Labour government has brought on Scotland through an effort in placation and subjugation with the Blair and Brown governments.  The failure of Westminster, especially under Labour, to generate new industry in Scotland to replace lost industries was a failure of opportunity.  Instead, Labour devoted itself to developing benefits and getting the disenfranchised on the public dole.  Now there exists generations of people who believe there is nothing more available to them than the life their parents lead.

But Cameron's solution is no solution at all.  The Bedroom Tax, like the Community Tax the Thatcher/Major government attempted to impose decades earlier is a punative tax.  Once again, if we look at GDP, if you take money away through an increase in tax, you decrease available income for spending, which decreases spending (a decrease in GDP), and causes a greater need and reliance on government transfers (benefits), which means funds that otherwise could go to the government increasing jobs through government spending, instead goes to maintain current jobs by means of benefits the individual uses to purchase goods and services they need. 

Economically, Holyrood actually has a better plan than does the Conservative government of Cameron in Westminster. You can attempt to argue otherwise, but unless you're prepared to counter decades of proven Keynsian economics your effort would be pointless.

Does that include all the revenues that are generated as a result of "business" from south of the border? Including a disproportionate public sector and business that would need to have a presence south of the border if Scotland went independent?

I don't know if it does or doesn't, most people don't because there is nothing concrete. But you need to consider that all those public sector jobs for the UK would be placed elsewhere. Scotland would then need to set up it's own public sector and there would be massive military changes. Anybody thinking the status quo would remain post independence is severely deluded, especially as Salmond made it perfectly clear Trident wouldn't be welcome in Scotland, so all those jobs are clearly going south of the border.

The bedroom tax isn't a punitive tax, because it isn't a tax. It's a reduced payout. They are completely different. I can't say I agree with the way that it's been implemented, but I certainly agree with the principal for the most part.

I know a lot of Scotlanders have this believe that there will be a "progressive liberal haven" in independennce. But once the realities kick in, I really wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is worse than the worst that Thatcher ever imposed. Especially having had the bullyboy tactics of the SNP exposed in recent weeks threatening businesses to keep quiet on their honest opinions if they didn't tow the line. Scotland could well be sleepwalking into a dictatorship.

Always independence, get on with other countries, but be in charge of your fate

Revenue = taxes. 

It's a tax.  Any fee imposed by the government to pay for a good or service is a tax. 

Revenue generated from south of the border (i.e. taxes on goods and services purchased in Scotland by businesses in England or Wales), would still be generated.  Business between Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland isn't going to cease.  Just like business between the US and Scotland won't cease if it gains independence.  More than likely there would be few if any trade barriers between Scotland and England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.  Why would there be?  It would only negatively impact those countries as well as Scotland itself. 

Conservatives can't call one thing a tax when it's perceived as a negative to them, then call it something else when it's perceived as a positive to them.  The Bedroom tax is a ludicious proposition, that subsequently implies that the UK benefits from taxing families and individuals whose residence is underoccupied rather than potentially have unoccupied housing.  The benefit to the GDP to generate more housing, is greater than the benefit to the GDP to cut-back spending, and impose a tax.

I do think councils should be putting a greater effort into multi-family dwellings, rather than single family or duplex dwellings.  I think an effort has been made to get away from multi-story, multi-family housing developments and instead put more of an effort into single family, or duplex dwellings.

There will always be challenges to independence when one country splits from another.  However, I believe if Scotland wants independence then they have a right to it.  Do I think there are better ways to go about this?  Certainly.  I believe a federal system, like the US has, would help resolve many of the concerns all parties involved have.  The existence of a federal government, with each nation/state having it's own government, and representation within the federal government solves the complaint and concerns about one nation/state having greater control over the other.  Each nation/state would have a set number of representatives that had an equal vote on any issue, could draw up legislation and present it, or could speak on any issue.  Effectively, the House of Lords would no longer exist and a Senate-like body would replace it.  The House of Commons might be drawn up a little differently, but England would still have the majority representation because it has the majority of population.  Legislation that the House of Commons brought up, the Senate-like body would vote on.  In effect, the two houses of the legislative body would have to agree to pass legislation.  Whether or not a PM would still have power or not, I don't know, but the more effective form of government would include a President that maintains a check & balance with executive power. 

However, that isn't on the table.  In fact, based on the suggestion by Conservatives, I don't believe much is left on the table for Scotland if the Independence Referendum doesn't get a Yes vote.  Tories, it seems, want to punish Scotland for its attempt at Indpendence.  That appears that way whether they fail or succeed.  Which I don't necessarily understand.

I don't personally believe Scottish Indpendence is unjustified.  As a non-Scot, who has never set foot in Scotland, it's my second home.  My opinion is, based on historical record, that Scots have been hurt more by an association with the UK than they've been helped.  Certainly, there has been mutual benefit, but I'm not sure that mutual benefit wouldn't have existed even if Scotland and England had never formed a Union.  The close proximity of the two nations would have meant, much like with the United States and Canada or Mexico, that they trade and they each benefit from that trade relationship. 

The people who benefitted in Scotland from the relationship between Scotland and England were not the poor and working class.  The people that benefitted from the relationship between Scotland and England were the wealthy and eventually protestant reformists.  The poor and working class just became pawns for those two groups.

Do I beleive Scotland will become a socialist Mecca?  I hope not.  Can it be a country that practices socialism, a regulated market economy, and be successful?  Sure, I believe so.  There isn't a market economy anywhere in the world that practices true capitalism and I doubt anyone would want to live in the country that does. 

Yes, as per the original plan set forth between Britain and Ireland for independence in the 1920s, until the protestant population of NI threw a monkeywrench into the works, which would be the catalyst of decades of violence and bloodshed committed on both sides (Republic/NRA vs. Northern Ireland). 

It's all quite ridiculous really, the whole strife, fighting over different views of THE SAME GOD. It's not like they even had different gods to fight over. Yet, to the British, as had been often quoted, the Irish were "the blacks of Europe", and would never been seen as equals.

I would think that if the British had the foresight of what would happen in the 2nd half of the 20th century, they'd have just set the whole island independent.  What Britain gained has long been spent (mined resources), there may come a time before long where those remaining counties are returned to Ireland.

Personally, I think that NI is cursed since it's departure from Ireland, as the grave of Brian Boru dwells in NI. If you're unfamiliar with Brian Boru, he was considered the last of the High Kings of Ireland, and played a major part in uniting the tribes of Ireland in about 1050 AD, give or take 50 years. His dying wish was to be buried in the land he loved, Ireland. With the breaking off of NI, he's not been.

Interesting side note - the United States was aligned with Ireland to back them in their fight for independence in the 1910s, but then WW1 came around, and Irleand went alone, which lead to the Easter Uprising in 1916, which went pretty awful, but eventually lead the way to independence talks.

You know that 1920's was nearly 100 years ago, get over it for petes sakes. Wow some people said some nasty things 100 years ago... absolutely crazy.

Ireland is what it is now. You on one hand want Scotland to decide their fate, but when it comes to NI which wants to decide their fate you throw around very old dare i say it, hate of Britain stuff. Not sure if you have some issue with Britain or British people, but reading your stuff definately reads that way.

England aren't exactly tyrants and oppressors......certainly worse out there. Better to keep them strong and together.

The "Bedroom Tax" isn't a revenue though, it's a reduction in expenditure.

When I said business from south of the border, I don't just mean trading. I mean things such as, if the UK government decided to relocate all the public sector jobs which again, are disproportionately located in Scotland (and Wales). Maybe they would move them to the North of England instead? That would be less tax revenue generated by employment for the Scottish Government, as although it goes towards the figures for what a Scottish government would generate in taxation, without being in the UK, there would not be need for as many public sector jobs.

You've also got the Trident aspect, if Scotland refuses to have Trident in it's territory, all those jobs also have to move south of the border. Further loss of tax revenue as a result of migrating employment. A few companies based in Scotland have also come out with comments of the possibility of needing to relocate part or all of their business outside of Scotland in the event of independence due to the fact that it would make no sense to remain in Scotland if the majority of their customers were suddenly in a different country.

I don't know that it will happen, it's just possibilities. As I say although I'd rather Scotland stayed part of the UK, if they choose to go it alone, good luck to them.

As for being part of the union has hurt Scotland more than they've been helped, lets not forget that it was Scotland that begged England for a bail out having blown all their money on a failed venture to the Americas, and not the other way around. There was no hostile removal of Scotland's sovereignty.

With regards to the tories wanting to punish Scotland for wanting independence? Have you got some further reading on that? It was Cameron that pretty much out of nowhere agreed to a referrendum (though I don't doubt it was because he thought there was no way in hell the Yes camp had a chance of winning... whoops) and they actually want to have a space port located in Scotland. There's also been the announced further investment in Glasgow, a third bridge on the forth currently being constructed out of UK tax money etc.

I don't doubt that London sees much higher spending, but I live in the North of England and believe me, we have it worse on public spending than either London or Scotland. We've also been called a barren wasteland prime for fracking :p If anywhere would feel punished by the Tories it would be more this part of the country.