97% of the adult population has registered to vote on this. Pretty damn good considering the usual voter apathy.

I know a lot of things are up in the air should the vote say yes to the divorce, but have the Scots nationalists addressed any of the following.

1. Property rights of non-Scots who own land in Scotland?
2. Shetland Islands who may want divorce from Scotland (and have a claim on part or that North Sea oil)?
3. Keeping the Queen as Monarch?
4. Residency, will non-Scots currently living in Scotland being allowed to continue living there?

I'm just curious.

>>Yorkshire

What?  Is there really an independence movement for Yorkshire? What's their beef?

Pretty sure they've addressed 1,2 and 4. Scotland would still have the queen as head of state. AFAIK the same rules UK regarding being a natural citizen would continue to apply in Scotland. I can see the current generations perhaps having a choice of passports, it depends on what's agreed after the vote with rUK.

Scotland has always had a distinct legal system so property laws shouldn't change in the event of a yes vote.

> 97%

Salmond should feel very proud of that and it's the one thing I admire him for.

>1. Property rights of non-Scots who own land in Scotland?
I don't think this will change. It's a civil matter and one very well covered under existing legislation (Scottish civil law, although very close, is different to England and Wales)

> 2. Shetland Islands who may want divorce from Scotland (and have a claim on part or that North Sea oil)?
That will be between the Shetlands and Scotland, although I can't see how Scotland could fight against succession after having just pushed for it themselves.

> 3. Keeping the Queen as Monarch?
I believe this will continue. It's mostly symbolism anyway.

>4. Residency, will non-Scots currently living in Scotland being allowed to continue living there?
I'm pretty sure that is the case and will likely remain so. But... as a seperate country not tied (and unlikely to be accepted into) the EU, they will be free to define their own immigration and residency laws.

> Yorkshire

Yorkshire is unlikely to want to split but Cornwall is a whole different ball game.

on a personal level there is a very strong financial argument to argue for the South East to secede from the rest (of whatever it left) of Blighty, although if that were to ever happen the rest of the nation would collapse into a financial quagmire.

>> not want it

what evryone else said. And Alex is very smarmy.

To be honest if they vote yes, good luck to them and I suspect English taxpayers will benefit, although politically it will be less healthy as I worry who the new 'second' party may be. Ultimately I don't think it will impact my life much, our clients in Scotland will stay clients, the flights will still fly, the border will be like the Eiire/NII one and we can probably still retire there (although we may not want to given the healthcare and pensions will probably be a lot less generous than now).

Emotionally though I want a no. Very much split head and heart on this one.

> Emotionally though I want a no. Very much split head and heart on this one.

Perfectly said. I feel exactly the same.

> Yorkshire

sorry that was tongue in cheek.  Yorkshire people are very proud of their county, and consider it to be "Gods Country".  They are fond of pointing out that Yorkshire do better than some other "Countries" in sporting events.
ah, here it is, they came 12th in 2012:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2012/aug/13/yorkshire-olympic-medals-gold-tourism-leeds-york-dales-sheffield-hull

Cornwall
The Dutchy, as the South west is called (Cornwall) has always been different an is in fact owned by the Prince of Wales.  They have peculiar laws that go back centurys, and he has powers some say he should not.
I do not know alot about it, but a friend has taken them on in court.  He is a Constitutional Lawyer.  Here is some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

Some info about the Monarchy and independent Scotland from the BBC, out today, for us foreigners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29126569

hats off to Blair Stenhouse

All the fuss, and it will be a no vote.  The risks are too high.  Even blair will know that.

Can we have a poll here? 

It's the economics of it all that drive the fear and uncertainty. People worried about pensions, people in government jobs worrying about job security, people with mortgages worrying whether their mortgage will cost more. No doubt it's just the consequence of the global economy... the bigger picture is that we're European anyway.

It's pretty sad that the thrust of the conversation revolves around money. This is pretty much the only angle of entry into the voter's mind from the no perspective. All those Edinburgh headquartered banks saying they're drawing up contingencies to legally be based in London. That's fine, they won't be paying corporation tax for another decade due to them being pretty much state owned, the holes they dug were a result of the kind of greed that was symptomatic of the finance sector London is famed for. Seems like there were indications that the banks were following the lead of Downing Street in mentioning this 'capital flight' idea.

I'd bet there could be a line 200 miles further south of Scotland where the people north of it would seriously consider being independent from London and the South East too. Not that it's black and white but that's where the divide is.

If we adopted PR 4 years ago I think the nationalist argument would have been massively weakened.

Sorry, PR?

proportional representation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation