The most likely overall outcome for taxation is that rUK would treat Scottish individuals and companies in the same way as it treats any other country's individuals and companies (and vice versa).  Scotland will need to establish its own financial regulator and resolution authority and make arrangements for continuing the licences and supervision of Scottish firms.  Arrangements for pension investments and payments will be required.

There is no question that an independent Scotland could run a sustainable budget. But like the UK, an independent Scotland would face major fiscal challenges both in the short and long run. Based upon the latest data, an independent Scotland is likely to face greater challenges than the UK as a whole (at least in the short-term).

The accounts don’t suggest Scotland is in debt at all. People just don't understand how to analyse the UK Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report (GERS).

It’s not possible to predict how much money a notionally independent Scotland might be able to spend in the future, and how this might compare with the amount spent per person in the rest of the UK at that time.

The GERS figures do not show that if Scotland were to become independent, each person in Scotland would become £2,000 worse off. The figure only refers to the current difference between revenue and spending in Scotland compared to the UK.

Investment has become a dirty word in the era of ‘investment banking’. Investment banking is widely considered to be one of the causes of the 2008 financial crash (Varoufakis, 2015). When bankers talk about investing, they mean short-term speculation on stocks, bonds or other complex financial derivatives. That is, a form of trading (or, more accurately, gambling) that contributes nothing to the ‘real’ economy.

Jim Cuthbert analyses the potential dangers of Scottish Government investment in Hub sub-debt, which may act as a form of ‘concealed’ borrowing from the secondary market.