Lets get some rational shit in here.

[b]A.[/b] Scotland goes independent, they're still friends with the UK, they're still going to openly trade, and it would be sane business to simply have their own version of NAFTA with England. They're still part of the Commonwealth. The only thing that's sincerely different is that they choose to manage their own affairs with their own government.

[b]B.[/b] Scotland does not go independent. Status Quo maintained.

As others have said, this is not a violent coup in some third world piece of shit that happens to contain oil: It's a first world country, with first world infrastructure, a first world educated populace, that is generally peace loving and would have every possible incentive in the universe to trade with literally everyone they're already trading with. To the outside world there'd be little to no difference. Goods shipped from Scotland would have a Scotland logo on them instead of an England one. Woo... That's... Different? I guess?

This is mainly an "oh my god" for the United Kingdom. Because they wouldn't really be united anymore.

Also, for those pointing at Québec and what horrendous economic collapses would go on if they went independent, as a Canadian, I'm just gonna say: Completely different situations. Québec is surrounded by Canada and their local provincial policies would not allow them to economically survive whatsoever. They also tend to half-ass the independence movement. (Like they want to be independent, but they still want to use Canadian currency, all the while dumping all of their debt on us... ?????) Scotland, on the other hand, has natural resources beyond oil, and from what I'm aware of, they don't have insane social policies that they could not possible in a thousand years afford without the UK.

Really it doesn't seem like Scotland going free would be a bad thing. I mean it's a peaceful referendum and if things go to shit they can always just rejoin the UK. It's not like the UK will say no to regaining control over Scotland... :hehe