The few countries which have their version of the pound have economies worth how much? The Scottish economy is worth too much to allow it to run away making decisions for itself without consequence. It is not the same. If there was a major recession in Scotland resulting from independence, if the currency was linked to the pound it would have major consequences south of the border. The powers in Westminster actually have a responsibility to protect the rest of the UK from that. If they did not take steps to secure the stability of the currency they would be being negligent. Given the lessons of the last few years, where economic risks from outside were not considered and the political powers of the time didn't take steps to protect our interests, it would be political suicide not to be making steps like this at this time.
“If there is no legal basis for Scotland having a share of the public asset of the Bank of England, then there is equally no legal basis for Scotland accepting a share of the public liability of the national debt.”
If you want to declare yourself independent, you have joint responsibilities to the other system to which you belongs. Going forward you no longer have that power to interfere, because the principle of independence is you are voting to give up that right and go it alone.
If Scotland wanted to go down that route of abdicating any responsibility for the national debt of the UK then I think it would have a very hard time getting credit in the future. I think a lot of other countries would question its integrity and whether it was honourable in repaying debt. The rest of the remainder of the UK certainly would not view it favourable and would push up lending rates to reflect that and to cover the debts that it was having to cover. Other countries would not be willing to give favourable rates - at least initially - to Scotland due to the political change which would be viewed as a period of uncertainty. Banks and economists do not like unpredictability or uncertainty and rate it unfavourably. Just as you and I not having steady work would be voted badly by mortgage lenders. It just represents higher risk.
The rules of the EU state that any breakaway states have to apply to join the EU. They aren't designed to victimise or bully the Scottish in anyway. They are designed to maintain political stability and economic stability. If England were, in theory, to vote to become independent and no longer be the part of the union, they, because they had voted democratically and freely to do so understanding the consequences, would no longer be part of the EU. Equally, if it were a vote both north and south of the border about whether to maintain the Union, any resulting new nations would not be part of the EU. The rules are designed to favour existing members who do no choose to change their country borders.
Given that Scotland could not be a member of the EU at least initially it raises questions over import/export duties as well as currency. I think that although they would not be part of the EU they probably would be part of the trading group the EEA like Iceland and Norway as it would cause political instability not to include them.
In terms of becoming independent, there are also unresolved issues over international and domestic bureaucracy. Many laws now, both north and south of the border are due to European law - they do not exist in English or Scottish law. If Scotland isn't part of the EU, it creates a problem - there may be gaps which need to be resolved by the Scottish courts and going forward they would not be subject to EU law, so may have gaps that they have to deal with independently. This may be a positive thing; but it may also be a costly thing. Then there's the issue of international diplomacy and representation and embassies.
Scotland has no infrastructure for this. So they will either have to share with the rest of the UK or another nation willing to provide space. In the case of sharing with the rest of the UK this could led to doubling up posts. I hope in this scenario, that Scotland would be charged for this privilege of sharing embassies rather than take it for granted that we would automatically supply this service. It would not be the responsibility of those people south of the border who had not democratically voted for independence to foot any additional costs resulting from independence for which we receive only liability and no benefit whatsoever. Personally, given all this, I might be a bit nervous about travelling in the period after a independence vote if these issues were unresolved in advance. I wouldn't want to be stuck in another country, not really knowing who I could turn to for help.
All in all, I think Salmond is a monumental dick for his comments and leadership. I think he is doing the Scottish people a massive disservice in carrying on headlong to a vote without addressing these issues more seriously and simply accusing the EU and the political leadership in London as bullying. He is completely failing to respect the fact that he has a responsibility to the people who he represents but so does Cameron et el and so does the EU. Their interests and responsibility are to maintain stability - not necessarily to stop Scotland leaving.
If Scotland was to engage and negotiate prior to a vote so that everyone - including those outside Scotland - knew what was being voted for, they would be more inclined not to be so hostile to the proposal. All Salmond has done has been to say things like Scotland would have representation without making sure this would happen. Of course, perhaps Westminster doesn't want to do this - arguably with good reason for aforementioned issue of stability - but that's actually their prerogative to do that. They are within their rights to protect themselves.
Afterall aren't the ones who have a legal right to vote for independence...
If I'm honest about it, if he had been serious about independence and had the best interests of the Scottish people at heart, then increasing devolution even further and increasing the power of Scotland to cover these issues would have been the next step forward rather than a referendum at this point.