The renewal of Trident was expected to cost £100bn over something like a decade (who knows what the falling pound has done to that, but anyway,) Scotland's share of that would be roughly £8-10bn over the decade depending how you do the mathematics, let's say circa £1bn a year.
The number given for Scotland's deficit was £15bn, we haven't reduced it, but on that one item alone we've prevented Scotlands deficit from rising by 6.7% every year for 10 years. That's not a 'tiny' fraction, and it's a good example of how the finances of an independent Scotland would be different from Scotland remaining in the UK.
The lifetime cost of Trident is estimated at £167bn between 2028 and 2060. That's £5.2bn a year, or 0.6% of the UK's yearly spending. Assuming Scotland is responsible for an equal part of each bit of the UK's spending (not actually true; Scotland has a large deficit than both Wales and England and so would save relatively less), given Scotland is 8% of the population of the UK, IndScotland would save ~£415mn a year. This isn't better than nothing, but it's still a tiny fraction of any Scottish budget deficit, and wouldn't allow Scotland to avoid either austerity or tax raises.
Additionally, this spending hasn't actually happened yet, and so saying Scotland can reduce the current deficit it has now by reducing planned spendings in the future is wrong. That's now how things work. Don't get me wrong, I think Trident renewal, at least at the scale proposed, is a stupid idea. But it's not some magical budget saver.
While personally I have no issue with joining the Euro if the numbers look good, particularly if the Pound goes down the toilet, there is nothing that says Scotland would be forced to join the Euro. You're regurgitating old debunked arguments from the Indy ref.
I'm not saying Scotland has to join the Euro; it obviously doesn't. I'm saying that if Scotland joins the EU, which I know a lot of Scots want, it has to join the EU, which is true. It's very true that Scotland could leave the UK, refuse to join the EU, and either float an independent currency or peg themselves to the pound, although I don't think either of those last two options are especially wise. I was just running through the EU case.
I agree that it would be economically tough, but no tougher than for most small countries once everything was up and running, and, to return to the topic, with the benefit of not erasing our links with the EU and giving us other options for future growth beyond being trapped in either May or Leadsome's vision of the future.
I mean, in the long-run, no, it wouldn't be much harder than it is for other small countries of Scotland's size and wealth. I'm just pointing out that in the short-run there would be: at least a 10% retraction in the amount of public services provided to Scots (or an equivalent increase in taxes), and possibly an even sharper retraction due to the sharp drop in GDP, because at the moment Scotland does very well out of the Barnett formula while, given current oil prices, not being a net contributor. The UKwide deficit peaked at about 7% of GDP in 2010, and the last 6 years of Conservative austerity have only recently managed to hit 2% of GDP. Scotland is looking at an even bigger deficit than that. It would be really, really hard.
This isn't "Project Fear" or whatever and I'm not interested in that. I like Scotland, and I'd be sad to see you go; but as I said earlier in this thread when I heard the result, I really could not blame you in the slightest. But I'm a natural-born pedant and I like facts. The economic impact of Scoxit would be really, really painful. More painful for Scotland than leaving the EU was for the UK, because Scotland is more dependent on the UK than the UK is on the EU. Given how morose everyone is about this thread and the shitfest the pound is going through, that should give you some practical real-world benchmark. Independence is still very much achievable and if you want it, go for it, but it is absolutely not going to be a field of roses at the start; it's going to be an ugly first decade at a minimum.
think that "one response" rule is a non-starter Crab 
