I understand that on a military forum issues of defence will be central to discussions. That said, I must admit that what I find amusing in this thread is the underlying assumption, predominantly offered by those vehemently opposed to Scottish independence, is that Scotland would be expected to stand up a military capability straight away. They further expect that Scotland's military capability should be measured against that of the current UK. This is rather strange as it does not recognise: military capabilities are grown and change throughout a country's history; Scotland's foreign policy would not be as ambitious as that of the current UK and hence her defence policy would be similarly less ambitious. Furthermore Scotland and the remaining UK would have defence interests in common, and from common interest come cooperation. For some, the defence argument seams to be a totem upon which the credibility of independence hangs. I am not so convinced that the man, woman or 16+ teenager in the street really shares that view.
Tom, first of all let me nail my colours to the mast. I am a proud Scot, who would love Scotland to be an independent country, but am vehemently opposed to the break-up of the Union.
What I don't see is how you can categorically make the statement that Scotland's foreign and defence policies would be less ambitious. The current incumbents of Holywood (oops Holyrood) have at no stage said with any conviction what
any of the SNP policies would be, let alone the ones you specifically mention (and hiding behind the "we'll have to negotiate after the referendum result to see what happens" scarcely produces an informed electorate). Added to this the fact that none of the other parties are saying anything either means that the electorate can't have a clue what the impact of voting yes will be.
This is too big an issue to vote for purely on the Nationalistic fervour; if it were my heart only then I would probably say Yes, but my head is involved as well. Of course, this is all assuming I'm able to get leave from my job in order to be home on the date concerned. Of course, as someone born in Inverness, living near Elgin, with a family living there still, owing a house there and planning to retire there, why should I expect to be allowed to appoint my wife (who will be there voting on the day) as a proxy to cast my vote for me. If "perceived" 3rd world countries such as Pakistan can arrange for their overseas workers to vote in a General Election, I find it gobsmacking that a modern nation can't do the same for its citizens.
Until parties can start giving facts about their plans (rather than simply applauding reports they like and refuting ones they don't), the jury's out on this one.