Scotland the Brave

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

   Political independence without monetary independence can be dangerous. Examples: Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland. As things stand now, the United Kingdom essentially has both.
  Membership in the EU enables free trade, but the UK still has political independence and monetary independence. Members in the euro zone have political independence, but do not have full control over monetary policy. As it is, Germany pushes austerity as a means to "resolve" economic issues for other countries (easy for them to say, since Germany is prospering). As I have written before, austerity may be OK for a family or a firm, but on a national level it doesn't work. In fact, it's destructive. 
   In general, I believe the concept of a unified Europe -- the European Union -- is a good one, and a free trade union is a good start. However, establishing monetary union before political union has brought many conflicts with it. 
   On this side of the pond, the 13 colonies formed a political union in 1776, but even so, it took some 80 years for that to solidify. The Articles of Confederation weren't strong enough to hold the "free and independent" states together, and it took a Civil War to establish the federal government's authority under the Constitution of 1789. Even so, it was even later that full control of the monetary system really was fixed to the federal level. The Federal Reserve, for example, was not set up until 1914. Previous attempts to have a central bank failed. 
   So, should Scotland secede? It has always been a separate nation, even as it was united under one monarch. But to resume political independence while retaining monetary union, with the Bank of England regulating monetary policy, can be economically hazardous. Better that the Bank of Scotland take on the full duties of a central bank. Joining the European Union as a new, independent nation member, would only transfer monetary policy control to Brussels and the European Central Bank, as well as having to deal with pressure from Berlin. 
   Similar issues would arise for other smaller peoples considering independence in Europe, such as the Basques. Likewise, Puerto Rico must consider these potential problems with an independence movement. 
   In a federal setup with political as well as monetary union, such as the U.S., the state of Florida, for example, can -- and has --- looked to Washington for bailout help in times of crisis, e.g. high unemployment and benefits claims, housing crashes, bank failures, etc. 
   Likewise, Scotland can now look to London for help in dealing with financial crises. With independence, they would have to go it alone. 
   Independence is never an easy path, whether for a person or a nation. The Scots have a long and proud history of contributing to the world, such as bagpipes, whisky, and golf, not to mention the economic ideas of Adam Smith and the political and philosophical influence of David Hume. 
   So if national independence is what the Scots want, I say go for it. But there will be ruts and bumps along the road.