What?
You mean like every other country that has a border 
?
Ok I have never been to the UK before but tell me, is there any border crossings when crossing over to Scotland? Or is it just a marker like we have in the US with say “Welcome to Arkansas”?
Are laws and taxes any different in Scotland than the rest of the UK?
Are there separate military units?
Is government pay and pensions the same?
Similar to the “Welcome to Arkansas”
"What the Scottish Government does:
The Scottish Government runs the country in relation to matters that are devolved from Westminster.
This includes: the economy, education, health, justice, rural affairs, housing, environment, equal opportunities, consumer advocacy and advice, transport and taxation. The power to set a Scottish rate of income tax is a new addition to our responsibilities and further powers will be devolved to Scotland over the coming years."
So it is stronger than a U.S. state is.
No separate military.
What has the Ireland example taught?
This is probably the least important factor. There have been a lot of countries that have had the experience of dividing up the military upon a partition.
And there are a lot of small countries that don’t have much of a military and rely on allies to largely handle that matter for them. Scotland is a very small country.
Scotland’s population is comparable to Minnesota
and Norway. Its geographic area is comparable to Czechia or South Carolina. Its GDP is comparable to New Zealand or Connecticut.
Considering that Scotland voted to stay in the Ē.U., one might surmise that they do indeed disagree with the English regarding open borders.
Isn’t this an entirely arbitrary standard?
And contradicted by, for example, national boundaries dividing islands such as Hispaniola, Borneo, Timor and Saint Martin.
(Btw, did you know that the island Île des Faisans/Isla de los Faisanes in the Bidasoa River is binationally divided, not spatially but temporally? No shit, it is officially under French control from August 1 to January 31 every year and under Spanish control from February 1 to July 31. I did not know that.)
Not to mention Cyprus:
https://www.turkheritage.org/Uploads/Editor/Tx8f2YCp__image.png
Which is not to say it’s a good idea.
That we can be foreign nations at a political level, without at an individual level emotionally feeling that either is ‘foreign’ - I doubt many Irish or Brits few each other as foreign as, say, French or Americans. We still closely related. Like family (recognising that families don’t always agree and quite often starkly so).
‘Welcome to Scotland’ ‘Welcome to England’
Scotland has it’s own distinct legal system, which stems from when it WAS a separate country (1707). Income tax is also calculated differently.
There are distinct Scottish army regiments (as there are in regional regiments throughout England), but they are part of the wider British Army. RAF and Royal Navy are blended.
We have devolved administrations in Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland), so I should imagine not. Scotland has its own parliament.
It’s not a standard, merely an observation.
I agree with you, with the caveat that it does require the agreement/permission of Westminster first (unless we want all out war).
Observations are not commonly stated using “should.” That’s a normative statement.
Furthermore, you do realize that there isn’t a clear one between what is an island and what isnt, right?
And as others have pointed out, what about examples like Hispaniola and Borneo?
What is the observation you are making?
To the best of my knowledge, social benefits payments (state retirement pensions, unemployment, disability and child benefits and the like) are controlled by Westminster and the same in England, Wales and Scotland (not sure about Northern Ireland). I don’t know, but I would imagine government staff salary grading schemes, actual pay and pension scales per grade are the same or at least closely follow England.
Observations are not commonly stated using “should.”
What word would you prefer instead of observation? Maybe a principle, but that implies a greater degree of certainty.
Furthermore, you do realize that there isn’t a clear one between what is an island and what isnt, right?
In the case of Great Britain and Ireland, there is no doubt. Then problems start with the biggest islands.
Hispaniola proves the adage, if anything. The Dominican Republic has fared better than Haiti.
Political divisions tend to be arbitrary, and never more so than in an island. That is all too obvious in Ireland, and would become an issue if Scotland split off. However, at least one scenario I have seen for Scottish independence posited a huge brain drain to the south, a messy Brexit notwithstanding.
An observation is something you observe. It’s a fact that you record and report.
You’re offering an opinion about the way things should be. That’s not an observation.
An observation would be “all divided islands experience negative economic consequences.” It would of course be your burden to supply the evidence.
“Islands should not be divided” is not an observation. It’s normative. It’s an opinion or a rule or a standard.
As an ignorant Yank, how would Scotland have another vote on independence? It would require the consent of Parliament, correct? Which I assume is unlikely to be forthcoming from the current government. Could the Scots just organize their own vote? Would a bare majority for independence suffice? Would there be a minimum turnout requirement for the vote to be considered valid?
Westminster’s view is that holding a vote is a decision for Westminster. Scotland might be inclined to dispute that, but would also be mindful of the fact that, if a vote was held with Westminster’s agreement, Westminster is much more likely to give effect to the outcome. Westminster would bear in mind that refusing to agree to a vote which a significant majority of Scots wanted would be embarrassing and politically costly, plus effectively forcing the Scots to hold a "rebel’ vote would inflame matters.
The other questions you raise would fall to be answered when the decision was taken to hold the vote. The more constraint you impose on the vote, e.g. requireing a minimum turnout or a supermajority to authorise a change to the status quo, the more potential problems you store up for yourself - if the Scots vote by a majority to leave the Union but you force them to stay because the majority wasn’t big enough, that’s not going to make for settling the question, or for a happy union. Plus the trend in UK referendums over the past 20 years or so has been not to have things like turnout requirements or supermajorities. The UK government is currently aggressively and controversially implementing a referendum result which would almost certainly have failed any supermajority requirement that might have been imposed, so it would look pretty hypocritical to impose one here.
It’s a bit tricky. The Scottish parliament has the right to pass a bill to have a referendum, but does not have the right to pass laws affecting the entire UK. Also, sovereignty ultimately resides in the UK parliament, aka Westminster, so that body could override any unilateral action from the Scottish parliament that they disagree with. The governing body in the Scottish parliament, the Scottish National Party has pledged to hold an independence referendum at some point. Constitutionally, it will be non-binding without the prior approval of the UK parliament. The current and past two Conservative governments have stated they will not assent to a second Scotland Independence referendum, so at this point a second referendum would amount to an opinion poll. However, the SNP is stating that they can pass acts to make the proposed referendum constitutionally binding under the Scottish devolution act. I’m not sure how that works, but I think their goal is to try to provoke a showdown with the UK parliament. The UK parliament would either ignore the acts, which the SNP would claim was passive assent, or override the acts, in which case the SNP would proclaim that England was trampling on Scottish rights. In the meantime, the SNP is waiting for the next UK election and hoping they can be part of a UK Government coalition that will provide formal consent for a second referendum.