Given that The Economist was founded by a Scot in 1843 to sack vested interests in parliament who were representing big empire not the peoples rights, this article in The Economist is a macroeconomic folly grandeur of the most dismal sort
It has however caused some opposing comments listed below
the whole Better Together campaign is wrongly conceived. They don't actually care about the lives of the Scots so much as prestige and power of the UK on the world stage
Often traveling in France and Italy and hear even educated people referring to Great Britain as "England". Why should the Scots stay with a nation that obscure their identity?
Nationalism in the sense of self-determination, such as is the case in Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, is a key component of liberalism and democracy.
While rejecting nationalism, I am an enthusiastic supporter of Scottish independence. I want a more responsive and efficient government; I want better policy outcomes; I want better social and economic outcomes. Westminster has been failing for decades (relative to the rest of Northern Europe and other Anglosphere countries).
As a Unionist living and voting in Scotland - and who has also lived and worked in England - I have despaired of Westminster politicians, who from the first have patronised and bullied and failed to offer any positive case for the continuation of the Union. Have you tried bullying someone? It doesn't work does it.