TO start, my thanks to those readers who have responded to my request for ideas to spur my writing. Their suggestions should lead to articles over the next month about public finance, economic history, energy economics, and international finance.

None are topics I would have chosen to write about – and they will require me to do a bit of background reading to write intelligibly.

This column will be about the agreement needed to dissolve the Union should Scotland reclaim its independence – more a matter of commercial negotiation than economics.

We are talking about the dissolution of a partnership, but without any agreement on which we can rely for guidance. There are a few examples of European states which have formed by leaving another one. Norway chose to become independent in 1905 by dissolving the regal union with Sweden, but had been self-governing for the previous century. This is not relevant to Scotland’s case.

READ MORE: Scotland should follow Norway's example and refrain from joining any unions

Ireland gained its independence in several stages, but had to fight a war to obtain it. Its route to independence could perhaps be open to Scotland. The Irish Free State formally remained part of the United Kingdom through the 1920s while being allowed full self-government.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 permitted Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa to choose to become fully independent of the UK. All have now made that move.

Ireland was treated as if it had been a colony, not a nation which was part of a voluntary Union. The United Kingdom acted as if it had merely acquired Ireland as a possession, which it then chose to give up voluntarily.

There does not seem to be much enthusiasm among English politicians for graciously releasing Scotland from its ties to the rest of the United Kingdom. Sir Keir Starmer has wrapped himself tightly in the Union flag as he attempts to make the Labour Party palatable to voters in its former heartlands in England.

There are also examples of countries in Europe splitting into two or more parts during the collapse of socialism. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia all dissolved.

The Soviet Union simply collapsed, leaving Russia, its largest component, as the official successor state. The Czech Republic and Slovakia agreed to dissolve the old state, with neither of the new states being treated as a successor of the old one.

Notably, referendums campaigns for independence have failed in Quebec, Scotland, and Catalunya. In the modern world, the path to statehood for part of a country has invariably involved some form of crisis. It is not the Scottish Government’s preferred option, but perhaps some crisis of democratic legitimacy will be necessary for Scotland to become independent.

The successor state concept is important. If Scotland chooses independence, either the continuing United Kingdom will seek to become the successor state, as Russia did, or else the existing state will be dissolved and Scotland and the new United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland will agree to be treated as entirely new countries, as happened in Czechoslovakia.

Almost certainly, the UK Government will seek to claim successor state status. That means it will accept liability for the UK national debt. It also means the continuing UK will remain a party to all international agreements in which the UK participates.

The National:

This would secure continued permanent membership of the UN Security Council and given the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the right to retain its nuclear arsenal. As the successor state of the USSR, Russia is a nuclear state, but Ukraine is not.

There will also have to be negotiations between the Scottish and UK governments about how to divide assets and liabilities. There cannot be any presumption that the UK, as the successor state, will retain all public assets – that would lead to the plainly ridiculous situation where, for example, Scotland would have to buy its Parliament building. In the discussions between the Czech and Slovak governments, the two main principles were that land and property should be assigned to the country in which they were located, while other assets (and liabilities) were assigned to the two countries according to their population shares.

READ MORE: Scottish Budget 'black hole' reflects a failing system, not a failing SNP government

With the continuing UK taking on full responsibility for the UK national debt, there will only have to be a formal division of the country’s assets. The SNP’s Sustainable Growth Commission suggested Scotland might agree to make voluntary payments towards the cost of servicing the UK’s inherited debt. Richard Murphy has argued, entertainingly, that Scotland should not do that on the basis that the UK has squandered the resources which would have become the basis of Scotland’s sovereign wealth fund.

The territorial principle throws up an interesting possibility – the naval bases at Faslane and Coulport should become Scottish assets. If Scotland is serious about not permitting nuclear weaponry to be based on its territory, it would deny Trident submarines access to these facilities.

Alternatively, Scotland might conclude that negotiating the UK’s terms of access to these facilities would be worthwhile. Given the UK’s foolish attachment to these weapons systems, there should be a good basis for charging a high rent.

The main point is that all of this will require negotiation. As we have seen with Brexit, this is not a core skill of the bumbling Brexiteers. Scotland should be able to do well in this process, approaching it with clear objectives about what it needs.