Originally Posted by Stuart

Think of it this way. The UK was at war. We were running dangerously low on supplies, and could not maintain an adequate fighting force. In fact, a relative who fought said that the rumours around at the time that the US joined the war were that the UK had around two weeks of provisions left. The US bought a lot of equipment and provisions with them. Without that, we would likely have been forced into a surrender. This may be why Churchill was being advised to let Scotland go. They may have been hoping the US would bring more supplies, but planning what to do in case they didn't.

It's also a fact that during a war, you sometimes have to sacrifice parts of an entity to save the whole entity. After all, had we given up Scotland, we would still have been around to fight to get it back later, when we had built up more resources to fight with.

Of course, I do not know whether we would have done that, although I'd be surprised if Churchill would have allowed the Nazis to set up camp and not fought back.

To bring this post on topic, I am curious to see how the Yes campaign are going to finance an independent Scotland. From what I can see, their plans seem to be mainly financed by North Sea Oil. Admittedly, at the moment, this is a good source of income. But, NSO is not infinite, and according to the telegraph, production is already slowing.