15th September 2026
It would obviously be different. Brexit involved the UK leaving a much larger political and economic union while remaining one country. Scottish independence would involve creating a new state, with its own government, finances and international relationships.
But there is a striking similarity.
In both cases, an existing political and economic arrangement with a much larger neighbouring market would be replaced by a new one.
Scotland's biggest export market is currently the rest of the UK. The latest Scottish Government figures show that in 2023 exports to the rest of the UK were worth £55.4 billion and represented 60% of Scotland's total exports.
That is an enormous economic relationship.
An independent Scotland would still trade with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Nobody seriously disputes that. The question is whether that trade would remain as frictionless as it is today.
The Scottish Government's own proposals envisage an independent Scotland rejoining the European Union. That could open up much greater access to the European single market, but it would also mean Scotland becoming an EU member while the rest of the UK remained outside it.
The Scottish Government itself acknowledges that some checks on goods between Scotland and the rest of the UK could therefore be required.
That is the Brexit comparison.
After Brexit, businesses discovered that changing the legal relationship between countries can create costs even when the countries remain geographically close and want to continue trading with each other.
For Scotland, the issue would potentially be reversed. There could be fewer barriers to Scottish trade with the EU but new barriers between Scotland and its largest existing market.
The argument for independence is that this could eventually be worthwhile because Scotland would regain access to the European single market and have complete control over its own economic policies.
That is a perfectly legitimate argument.
Scotland's international goods exports to the EU are already significant. The EU accounts for about 40% of Scotland's international goods exports, according to the latest Scottish Government figures.
The independence argument is therefore not simply about leaving the UK. It is about changing Scotland's economic direction, potentially moving from a country deeply integrated into the UK economy towards one integrated into both Europe and the UK.
But there is another issue that deserves much more attention.
The starting financial position matters.
The latest Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures show a notional Scottish public-sector fiscal deficit of £25.3 billion in 2025-26, equivalent to 10.9% of GDP. The comparable UK figure was 4.2%. Excluding North Sea revenue, Scotland's figure was 12.9%.
GERS is not a forecast of what an independent Scotland's finances would look like. It measures Scotland's position within the United Kingdom and includes spending on UK-wide services allocated to Scotland.
Nevertheless, it illustrates the scale of the financial challenge facing any government trying to establish a sustainable independent state.
An independent Scotland would have to decide how much it wanted to spend on pensions, the NHS, education, defence, infrastructure and other public services, and how much tax revenue it could realistically raise.
It would also need to establish its own borrowing arrangements and build a reputation with international investors.
These are not arguments against independence. They are simply the bills that would have to be paid.
And there is another lesson from Brexit.
Major constitutional changes rarely produce all their benefits immediately. There is normally a period of adjustment in which businesses have to understand new rules, governments establish new institutions and investors decide whether the new environment is attractive.
For Scotland that transition could be particularly complicated because independence would potentially involve changes to currency, central banking, national debt, pensions, taxation, regulation, trade and international representation.
There would also be the question of the border with England.
The Scottish Government says an independent Scotland would seek to rejoin the EU and that some checks on goods moving between Scotland and the rest of the UK could therefore be necessary.
For someone in London, Edinburgh or Glasgow, that might sound like an administrative problem.
For a business in Caithness, it could become a very practical question.
Much of the Highlands economy depends on selling goods and services into the rest of Britain. Food producers, tourism businesses, haulage companies, manufacturers and small firms already operate in a difficult environment because of distance and transport costs.
Adding another layer of regulatory complexity would need to be considered very carefully.
There is also a danger of making the Brexit comparison too simplistic.
Brexit did not prove that constitutional change can never work. Nor does it prove that an independent Scotland could not eventually become a prosperous small European country.
Countries much smaller than Scotland manage to operate successfully as independent states.
The real question is whether Scotland could make the transition without imposing excessive economic costs on its population and businesses.
That is where the Brexit experience becomes valuable.
It gives Scotland something it did not have before 2016: a real example of what happens when a country changes its trading relationships with its largest economic partners.
The lesson may not be "never change".
It may instead be that the detail matters enormously.
Brexit demonstrated that slogans about taking back control were much easier to deliver politically than the practical arrangements required afterwards.
Independence would face exactly the same test.
Supporters would need to explain not just why Scotland should become independent, but how the transition would work, what currency would be used, how the finances would be balanced, how trade with England would operate and what would happen to businesses and households during the changeover.
Opponents would have to do more than point to today's figures. They would need to explain why remaining in the UK offers Scotland a better long-term economic future.
Perhaps the most sensible way to view independence is therefore not as simply another argument about national identity.
It is an economic decision of enormous proportions.
Brexit showed Britain that changing a country's constitutional and trading arrangements can have consequences that last for decades.
Scotland now has the opportunity to learn from that experience.
It should make sure that, whatever people eventually vote for, they know exactly what the economic change is likely to involve before they make the decision.
There is evidence that Brexit has imposed a significant economic cost. The UK in a Changing Europe estimates that UK GDP per head is now 6–8% lower than it would otherwise have been, with investment also significantly lower. The OBR's longstanding estimate is that Brexit will eventually reduce UK productivity and GDP by around 4% compared with remaining in the EU.