Why can't all the detail of independence be sorted out after a referendum?
What's wrong with what we did last referendum and do a quick White Paper?
In 2011 when the Scottish Parliament got its first pro-independence majority there had been next to no work done on how independence would happen in practice and the civil service couldn't start work on the subject until a full agreement was achieved with the UK. It left very little time to prepare the case so a fast White Paper was the only option. It therefore had to be both an argument for independence and an explanation of how it would work. But in reality it would have left most of the task of working out how to solve the problems until after a vote.
Wouldn't that have worked?
Well, again there was no option so it would have to have been made to work. But it set out the solutions in the broadest terms and the real bulk of the work would have had to be done during negotiations with little serious preparatory work. We now have a case study of what that looks like with the Brexit negotiations. The White Paper contains a bit more detail about how the transition would work than anything produced before Brexit, but then the task is much, much bigger since the Brexit negotiations were mainly about trade and that is only a single aspect of what would need to be agreed after independence.
Couldn't it work this time?
It would be very substantially harder to pull this off at the next referendum. The 2014 White Paper took a key shortcut round some of the most difficult questions by proposing a wide range of shared functions with the UK and assuming both Scotland and rUK would remain EU members. Since sharing options like a currency union are off the table and Britain has left the EU, there really aren't any shortcuts this time. We need to work through almost every aspect of starting Scotland as an independent country thoroughly and carefully and attempting to do that only after a referendum vote would be extremely risky.
But aren't all these decisions for after independence?
There is a profound misunderstanding about this. There are two aspects – one is how to create the 'machinery' of an independent country and the other is what we can do with that machinery once Scotland is independent. But you can't run a government, public services or a modern democracy until the machinery which makes them work is in place. For example, unless some kind of special agreement was reached with the UK it could be impossible to trade across the border until a Scottish borders and customs system is in place. Relying so heavily on a generous transition deal would be very risky, especially post-Brexit.
So is this a case for independence?
No, in that it only tells you how an independent Scotland would be set up, not whether it would be better or worse to live in. But that doesn't mean it isn't important for campaigning, because without it we will be virtually unable to answer any of the questions posed by those who oppose independence during a campaign. Attacks such as 'the currency will devalue and prices in the shops will rise' or 'there will be passport checks at the border' can't be answered unless we have made plans for how to set up and manage a currency and how borders infrastructure will be established.