WASHINGTON — In case you hadn’t noticed, Scotland is having a vote on Thursday. The results could be dramatic: Scotland could break ties with the United Kingdom and become an independent state. The world would see the creation of a new sovereign state and the end of one of the most important political unions in modern history.

Here’s what you need to know.

Additional Images

A woman waves a flag as members of the Orange Order march past during a pro-Union rally in Edinburgh on Saturday. The vote on Scottish independence takes place Thursday, and about 90 percent of eligible voters are expected to cast ballots. Dylan Martinez/Reuters

Q: So what’s happening on Thursday?

A: Some 4 million eligible voters in Scotland are expected to participate in a referendum on one simple question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” They have only two choices: “Yes” and “No.” If a majority choose the latter, it may put to rest the question of independence for some time, but it won’t stay calls for further devolution of power from London. If a majority choose “Yes,” Scotland would sever its union with Britain.

Q: Wait, why is Scotland part of this union, anyway?

A: Scotland emerged through the medieval ages as a kingdom separate from England. The two nations had a long history of enmity, marked by war and geopolitical skulduggery. But after the death of Queen Elizabeth I, her cousin’s son, Scotland’s King James VI (and subsequently England’s James I) assumed the throne for both countries in 1603. A century passed before Scotland and England united their parliaments in 1707 through Acts of Union. The imperative to unite was born out of pragmatic necessity: Scotland’s economy needed help; the English still considered a semi-independent Scotland a security threat. It was only after Scotland’s emergence as an engine of British industry that a sense of genuine “Britishness” emerged.

Q: What brought us to this point?

A: A simple narrative could begin with the tenure of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who came to power in 1979. The privatization measures enacted by the conservative premier hollowed out Scotland’s industrial base, eroded its labor unions and unraveled its social contract.

Scotland became a political wasteland for British conservatism. In the vacuum, the Scottish National Party found new life, led by the controversial populist Alex Salmond. Salmond positioned the SNP in the 1990s as a social democratic, European-friendly party that happened to also favor freedom from Britain. In 1999, it won greater devolution from London, allowing formation of a Scottish parliament. From there, Salmond’s SNP steadily gained political clout. By 2011, the SNP had a majority in the Scottish parliament, and, the following year, it won agreement from the government of conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron to stage the referendum.

Q: What would an independent Scotland look like?

A: Critics of the “Yes” camp fear a debt-ridden economic basket case. Its supporters envision something far more ideal: a departure from the austerity and inequities of Tory-run Britain and a shift toward a more Scandinavian-style social democracy.

With a modest population and considerable oil wealth, an independent Scotland, say “Yes” campaigners, would remain in the European Union and NATO, while boasting a top-notch public health-care system, free higher education and robust social services.

Q: Won’t that require a lot of money?

A: Yes. The type of welfare state that Scotland would like to sustain would be expensive, and those who campaign against secession have argued that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to afford it. “The experts at the impartial Institute for Fiscal Studies have been very clear that a separate Scotland would need to make around $9.8 billion of cuts to things like benefits, pensions and our National Health Scotland in the first few years after separation,” a Better Together spokesperson told the Guardian.

But supporters of Scottish independence dispute these figures. The SNP has cited recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that Scotland’s gross domestic product per head was a healthy $38,069, higher than France, Italy, Japan and, yes, the rest of the United Kingdom.

Q: How does oil factor in here?

A: An independent Scotland would probably get rights to the majority of the oil and gas off the coast of the United Kingdom: Despite the British government’s investment in the area, natural resources like this are generally divided up by geography alone. One study found that as much as 90 percent of oil revenue may go to an independent Scotland.

There’s a lot of oil in those waters: Estimates suggest that Scottish oil and gas exports to the rest of the world were worth over $49 billion in 2012.

However, experts disagree over how long this cash cow can last. U.K. oil production peaked in 1999 and has been predicted to decline further in the future. Salmond, a former oil economist, has predicted that an additional 24 billion barrels of oil can still be recovered from the North Sea, a number that one industry figure described as “45 percent to 60 percent” too high.

Q: What happens to the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland leaves?

A: It’s hard to see it as anything other than a blow. The United Kingdom would lose more than 8 percent of its population. It would lose the vast majority of North Sea revenue. The U.K. would probably lose a significant chunk of its military power (the independence campaign is asking for a share of assets based on population).

The problems would be deeper than that, however. After more than 300 years of union, Scotland is etched onto the very core of British identity. Even that word “British” indicates the inclusion of the Scottish, who live on the northern part of the island named Britain. Critics have wondered what, exactly, the remaining part of the United Kingdom could be called if Scotland goes it alone: It will no longer be a kingdom that is united, nor will “Great Britain” encompass all of Britain.

Related Stories