On Saturday, 26 April, leading politicians, academics and representives of the third sector and civil society came together to explore the question of 'what happens if Scotland votes no?'. The conversation continues online, with blogs from our academics in response to the subject.
Ahead of the event, our team was asked to reflect briefly on what the implications of a no vote would be.
Michael Keating shares his thoughts on Scotland, devolution, and the European Union. Michael warns of the prospect of tensions between the UK government and Scottish Government because of divergent approaches to the European Union, 'If the rest of the UK (or just England) does drift further apart from Europe, the present system could come under serious strain'.
John Curtice analyses the polls, noting divisions in Scottish public opinion of further devolution. He notes that devolution is the 'least unpopular option' rather than the most preferred which affords politicians advocating for the maintenance of the union considerable flexibility in their proposals.
David McCollum looks at how competences over borders and migration would be impacted in the event of a no vote, arguing that a no vote does not preclude Scotland from implementing specific measures to encourage migration.
Jo Armstrong examines the potential economic situation of Scotland in a scenario in which independence is rejected at the polls. She examines potential outcomes for Scotland's public sector, growth prospects, and the Barnett formula.
Examining the issue from the legal perspective, Alan Page explores the prospects of constitutional change following a no vote and in the run up to UK General and Scottish Parliamentary elections, raising the prospect of a constitutional convention.
Charlie Jeffery explores 'when no means more', summarizing Saturday's event and analyzing the UK Government's carrot and stick approach to the independence campaign.
We will update this page as more blogs go live. You can also follow the discussion on twitter on #ifno.