Graham huband business editor

Nicola Sturgeon’s declaration of a second independence referendum will hardly go down in the pantheon of great political shocks.

The calling of indyref2 may well prove a seminal moment in the constitutional history of Great Britain but, let’s be honest, everyone knew it was coming.

So what does it mean from an economic standpoint? Immediately, very little. The FTSE 100 index of blue chip shares was up in early trading, took a minor blip as Ms Sturgeon spoke and then resumed its upwards path.

The FTSE 250 index, perhaps a more interesting yardstick given the UK focus of many of its constituents, was also in positive territory.

There was no crash, no spike, no obvious backlash. And that’s because the markets were expecting it – the data crunchers have been factoring ‘Scotland’ into the mix for a long time.

Taking a longer-term view, the calling of a second indyref brings back all of the arguments about whether Scotland can survive and thrive as a small nation.

Firstly on the survive point: the answer is simple. Yes.

There are scores of small countries around the world that manage to keep the lights on without the infrastructure, resources and ingenuity this nation already boasts. But thrive is a different matter. Much of the economic case made by the pro-independence army in 2014 was based on oil receipts.

But even if Scotland could access that source of income, the age of the basin and the crash in the oil price in the last two years means it is a flimsy long-term crutch.

The fact the majority of Scotland’s exports go to England is another potential issue. If there were suddenly a tariff on trade imposed on trade between the north and south of the UK, how would that be remitted against?