As Scotland’s referendum on independence approaches, two things are becoming increasingly obvious. Firstly, there will be considerable turnout for the vote and as a result anything is possible. Independence is as likely as maintaining the union with London. Secondly, despite a noncommittal comment from President Obama, there does not seem to be much talk about this in American policy circles. That will likely change as the deadline approaches, and will certainly change if the vote ends up going for independence, but there are some key points that America should be aware of because this vote will end up affecting us too.

In terms of security issues, Scotland is currently part of the UK and the UK is a part of NATO. If Scotland becomes an independent country, it will have to rejoin NATO on its own, and it has said that it will do so. However, what seems like a quick shore-up to a short-term chink in the armor is anything but that. Scotland will not be forced to join NATO, so there’s always the option that they simply will not do so.

More to the point, though, what about the four Vanguard submarines and the 58 Trident missiles they carry, complete with thermonuclear warheads, currently based in Scotland at Clyde? The Scottish National Party (SNP) has guaranteed that if Scotland becomes independent, the nukes are gone. The missiles themselves are leased from the U.S. by the UK, and unless the UK was to build a new base for them, it is likely they would have to be shipped back and stored, at least for a time, in the U.S. at King’s Bay Naval Base in Georgia. This move would make the United States the only NATO member contributing nuclear arms to the general defense; a status quo shakeup unlikely to be received well by the Pentagon. And all that moving of nukes can be a security risk. And it costs.

In terms of foreign relations, Scotland’s impending vote is causing quite a bit of chatter in some circles. Pundits in India and Norway have expressed disapproval. Spain is extremely unhappy, since any separatist movement that succeeds for Scotland might fuel a growing separatist movement in Spain’s Catalonia. But does this potential Balkanization matter to the United States outside of defense policy?

Certainly any further separatist movements can potentially destabilize a region. One need look no further than Ukraine to see how that works. And while bloodshed is not on the agenda if the Scots vote for independence that does not mean that the ripple effects from such a vote would not in turn have ripple effects for the U.S. Whether Argentina tries again to wrest the Falkland Islands from Britain, or whether Spain has a secession crisis, it is bound to affect the United States, busy as we are on the world stage at all times and places.

But unlike in parts of Scotland, the view is not all dismal and cloudy. There are serious potential upsides for the United States if Scotland joins the independent brotherhood of nations. All of a sudden there would be a brand new economy, likely weaker than it would like to be, that has a shared history and language with America. London may not allow an independent Scotland to keep the pound sterling as currency, and admission into the EU as a new nation is not a guarantee. It would not be unprecedented for EU members to block Scottish admission so as not to make it look like they are rewarding separatism (think Spain here). Without the pound sterling or the euro, Scotland will likely be in need of a little extra business heading their way. Although Scotland would naturally continue to trade primarily with the UK and Europe, if it were blocked out of the EU, that could turn Scottish merchants westward. There is great potential to further economic relations with Scotland if they are spurned by Brussels. Scottish exports of fish, whiskey, and beef (the latter, thanks to a recent USDA lifting of the ban on European meat) would all be welcome in greater quantities in America.

One final point regarding Scottish Independence has been characterized by Dr. Tim Oliver at the Center for Transatlantic Relations is framed as one of “international trust.” Dr. Oliver seems to think that if London allows Scotland to go, the United States will have a falling out with London because America fought a long and bloody war to prevent secession, so how could we really respect a polity that let itself fall apart? The United States was founded by seceding from the UK, and we seem to have turned out pretty well. There is no good reason why the U.S. could not maintain its current good relations with the UK, as well as with a new and independent Scotland if the Scots opt to break with London.

Ultimately, of course, the decision for independence is in the hands of the Scots themselves. The vote will make history, one way or another, but there are certainly potential positives and negatives for the United States, regardless of the outcome, and well-read Americans should be aware of them.