Scotland won't be a single party state unless the system is un-democratic, but that would be unlikely. On the same token the UK won't be Tory dominated. The following link shows that since 1945 only three general elections would have had a different outcome had Scotland not been part of the UK, namely closely fought elections or hung Parliaments of 1964, 1974 and 2010.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
Lets be grown up about this one people, while some things are very questionable depending on things like the attitude of the EU to a New Scotland. Perhaps driven by a desire of some member states to show their own minorities that independence is a very costly option. What would happen to the ownership of the railway is pretty obvious.
Network Rail is a private English company, which at that level makes it none of Scotland's business. However as it is government owned it is also a British national asset, which makes Scotland a proportional owner of that company, the question is how to share it out?
There are two options it stays one company, and Scotland gets a percentage. Or the company is split between the two national groups, in which case change of ownership at the boarder is the only sensible option. I don't think the first option would work as Scotland's percentage would be so small compared with the rest of the UK, that it would hardly be worth them turning up for the board meetings, and because differing national policies would constantly cause friction. So the railway network will probably be split into two with separate ownership each side of the boarder.
How to maintain and run the railway? Scotland could employ Network Rail to maintain and run its railway, but I would think in their pride at their independence they would opt for a Scotwork Rail instead.
Running trains nothing is likely to change at first, with some agreement in place splitting how much each government pays and receives from the current arrangements.
It will however get interesting when the contracts come up for renewal as there will be endless scope for playing politics and trying to offload costs on the other country.
What I meant that why would Scotland get to seize the assets from a private company, especially when they would choose the path themselves through a vote.
It is worth noting that people from England, Scotland, Wales and N.I paid for the infrastructure, which would mean if Scotland wanted out of the Network Rail arrangement then it would be very complex and they shouldn't just be allowed to automatically take it.
And there could be massive disquiet in some of the English regions after they had endured years of more or less permanent conservative rule.
Greater Northumbria Indepedence movement, maybe ?
There are many Tory voters in the Northumbria area, but the current First Past the post system punishes the Tories and Lib Dems hugely in that area. Likewise there are many Labour voters in Essex (despite there being no Labour constituencies there), but the voting system there punishes parties in areas where they are not as dominant.
Unfortunately people notice very few Tory MP's in their area and assume Tories don't represent them, even if they have similar private views. Probably a very similar issue for Labour down South, not to mention parties usually campaign and market in areas where they can actually win seats, so many areas may never have had a campaign from a particular party in a monopoly area. A very unhealthy political system, of course parties have their strongest areas, but many own swathes of safe seats in a given area. If Scotland were to go then it may emphasise the Political North-South divide more and Labour might compensate by gaining a larger grip on Northern and Welsh area.
English people are so misinformed about Scottih independence, funny but sad.
More than likely, however are they more misinformed than some Scottish people thinking one former female Prime Minister had a hatred for them?