An international court could arbitrate in disputes between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK over the division of assets and liabilities, according to constitutional lawyers.

Arbitration has been used in previous constitutional rifts including German debt and relations between Britain and post-revolution USA, Edinburgh University professor of public law Alan Boyle said.

He was backed by Aberdeen University chair in Scottish politics Michael Keating, who agreed that the divisions could end in arbitration, at the Lords Constitution Committee.

All parties are expected to negotiate in good faith as "both sides will lose if this thing is protracted", but experts warned that the 2015 UK general election could present an obstacle, particularly if one party promises more hardline negotiations if elected.

The Scottish Government has offered to finance a share of the national debt in exchange for UK assets, crucially in its demand to keep the pound in a formal currency union.

But Bank of England representation cannot be regarded as a divisible "asset", according to the experts, who said it is more akin to membership of international organisations like Nato and the EU.

It would be "prudent" for both parties to agree to potential arbitration before negotiations begin to prevent potential deadlock, according to Mr Boyle, who co-authored the UK Government's legal opinion on the international law aspects of Scotland's independence referendum.

"You might want to agree right at the outset that if the two parties are unable to reach agreement they should resort to third party settlement to determine the balance of debts and assets," he said.

"There are international precedents on dispute settlement in the arbitration of German external debts and various other arbitrations in which an international court or arbitration tribunals in the end resolved what would amount to an equitable allocation where the parties have been unable to agree."

He also cited the Jay Treaty of 1794 between the US and Britain following the American Revolution, which "resolved a number of quite important disputes with the US through arbitration".

He added: "The only directly relevant precedent on the allocation of debt, liabilities and assets that I can think of is India and Pakistan.

"Pakistan was given a share of the assets but the government of India retained all of the liabilities, all of the debt. So insofar as you can be clear on international law, I think it suggests an equitable proportion of assets and liabilities."

Prof Keating said: "I would assume that the two sides would exercise an enlightened self-interest, in that there is no reason for them to be vindictive and do things that might damage themselves as well as the other party, and to reach agreement as quickly as possible because both sides will lose if this thing is protracted too long."

He added: "Normally assets and debts are resolved on the basis of a political compromise. The simplest principle is something related to population. It's illogical but is easy as you can count it. Maybe international arbitration could be used if there is not an agreement."

He continued: "Dividing assets is one thing. Continuing to participate in existing institutions is another matter altogether and if a country is seceding from a state then it is very difficult to continue participating in joint institutions as of right as opposed to in negotiation.

"I think it is in the interests of the UK for Scotland to use the pound. I don't see that obliges Scotland to share in the management of the pound, which is a different thing altogether.

"On EU membership, it also seems to me that the UK will be the continuator state and Scotland would have to apply, but Scotland has entitlements to membership."

Edinburgh University professor of constitutional theory Stephen Tierney said: "The institution/asset distinction is perfectly credible. Assets would fall to be divided and if there are institutions or services of the UK state, that is something that an independent Scotland could not simply assume to sign up for.

"You can't make a unilateral declaration of partnership, and that would apply to services which are clearly UK services."

He said difficulties may arise "if negotiations had begun prior to the UK general election and there was a change of government with a different approach".

"A party may even run with a hard or a soft line on these negotiations," he said.

A Better Together spokesman said: "These interventions make clear that breaking up the most successful social, economic and political union in history will be a very complicated and lengthy process.

"The nationalist idea that it will be all right on the night, and everything will be resolved in a matter of months, simply isn't credible."