An independent Scotland faces a £2.4 billion start-up bill but these costs are likely to be recouped through simplification and significant savings on areas such as defence, according to a think tank.
Scotland faces a further £2 billion bill if it has to set up a new currency in the event Westminster delivers on its pledge to veto a currency union, the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) said.
A CEBR report suggests independence would cost 10 times more than the Scottish Government's preferred estimate.
The figures, which represents about £1,000 for every Scottish household, includes £1 billion for new tax and welfare systems, £400 million for a defence force and £450 million for foreign office real estate and offices, including about 100 embassies and consular offices.
A Scottish intelligence agency could add £200 million, based on Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's estimate, while membership of the European Union, United Nations and Nato could cost millions more, CEBR said.
CEBR economist Sam Alderson said a currency union would be "fairly painless" in terms of set-up costs, while sterlingisation would also incur "comparatively insignificant costs".
But joining the euro "would cost Scotland about £1.5 billion" while a separate currency "would cost up to £2 billion", the CEBR suggests.
Scotland would also have to borrow about £12 billion a year, raise taxes or cut spending to continue its current funding on public services, it said.
Mr Alderson said setting up an independent state "isn't going to be cheap" but that the the costs are "manageable".
"The figure of £2.4 billion, while it is large, represents less than 2% of Scottish GDP and will not fall upon a newly formed government in one lump sum but will be spread across the best part of a decade," he said.
"It is likely that the costs involved in establishing the bodies, systems, processes and so on required to function as an independent state will eventually be recouped because of cost savings that could be produced through eliminating the costs arising from the complexities involved across various UK systems - savings incurred because of the more simple process of managing a smaller state and significant savings in areas such as defence."
The UK Treasury has previously put start-up costs at £1.5 billion. The SNP continues to back estimates by the London School of Economics (LSE), which puts the costs at around £200 million.
SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie said: "The definitive expert report on set-up costs was published in June by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economic.
"That report was a total vindication of the Scottish Government's position, and put costs at around £200 million, a figure which he made clear could be offset by savings and efficiencies - and also a figure which the Scottish Secretary said he did not disagree with.
"It was also Prof Dunleavy who described the Treasury's bogus figure of £2.7 billion as 'bizarrely inaccurate', 'spectacularly wrong' and part of a 'dodgy dossier' on the finances of an independent Scotland.
"The simple fact is, Scotland already has much of the infrastructure needed for an independent country in place, and we are also entitled to a fair share of jointly owned assets we have contributed towards, such as the UK's network of overseas property - something the CEBR would appear to have totally ignored or overlooked.
"Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries per head in the world, and as the report co-authored by Professor Dunleavy made clear, 'the long-run viability of an independent Scottish state looks strong'."
Commenting on behalf of Better Together, Labour MP Anne McGuire said: "This latest expert analysis confirms what we already know: independence isn't a price worth paying.
"The SNP are asking us to take on all these extra costs to try to replicate what we already have today. Where is the sense in every Scottish family paying through the nose for something we already have today as part of the UK?
"Any money spent on start-up costs is money that could be spent on schools or hospitals."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article