I don't really see why it's such a drama. Because it's an English-speaking nation, I suspect. There is no philosophical, diplomatic, economic or monetary show-stopper. Scotland will join the group of relatively rich, independent, innovative and dynamic nordic nations.

Norway and Denmark speak closely-related languages and used to be united under one crown. They are still friends, trading partners etc. And with respect to the EU, I imagine that Norway's status would be the closest analogue to what Scotland will negotiate with the EU in the short term.

I'm not convinced that Belgium will be an irreductible opponent of Scotland's maintained EU membership, because

1. as far as I know, they still don't have a government
   
2. the Flemish parties would certainly be in favour, leaving any government divided, at best, on the issue.

I think Spain's supposed opposition will turn out to be a non-issue faced with a fait accompli of Scottish independence. There is no constitutional controversy, unlike the Catalan case; a split will be (at least technically) amicable.

As for the currency question :

Moreover, Scotland would expose itself to retaliative actions from the UK, with ill intended policy makers in London punishing Scotland for its dare.

I disagree. The Westminster government tried to blackmail the Scottish electorate by threatening to withhold "their" pound (which has suddenly become English, and not British!), but this has backfired spectacularly. There will be tough negotiations, but Salmond's tabling the nuclear option of repudiating Scotland's share of British debt was, in my view, a masterful way of pointing out that this sort of brinksmanship is absurd. Scotland will keep the pound sterling until such time as it joins the Euro (or a nordic currency coalition?)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}