I took a quick trip this week to London to review some early-stage investments and catch up with old friends. My trip also coincided with a crescendo of activity and media attention leading up to next week’s important referendum on Scottish independence. As I write today opinion polls indicate that the contest is a dead heat.

Let me state four conclusions up front: A “yes” vote on the withdrawal of Scotland from the United Kingdom would be a disaster for Scotland a sad day for the rest of the UK a serious threat to England remaining in the EU and an invitation for the further disintegration of nation states across Europe and beyond.

I have been asking my in-the–know London friends how things got to this dangerous point. Opinion is split among (1) Prime Minister Cameron really did not have any choice if he wanted to avoid civil rebellion in Scotland; (2) it was a dumb political gambit made at a time polls showed it was inconceivable that the Scots would vote “yes”; and (3) had the Prime Minister permitted a third option (stay in the Union but with greater devolved authority) it would have easily carried the day.

How we got here is perhaps no longer relevant – so much water under the proverbial bridge over the Clyde. However it seems insane to me that this hard-fought 307 year Union has been put at risk with so little planning and so little opposition.

As to the planning (or lack thereof) there are a myriad of important questions as yet unanswered. To name just a few: Will the newly independent Scotland become a member of the EU? Would it qualify? What will be its currency? The Pound? An Argentine-like peg to the Pound? What institution will stand behind this currency (not the Bank of England surely)? Will savers and investors leave their money in Scottish institutions? Will a free Scotland become a member of NATO? Who will defend it? What portion of the UK defense budget will it assume?

It amazes me that voters are expected to go to the polls next week and vote on such an important question without being presented answers let alone a fully detailed plan of separation. Over the past several years government regulators around the world have demanded that systemically important financial institutors (SIFIs) prepare detailed resolution plans or “living wills.” These documents run into the thousands of pages and deal with the minutiae of how to avoid another disorderly liquidation like that of Lehman Brothers. Imagine if a resolution plan comparable to the platform for Scottish independence were submitted to any competent regulator – it would get rejected upon first review and its proponents would be justifiably sacked.

As to the lack of opposition this seems to be changing although I hope it is not too late. Prime Minister Cameron’s Conservative government appears to have hit the panic button and has called in the not-so-loyal opposition to help along with former Labor PM Gordon Brown. Mr. Brown who is a formidable intellect and under-appreciated for his role in staving-off financial ruin post the Lehman collapse has made impassioned pleas to preserve the Union. Let us hope he succeeds. I however remain mystified as to why a referendum was ever permitted in the first place and if yes why only the Scots get to vote and not all members of the Union.

If our 14-year-old son Walter approached his mom and me with a half-baked idea to leave the family home to live in a separate apartment (paid for by his parents) we would first tell him “hell no” and if it nonetheless came to a vote we would out vote him. Under no circumstances would be wait around until Walter enlisted his sister to bring the vote to an even 50-50.

As we say in the United States “I don’t have a dog in this hunt.” [Oops I forgot fox hunting is no longer legal in the UK.] However as an outsider who lived eight years in the UK and maintains an abiding admiration and respect for the country I think it would be a horrible result if the independence vote carried the day.