http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/06/scots-radical-new-deal-save-the-union

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/scottish-independence-poll_n_5777792.html

With the reality of Scottish independence becoming a distinct possibility, particularly a development that seemed very unlikely until only recently, it never crossed my mind how this might effect world heritage in Britain.

Scotland

WHS (5)
Edinburgh
New Lanark
St. Kilda
Hearth of Neolithic Orkney
Frontiers of the Roman Empire

TWHS (3)
Forth Bridge (2015)
Flow Country
Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: the Zenith of Iron Age Shetland

Some expected and potential outcomes:
- Frontiers of the Roman Empire adds an additional nation!
- Will Scotland have to separately ratify the WHC?
- More extensive Scottish tentative list in coming years?
- Flow Country & Old Scatness moving up the nomination queue!

In short if there is a yes vote Scotland wouldn't become independent until 24th March 2016.

So there shouldn't really be any effect on the Forth Bridge proposal.

There wouldn't be any effect on the already inscribed sites.

In terms of ratifying the WHC, my understanding is that Scotland would have to do this separate to the UK. I can't imagine that causing any particular issues and that is what the 18 months between the referendum and independence is for. (Though I'm sure if you look in the right places there will be a few scare stories out there about how UNESCO will kick them out, that is just the climate of the debate at the moment)

I would imagine an independent Scotland would be fairly keen to promote its cultural heritage so can very much imagine them proceeding with the Flow Country and Shetland proposals and perhaps coming up with a few more sites for their own tentative list. Maybe they would be sites with a slightly more nationalist Scottish bent, such as Stirling Castle, but to be honest I can't imagine them rushing through anything especially out of kilter with current UK trends.

Perhaps that is how it seemed externally but to me it has always been a pretty close run thing. Electoral dynamics come into play and it looks like there are big changes, however from a personal perspective the current situation seems reflective of most of the opinions I have heard from north (and south) of the border. I have a dram of whisky riding on the outcome so I'm looking forward to the result :)

An independent Scotland could not of course ratify the Convention until it was officially independent (and was either invited to do so or had joined UNESCO).

I had a quick look at the example of the Czech and Slovak republics
a. Slovak Declaration of Independence -17 July 1992
b. Agreement for a peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia - 13 Nov, agreement on division of property and 25 Nov 1992 - New Constitution Act setting date etc. (A lot faster than the Scottish break which would take 18 months!!)
c. "Velvet Divorce" - 1 Jan 1993. We know from this and other examples (Eg USSR) that new countries "carry forward" inscribed sites even if they haven't ratified the WH Convention
d. Joined UN - Both on 19 Jan 1993
e. Joined UNESCO - Slovakia 9 Feb, Czech Republic 22 Feb 1993
f. Ratified the World Heritage Convention - Czech Republic 26 Mar, Slovakia 31 Mar 1993
g. First New T List - Czech Republic 19 Jan 2001, Slovakia 12 June 2002 (as both made further nominations and gained further inscriptions during this period it implies that each "carried forward" its part of the Czechoslovak T List
h. First New Inscription Czech Republic - St John of Nepenuk 1994, Slovakia - Banska Stiavnika, Levoca and Vikolinec all in 1993 (which means their nomination must have been started before the Velvet Divorce of course)

Thanks for that Solivagant. And thanks for using the Czechoslovak example, two bouts of useful knowledge in one for me.