We’ve finally reached the most important moment in British constitutional history for more than 300 years, a day when Scots vote on whether they should dissolve the Act of Union signed in 1707.

South of the border, Englishmen are torn by the apparent desire of large numbers of Scots to break away and go it alone.

This means that on one hand, the independence debate has at times mirrored one of those pivotal periods in any family when a younger sibling decides, volubly, to leave home and frankly, if there’s no desire to remain, we can only encourage the sibling’s departure, replete with our best wishes. On the other, it has resembled a fierce family row which, regardless of outcome, will leave a nasty aftertaste; both parties will, inevitably, recall the hurtful comments made by the other long into the future. Any notion of family cohesiveness has been forever destroyed.

Amid the spurious political claims and counter-claims, fury, tears, passion and a regular smattering of mendacity, there’s been little mention of sport and its longer-term funding. Perhaps this is hardly surprising, considering the enormity and implications of today’s plebiscite.

Yet even during the bitterest divorce, questions of money, who gets what and who is entitled (now there’s a word) to x or y, must ultimately be addressed. North Sea oil revenues will only stretch so far; to liken an independent Scotland to any of the Gulf’s oil-rich states and emirates, capable of pouring billions into sport (in their own countries and abroad), is nonsense. There’s simply too much else to pay for and sport could find itself near the bottom of a very long list.

There are, of course, a number of sports and sporting events that will remain unaffected, irrespective of today’s outcome. Scotland rightly promotes itself as ‘the home of golf’ and there’s little to suggest the game’s value to the Scottish economy will continue to do anything but increase. According to a study undertaken by KPMG and Oxford Economics on behalf of the Scottish Golf Union last year, the ‘golf industry’ is worth £1.17 billion annually to Scotland.

Annual sales of golf equipment, clothing and accessories total a further £157 million, supporting 1,660 jobs, while golf tourism is worth at least £120 million to Scotland’s economy. Today’s vote will have a negligible impact upon its operation.

The same can be said of rugby’s Six Nations Championship, the economic value of which looks set to increase over the medium term (thanks to next year’s World Cup).

Scottish horse racing could, however, come under sustained threat.

Earlier this month, the (London) Government issued a second consultation of the summer on the horse racing betting levy. The first, which ended on August 21, concerned the possible extension of levy liability to gambling operators located overseas. The new consultation concerns a proposed modernisation of the funding of British horse racing by betting operators. However, there’s no provision for splitting any revised source of income between England and an independent Scotland.

Accordingly, racecourses at Ayr, Hamilton Park, Kelso, Musselburgh and Perth could face serious financial difficulty if the Scots vote for independence. Between them, this quintet accounts for around six per cent of UK betting turnover, a ratio which suggests they could face an estimated annual aggregate deficit of £4 million in levy payments.

In response to these estimates and the consultation which began on September 1, a spokesman for the British Horseracing Authority said it was “not possible for British racing to conduct meaningful scenario planning” before today’s vote.

Yet perhaps the most contentious area of funding is Lottery-related.

Scotland’s secretary for sport, Shona Robison, has said that in the event of a ‘yes’ vote today, she expects Scotland’s share of the UK Sport budget (approximately £37 million over four years) to be transferred to SportScotland.

However, both UK Sport and the government maintain that this funding is reserved exclusively for Team GB athletes. Furthermore, they protest, Olympic funding has always been determined by talent, not according to a percentage share of population, a basic tenet that Ms Robison would have to challenge as part of any settlement negotiation.

The receipt of ongoing Lottery funding for Scottish athletes may also prove a fertile ground for a protracted quarrel with the London Government. It appears likely that London would insist upon a comprehensive ‘realignment’ of National Lottery income and seek to renegotiate the basis upon which it is divided. By extension, it seems highly unlikely that the proportion of central government funding earmarked for Scottish sport, which goes directly to UK Sport, would automatically transfer directly to SportScotland instead, leaving Scottish athletes with a financial dilemma.

As this column reported early last month, commercial practicalities will play a large part in Scottish athletes’ thinking.

Sir Craig Reedie, an IOC vice president and former chairman of the British Olympic Committee, said, “My experience is that athletes tend to follow the funding and Scottish athletes have been very well catered for by the substantial amounts of funding that was available to Team GB.”

Sir Chris Hoy, Britain’s greatest Olympian in a century and ‘No Thanks’ campaigner, said he could not have won his Olympic titles without Lottery funding, primarily because it allowed him to train when properly rested.

Many Scottish athletes are expected to follow his lead and compete, at least until the Rio Olympics in 2016, under the Team GB banner, not least because an independent Scotland may not have enough time to assemble a team for the Games.

What happens afterwards to elite athlete funding, the use of England-based national high performance centres, the distribution of Lottery funding to Scottish sport and central government funding for sport are matters unlikely to concern most voters north of the border today.

Ultimately, however, they’re topics to be added to a very long ‘to do’ list which must be addressed sooner rather than later in the event of a ‘yes’ vote.