Scotland, Infrastructure and Logistics
There's a lesson to be learned here.
To be taken seriously, Texans who are really serious about Texas independence, and aren't just emotionally swept along by the noble/romantic notion of secession, ought to start talking about the details sooner or later. Many who scoff at the idea love to pepper their comments with suggestions that an independent Texas would flounder for losing federal funding or US military protection or some other economic or infrastructure disadvantage.
While most of those speculations are as baseless as the so-called 'legal' reasons why secessions is supposedly impossible, it would behoove independence-minded Texans to be mapping out practical ways that Texas would function again as a wholly independent state.
Matters for consideration and discussion might include the system of government, constitution, economic and monetary systems, policies on immigration and economic and political relations with the US and Mexico (Texas' two most immediate neighbors), energy, etc.
The point is, for the prospect of a Texas independence to be taken serious by many outside observers (not to mention many Texans themselves), any conversation about secession must sooner or later (and preferably sooner) include at least discussions — if not published proposals — for the handling of these kinds of details.
To suggest ironing out the details afterwards is a very short-sighted and naïve approach to a very significant aspect of the formation of an independent state. There's already plenty of such 'thinking' within the Texas independence movement. What remains lacking is a visible element of practical planning with regard to the new nation's political and economic infrastructure and logistics.
Without this element, we fear the secession movement — like that of Scotland — may never 'turn the corner' as a legitimate drive for an informed decision for independence.