MANY Chamber members will have been trying to work out the implications for the North-east business community of the Brexit vote.
On many questions, your guess, quite frankly, is as good as Boris's.
However, I shouldn't worry: the most likely outcome is that Scotland will remain in the EU, one way or another.
There has certainly been plenty of anecdotal evidence of former "No" voters – some of them fairly high profile – now saying they'd vote "Yes" in light of the UK Brexit vote.
That seems borne out by the evidence of several polls in recent days, all suggesting a majority for "Yes".
Bear in mind, too, that the franchise in Indyref2 won't be the same as in the Brexit vote.
In the latter, most EU nationals couldn't vote.
In the former, they will be able to do so, assuming that the same rules apply as was the case in 2014.
I know French, Irish, and Polish folk who abstained on principle in 2014 because they felt it wasn't their decision.
They are unlikely to take the same position again, if voting "Yes" means keeping their right to live and work in Scotland.
This doesn't guarantee a second Indyref: Nicola Sturgeon will only call one if she thinks she'll win, and the polls in favour of independence will need to remain strong and consistent for her to do so.
But it's worth noting that JP Morgan's current base case assumption is that Scotland will vote for independence and will adopt its own new currency.
There is also, of course, the small matter of what the 27 other member states and the EU institutions would do.
The First Minister won't have been put off by the entirely predictable chilly remarks from the Spanish PM, Mariano Rajoy.
Nor will she have expected other EU leaders to say "of course Scotland can stay, come on in".
Any European politician or diplomat will bend over backwards to avoid being seen to be interfering in the domestic affairs of another EU state.
Technically, they can't "negotiate" with the FM, but they can have "informal talks" with her.
So she will have been encouraged by the fact that both Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, gave her a hearing; and by the standing ovation given to SNP MEP Alyn Smith, on Tuesday, when he asked his fellow European Parliamentarians "don't let Scotland down".
An alternative to independence could entail some sort of special arrangement, whereby Scotland remains part of the UK, but is also de facto part of the EU – the "reverse Greenland" option.
It's called that because Greenland is outwith the EU, but is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is in the EU.
Greenland wasn't autonomous when Denmark joined the then EEC, in 1973, but only gained autonomy later, in 1979 and then held a referendum leading to it opting out of the EEC.
"Reverse Greenland" is certainly a possibility, but independence following a second Indyref based on Scotland's continued membership of the EU is more likely.
The Greenland opt-out took three years to negotiate, and Scotland remaining in both the UK and EU would be far more complex: Greenland doesn't have any land borders, and the only substantive issue was fishing.
What the Greenland example does demonstrate though, is that EU rules weren't handed down from Mount Sinai on tablets of stone.
When realpolitik kicks in, they can be amended.
It's also worth noting that the EU we knew before June 23 simply no longer exists.
The UK Brexit vote has sent shockwaves through Europe, where Eurosceptic parties are gaining ground in many other member states.
So one scenario would be that Brexit triggers a domino effect, whereby there's a "Dexit", a "Nexit", and a "Swexit", and the whole EU unravels.
As it happens, I don't think that's likely, though it is a remote possibility.
A much more likely scenario is that Europe's leaders will undertake real reform to keep the show on the road.
And I do mean real reform, not the sort of fudge we've seen in that past, such as when it took two referendums in Denmark to ratify the Maastricht Treaty, in 1992, or when Ireland similarly needed two attempts to ratify the Nice Treaty in 2001-2002.
In both cases, those countries were offered concessions in the form of various opt-outs from the treaties that had been negotiated.
And they weren't threatening to leave, merely refusing to ratify changes to previous arrangements.
Brexit is a whole different ball game: it's the UK voting to leave the EU, after already having been given – some might say minor - concessions.
Europe's leaders seem to understand the need for reform.
Commission Vice-President, Kristalina Georgieva, speaking on Newsnight on June 27, said that the EU was facing "an existential threat", and that changes were needed so that it could accommodate those countries that wanted closer integration, but also make it possible for those who want a looser form of union to have that.
We are in for an interesting few years.
- Marshall Cooke specialises in political risk management, public affairs, policy research, and strategic communications. To find out more about how we could help you, please visit our website at: http://www.marshallcooke.eu/