akuperma: You make good, well reasoned points. however…
Scotland is not s ‘junior partner’ of the United Kingdom. As per the status quo, it is merely a part of a wider, integrated country that punches far above its weight politically. And even were it demonstrably a ‘junior partner’, considering that its population makes up just 8.3% of the UK’s, there’s good reason for it. And for a group of 5+ million people, its votes are worth more, and they have dual voting rights unavailable to most of the rest of the UK. If they argue that they feel like a different country, and that Scotland should be distinct from the rest of the UK for purely nationalist reasons, that’s one thing. But to make the argument that they’re somehow hard done by at present, or that they’d be more powerful or richer alone, have no basis whatsoever.
It is true that Scotland is significantly to the left of England, but not to the extent the SNP would have you believe. The Tories are the second biggest party in the Scottish Parliament, ahead of Labour, and garner a significant vote share there in general elections. One of the biggest successes of the SNP is getting non-Scots to equate them inextricably with the Scottish people, when in actual fact they only represent a segment of them. Also, this does not not justify independence. Firstly, the numerous Labour governments we’ve had, and almost certainly will have, come in off the back of Scottish votes, including the 13 years of Labour we’ve literally just had. Secondly, a slightly different political tilt is not a valid reason for secession. It’s basically saying that the way we currently vote in general elections defines us as a nation. Which is frankly ridiculous, as these people have no way of knowing for sure what position the next generation will take.