Max: It is not in dispute that spending in Scotland exceeds revenue -- the UK is running a budget deficit -- nor that it is true that the ratio of spending to revenue is above the UK mean, but this is the case for all parts of the UK apart from the SE of England and Scotland is in a better position that most of England.
Without getting buried in numbers quibbling it seems we agree a qualitative proposition, that Scotland, like many other regions are moochers, but mooch significantly less than the bigger moochers in Northern Ireland and Wales. Given the eye popping fact that "One pound in every five earned by Londoners is used to fund the rest of the country..." I suppose the wealth makers in the SE should count their blessings (
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html).
I find it objectionable for you to label Scots as "degenerate", "welfare dependant" (unemployment rates and per capita welfare spending in Scotland are lower than the UK average) and "free loaders". Hidden behind the ellipsis in your second quote is the statement that, under one method of accounting for oil and gas revenues, Scotland becomes a net "subsidiser" of the rest of the UK. By your logic at the stroke of an accountant's pen the rest of the UK becomes a den of degenerate loafers whilst Scotland becomes a nation of capitalist supermen.
Under any method of accounting Scotland "accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending." In other words, the Scots create less than they consume, unless one ascribes their closer geographic proximity to the North sea as of their economic creation.
As the remainder of the UK is not going to surrender its claims on the North Sea oil (nor should they) any reasonable or fair allocation (such as on a per person population basis) is going to force Scotland to deal with its attraction to left of center aspirations from other's pocketbook, and give greater political latitude for England to move right.
Mind you, if the majority in Wales or Northern Ireland wanted to cease the burden of suckling on the mother's teat, Whitehall ought to pull out the champagne bottles and send a single sentence note asking "How can we assist?"
Perhaps instead we can put the insulting stereotypes aside and look at what has actually been happening in Scotland in recent years. The rise of Scottish nationalism has been fuelled by the self-inflicted collapse of the Conservatives in Scotland and the ineffectiveness and corruption of Scottish Labour which stands in contrast to the SNP government in Holyrood which has gone about its business with confidence and competence. Nationalists have managed to frame the debate in terms of autonomy and democracy, whereas some unionists have misjudged their response with the sort of paternalistic attitude exemplified in your OP that refuses to acknowledge Scotland as an equal parter in the UK. The fact that the unionist parties have already been forced to concede greater autonomy means that the nationalists have already won regardless of the outcome of the vote on Thursday.
I see the issue as one of a conflict of visions between political/economic attitudes, while many others see it as only a debate about its practicality or of national identity.
To be honest, I don't pay much mind to "how" the government manages, because the REAL question is "what" the government does (or will do). For the politico "proceduralists" the current social/economic construction of the house of Scotland is an undisputed given so to them the only important question is how they select the party that gets to hang the same drapes.
And while I have a great deal of respect for nationalism I believe this also to be a tad misleading. The Scots already have plenty of cultural expression, and I find it less than convincing that they are an oppressed minority in the British Isles. Home rule will have advantages (especially on issues of immigration) but it won't change the underlying differences. Conservatives have always been a tiny fraction of Scottish representation, and until recently labor has been the overwhelmingly largest party. Sociological surveys which directly measure the underlying belief systems show that regardless of the tides of party fortune, the Scottish are significantly more redistribution and left. What party they elect to promote those views is beside the point.
Finally, as for all those who fear monger over pragmatic issues of currency and EU membership, I don't find those to be convincing or relevant. These considerations are always resolved in a democratic Europe, just as similar issues were resolved in the union of Germany or in the split of Czechoslovakia. Such arguments to be a red herring. Yes, there will be a difficult adjustment period and lots of new arrangements - but there is nothing in that precludes a new nation. Scotland would THEN face the only really IMPORTANT issue; what kind of economic, taxation, and social policies will be imposed? And how can Scotland pay for these bromides?
In short, the ONLY question to be asked is WHAT will they do with independence? To my mind they have a choice; become a free and independent state who ends its dependency and suffers a necessary economic maturation OR continue down the grievance path (with nationalism as a mask) of most dependent sub-cultures.
In separation BOTH nations will be the better for it.
PS: These two ads would convince me if I were a Scot. The first is far to logical and technical for an American, the second is admittedly a nationalist appeal - but wow, very powerful as propoganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n1LmR4UvVQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX6w_-QMH3E
Patently not since more fortunate regions had the same welfare system and government.