Chris

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that simplistic argument even yourself. I'm curious as to why you're even bothering.

Scotland has been a net financial beneficiary of the union for almost its entire existence - starting with England rescuing it from bankruptcy after its upper classes decided to try to get into the colonial business by buying a mosquito infested strip of land in Panama called Darien.

Scotland became a net contributor for a brief spell, in the second half of the 20th century, at the height of the north sea oil boom; the size of that contribution is however somewhat debatable because almost all the oil is in international waters and subject to an international treaty that can't be overridden just by drawing a fantasy offshore border between England and Scotland.

England's interest in Scotland has never been directly financial. It has always been - and still is - a matter of social and political stability. Scotland quickly began to thrive in the union and border raids into England duly became a thing of the past. Scotland benefits when England is forced to govern in Scotland's interests (which at Darien would have meant England preferring Scotland's concerns over its otherwise far more important treaty with Spain). England benefits when Scotland is prosperous, because the consequences of poverty and restlessness don't spill over the border.

Scotland has a massive public sector that it simply can't sustain as an independent country. Of course it could be independent - many far less wealthy countries manage it. But it can't both be independent of the UK and continue UK levels of public spending and welfare provision. That's the truth all too readily forgotten by those who think the issue can be reduced to the competing personalities of Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon.