That sounds more like a cover story someone on the run would give.
I'm sorry it's not good enough for you. Perhaps you should try living in a relatively remote part of Europe for many years, you'll soon see why living in central Europe is an attraction.
Scotland will be poorer than it is now. England has been willing to pay Scotland to stay in the Union. Also, given the large number of Scots or those of Scottish descent who have and are MPs it comes as no surprise that England has been effectively been paying a ransom. The English support an independent Scotland too just to end the blackmail.
That's the same tired old excuse, but unfortunately, it's not true. Even just investing the tax revenues sensibly from oil/gas would make a hell of a difference to a small country like Scotland - let alone adopting a sensible strategy encompassing all sources of energy. England has wasted the revenues for 40 years - subsidizing Wales and Northern Ireland, for a start.
Why would Scotland go through a painful economic transition if a sensible strategy was adopted? The revenues are already there - the only real issue is that taxation would rise. But as Scots consistently vote for parties which embrace Nordic style social democracy, I'm not convinced that it's actually an issue. And why would Scotland suffer in tourism? It's already shown that people going to Scotland aren't really worried about money - it's not that sort of tourism. And with an independent Scotland, the country is free to embrace the Euro should it help matters.
As I say - if far poorer regions of Europe can survive as independent nations, I'm sure Scotland can do just fine. The country might be a bit better or a bit worse off, but it's a small price to pay for self determination.
And as I already stated Scotland may think it is rich in resources but that doesn't mean it will have rights and access to them.
That's a Torygraph view if there ever was one. England won't and cannot touch an independent Scotland's resources without causing a hell of a problem.
The few opt-outs that the UK has are pretty much irrelevant compared to what was handed over. And again - perhaps Scotland would prefer to be far more integrated than it already is? Scots don't have the same sense of Euroscepticism that the English do, for a start. I'm trying to think of where Scotland would be worse off - don't forget, a nation with considerable natural resources would punch well above its weight in an EU desperate to diversify its own energy supply. Perhaps membership of the EU as an independent state will also help with integration with EU functions - the UK is notoriously poor when it comes to EVS opportunities for instance, all because of English Euroscepticism.
Furthermore, any place could read and apply EU law in their own country if they wanted to.
Any place could, but they don't, usually because EU law is by nature designed to help integration and puts the needs of the bloc above individual member states. But if you're talking about accession states - Iceland is a great example. If they can solve the fisheries problem, negotiations will be remarkably simple, because they already implement much of EU law anyway. That's with them starting without full membership of all the institutions - unlike Scotland. There will of course be some technical stuff to implement, but it won't be difficult because everyone will already be familiar with the EU.
What has the form of the state (monarchy, republic, etc) got to do with anything? The Crown is just a legal fiction - if it became a republic, then the name could simply change. No big deal. As for the property - how could England retain anything that wasn't hers to keep? It would be completely and totally against international law to do so - and England isn't going to risk all sorts of trouble within the EU just for the sake of keeping stuff in Scotland. All these "what-if' scenarios are completely against international law, practice and crucially, the UK Government's stance.
As for Scotland being handed rights - that's within the current devolution arrangements. A vote for independence changes that - completely. There is nothing in Scotland that England can't do without, except perhaps the nuclear submarine base. History shows that in these cases, an agreement is normally made to rent the base - see also the Russian Black Sea Fleet, or the Treaty Ports in Ireland. No big deal, and a good source of revenue.
There was no mention of mineral rights because they don't want to have to start any negotiations over it. As far as international law goes no current ally of the UK is going to back the Balkanization of Britain. The EU knowns that if Scotland declares independence it will be an incentive for other regions such as Catalonia and Silesia to do the same. This is too costly not just financially but flies in the face of the notion of deeper EU integration with the existing member states.
Mineral rights won't be negotiated - it has been accepted that an independent Scotland has full right to her assets. If it was an issue, then it would have been mentioned already - but it hasn't been.
As for Scottish independence - there is the point that neither Catalonia nor Silesia have any real historical justification for independence, whereas Scotland would be merely breaking the Act of Union that created the UK to begin with. Don't forget that in Scottish constitutional theory, the current Scottish Parliament is a continuation of the previous one - not a new one. Spain could easily be reassured with some language from the EU that only regions with a historically independent State are entitled to independence, which would rule out Catalonia.
The Nordic countries have had centuries to build up their wealth and establish trade and treaties in order to get where they are today. No one in Europe will want to see Scotland become a South Sudan or Somalia on their doorstep but they won't become another Norway or Sweden either. After many generations an independent Scotland will most likely be as relevant as Greenland or the Faroe Islands and at best be another Iceland.
That's what all the English readers of the Telegraph seem to think. The evidence of the success of small countries such as Estonia suggest otherwise.
After many generations, Scotland is likely to be as relevant as Finland or Sweden. I'm happy with that - it's a successful country with a decent track record. In fact, it won't be after many generations - it will be within two. In fact, if you look at what the Scottish Parliament has done since 1999 - it's painfully obvious that Scotland and England are on separate paths anyway. This is why the Devo-Max option will win the day - people aren't convinced by full independence, but they want substantial autonomy in taxation and home affairs.
As for Poles? They'll go where the money is.