Obviously, it's the only way. You had better not explain to the guy that they all lived on an island called Pangaea.... as that would *REALLY* ruin his argument.

In fact I might create a Pangaea Party... everyone give me my country back...

Or you're not informed / knowledgable enough to speak on the subject.

Much of that sentiment died in Scotland with the Heath and Thatcher governments, which gutted Scotland.  Two Tory governments that dismantled the steel, coal, and shipbuilding industries that Scotland thrived on.  The loss of those industries as major employers meant thousands of homes went on the dole, and few people saw the potential for a future.  A sentiment that thrives today with the Tory government of David Cammeron and his dismantling of the floor that Scots believe their government should provide for them.

Scots were free and independent after both wars for Scottish independence.

You really need to learn your history.

That's kind of the thing in Scotland.  Scots have never been conquered.  It was a Scottish King, James I, that joined the two countries into a union.  James I (Scotland)/James V (England) became the first King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.  The reason he did it was to end the fighting between Scotland and England, which in reality did not end for centuries later.

Why?

You realize that David Cameron is a bigger idiot.  I mean, if we're going to have a battle of idiots, Cameron would win hands down.

Take an economic course and you'll be slapped hard in the face with all the stupid things that the Cameron government has done.  I'm not saying that Salmond would be a good leader for an Indpendent Scotland.  Rarely, if ever, is the person who calls for independence the right person to lead a government after it gains it.  There are typically different forces and responsibilities involved in either.  That said, Salmond has already been responsible for leading Scotland in the limited capacity that he has lead it over the years, and I'm not sure how he has lead Scotland poorly.  Or for that matter, down a worse road than David Cameron has lead the entirety of the UK. 

The US never had Canada or vise versa. The border moved around a bit after the war of 1812 just like with any war. Some areas that were British (Canadian) went to the US and some US areas went to the British. The war was basically a stale mate, and both sides just decided to co-exist and leave eachother alone.

While most developed nations naturually have an aging population, Scotland has encountered a rise in in-migration.  The bigger question is about entrepreneurship and industrial growth.  As it stands right now, Scotland as a whole has a better financial outlook than does England.

The uncertainty lies with oil and gas.  Much of Scotland's independent future relies on oil and gas (as coincidentally does the UKs, but Westminster doesn't talk about that does it?).  Whether or not an Independent Scotland can build up the reserves Holyrood says it would, remains to be seen.  I haven't looked at the actual numbers, so I can't say that they add up.

Your heart's in the right place, unfortunately your facts are not.

Scots King James VI ascended to the English & Irish crowns as James I in 1603.  This was known as the union of the crowns.  James VI was unsuccessful in his attempts to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Political union occurred over a century later in 1707 with the acts of union between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (present day England & Wales).  Thus the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed.

Almost another century later, in 1801, Great Britain united with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland.

When present-day Ireland seceded in 1922 the UK became the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

What I find interesting is why questions over EU membership have been limited to an independant Scotland.  A Scots yes vote will terminate the union between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.  When that happens there is no Great Britain anymore, and by extension there is no United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

So in fact there are two successor states following the separation of Great Britain - Scotland and "the rest", neither of which hold EU membership.

If I were a Scot, I'd definitely vote no.

You lose your membership of the EU and NATO (admittedly the second you'd regain quickly, but the first would be heavily opposed by any country with separatist movements). You lose your currency. You lose your position on the Security Council, G7, G8 and G20; in short, you lose all international influence you've ever had. You go from being a part of the world's sixth largest economy to somewhere much further down. You lose the enormous subsidies you receive from Westminster.

In exchange, you get some more oil revenue, a vague patriotic feeling, and the joy of having Alex Salmond as your prime minister :/