As far as I can tell, the economic case for an independent Scotland is as follows.
1. GERS is Satan
Hypothetically, if Scotland had been run by an independent Government for, say, the last thirty years, then its economic condition may, hypothetically, be different than it currently is. It it inconceivable under this – hypothetical – situation, that Scotland’s condition could be worse in any way than it is currently.
GERS itself is therefore a tool of Satan, since it merely reflects the actual condition of the Scottish economy, whilst completely ignoring the hypothetical upside – which could only conceivably be entirely beneficial to Scotland, of course – that may have come to pass if the last thirty years of reality somehow magically ceased to exist.
2. Scotland pays for England
Hypothetically [.. again? You realise that hypotheses are essentially just dreams, right? Ed.] the oil in the North Sea belongs to Scotland. Actually, “belonged” – it’s basically all gone and/or worthless now.
If you imagine that, during the period that Scotland has been wholly and unequivocally within the UK, nevertheless certain UK assets were wholly assignable to Scotland – but not any portion of the UK debt, of course, since that’s a wholly English problem – then, under that imagination, Scotland has been subsidising England. Leaving aside of course the benefit of revenues from the City of London, which are naturally due to Scotland in any case as defined by the Barnett Formula, despite being London assets.
3. Tory Paedos
Scotland makes Scotch. Any trade benefit from it – any profit, tax, image rights, capital gain, any net profit accrual of ANY KIND in perpetuity throughout the Universe – is due to Scotland. (The Irish whiskey industry which passed whisky to Scotland in the first place shall negotiate a subordinate franchise, wholly owned by the Scottish State.)