Neil Irwin writes in The New York Times to answer the question, why do many Scots want to be independent of the U.K.? His answer, unique cultures although he minimizes those cultural differences.
I believe Irwin makes too little of the political aspect of their different cultures. Scotland elects 59 members to the U.K. parliament, only twelve of whom are members of the governing coalition - one Tory and 11 Liberal Democrats, most are either Labor Party (41) or Scottish National Party (6) and as such in opposition (out of power).
On the other hand, David Cameron's ruling parliamentary coalition consists of 307 Conservatives (Tory) and 57 Liberal Democrats. The opposition Labor Party has elected 258 members. Total MPs equal 650, so there are 27 members who represent regional and minor parties and supposedly one woman member who claims no party whatsoever.
Let's recapitulate: 47 of Scotland's 59 national MPs are left-wing (Labor and SNP), 12 are more to the right (Tory and LD). Compare that ratio to the ratio for the rest of the U.K. with 306 Conservatives and 46 Liberal Democrats for a total of at least 352 on the right versus something less than 300 on the left.
Put U.K. politics in U.S. political terms - Scotland is a blue state, rU.K. (rest of the U.K.) is a red state. Scotland wants more socialism, the U.K. doesn't. Scotland hated Maggie Thatcher, a clear majority of the Brits didn't. The standard EU social compact makes sense to Scots, not to Brits whose values are somewhat more like ours. The U.K. might vote to leave the EU, Scotland would try its darnedest to gain admission.
If Scotland votes for independence, politics will be a big part of the reason why. That, and a bloody history of course.
