Whether or not you yourself say there is no other, that is simply not the impression I, and other English commenters on this thread alone feel. Either we are completely misunderstanding Scottish nationalism (possible) or our instincts are correct (also possible).
Let's split the difference. There are certainly people in Scotland who make lazy assumptions about English people, just as the same is true in the other direction. It's also true that there are a small number you could describe as "anti-English", and I did experience this very occasionally when I lived there. In over a decade, I could count on one hand the number of times this ever went beyond a light-hearted joke.
Where I definitely disagree is that I don't think these people are a symptom (or a cause) of the independence movement. As I said in a different thread, one of the people I had most difficulties with was staunchly pro-union. Some people will always latch onto the thing that seems different about you and exploit it. I'd argue that says more about them than anything else, and to be blunt, they're idiots who don't deserve the time of day. I have a southern accent, and it gets commented on much more in Yorkshire than it ever did in Scotland!
Nevertheless, I get the argument that "England and Scotland are moving in different directions", but I also think it's completely illusionary. I do not believe that the English are any less social-democratic than the Scots, and surveys on societal attitudes between England and Scotland over the past few years have largely confirmed this. The difference is that Scotland has a choice of two left-wing parties to vote for; Labour and the SNP.
I think the big difference, as you allude to, is that in Scotland it is much easier for the existing views of the population to be expressed politically because of the proportional system. There is arguably a progressive majority in both countries, but this is not well expressed in Westminster and never has been. Even if attitudes are similar, my strong feeling is that the practical political momentum of both countries are going in two different directions, and that does filter through. The left in Scotland (excluding Labour, which as ever has no idea what it wants) feels much more confident than it does in England.
Did Scotland come out in favour of Jeremy Corbyn in large numbers? No, it did not.
Labour will never recover in Scotland until the independence issue is resolved, so I don't think this tells us much, and especially not at Westminster elections where people vote tactically. There are also quite a few pro-union voters who do not support independence, but do want a strong voice advocating for Scotland (which Labour is incapable of doing) and so vote SNP in general elections for that reason.
I don't understand this. Why would I, as a Londoner, want to elect a UK government that would be friendly to an independent Scotland? I want to vote for a Government that can convince Scotland to stay. I have no interest in seeing, what would be after a yes vote, my Government's time devoted for years on end, like what happened with Brexit, negotiating the separation with Scotland.
I suppose I see Scotland as an equal partner, and as an English voter I want to see my government treat them as such, even on the way out, and facilitate the right to self-determination, if that right is exercised. That doesn't mean it can't try and convince Scotland to stay (by all means, do so) but if they vote for independence, I don't want to see a belligerent approach. Sure, negotiations would be complex and take time, but such is life in a democracy.
No one is going to nuke Edinburgh, that sounds like sort of things hardline Brexiteers wrote in comment section of the Telegraph online during and after the 2016 vote.
I was being lighthearted to make a point: nobody is ever forced to play hardball, and it doesn't feel entirely fair to use that as an argument against independence. It feels to me a bit like hitting someone and then asking them why they got in the way of your fist. A vote for independence is not a vote for an acrimonious relationship with England, and if England chooses that path, well that's on us, not Scotland.
I agree that there was a majority in favour of change, but I don't agree that what we ended up with is a reasonable consequence of that vote. Because the question was flawed.
Though it was presented as a simple binary choice, it really wasn't. It was clear what a "Remain" vote meant, but it was anything but clear what a "Leave" vote actually meant. I know people who voted "Leave" because they believed that we would have ended up like the EEA - closely aligned with the EU but not actual members.
I had more than one discussion with them to try and figure out how that would have been any better, which ended with rambling about 'sovereignty' and 'straight bananas'.
I think the real problem with the referendum is that it wasn't just the wrong question; it was the wrong vote altogether.
A lot of people felt completely left behind, and unfortunately Brexit was the only avenue they really had to express that frustration. Before the campaign ramped up it was still a pretty fringe issue, but quickly became deeply entangled with decades of (mostly legitimate) grievances, and now we've ended up where we've ended up.
So as much as I wish Brexit hadn't happened, I can sort of see the point Sad Sprinter is making. If you're someone who feels forgotten about and you vote remain, you know it'll be business as usual and nothing will change. If you vote Brexit, you know it'll be a big shock to the system and there's at least a chance something will change. Neither is a particularly good choice but I can see why you might say "stuff this" and go for the latter.