Their whole thing was that Scottish independence was a good thing, but it wouldn't be possible (or even a good idea) because Scotland wouldn't be able to support their economy on their own. Does that response hold water?
As a disclaimer we are U.S. citizens, and I definitely don't know much about Scotland, so feel free to dump whatever information on me that you want
It's kind of difficult to say. I do believe that, in terms of tax money, Scotland does pay in less than it gets out. But it's not like the UK isn't in debt anyway, spending-wise.
However, the ability to conserve what we already have is most likely possible. I don't see the entire country collapsing, but there might be less spending money when you're not tied to a country that's basically a large financial hub, not that Scotland doesn't have Edinburgh as well though.
Scotland doesn't really produce much, either. A lot of its industry is in services. 80% or so. What it does export is often sold to the rest of the UK. So the major factors in keeping the economy running would be those being kept through Independence.
Overall it's hard to say and avoiding the question won't help. Pretending it will be easy us partly how we ended up with such a shitty Brexit deal. Though I still think IndyRef2 and Scottish Independence is worth pursuing.
It's a pretty major oil producer for a European country, isn't it?
From what I could find it is about 5% of the Scottish GDP. Compare this to 8% for the USA, 10% for Canada and 18% for Norway. Not a whole lot to base an economy on.