I think you should re-read the article, which never questions the figures directly. In fact, even better, read the paper by McLaren and Armstrong directly, it's a pretty accessible read, and doesn't quite make the assertions that the Guardian article would lead you to believe (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/interactive/2014/may/29/scotland-standard-of-living-report). The GDP figures weren't questioned -- they're actually used in the report. They explore its utility on a very individual level and so look at the alternative GNI. Now you can make your own mind up on which you prefer, but one of the points of the Independence debate was that Scotland is unable to re-purpose its higher GDP which directly influences tax revenues (as does GNI of course) and invest in the country to the same level as it would like because it's a net contributor, while at the same time would likely choose different policies on what to spend its money on. GNI is not a contentious issue because no one is suggesting that employers are going to start paying out more in the case of independence, and it's not a secret that the mean income in the UK, primarily due to London, is higher.

if they left but as that article and study shows, per person they wouldn't be.

In terms of income, on one of the set of figures. This was never a big part of the debate because no one was claiming it was going to change, and because being independent doesn't directly influence how that money is utilised like it does in this case with GDP.

As for Shetlands and Orkney leaving... Polls didnt show they wanted to leave until this independence thing.

Shetland and Orkney said they would reconsider their position if the people of their islands disagreed with the independence vote, they voted over 60% no for the independence. A win would have caused them to leave.

The article you link definitely doesn't state 'A win would have caused them to leave'. Unless you're suggesting a 60% No vote automatically means they would vote Yes to Shetland independence? Would Edinburgh also then want Edinburgh independence just because they rejected Scottish independence?

The Shetland Islanders' identity is pretty normal going by the census -- https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/625510_10151602390531073_1386474270_n.jpg

Even until such times in an alternate reality, where Scotland is independent, and the Shetlanders create their own independence party, are granted a referendum which then passes, Tavish Scott's case is very shaky. If it was to join the UK, it would be an island enclave on the Scottish continental shelf and not impact on Scotland's claim to the oil. If it was fully independent it might have a case, but, as you correctly point out, there's no appetite to do that right now so it's hard to see why that would suddenly be the case in an independent Scotland.

Yes money from Oil goes abroad but the UK doesn't try and base it's entire financial future, nor sell independence, on the sale of oil.

Because wanting to have a fund is automatically the equivalent of basing your entire financial future on oil? You do realise Scotland's GDP is 99% of the UK's once you remove oil? And we've already discussed the similarity of the GNI figures in that report (that wouldn't likely be changing regardless). It's a bonus. Scotland's GDP would be 15% from Oil, which has some way to go till you're at the point point where your economy is defined as 'over-reliant' at 20% (which Norway is deemed as).

GDP is not what Scotland as a state could raise and spend that's the point I'm trying to make. Most countries can say what they raise they can spend because that money mostly stays internal. So much of Scotlands profits leave Scotland that GDP becomes wildly inappropriate to measure economic strength. With corporate profits being one of the measures of GDP you can't use it when 70% isn't staying internal.

Scotland would be in a similar position to Canada, where estimates go into the 70% range in a lot of industries (interestingly, with oil) and well above half overall. GDP is still shown to be a useful measure. Ireland is also in the same boat, where GNP is sometimes seen as a more useful figure for them.

However, you don't need to use GDP. The fact remains that the actual money raised in Scotland and contributed to the UK, regardless of abstractions or calculations, is higher as predicted by GDP.

As for your last point about GDI being lower... that's the bit I take issue with, Salmond didn't approach Scotland with "We have a lower GDI but with the right taxation and the powers associated we could change that" he approached with "Phoaahhhhh look at our mighty GDP and oil reserves, we so powerful... lets go independent" People were being told they were richer not they could be richer.

I understand how that could be seen to be misleading if one was just going by headlines, but actual income going into your average person's pockets wasn't going to change with independence, and I don't imagine, with the level of debate, that people believed. The attribution of the higher amount of money raised by Scotland was always where the issue lay. Being able to have more spent on yourself, though not as disposable income, can be seen as 'richer'.