My perspective, is Russia only sees other countries on how they can militarily respond to Russia's intentions.
For Scottish independence- well Adam Smith, David Hume et al set up the modern world. There's a definite Scottish identity. For others in Scotland it's a UK identity and they still identify as Scottish.
> If England want to house American nuclear weapons, they can house them in England
Sure. But the point is they don't. Moving nuclear weapons (and building a new submarine base) is difficult, disruptive and expensive. (Having a non-nuclear power on the same landmass as a geopolitical competitor is also nice. If there is an underlined vision of this millenium shared by the world's great and regional powers, it's that nuclear sovereignty trumps the conventional kind.)
> Do you want a nuclear weapons site 20 miles from your largest city?
If you’re nuking a submarine port you’re nuking other port infrastructure. And if the UK is under strategic nuclear fire, any population center is going to be leveled.
(I understand the NIMBY argument. I don’t want to live next to nuclear weapons more due to accident risk than targeting.) And I understand the non-proliferation one when it worked.)
For Scottish independence- well Adam Smith, David Hume et al set up the modern world. There's a definite Scottish identity. For others in Scotland it's a UK identity and they still identify as Scottish.