The ScotNat debate has been almost completely free of that - the most that's been said on the Yes side is that we could be as good as some other countries.
Not according to some people - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/yes-to-scottish-independence
Also acceptable for foregrounding in Scottish independence debates, at least to judge by their place in the Homecoming Scotland 2014 programme , enabled by a £3m government grant, are allusions to: Highland games, whisky, clan gatherings, Gaelic, Rabbie Burns, the Forth Road Bridge's 50th birthday and Bannockburn Live, an event Salmond has described as Homecoming's "epicentre".
Let other 2014 commemorations of war dwell on reconciliation or shrink from triumphalism: next summer, visitors to Bannockburn's Live will enjoy a feast of martial entertainments, including, says Visit Scotland, "a spectacular re-enactment of this iconic battle close to the original site". Three "brutally realistic" massacres a day are promised.
"It's no surprise that 2014 is the year the SNP has chosen for the independence referendum," the Scottish poet Professor Kathleen Jamie wrote in the New Statesman after visiting the site. She is one of 10 Scottish poets invited to contribute inscriptions for a monument at Bannockburn, "exploring the significance of the Bannockburn battlefield to people today". "In some fantasy," Jamie said, "they perhaps imagine the 'independence' debate is akin to that gory feudal battle, which happened somewhere between a bog and a housing scheme, under the A91".
Whereas the No campaign basically boils down to "you'll never be as good as those other countries".
I'd agree that the No campaign has been deep cynical and pathetic.
Once Scotland stops supporting the rest of the UK, we'll do fine thanks.
They looked into this on More or Less and while obviously it all depends on how you define a number of things - IIRC they concluded that any money flowing either way probably wasn't a significant amount.