Shell's North Sea Fram oil field is 'being reassessed'. A great deal of the SNP's platform seems to be built upon the idea of turning Scotland into a pacifistic, Scandinavian-style state built upon oil wealth; and yet, that oil wealth seems to be repeatedly reassessed. It doesn't exactly build confidence in the SNP's vision for Scotland's independent future.
Another article I took interest in showed up a few months ago: Go-alone Scotland 'faces challenges'. Every country faces "challenges", so this isn't a non-starter on its face; but one would expect that a coherent plan to address these challenges would be part of the SNP's platform. I've seen no evidence that it is; rather, I've seen evidence that the SNP maintains a vague platform because taking any solid stance on an issue would split the SNP's various factions apart.
Being a current student myself, I also took some interest in the secession implications of the following stories: Demand up for university places, and Students as likely to get a place at Aberdeen University as Oxford.
Finally, CN Homeboy - the most rabid secessionist I know - pointed me toward this video: Top 10 Unionist Myths About Scotland's Independence.
The video is unprofessional, factually inaccurate, and extremely flippant about some really significant issues that the SNP has either been intentionally vague about, or simply lied about. To name but one example, watch #7 on the video, then have a look at this image from the Better Together campaign, which is turning out to be much more effectively run than the Yes campaign. If I get bored at some point, I may spend a day picking that video apart, piece by piece.
Also, to update my earlier post on SNP defense policies, The Telegraph recently carried this story: SNP defence and security policies are 'wishful thinking'. I had a conversation about this last week with one of my mates, who's an SNP die-hard. He informed me that "Scotland's threats will be domestic not foreign", which suggests that he either A) doesn't understand the nature of defense and national security threats at all, or B) expects an insurgency to arise within Scotland upon its hypothetical secession. When I pointed out that secession would require Scotland to depend moreso upon Westminster, and to a greater extent Washington, for its defense than it does already, his response was that "[Scottish] cooperation with Europe should do the trick there" - the implication being that he doesn't realize how wholly Europe already depends upon American security guarantees for its defense. Wishful thinking, indeed.
As I've mentioned before, I remain skeptical of the proposed Scottish secession referendum, but I'm also willing to be convinced that the SNP has a plan and a justification for secession. The wait continues.