The capital of England is the capital of the UK ==> London is the largest most internationally prominent city in the UK, naturally it is the capital
The queen of England is the queen of the UK ==> Similarly the queen of Wales is the queen of the UK, the queen of Scotland is the queen of the UK, the queen of N.Ireland is the queen of the UK and the queen of Pakistan is the queen of the UK
The official language is English, not British ==> That would be because "British" isn't a language. It is called English historically and it would be a bit ridiculous to change the name of the language. I also don't really see the correlation between nomenclature and things like economic performance, quality of life and any other issues Scottish independence might claim to improve. If Scotland became independent would they stop speaking English up there? I highly doubt it, so if the fact that the spoken language of most of the UK and of the UK legal system is English is an indicator of English dominance then would that mean England still dominated Scotland after independence? Of course that would be ridiculous, but is the natural extension of your argument, so surely that makes your argument ridiculous? Of course Welsh is banned in the UK parliament, what would be the point in even speaking in welsh if no one else there understood you? The welsh language is hardly suppressed though, just drive through Wales, it is on every single road sign.
England makes up 83% of the UK population ===> True, but because of the utter lack of English nationalism I don't think it is really relevant. For example, MPs from Cumbria won't automatically vote for what is best for Cornwall in the same way an MP from Stirling would vote in solidarity for what is best for Inverness. There is no block of English voting the same way there is a block of Scottish and Welsh voting.
Parliament is in England ==> Yes, but London is the biggest most internationally prominent city in the UK, so it is natural for it to be the capital of the UK. It would be a ridiculous waste to have any kind of parliamentary rotation between London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. MPs already claim ridiculous expenses for second homes in London nevermind if they had to have ones in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast too plus travelling expenses. Also, I would be highly skeptical to the suggestion that the location of parliament affects the decisions it makes, in which case, what difference does it make where parliament is?
England is the richest area ==> In which case, why would Scotland want to split with it? Surely it should be the other way around? =/
The national anthem is the same as the England national anthem ==> Officially England doesn't actually have a national anthem, God Save the Queen is the anthem of the UK so is often used as the English anthem at sporting events etc. where England is represented as opposed to the UK, it is not that the English anthem is forced on the rest of the UK, it's that the rest of the UK for some reason chose their own anthem over the UK anthem. Personally I believe we should have a new national anthem. I don't believe in God and I oppose the existence of the monarchy, so really I feel a bit unrepresented by "God Save the Queen".
Yes the UK is often referred to as England, but you have just committed the same crime yourself by saying Britain instead of the UK. Britain is generally short for Great Britain which is the Island comprised of England, Wales and Scotland, which of course excludes N.Ireland. The only other thing it could be short for is the British Isles which includes Eire, so can't possibly be correct. How can we expect outsiders to get the naming correct when we (including you) can't ourselves? But if the rest of the world all knew the distinctions between Britain, British Isles, the UK and the names of the constituent countries then would it really make a difference to the wealth or way of life in Scotland? Is it a valid reason for independence?
One Welsh valley was flooded in the 1960's to provide water for Liverpool, the English parliament did not vote for this, the parliament of the UK did, how did Scottish and N.Irish MPs vote on this issue? Because Wales and Liverpool were and still are part of the same country (the UK) there was no logical claim from the Welsh that a Welsh valley should not be flooded because the beneficiaries would be English. Obviously, at all costs people's homes should be protected but if that valley was the most suitable site then good that it was used. Would there be the same uproar if a valley in Yorkshire was used to provide water for Lancashire, or a more suitable example from Glamorgan to Gwent? Since Yorkshire and Lancashire, Glamorgan and Gwent are in the same country then no, of course not. The valley of Tryweryn is in the same country as Liverpool, therefore there should have been no uproar. If Wales didn't like being part of the UK, it should have said before it had to make a sacrifice for the greater cause. You cannot enjoy the benefits of being part of something and then throw your toys out of the pram when you are made to contribute yourself. Although it failed, the whole thing was a good example of what I was saying before though about the enhanced power of Wales and Scotland in Westminster because of the nationalist feeling and block voting which does not happen with English issues.
tweehonderd graden, dat is waarom ze me mr. fahrenheit noemen, ik reis aan de snelheid van het licht, ik ga een supersonische man van u maken
.