You can find out a lot more here:
https://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx
Benefits is a good example where there has been a consistent majority against universal credit. Defence is another one with no majority in Scotland for Trident or its replacement. Then there are foreign affairs such as membership of the EU. You could also consider immigration where Scotland and England do not coincide.
I think the examples here show the problems in which the particular style of devolution offered to Scotland generates. Devolution did not, as it should have, allowed other areas outisde of the HOC to influence government policy. It does in theory, with a First Minister who can technically advocate for Scottish interests, but what the present form of devolution does is seperate Scotland from the rest of the country. With the UK government, still their own government but also technically England's government, presiding over Scotland. This can be balanced by giving an English parliament and thus balancing the UK government equally amongst the whole country, or a more constitutionally radical alternative like splitting the HOC between London and Edinburgh. But having London and Holyrood compete for Scottish attention/following is no way to foster a sense of belonging for Scotland in the UK.
Also your points essentially back up my point that the differences between Scotland and England are largely illusionary. Universal credit here in England has been severely criticised too. This is a politcal issue, not a constitutional or communitarian one. Immigration has solutions, as I am sure London's burgeoning economy would support a more flexible immigration system. Perhaps regional visas are the answer, but the present government are uninterested in the idea. London is also a city with a metropolitan area of 10-12 million people which roughly, is more in line with Scottish values than the rest of England, which suggests again, that Scotland is not so alone in the UK that it, in my opinion, is being presented to it by the SNP.
Trident and the EU is tricky. The UK is a nation of 66 million. Without a nuclear detterent, its still a potentially formidable millitary power to a potential nuclear armed aggressor and would be all the more likely target considering it has no retaliation capability. Unless the Scots just don't want it in Scotland on moral grounds, but are lax to its relocation to England/Wales? And the EU? Well I'm a eurosceptic and don't see any real problem with leaving the EU-in theory. However, I did vote remain in the end, partly because of the Northern Ireland/Scottish nationalism issue. That said, if there was a second referendum, I would follow my heart and vote Leave, because I think the argument given to Scotland in 2014, "vote to stay with the UK and stay in the EU" was an awful argument, because it essentially acknowledges that a common British sense of belonging is dead, and the only viable justification of a British nationality is as a ticket to a European identity. In theory, the sense of belonging in being part of Britain should be strong enough to outweigh venturing alone into the EU. And I think the emotional/psychological case of the unity of Britons (Scots/English/Welsh) over continental Europe, is not being sufficently made by Unionists arguments.
and that’s why I jump on the Norway thing every time it is brought up, especially as it is significant in the ‘Scotland’s problems were all caused by Westminster’ mythology, and a dangerous “we will be fine after independence - look at Norway!”
