And Finland is linked with Sweden, and always has been, on one side, and to a lesser degree, on the other side, Russia. In fact, it was ruled by Russia for quite a time there, and before that, Sweden. The fact that they have successfully made an independent nation work is more to having balls and luck then anything else. Could Scotland follow their example? Maybe, maybe not. Scotland is more intimately connected with England than Finland was to either Sweden or Russia, simply due to the fact that world has gotten a lot smaller than it used to be in an age of Internet communications, and so-forth. If England were to just tell the Scots to bite English balls, could Scotland go it alone without England? I'm not so sanguine on the idea.
Back when it took 20 days or more on horseback to get from Helsinki to Stockholm to get answers to your problems (or Uppsala; I'm not sure what the capital was then), it would perhaps be easier to BE independent. But now? When decisions are made in London and heard about within 30 seconds?
And again, how would Scotland survive economically? They depend on the rest of the UK. You can't do it with sheep alone. And that oil won't last forever. Right now, the National Health is paid for largely by taxpayers in England. Who would replace them? What quality of National Health would Scotland get for its tax currency (I can't say pound, because they wouldn't have been permitted to use it, nor euro, because who knows whether that would have been allowed, and who knows what they might have come up with on their own)?
So I say, thank God, and yes, PizaaPlanet, Rule Britannia!