You're still talking completely fantastical drivel, and you're backing it up with outright fabrications and ignorance of the answers I've already given you.
The Isle of Man has a completely different relationship with the UK, it's a crown depedency, Scotland isn't, it's part of the UK proper and still is funded entirely from the UK treasury regardless of what agreements have been raised as to how much Scotland gets from the treasury.
"True but totally irrelevant. You can't pass debt to your dependants without their agreement. Scotland will simply start its own account at zero and rise its own revenue, rather than writing the rUK a cheque and beginning in the red."
Scotland isn't a dependency, it's a part of sovereign UK territory. Your argument is still completely based on fantasy. You still don't even understand Scotland's relationship with the UK which means you're not even remotely in a position to be arguing this. You say there's no legal basis, except there is - every split of a sovereign state in two in modern history. It even works the opposite way - when East and West Germany unified they couldn't say "Hah, our debts no longer exist, because East and West Germany have gone and they've gone with it!", Germany just inherited both states assets and debts. Czechoslovakia, former Yugoslavian states, Sudan, it's always the same. You're just outright denying reality by pretending there is no precedent backed by the ICJ. Your arguments about French ex-dependencies is equally similarly ignorant in that they were depedencies and not part of France proper as Scotland is the UK. It's an inconvenient reality for you that Scotland is a proper part of the UK, not a mere crown depedency, not that that even realistically helps this particular argument anyway - even a crown depedency would have to pay back anything owed to the UK if it chose to no longer be a dependency, but crown dependency are already typically independent enough that they do not share the UK's treasury.
"Scotland, by the laws passed to enact devolution, has control over some spending. However, you are right, technically many assets in Scotland do belong to the UK. When independence happens some of them will be moved back to the UK, like the nuclear submarines stationed up there. You can't really move buildings though, so they will have to be abandoned by the rUK. Again, the rUK can't force Scotland to pay for them, there is no legal basis for that, but it can't remove them either."
This is again a completely nonsensical argument. Your view is effectively that Scotland can negotiate away it's debt share by giving up all the assets, but because some assets can't be moved out of Scotland then Scotland gets to keep them even though it's refusing the debts that paid for them - that will never fly, and never has flown at the ICJ. Scotland either lets rUK keep them and pays whatever rent the UK wants to impose on them, or it takes them and accepts a respective share of debt to pay for them.
"Look at how local government works in the UK. Councils are given money to spend my central government. The things they buy belong to them. It's similar to how if you give your girlfriend money to buy clothes you can't just demand them back when you break up. The law recognises that once you give money away in good faith, that's it. It doesn't become a debt or leverage."
Really? So explain how the UK government seized Rotherham council when it started to fail? What about the numerous council purchased schools over the years that were doing such a bad job that central government seized control of them to sort them out.
"The things they buy belong to them. It's similar to how if you give your girlfriend money to buy clothes you can't just demand them back when you break up."
This is also fundamentally wrong, you're getting your understanding of credit wrong not just at a sovereign debt level, but at an organisational and personal level too. You've really not thought this through, in the not uncommon scenario that a couple with a long term relationship or marriage split up and one person moves out of the family home, the person that moves out doesn't just lose all responsibility on the mortgage - they're granted an equal responsibility share of the asset even if they don't live there, AND an equal responsibility share of the mortgage - i.e. the debt. You don't get a scenario where one person gets the house and the other just gets saddled with the mortgage - you typically get a 50/50 split of assets and debt, with adjustments made beyond that in court if for example one member of the couple was bringing in disproportionately more income and the other wasn't contributing.
"You have to cite some specific laws or legal principals for your position."
Which, once again, I've obviously done, by pointing to the agreements overseen by the ICJ governing splits since the creation of the ICJ, but you seem to think if you ignore those that that means I've not provided any examples, it doesn't of course, it just means you've ignored them, which isn't the same thing.