Should Scotland be an independent country?

@uber_gruber what you are responding to is your own interpretation of what I wrote.

I'm just quoting your own words, I don't see any assumptions being made on my part.

is given the lie by this

It's hilarious reading comments boards and seeing this pervasive, strangely twisted logic from the English that not wanting to be part of the UK is somehow a personal affront, and everything about your remarks suggests a knee-jerk emotional response that is founded on this bias

Sorry, but nothing I wrote says that or was written in that vein. You're not "just quoting my own words". You're adding to them, and replacing them completely when it suits you, for whatever reason. Perhaps your own personal bias and knee-jerk emotional responses?

Is establishing good diplomatic relations with other Independent countries of a similar size and close geographical proximity not common sense? Why is that parochial?

Yes of course it is common sense.
It is also parochial. Why? Precisely because they are geographically close, and of a similar size.
It is especially parochial when (and I'm possibly misinterpreting Tariq Ali's implication here) it is done instead of establishing or retaining good relationships with a more general spread of other countries. The EU is parochial. Nato is. The Commonwealth is.

such as saying that because 'New Labour' was fronted by two Scots, this somehow means Independence will be no different. It makes it hard to take you seriously to be honest.

OK, I'm only going to try this once more, and then I am going to give up and leave you to your ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.

I
did
not
say
anything
of
the
sort.

I said that:
Ali appears to be asserting that Scottish foreign policy would be different seemingly solely and simply because it is Scottish. He certainly made no other attempt at explaining his theory. Presumably because it is made by Scotsmen and that will somehow be different. Again, no idea how he comes to that conclusion. Are you with me so far? I may be mistaken, but as he's offered no other explanation, run with me.
Now he offers one shred of justification for this extraordinary claim. That the alternative to this world-view is that offered by New Labour. That of bombing the middle east on trumped up 'evidence'. (Apparently Ali feels that there's no middle ground, just those two approaches to international politics.) So far I'm merely paraphrasing Ali.
Now we get to my bit. I think he meant to say 'this Scottish policy good - this English policy bad' but then he credited New Labour with the bad, 'English' policy, and New Labour - indeed the Labour Party as a whole - are not English. If he wishes to demonstrate that this is good policy because it is Scottish, then Ali could scarcely have picked a worse example of a bad foreign policy than one he himself blames New Labour (i.e Blair and Brown) for; following his logic to its ultimate conclusion is bad because it is Scottish.
I am not saying 'Nice to scandinavia bad, Bombing Iraq good' no matter how much you want to believe that. Neither am I saying that independence will be no different (although lets be honest, there is scant reason to believe it will be. But there is hope, and maybe hope will be enough.)
All I am saying is that in one way his evidence cancels out the very argument it was invoked to support and thus it was bad evidence. We end up back where we all started.
Now I may be entirely wrong about everything I interpreted from his article, and maybe it was hacked to bits by a sub-editor, but that is what I was commenting on - his poor debating skill - and not the actual substance of his initial claim.