Wow! Do you have a time machine or something, because there's no way to know if Scotland would be better or worse of as an independent nation until it happens?
Funding for Scotland is calculated and delivered in the same way as funding for DEFRA or BEIS is (albeit a different formula is used). When it comes to finances and accounting Scotland is consider to be just another government department.
All revenue is pooled into a central resource (the treasurey) which the UK government then re-allocate as they see fit. Due to the way revenue is recorded it is not possible to accurately report on how much revenue comes from each part of the United Kingdom, for example oil and gas exported directly from the North Sea are classified as revenue from "other" sources despite being mostly in Scottish water and is not attributed to Scottish revenue. Similarly, corporation tax is considered from where the HQ is registered, not where revenue was actually generated.
It is therefore an accounting impossibility for Scotland to be subsidised by the English as a) we don't actually know how much each nation is putting in and b) we are considered as a single financial entity at this point (a bit like a household with multiple incomes).
Of course, if you subscribe to the notion that the United Kingdom is not an equal union of the four home nations, then you could simple see it as England is the high earner (due to it's size) and therefore is subsiding the rest. But that doesn't take into account proportions and in any case you should surely be supporting Scotland's push for independence if you feel that way?
Howesome have tried to estimate the contribution of Scotland to the UK coffers and the results, as expected vary massively with some reporting that Scotland are net contributers and others saying we are net beneficiaries.
The GERS figures, which are widley dismissed as inaccurate and misleading due to how the apportion spending/revenue, are routinely used to illustrate Scotlands finances (particularly from pro union sides).
In their latest report they estimated a Scottish "deficit" (which doesn't actually exist) of £15 billion. The UK deficit (which does exist) by comparison was £187 billion. So in the GERS figures Scotland's deficit is the around 8% of the UK total, while they also estimate we contribute around 9% of the UKs revenue with 8.2% of the population. Under these outcomes Scotland again, cannot be said to be being subsidised.
This brings me back the point around how Scotland considered just another government department in the UK and how that impacts on the above. Under the Scotland Act, Scotland must return a balanced budget each and every year and therefore it cannot physically or legally run a deficit.
Any Scottish deficit cited is simply an antempt at allocating a portion of the UK deficit to Scotland, but doing so overlooks a major flaw, which is that under the current set up only the UK government can utilise borrowing powers to run a deficit and as such any deficit is created from the mismanagement of funds by Westminster, not by Scotland.
A second point on this is that England are often the sole beneficiaries of this power, in that if Westminster decide to increase borrowing to fund English only services or projects they can do so and all four home nations are then liable to cover the cost of said borrowing.
So we are currently in a situation where Scotland has to pay for its health, education, and governance from a set budget decided by Westminster with no room to increase spending. And England pay for its health, education, and governance from the revenue of the entire UK and have the the added bonus of being able to raise additional funds as required, which Scotland (and the rest of the home nations) then gets to pay towards the costs of servicing the debt.
No wonder the English are so keen to keep the union in tact.