There's also a useful podicast on the Sidereal v Tropical debate at:
http://theastrologypodcast.com/2016/01/03/zodiac-debate-tropical-vs-sidereal/
I use the Tropical Zodiac but employ techniques from Traditional Astrology, including Hellenistic Astrology, the earliest form of Horoscopic Astrology (that which constructs a chart based on the Ascending sign, at the place, date and time of the event under consideration - usually someone's birth).
I think much of the interest in the Sideral approach is that it is shorn of the wishy washy, vague statements of Modern Western Astroloygy, which is now based on psychology (mainly Jungian) rather than events in the real world. Indeed they might even question whether we can know anything about the real world for certain, being prisoners of our own psyche).
That was the reason I went back to the tradition, but in looking at Hellenistic Astrology, I came across a form which is neither wholly Tropical, or wholly Sidereal but contains elements of both. That's not surprising given that the two zodiacs were more or less in alignment when they were writning
Like RohanMenon, I don't think it's possible to say that one zodiac is correct and the other is false. They are both valid. One thing to remember is that the sidereal zodiac is constantly changing, due to a phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes - it moves backward one degree every 72 years, compared to the Tropical Zodiac. So the March Equinox is now, somewhere around 6 degrees of Pisces in the Sidereal Zodiac, or rather,
a sideral zodiac because there are quite a few ways of trying to measure that distance between the two zodiacs. These methods use ayanamsas, to define that longitudinal distance from Tropical to Sidereal and you will find a host of those. Their main differences lie in selecting the Star in Aries from which to measure precession and the exact calculations used for that meansurement. The basic approach is to calculate the tropical positions and then to shift them back by the appropriate factor. You will find that the factor is larger for, say your current or next Solar Return, than it was for your nativity. That's because during your lifetime that precessional drift has continued.
This means that some Astrologers (notably our own Dadsnook2000) only use a sideral approach for Solar Returns, rather than everything in Astrology.
As RohanMenon, points out the only part of Western Astrology that doesn't work is Antisica. These are degrees equally spaced from the Solstice line, 0 Cancer to 0 Capricorn, but on opposite sides, which, when the Sun is in them, have equal hours of daylight. Thus 15 Gemini (Tropical) has the same daylight hours as 15 Cancer. This only works because the June Solsitice represents the longest day in the Northern Hemisphere and the December Solstice is the longest day in the Southern Hemisphere. It's a property solely of the Tropical Zodiac and can't work in a sideral zodiac because it's out of alignment with the solstices and equinoxes.
Rob Hand has an excellent article at:
http://cura.free.fr/quinq/01hand.html
Which looks at the differences between the zodiacs and how Babylonian and Hellenistic Astrologers tried to cope with tropical and sidereal factors. His main conclusion is that the Hellenistic ones mixed both. (For RohanMenon, Valens gets significant mentions). But be warned there's some maths invovled.