nick14,
I can think of one other 'advantage' : you can get rid of the horizontal tail!
A swept-back wing can be longitudinally stable on its own, without needing a horizontal tailplane as a straight wing does.
Think of examples like the Messerschmitt Me-163, or the Northrop flying wings, or the B-2, or the F7U Cutlass They don't rely on artificial stability.
Just try with a few paper aeroplanes, if you don't believe me. A rectangular piece of paper by itself flutters down, because it's unstable. Folded into the right shape, it'll glide.
You don't always want to delete the horizontal tail surface (see present-day jet airliners), most of all because you complicate the control in pitch.
For a start, you'll now have to control the aircraft in pitch with the ailerons, which become elevons, with a far smaller moment arm.
Secondly, IIRC, you have a far smaller CG margin, which is not a good idea on an airliner, unless you have an efficient fuel transfer system, as did Concorde.
But....
If the wing itself is already longitudinally stable it will mean you can to a large extent "offload" the horizontal tail in cruise, and only use it for control and trim.
This is the opposite of a straight wing, where longitudinal stability is obtained using a horizontal tail with a negative incidence relative to the wing, hence a down-force, resulting in increased drag.
CJ