One week to go

[rich_jacko]

...and the Scottish referendum seems to be dominating the news and half of all conversations at the moment.

Comments

[grok_mctanys]

For an interesting (and unusual) perspective that does its best to ignore anything that is "all short-term and will be resolved within a generation." and tries to take a much longer and broader view instead, Charles Stross' post The Referendum Question is worth reading.

(I wanted to comment on it and leave a link to your last post, but you had to register and stuff so that didn't work out.)

This guy keeps surprising me with his smarts and insight. He shouldn't, because I know how clever his books are, but he seems like someone who could actually play a decent game of counterfactuals.

[rich_jacko]

Yes, I've read that via another source.

I don't agree that you can achieve greater consensus and be better served by fragmenting into smaller and smaller states. Not only do you lose economies of scale and vastly increase the number of government bureaucracies, smaller states have far less clout when it comes to standing up against the self-interests of global corporations.

Looser multi-state treaty organisations tend to become paralysed by internal wranglings between their members - just look at the EU and, to a lesser extent, the UN. That's not to say those organisations don't have a role in the world. There are certain things they are very good at (see NATO), but they can't do everything that an integrated nation state can.

[gnomentum]

1) Because ultimately, Westminster know damn fine and well that without a formal currency union Scotland is under no obligation to shoulder any of the UK's debt

2) You're almost certainly right, especially where it comes to Trident..

I'd also like to address your point about the NHS. You're correct when you say control of the NHS in Scotland is already devolved, but without full control of its own income and resources (rather than having to rely on Westminster allocated funds) further cuts to the Scottish budget can and almost certainly will pretty much force the issue. I f the NHS in England is cut, but Holyrood holds out a begging bowl saying it wants to maintain the NHS as-is, I'm pretty sure the rUK will say 'tough titties'. Devolved services are only good for as long as funds allow, and we already know there are further austerity measures scheduled by the 3 big parties right across the board regardless of a Yes / No vote.

[rich_jacko]

I've heard the SNP's blackmail argument on the debt. It's true that the debt is ultimately the UK government's responsibility, but it's as much Scotland's debt as it is England's, Wales's and Northern Ireland's. Once you start rejecting divisible things like the debt, where does it end? Scotland could certainly forget about any share of the UK's gold reserves. What about other assets which aren't geographically fixed, like the military? Plus a country whose first act was to absolve itself of all its debts would hardly start with a good credit rating. There's also the chance the Treasury does the maths and concludes that a one-off 10% increase in the debt is a price worth paying to avoid having to consult Scotland over interest rates / budgets and the potential cost of any future bail-outs.

Some analysis of the NHS argument here. While privatisation of health services is vile and should be stopped, the only danger for NHS Scotland is a budgetary one. The fact is the NHS budget in England has increased under the current

[grok_mctanys]

See also John Oliver on Scottish Independence for a good laugh, as always.

[rich_jacko]

Very good. Here's a sneak time-travelling peek at the next few days' headlines. ;o)