scotlandisdifferent

I found David Cameron less than convincing in Glasgow last night, when he claimed that independence would cut Scotland off from rUK markets. Is he seriously proposing that there would be customs controls, prohibitive tariffs, a frozen icescape of no trade across the two nations? Not believable. His homely examples weren't quite spot-on either - that Scottish Power generates electricity for Merseyside, and that Irn-Bru is made in Milton Keynes: they sound more like a claim that England needs Scotland, rather than one saying that Scotland needs England. Has our David got his thoughts the right way round on this one? He's also got the other single market looming behind his back, the European Union of 500million people, ten times the size of the UK. Why is DC arguing for the importance of the little one, while preparing to pull out of the bigger? And the single market is not limited to the EU - three EFTA countries, namely Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, adopt EU single-market l...

1. A friend who runs a small business described herself to me as 'feart'. Well, if you're feart, you'll never do anything at all; the trick is to feel the fear and do it anyway. Benjamin Franklin said as much after signing those guys' own declaration of independence: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Feart means no vision, no future, and as things are they shall remain. Feart means No. Don't be feart. 2. My long-standing friend Thingy, whom discretion constrains me from naming, writes: "For god sake stop whinging and go independent. It was never a British Empire, it was always an English Empire. Go and the best of luck. Scotland is like a 40 year old child still in the nest. Go." Thingy is ex-public school and Oxbridge, a retired industrialist sitting on a non-dom pile in I forget where. I can think of no more stereotypical No supporter, but then you don't know Thingy. Heed his words, and don't be...

Question for the two campaign heads: "Where are you leading the people of Scotland, what is your vision for its future?" Mr Yes: "As the 14th richest country in the world, Scotland will enjoy a vigorous economy in tourism, renewable energy, farming, whisky and life sciences, with a high credit rating, continuing revenue from oil, and a currency union with the UK. It will have high moral standing among nations and an equitable social welfare system that cares for all members of society. It will do all this through governments of its own choosing." Mr No: "Leading? People? Vision? No, thanks."

Last night's second debate was a better performance by Wee Eck than in the first debate: he put forward a broad and statesmanlike vision, whilst AD came across as petty. If politics is the art of presenting a narrative that voters can commit to, then Yes has a winner on its hands, while No is reduced to endlessly repeating, 'It'll never work.' That was pretty much the tenor of last night's debate. The most noticeable difference was in what was said about the currency. Alex Salmond lost ground last time by not engaging with the question of what currency Scotland will use if no agreement can be reached on a sterling union, but recovered that ground this time by pointing to the options set out in the earlier policy paper. Since these options are known to everyone, and the final choice depends on negotiations, there's nothing here to discuss. Nobody - and especially not world economist Joseph Stiglitz - believes that the UK government will categorically rule out a c...