Short and impartial. -ish.

A friend has asked me to provide a short, impartial account of the issues in the referendum. I'm not good at impartial, but I'll do what I can in 600 words.

Scotland currently has a devolved government within the UK, with welfare, defence and foreign policy reserved to Westminster. Economically, Scotland pays to the UK all the taxes that it raises, and receives in return a subvention calculated according to the "Barnett formula", which neither side is willing to unravel. The Yes side is dissatisfied with this arrangement for two reasons:

• Scotland is a net contributor to the UK economy: its GDP is higher per capita than the rest of the UK, and it raises more in taxes than it receives in subventions. But this greater profitability does not benefit its people, who are poorer than the rest of the UK.
• The neoliberal and chauvinistic thrust of UK policy is alien to Scottish left-wing traditions, and Scots feel uncomfortable with the growing inequality in wealth, the reliance on financial services and the arms trade, the readiness to intervene militarily around the world, and the fractious relationship with the EU.

The UK will lose a lot if independence goes through - its economy will shrink by one-tenth, its status on the world stage will be diminished, and if Trident is discontinued it could lose its seat on the Security Council. The No side has decided that its best chance lies in ignoring the wider issues, and in playing on citizens' fears. It therefore does not discuss the second claim above, the wrong thrust of UK policy. Nor does it challenge the first assertion, that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK. Instead it says (or seems to say) that independence will not succeed: jobs will be lost, public services will decline, and people will be less well off. This, it says, is because Scotland depends on UK funding.

Now Scotland cannot be both a net contributor to the UK and a net dependent, and the guys running these campaigns know that, so someone is being disingenuous. It seems to me - and this is where I take sides - that the No campaign is lying in all but name:

• It doesn't actually say that Scotland can't afford to be independent: instead it says that Scotland receives massive Barnett-formula funding from the UK (making it look as though it can't afford independence), and simply doesn't mention the wealth flowing the other way.
• Nor does it actually say that independence can't succeed - it just says that it involves risk.
• It doesn't actually present any economic data, it just shows us lots of fictionalised people getting worried about their jobs.

The No campaign didn't take this line at first. In April 2007 David Cameron wrote in the Daily Telegraph that "Scotland can undoubtedly be a successful independent country", and counselled a conciliatory approach, specifically saying that to play on fears of leaving the union would be a disastrous campaign tactic. But in February this year, seeing that it wasn't winning, No changed tack and threw in its brick of No Currency Union.

There is a wider question, on whether Scottish citizens are morally right to vote to break up the UK when they could be working towards reforming it from within. However, that debate has not taken place. (My own view is that the southern English are too blinkered for reform from within to succeed.) Where we are now is that the Yes case is robust, the No side has panicked, and some guys are going to win.