Just a few thoughts on the reticence of the London 3 of Labour, Tories and Fib Dems to explain how they will tackle bankrupt Britain's very muckle national debt. It also makes me wonder why more Scots don't see the benefit of going it alone. Could things be worse with independence? Possibly. But then again, we could have been like Norway which has NO national debt and billions of dollars, krona, whatever sitting in banks and being spent on state of the art hospitals, forward looking free education, excellent public transport, good social security, good pensions, giving rural communities some equality in level of service etc...
Meanwhile, Unionists tell us that it is good that Scotland has to send her oil, whisky, tourism and renewable energy wealth to London and in return get a share of:
- backward Britain's huge debt
- expensive nuclear subs and Trident missiles
- a new aircraft carrier
- the maintenance of occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
Norway has a similar terrain to Scotlands and a similary scattered population. It also doesn't waste it's wealth on war. Even nuclear power is non-existant here. Again, it has no national debt and it's GDP is higher than Germanys or the US. Ireland and Iceland may not have done too well from the recession but then again the UK hasn't either. Meanwhile, oil-rich Norway sits on a mountain of cash. I'm not an economist but that doesn't sound like a bad position to be in.
Can Scotland afford to remain part of the UK?
Meanwhile, some bedtime reading while contemplating the dismantling of backward bankrupt Britain: 'Breaking up Britain - Four nations after a Union', edited by Mark Perryman. Kevin Williamson's excellent article on Scottish culture is even available to read for free online.