Yesterday the Scottish Independence ‘Yes’ Campaign was kicked off.

The arguments from both sides will cite history, economics, foreign policy and social policy.

Frankly, we don’t know whether it’ll make Scottish people richer or poorer, it’s just guessing, and we don’t know whether it will make Scotland a grand bastion of small nations in the image of Switzerland, or more like an inflated Andorra; novelty and nothing more.

The one certainty is that an independent Scotland will make 55 million more people foreign.

And isn’t that sad?

Knowledge is rarely important, it is the interpretation of assumed truths that drives history. For instance, the Catholic church assumed during the Inquisition that science was the devil’s work, so sought to suppress what we would presently see as progress by killing people. Now, one would hope, the Pope would decree science as good and killing people as bad.

With regards to religion more broadly, it is true to say that most people neither believe any religious text to be wholly true or absolute tripe. For instance, mainstream Christians don’t believe Leviticus was particularly wise in ordering stoning teenagers to death, nor do atheists deny the historiographical references to Jesus that more or less provide evidence for his existence, however dubious claims of miracles may be.

Assumed truths characterise general trends in a society, such as Western liberalisation in the face of scientific progress and secularisation, but do not therefore account for rationality; most people know that smoking can lead to cancer and that alcohol is a poison, but all do not therefore cease such ‘irrational’ activities.

The interpretation of assumed truths therefore is where importance lies. If one were to conclude that the risk of illness was outweighed by the pleasure of smoking, it is reasonable that one would therefore smoke. Pascal’s view of religion is a prime example of this; maybe there is a one in a billionth chance of a God, but one should be religious just in case. Of course, which religion to choose may therefore muddy the water, as I can guarantee a Christian thinks they’re right as does a Muslim, Sikh or Jew.

So really, it may be rational to interpret the assumed truth of a God as moot, and remain independent so as to not piss off whichever God there probably won’t be.

Still, not going to stop me coming across as Christian and eating chocolate eggs this weekend.

Happy Easter!

And, just like that, I’ve gone through my first year of uni. Not a single lecture left.

Yeah, I’ve changed a lot etcetera etcetera, but what’s weirdest to me is how I changed during school… I mean, I was far more of a dickhead when I was a kid, but how did I change so much without changing my environment like I have now?

I think, when it gets down to it, I’m more appreciative of life and its wonders; friends, family, food.

Yeah, food. I fucking love home-cooked food.

I’ll go home tomorrow, it’ll be a pain getting there, but it will be lovely to be home. Then I will get bored, and I will be glad to get back to uni, where the city is a thousand times bigger than the village in which I live, and there’s so much more to do.

The measure is how quickly I get bored.

The SNP want independence, and the only redeeming feature of the union that the Prime Minister can think of is foreign policy benefits.

Frankly, if he gave a shit about the foreign policy reach of the British public then he would centre foreign and defence initiatives on European centralised ones. What he actually cares about is UK foreign policy power… Or more to the point his own power internationally.

Anyway, assume Scotland does get independence and the EU foreign policy is unified, then what will happen?

Well, Scotland is too small to be a large economy and too big to become a tax haven, so it will probably follow the Scandinavian model - something which Salmond seems to advocate.

Now, this will be singing its praises for about 60 years until, like Sweden, its growth benefits will shrink, and then, if countries which adopt the model are anything to go by (which they are) growth will eventually stagnate - something which Sweden appears to be heading towards.

The Greens will love this “zero-growth economy” but anyone with any understanding of economics, even pretty basic knowledge, will know this is bad. ie the numbers should be getting bigger.

Basing a country on the lines of medieval nation states is a bit silly, and cultural affiliation is undermined by politicising it; I may moan that cheddar cheese isn’t from Cheddar, but if Somerset was independent my worries would be whether the economy is growing, not about nice cider and thatch cottages, which kinda ruins the image of quaint rural culture.

Frankly, if Scotland gained independence it probably wouldn’t affect your average Englishman too much, and the population would soon overtake that of what the UK with Scotland would have been pre-independence, even if it did involve racists crying into their EDL balaclavas about how “we’re full.”

Get independence if you want, as that is how self-determination works, but it will be a lot of bureaucracy for not much change.

A large state tends to be a bad state. More likely to infringe upon the civil liberties of its people and costly to run. Of course, to fund this burdensome government taxation must be high, which stifles growth. As we have seen in the 2008 recession, economic crises lead to a lowering of living standards, therefore a small state - even if unequal - is better for the majority of a society than a large government is.

Where such neo-liberal thinking falls short is that it ignores the ability of companies acting within a free market to coerce individuals and how an economy with full employment is able to grow faster than one rife with unemployment.

Yet, if a large state is bad, it is logical to conclude that the cost of full employment outweighs the benefit, is it not? If a government provides employment, maybe so, but if the state chooses not to provide but to ensure employment the cost would be shifted away from the public purse and onto the employer.

Why would a business choose to expand if it would not maximise profits - surely that is just bad business?

If the government were to grant tax cuts to businesses if they employed x amount of people, then it could become profitable to employ those people, making entrepreneurial moves of expansion less risky and no longer dependent on the now mistrusted banking sector.

Alongside this, benefits must be made unneeded - if a person is employed for less than the cost of living then they still require government aid. To combat the need for welfare provision a living wage must be introduced. As the welfare state is vastly expensive, in moving to a situation where employment is economically rational the welfare state would reduce in cost as people became financially independent of the state. Ergo, business would not be submitted to a burden in enforcing the living wage, as consumers’ disposable income rising and the aforementioned tax cuts would benefit the private sector.

A constitutionalised free market provides the framework to protect workers’ rights without any potentially detrimental state intervention, for instance the nationalisation of industries. A system such as this safeguards the people from the shortfalls of the capitalist system, which is still the most efficient method of producing wealth as of yet created.

Today the sky seems to have taken the day off. Everywhere else in the UK seems to have snow, but here it is neither sunny nor snowy, wet or windy.

In fact, the sky is so lazy that it isn’t even that cold, it’s just grey.

Through the banal wintry weather the Six Nations starts today, and Scotland are playing England.

I am English.

I am in Scotland.

Don’t think I’ll be going to the pub to watch the match.

Thing is about commas, that they stop burns, baby burns. The wonderful little piece of punctuation also stopped the Bard from losing his infant child in the odyssey that is “Burns Baby Burns.”

Still, despite obviously being a clever chap, he had little regard for the importance of the precise use of language. Eight apostrophes in a single stanza? Burns can do that!

Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin! 
It’s silly wa’s the win’s are strewin! 
An’ naething, now, to big a new ane, 
O’ foggage green! 
An’ bleak December’s winds ensuin, 
Baith snell an’ keen! 

Really, he should probably have used more with the prominent lack of the letter ‘G’.

Language aside, enjoy your offal-in-a-stomach and have a Happy Burns Night!

Cheese burgers. That are already made. You, you lazy berk, just have to pop them in the microwave for a couple of minutes!

Wait, what’s that? You took it out of the bag that with any normal food you would take it out of? Well, what a pity…

Oh, so you thought cooking it for twice as long would rectify your mistake? Wrong! Look at the thing, it could kill you.

Haha, you thought throwing that away and starting again with the second one in the pack would help!

No, no, whatever you do to these burgers will still make McDonald’s appear deserving of a Michelin Star.

First week back at uni and it feels like I’ve been here far longer than a mere six days. The main thing is that - far out of sync with most students - I’ve been too busy to go food shopping.

This leads to high expenditure on lunch as I lack bread and fillings, so have to buy a sandwich. For the-meal-formerly-known-as-breakfast-before-I-ate-it-at-midday I’ve just had some cereals left over from last semester.

They were in date, so they must have been fine, right? Wrong, but my little brain only realised they were stale having finished the pack.

Fret not, the nutritional values lost by consuming gone-off cereal has been rebalanced with vitamin tablets. So exciting is my life. 

And the title?

Well, that just popped into my head. 

January sees the gossip surrounding transfers in football erupt, and whereas some are stupid - for instance Manchester United and Chelsea ‘swapping’ Wayne Rooney and Frank Lampard - others highlight weaknesses in squads.

Chelsea FC have the problem of playing Lampard and losing pace in a squad much in need of speed, or they drop him, losing a prolific goal scorer who also has the playmaking ability to create chances with incisive passes.

To remedy this the London side need a younger playmaker with pace. Despite talk of Kaka filling the void, the Brazilian is struggling at Real Madrid, and at 29 he is around the age where a player starts to slow down.

Really the best choice is someone Chelsea have already moved for; Luka Modric. Sadly, a £40m bid was rejected by Tottenham Hotspur in the summer.

Assuming a renewed bid was submitted, would a sale really be that detrimental to Spurs’ aspirations?

The club is worried that they will not be able to hold onto loanee striker Adebayor, and the £40m+ brought in by the sale of Modric would allow two good quality strikers to be purchased in the summer when Adebayor returns to Manchester City.

With Van Der Vaart more than adequate to slot into a 4-4-2, the sale of the Tottenham star would reap more benefits than would be lost.

Whoever comes in to fill the midfield void at Chelsea, there is sure to be an all-team massive rush at the end of the month to secure those last minute - and hopefully top notch - signings.