Janan Ganesh in The Financial Times on why the United Kingdom will suffer regardless of the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Ganesh writes that the U.K.'s pandering to keep Scotland in the union will ultimately weaken it. "The problem is about to get worse. Not only has the union been tugged loose by this referendum, it will keep loosening the day after. All the main parties in Westminster have promised to divest more powers to Edinburgh, starting almost immediately... Irreversible promises to do with the governing arrangements of the UK are being thrown around as campaign bait by desperate men in the last ditch." Regardless of the outcome of the September 18 vote, Ganesh suggests that Scotland will emerge more independent than it was before. "A question nags: how unionist is unionism really? When even supporters of the UK envisage gradual divergence between Edinburgh and Westminster – ever-looser union, to invert the founding text of the EU – then Mr Salmond’s point is largely made for him. Unionism used to suffer from absolutism; many of its adherents resisted the creation of a Scottish parliament long after it had become irresistible. Now it suffers from the opposite problem. It craves the legal fact of the union without any of the content."
Sen. Tim Kaine in The New York Times on why President Obama must seek the authorization of Congress before going to war. The Virginia Senator urges Obama to ask for Congressional approval before pursuing his new offensive against ISIS. "Our Constitution reserves to Congress the power to declare war and designates our president as the commander in chief, but our recent history has been characterized by executive overreach and legislative abdication in the initiation of military action. The current crisis gives us an opportunity to restore the proper balance between the branches. America’s history since 2001 should compel us to fix the way we make the significant decision to go to war." Kaine suggests that the President has a chance to end what has become a dangerous post 9/11 precedent. "We should not be stretching the open-ended 9/11 authorization even further to cover action against ISIS, an organization that didn’t even exist until years after."