This balance of reducing debt vs accumulating hard assets is a tricky one. I think reducing debt makes great sense for a more normal economic downturn, but a Eurozone meltdown could turn that rule of thumb on its head.

In normal times, what are we afraid of if we can't pay our debts? Repossession of whatever collateral was used for a loan, such as a home or vehicle? A bad credit rating? Being pestered by phone calls and letters from a debt collection agency? (Granted, things might work a bit differently in the UK so maybe my examples don't apply.) But in a truly major meltdown, maybe these fears don't hold quite the same weight.

As we saw in the mortgage and real estate meltdown in the US (and perhaps this also applies to other other hot real estate markets that crashed outside the US) but a lot of people who were unable--or unwilling--to continue paying their mortgages were able to continue living in their homes for a year, two years, perhaps even longer, as so many borrowers were defaulting and swamping the system. The lenders were either unable to process all these defaults due to the volume, slowed down by legal challenges (like the robo-signing scandal), or else were making strategic decisions to not foreclose on homes and kick out the residents. Another major financial system crisis could similarly "change the rules" of the debt system because so much of that system is thrown out of equilibrium.

You don't necessarily need to pay your credit card bill off in full or don't care if that jet ski is repossessed, but you do need to eat. So, if a truly epic meltdown is what is being prepared for, perhaps I would put supplies ahead of debt service IMHO. Just my perspective.