To see ourselves as others see us.
If that’s often the aim then The Economist has done Scotland a big favour this week with a shocking front page that I personally find insulting.
In jibes that are more common from Clarkson’s slack jaw, our nation ‘Skintland’ includes ‘Grumpians’, ‘Edinborrow’ and the Isle of ‘Barren’. How we laughed.
The odd thing about this front page is that the article in the magazine itself is reasonably balanced, speculating with facts and figures about oil reserves and considering the scale of economies in this difficult economic climate, and concluding that Scotland could very well make it on its own quite comfortably.
However, Scotland will now be ridiculed in newsagents and office desks across the UK. As I said on Twitter last night, this is the main reason why I will be voting Yes to independence.
This is one silly picture of course but it’s symbolic of a much wider issue. I moved to London a couple of years ago and have been genuinely surprised by the lazy stereotypes down here, the rejection of Scottish currency, the ‘jokes’ that we are unintelligible, the assurance that we are scroungers and the sheer ignorance regarding Holyrood and FMs past and present. If we’re not a valued member of this team then we will happily leave and front covers such as this from the Economist will only hasten that departure.
What really struck me about the fierce Twitter debate last night was how quickly the SNP politicians and members lined up to castigate the Economist while Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members, and journalists, were keen to brush it off as just a joke and nothing to get in a palaver about. Well I disagree, you’ve got to make a stand against the perpetuation of scurrilous myths.
The thing is, there’s no reason why this should be an SNP vs unionist issue, no reason at all. The Economist’s decision should be just as offensive to either side. However, there is an almost Pavlovian reaction from the SNP’s opponents to unthinkingly take an opposing view to them, whatever the issue. Remember George Foulkes complaining that the SNP was making things better and doing it “on purpose”, that the Saltire livery on Scotrail trains was too Nationalist even though it was Labour’s idea? They have to learn that being on the SNP’s side and Scotland’s side at the same time is ok once in a while.
I appreciate that Scots are no angels and anti-Englishness can be vitriolic at times. That’s not really my problem if I’m not the cause of it but I do take great exception to being Scottish and having to put up with front pages from journalists that should, and I’m sure do, know better.
I largely enjoy London, I’m looking forward to the Olympics and even The Royal Family is growing on me but, by jolly, there are days when Autumn 2014 can’t come quickly enough.
#1 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on April 13, 2012 - 10:21 am
Three small points.
First, this is the UK Economist cover only, the international edition has something about the US presidential race, so your argument that this will somehow jade the view of Scotland around the world is mistaken.
Second, there was a subtlety completely lost in the fierce Twitter debate last night, and that is that the initial tweet from Angus Robertson said “Disaster for anti-Indy parties”, and it was to that smear that many from other parties, including me, responded. That point was subsumed in the ensuing “stop being anti-Scottish” hoo-ha.
Third, and I mean this without malice, to have the views of others as your main reason for voting for independence is desperately weak. I’ve heard some rubbish arguments for indy in the past, but that is the worst yet. At the very least, if people are going to vote yes in 2014, let it be for a decent reason.
#2 by James on April 13, 2012 - 10:29 am
These are three strong points. I still think the cover was insulting, even if it’s UK-only, but also, I personally try to adhere to the “don’t feed the troll” approach with this sort of stuff. Your second point I wasn’t aware of but I can’t say I’m surprised. And thirdly, seriously, Jeff, you want to vote yes because of this rather than because of what you think a better Scotland looks like?
#3 by BaffieBox on April 13, 2012 - 10:41 am
While I dont necessarily agree with Angus Robertson’s melodramatic assessment, I think his point is valid. It’s exactly these kinds of attitudes that are wrong. It represents exactly the suspicion some have that we are a backwater of bankrupt whingers who should be thankful of UK generosity. That Labour et al have quickly endorsed the cover, should raise serious alarm bells about their ability to rationalise what is a pretty insulting caricature of Scotland.
And if you believe the cover represents the prevailing attitudes toward Scotland in the wider UK, I absolutely agree with Jeff that it underlines the need for independence. I would have serious doubts about the ability of anyone looking at us through such a prism to deliver far better for the people of Scotland than it currently gets.
#4 by Jeff on April 13, 2012 - 10:48 am
I’m not aware of Labour having “endorsed” the cover, I certainly didn’t mean to give that impression in the post. I was just struck by the lack of protest at it from the many Labour people that I follow on Twitter.
#5 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on April 13, 2012 - 10:56 am
The idea that Labour have “endorsed” the cover is indicative of how badly broken is our political discourse at the moment. They have done no such thing.
#6 by BaffieBox on April 13, 2012 - 11:25 am
Actually, yeah, that’s my bad. Apologies and retracted. What I meant to say was that Labour or Tory supporters (and some MPs) on twitter excusing the cover demonstrates they are allowing their loathing of the SNP to cloud their judgement. That’s obviously not the same as parties endorsing it. My bad.
#7 by Jeff on April 13, 2012 - 10:36 am
Fair points Duncan. I didn’t see Angus’ tweet and I’d have protested at that if I was in your shoes but surely the picture itself is the much wider issue than one tweet (from the head of the SNP’s ind campaign so is going to politicise anything). More people will see the Economist than Angus’ tweet, if not around the world if, as you say, it’s not actually the front cover.
As for your third point, I really don’t think other people’s thoughts aren’t an invalid reason to vote a certain way. We’re either a valued member of this union or we’re not and I am increasingly of the view that we’re not and would enjoy trying to prove Scotland’s detractors wrong. I don’t think that’s “desperately weak” but I do get that some people won’t see things that way.
I guess I just hope non-SNP political folk don’t underestimate how frustrating it can be for many Scots to see such ignorant attitudes so casually aired and shared.
#8 by James on April 13, 2012 - 10:47 am
The regal pic of Salmond clutching his main love was much better done.
#9 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 10:58 am
Bloody hell, I’ve seen better Photoshops from loonies. That’s seriously the standard of picture utilised by a supposedly serious magazine? It looks like it was done by a 5 year old.
(Although quality of photoshopping aside, at least that one is a) making fun of Salmond rather than Scotland and b) mildly amusing)
#10 by James on April 13, 2012 - 11:06 am
Fair enough. It tickled me, perhaps because I’m more depressed about his oil habit than I am enthused by the constitution.
#11 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 11:20 am
Don’t get me wrong, it raised a smile – I’m just amazed at how amateur the handiwork is. I hope whoever did it isn’t a professional graphic designer!
#12 by Paul on April 14, 2012 - 8:39 pm
I’ve seen better photoshopping from the LibDems
#13 by Gaz on April 13, 2012 - 10:53 am
No, Duncan’s points are not fair (Jeff) or strong (James).
First, in this internet/viral comms age what is printed on a regional/national/international version matters not a jot. This image has already been round the world and back and will be being laughed at by potential customers and investors everywhere.
Second, why does he not address the cause of Angus Robertson’s tweet rather than the tweet itself. For what it’s worth, I am sure that he meant it in ‘another nail in the coffin of the positive case for the union’ type of way. It just shows the depth of Labour’s problems that someone like Duncan thinks this is an appropriate way of responding.
Third, why is it weak to want Independence to prevent your nation being agressively marketed as a basket case? In this internationally competitive world, the perceptions that this type of ‘journalism’ creates are genuinely dangerous and harmful to our economic prospects. And note – that is the case whether we choose to become Independent or not.
The weakness lies with those who prefer to brush this off as a joke instead of standing up for their country’s future.
#14 by GMcM on April 13, 2012 - 1:27 pm
So this image is going to damage investment in Scotland? Strange that economic uncertainty can be induced by a funny little picture but a constitutional decision being delayed won’t and any attempt to suggest so (whether from rival politicians or business groups) is ‘brushed off as a joke’ or as ‘anti-scottish’.
#15 by Gaz on April 14, 2012 - 9:33 am
Difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at this comment but it demonstrates perfectly how self-defeating the unionist campaign is.
Any uncertainty is being caused by idiotic contributions to the debate which assert variations on the ‘too poor, too small, too stupid’ theme of which the Economist front cover is a perfect example.
#16 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 11:16 am
“Smear”? How was Angus “smearing” the unionist parties?
Every unionist party leader has been going out of their way to say “of course Scotland could survive on it’s own…” in a bid to distance themselves from the usual “subsidy junkies” myth that has been perpetuated throughout the years. They realise that it is no longer working, and that Scots are getting fed up of being accused of living on handouts.
This cover completely undoes all that work. It brings the debate right back to “too wee, too poor, too stupid” which unionists such as yourself would say is not the message you’re trying to put through. This is why it’s a problem for your parties. It’s like when the Tories say “we’re all in this together, we’re all feeling the squeeze” and then some bankers go and award themselves massive bonuses, completely ridiculing that message.
It’s really quite simple.
#17 by Iain Menzies on April 13, 2012 - 11:26 am
No it doesnt, it sums up in one picture the idea that if the price of oil drops hard and fast then we would be skint.
This isnt a problem for unionists, but it is a problem for nats.
#18 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 11:50 am
No it doesn’t, because oil isn’t mentioned on the cover at all. It may be mentioned in the article, but the article isn’t the problem here. All it says is “It’ll cost you” in big letters (which, in itself, just sounds like people from afar trying to lecture/warn Scots) and then “The price of independence”.
Quite simply, it is saying independence = Skintland. As someone said elsewhere, even the inclusion of a question mark would have made it a less offensive cover, but no, they’re simply stating that independence will make Scotland skint. That may not accurately reflect what the article inside says, but that merely adds to the dreadfulness of the cover.
If the article inside is a robust, detailed analysis that unequivocally proves that independence would lead to economic ruin for Scotland, then that would be bad for Nats. But how many Scots will be reading the article, compared to how many will have taken offence at the rather insulting cover? THat’s why it’s not a problem for Nats.
#19 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 12:08 pm
That seems to be the point people miss. They need to look at the article and the picture separately.
Article is nothing that would raise my eyebrows far less my blood pressure.
The graphic on the other hand I initially thought was a spoof.
Because they would not have done a graphic like that of any other country would they?
#20 by Tris on April 13, 2012 - 12:42 pm
I think someone must have heard the results of a poll which said that a proportion of undecided Scots would vote ‘Yes’ if they were going to be richer by £500 pa, and ‘No’ if they were going to be poorer by £500 pa. after the fact.
It may appear to be clutching at straws to us, but it probably seems like a substantial argument to the unionist parties and organs, albeit that, in this case what is inside the magazine is, as Jeff says, a balanced article, drawing the conclusion that would be hard to escape, given other small nations’ ability to cope alone.
As for the £500 + or-…of course, it depends very much on the tax regime, doesn’t it, whether the individual will be better or worse off.
#21 by Aldos Rendos on April 13, 2012 - 12:00 pm
Woeful point. So presumably when Scotland runs out of oil we would be safe as part of the UK as they would have some magic alternative up their sleeve that they are currently keeping secret from us all?
#22 by GMcM on April 13, 2012 - 1:30 pm
The UK economy is broader based than Scotland and less reliant on oil/gas. It would hurt the UK economy, yes, but not to the same extent as it would hurt Scotland.
#23 by Aldos Rendos on April 13, 2012 - 4:48 pm
I don’t buy that. Oil makes the world go round, without it we’re all up the creek. You may say the rUK would not be hurt to the same extent but they require oil to fuel their other industries. The challenge is to find and nurture alternatives before it’s too late. I hope Scotland regardless of it’s constitutional status will be at the forefront of that.
#24 by R.G. Bargie on April 13, 2012 - 1:00 pm
(1) There’s a new thing called the internet. It’s quite hip, you should check it out.
(2) Your dictionary is faulty. Nothing Robertson said even remotely qualifies as a “smear”. The Unionist parties were (presumably) not responsible for the cover, and speculating on its likely effect is not “smearing” the Economist either.
(3) I believe Jeff has explained his reasons for backing independence at some length over recent weeks and months, and it’s hard to believe you haven’t read them, so why would you want to deliberately misrepresent his views with such a comment? Though if I was in a marriage and my wife evidently despised me, I’d consider that pretty good grounds for a divorce by itself anyway.
Labour’s attempts to mock and belittle the entirely-justified offence taken at this cover is a prime example of both the Scottish “cringe” and the Bain Principle. With them being so keen to constantly tell us what “proud Scots” they are, you’d think they’d be at least as irritated by such a contemptuous, sneering portrayal of Scotland as the rest of us.
I’ve lived in England for over 20 years and I have a pretty high threshold of offence when it comes to this sort of thing. The Economist’s front cover clears it effortlessly, and any Scot attempting to play it down should be ashamed.
#25 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 7:29 pm
Last two paragraphs there are absolutely spot-on. I’ve never believed the likes of Jim Murphy when he talks about being a proud Scot. If such people had come out and said “I’m a unionist, but this is offensive to all Scots”, then I might start to believe them. But no, we’re told it’s just the nationalists over-reacting, even though pro-independence-but-not-quite-nationalists in the socialist and Green parties have taken offence at it too.
If you really can be proud of being Scottish while being a unionist, then you should also be capable of being offended by such insults to Scotland while remaining a unionist. Or is unionism really so flimsy that it requires a complete denial of one’s Scottish identity?
#26 by Mike on April 15, 2012 - 8:24 am
It is extraordinary the energy you’ve put into this Duncan.
The reality is that if this was done for England it would be deemed racist.
James – your ‘dont feed the troll’ argument is weak, this isn’t a lone person trying to wind people up – its the Economist. That’s why Jeff’s right. This is about a narrative about Scotland that’s built up over years and has now become mainstream. In an odd way there’s been a reversal of cultural understanding where the English are consistently more chippy and grievance-laden blaming their woes on us terrible subsidised Scots.
It IS perfectly legitimate to raise these arguments about economics (though they dont really fly). But this is just puerile.
#27 by BaffieBox on April 13, 2012 - 10:25 am
Agreed Jeff. I think it’s a terrible cover with no balance and much sneering and spite. Im sure they’ve done it for publicity but I expected the Unionists to see this as wholly unhelpful for all concerned. So Ive been pretty stunned to see them roundly accept this as fair game. Id have been pretty embarrassed and ashamed had a publisher in this country run with something similar about another country, people or culture, but it seems to be OK to tolerate and accept this when it’s to do with independence or the SNP. As with so many things, I genuinely believe Labour et al continue to allow their absolute loathing of the SNP and the independence movement to cloud their judgement.
We are crying out for sterile, mature debate and we’ve to somehow see this as the funny side of politics? Utter nonsense. Drags the debate and the Scots right into the gutter, where we no doubt belong.
And I’d actually go further than you have – I thought the actual article was underwhelming and failed to even come close to justifying the cover. A brief rehash of unionist golden oldies does not make a compelling economic case. If the Economist want’s to act the big shot with a swagger like that, it really needs to back it up. It didnt.
The whole thing underlines the sneering attitude of the British establishment toward Scotland. I welcome their contribution if only to highlight what some really think of Scotland. That Labour et al condone and almost revel in it, speaks volumes IMO.
#28 by CW on April 13, 2012 - 6:41 pm
“Id have been pretty embarrassed and ashamed had a publisher in this country run with something similar about another country, people or culture.” Exactly – its naked prejudice and should be described as such. And it most certainly does inform the constitutional debate if we are widely subject to xenophobic derision. Think about it, how many of you have been told on more than one occasion that Scotland is perpetually subsidised? I bet those who haven’t are the exception. And it is almost never backed up by anything resembling so much as a fact. This cover is symptomatic of a shameful and significant part of our cultural and political discourse. We all know this. The best thing the Unionist parties can do is get on board and defend Scotland as an equal partner contributing to the Union and deserving of respect. They should do this and they won’t do this.
#29 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 10:38 am
I also found the twitter debate interesting, not least the people suggesting that the SNP was somehow trying to focus attention on the cover to detract attention from the article itself! But, as you sa,y the article was really nothing out of the ordinary, it wouldn’t have bothered people one way or another I would have thought. The debate about the economic of independence is ongoing and will probably be eternal – even after independence I could see us still debating it!
No, it is the graphic of the map of Scotland that is the problem. How anybody could have thought that was appropriate is just beyond me. If it was in the Daily Mash fair enough, you might not like it but at least it would be intentionally puerile. But it just seems an extraordinary thing for a serious publication to do.
And the underlying issue is the contempt it reveals. That is not chip-on-the-shoulder nationalist paranoia. I lived in London for many years and the vast majority of folk I met had no problem with Scots or Scotland, I thoroughly enjoyed my time there and most people were great. But there are some – absolutely a small minority – who do regard Scots as a joke and the idea that we could run our own country with contempt.
I don’t know where that comes from but I would say it is linked to being patronising and indeed racist in other ways.
#30 by Alistair on April 13, 2012 - 10:38 am
As you say, one of the problems with the cover is that in no way reflects the decent article inside.
The cover became the story and the opportunity to have a reasoned discussion about the article was missed.
Duncan, I think you make a reasonable point re the initial comments made on the cover, but you do ignore the thrust of Jeffs article which is that the Lab/ Tory and LD parties do seem to be unable (in the main) to support anything that the SNP propose.
And in fairness to Jeff – he said several times last night that the views he hears in London are one of the reasons he will support indy.
#31 by Michael S on April 13, 2012 - 10:42 am
I’m in broad agreement with you on this Jeff. I was speaking to an English work partner a few months ago and he told me he was “fed up of hearing about Scottish independence”. I’m no flag waver, but the suggestion that a discussion on the constitutional future of Scotland is an irritance or minor annoyance pushed me towards voting Yes. The suspicion is that it’s part of a wider ignorance/indifference about Scotland.
#32 by Alistair on April 13, 2012 - 10:42 am
Sorry meant to add ‘one of the reasons he will support indy’ – not the only reason.
#33 by GMcM on April 13, 2012 - 1:34 pm
He did say it was his ‘main reason’.
A girl in my work said she would support separation because the BBC say ‘we’ when commentating on England football matches and that Andy Murray is British when winning and Scottish when he loses?!?!?
I’m sorry but the future of our country is too important to be decided on thin-skinned reactions to ill-educated or ill-thought out expressions.
#34 by Aldos Rendos on April 13, 2012 - 4:51 pm
Agreed. In much the same tone I had a friend say to me that she would not support independence as she would be worried that she wouldn’t be able to watch Eastenders every day.
#35 by Gerard on April 13, 2012 - 10:26 pm
Completely agree with that. I didn’t mean that to come across that it is just one side these illogical arguments are made – I know there are many who will make the decision based on something that I don’t see as vitally important but that is their democratic right so hey ho!
#36 by Colin on April 13, 2012 - 10:45 am
Agree with Jeff. I’ve recently moved back to Scotland, having spent nearly a year working in London. I was amazed at the attitude of people I worked with towards Scotland. The subsidy myth reigns supreme, they genuinely believed that they paid for our free education etc. They barely acknowledge that Scottish people pay tax at all. I found it very depressing. These were intelligent, interesting people who I liked and enjoyed working with. But when it comes to Scotland it seems easier to swallow what the torygraph etc pedelling than come to an informed view.
#37 by andrewgraemesmith on April 15, 2012 - 1:39 am
That surprises me. As a Scot who lives and works in London I’ve actually found my Scots accent to be very helpful! Everyone I work with seems to see Scotland as a romantic and almost mysterious place full of people with unique and singy accents, i’ve had people tell me that they wish they could be Scottish!!!
My experience is almost certainly not typical, but I think people’s attitudes are different depending on the demographics of the office and the industry you work in (in my case most of my colleagues are female, between 25-40 and work in communications and marketing). From my experience of people in the Labour Party etc there tends to be an element of ‘internationalism, not nationalism’ and the ‘SNP are Tories’ type of thing. but being anti SNP isn’t the same as being anti Scotland.
#38 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 10:45 am
Incidentally Duncan I think the word disaster was exaggerated but the row was bad news for anti-indy parties because as Jeff identified too many people could not bring themselves to say this is a pathetic and childish attack on Scotland and the Economist ought to apologise.
Why couldn’t they say that? Because it would put them on the same side as the SNP.
They would rather overlook an intentionally offensive attack on their own country than be seen to be siding with the nats.
It’s ridiculous. You would probably complain about a gollywog – and rightly so – but you will defend someone ripping the pee out your own country for fear of being mistaken for a nationalist!
#39 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on April 13, 2012 - 8:47 pm
Why is it you feel qualified to explain the reasons for my choices, when you don’t know me at all?
I’ve regularly been on the same side as the SNP. Equal marriage, minimum alcohol pricing (against my own party) and the recent trend for social-media scraping cheap news smears against candidates are just three examples.
I did not choose to overlook an “offensive attack on Scotland” here. I genuinely didn’t see it as offensive, and it categorically was not an attack on Scotland. It was a comment on independence.
I’m not about to have what I should and shouldn’t find offensive dictated to me, and it’s high time indy supporters started accepting that many people earnestly disagree with them without hating their country.
#40 by Doug Daniel on April 14, 2012 - 1:36 am
“I’ve regularly been on the same side as the SNP. Equal marriage, minimum alcohol pricing (against my own party) and the recent trend for social-media scraping cheap news smears against candidates are just three examples.”
What a saint you are, Duncan! You might have a point if:
a) Equal marriage wasn’t supported by every party in Holyrood and Westminster, bar none
b) Minimum unit pricing wasn’t supported by every party (except Labour in Holyrood)
c) “social-media scraping cheap news smears” was being used exclusively against the SNP.
Tell you what, here’s a few more things you and the SNP agree on that you can use to congratulate yourself for being so non-partisan:
– people should be allowed to vote
– the death penalty shouldn’t be brought back
– the Earth is round
– 2 + 2 = 4
#41 by Indy on April 14, 2012 - 1:18 pm
You’re right actually – it wasn’t an attack on Scotland. It was an attack on Scots. The clear message was that by becoming independent Scotland risks becoming a failed state essentially.
The only possible interpretation of that is that Scots don’t have the capacity to succeed on their own.
After all, the Economist itself recognises that Scotland is the most successful part of the UK outwith London and the south east. To go from that situation to becoming “Skintland” as a consequence of independence could ONLY be because of self-government. It’s a direct attack on the competence of Scottish people to manage their own affairs.
Everybody else recognises it. It’s interesting that so many papers in Scotland have run with this story. That’s not because they support the SNP. It’s because they recognise this is something their readers will feel angry about. Whether or not they support independence.
#42 by Shuggy on April 13, 2012 - 10:48 am
The cover was infantile, agreed. With regards to the content of the article, Nats wailed that it was all stuff they’d heard before and had dealt with. The former may be so but they most certainly have not dealt with these questions, at least not to most people’s satisfaction. The article quite clearly said that if Scots want independence for political and cultural reasons they should go for it but that the economic case was less certain. Not exactly Der Sturmer, is it? I don’t really buy this notion that the SNP response was faux outrage to distract from the contents of the article but then again…
You rather gloss over Nationalist anti-Englishness. While I’m a Scot, my mother is English and I’m a Unionist. For this I’ve been called an ‘English bastard’ who should ‘fuck off back to England’. If Nationalists want to complain about prejudice, they should put their own house in order, don’t you think?
#43 by Jeff on April 13, 2012 - 10:56 am
Anti-Englishness in Scotland is of course an issue but I happen to think it’s a separate issue. Two of my mates got into a scrap with 5 Inverness neds for being English a few years back. They held their own well but they’re actually Irish and Scottish!
Anyway, voting Yes to independence because Scots are bigoted against England is not a valid reason. Voting Yes because England is bigoted towards Scotland is a valid reason. (I’m not saying that that is necessarily the case, just that it’d be a valid reason if true)
So yes, it’s an issue, just not relevant here in my view.
#44 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 10:56 am
If the SNP produced a graphic of a map of England on the same lines as the one produced by the Economist about Scotland you would have every right to accuse them of stoking anti-Englishness. But the SNP doesn’t even mention England anywhere in its case for independence.
PS; If someone abuses you and tells you to eff off back to England this is what you do – report them to the police.
#45 by CW on April 13, 2012 - 6:48 pm
I entirely sympathise with your experience, these people are morons. However, Labour politicians told Sir Digby Jones that he was an “English bastard” after a speech in Glasgow which was not to their tastes, which he promptly reported to the press. While I am no fan of the man, (indeed he has recently written on the subject of independence with characteristic hubris and ignorance), I don’t think that idiotic anti-Englishness is simply an SNP problem. Its a minority problem across Scottish culture. The SNP are stringent beyond belief about that sort of stuff, there is only so much they can do.
#46 by Shuggy on April 13, 2012 - 11:08 am
We’ve agreed about the cover, although you lot are obviously getting more excited about it than me. You’re evading the issue of what the article actually says. Is the Nationalist strategy about simply repeating the claim that you’ve dealt with economic arguments so many times that it becomes true?
If you knew who it was who said this to me, you’d agree calling the police wasn’t an option. I’m not going to explain further. But in any event, this suggestion also avoids the issue of anti-English prejudice among Nats. There’s no point in pretending it isn’t there – I’ve seen it, heard it, experienced it. You want to complain about prejudice directed at Scots – fine. Then put your own house in order.
#47 by Jeff on April 13, 2012 - 11:22 am
You are correct Shuggy that there is more value in debating content but, as balanced and eloquent as the article was, there was nothing that really jumped out as a blogging point. And I read the article before I saw the front page incidentally.
I certainly didn’t intend to write this post with a view to going around the houses on the same arguments as before. I’m glad we agree that the front page isn’t great though.
#48 by Tormod on April 13, 2012 - 11:10 am
I have been trying to engage with folk on twitter about the content and nothing really happens.
IainMcGill just resorted to the usual stuff and others who asked for a rebuttal haven’t answered back.
So much as per norm for this wee cybernat! 🙂
#49 by Iain Menzies on April 13, 2012 - 11:25 am
Judging from the above comments, i may be the only person in the whole wide world that’s done this, but having seen the pic, and read the article, i took the pic to be a , somewhat satirical, take on Scotland, POST independence. As has been said above the economic case for indy has not be made to the satisfaction of most people and if we get a bit of bad luck then that pic starts to look very accurate.
The only other thing i would say is that if you really were insulted by this, and if anyone else really was, then you may just be a wee bitty over sensitive.
#50 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 12:00 pm
I await the next copy of The Economist with baited breath, with it’s picture of Greeks suffering the economic crisis and a big “LOLZZZ!!!!” emblazoned across it.
I will then look forward to people telling Greeks to get over themselves and stop taking things so seriously!
Maybe they could do a look back at the history of the Irish economy sometime, with a picture of the Potato Famine alongside the infamous Alan Partridge line: “at the end of the day, you will suffer if you’re a fussy eater…” That’s the sort of level this cover is at.
#51 by Colin on April 13, 2012 - 2:39 pm
Well said.
#52 by Iain Menzies on April 13, 2012 - 3:00 pm
See i just think you taking this totally out of proportion.
#53 by An Duine Gruamach on April 13, 2012 - 11:26 am
Suppose The Economist were to run a cover on Romania, and use a map with Bigissuerest, Brokeov and Skintisoara – do you think opposition parties in Romania would think this was a valid critique of Basescu’s policies? Or would they join the government in condemning a sneering, vindictive attack on their country?
#54 by Shuggy on April 13, 2012 - 11:34 am
On the article itself, there’s one point that I’m sure has indeed been discussed before, although I don’t recall seeing it anywhere and it has to do with the idea that smaller nations are more vulnerable to shocks if one of their sectors accounts for a large proportion of their output. It’s a familiar problem that no one would deny is a problem for towns. So, for example, Motherwell was hit harder as a result of the steel plant closure than Glasgow was by the shipyards. In the same way, Scotland would have been by the banking crisis. I’m not sure why this is a controversial point and I don’t recall it ever being dealt with. Certainly not by Alex Salmond, despite his background as an economist.
#55 by Tormod on April 13, 2012 - 12:01 pm
The banking crisis is a very good example of using what actually did happen and how it was handled.
Look at what did actually happen to RBS and it’s operations around the world.
RBS Greenwich Capital in the US got a huge bailout from the US government, bigger than the UK govt bailout in fact.
So what did actually happen?
Well each country that had a major RBS operation that required help did so themselves.
So if Scotland was independent at the time of the crash 90% of RBS investment banking was taking place in London, which would of course been a different country.
What happend in a similar case in benelux with Fortis is that they countries effected acted together to solve the problems.
I’ve heard Eck give numerous media interviews when he gone over these examples.
#56 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 12:14 pm
Maybe because it’s just wrong?
The UK, Spain, Italy, France, America – all countries that proved completely vulnerable to the financial crisis (to varying degrees), and all massive.
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg – all countries of small-to-middling populations that were pretty much unscathed by the financial crisis.
Now of course, the unionist retort to that is “ooh look at Ireland and Iceland”, but all this proves is that size has nothing to do with it. Also, looking at how Iceland has recovered, if anything it suggests that small nations recover better than large countries. Note that even at it’s worst, Iceland’s unemployment levels never surpassed the mighty UK’s, and while the UK’s continues to grow, Iceland’s unemployment has been on the way down since about the turn of the year.
Honestly, I don’t see how anyone can argue that small countries are particularly vulnerable to these problems when Italy, Spain and the UK are essentially bankrupt.
#57 by Tormod on April 13, 2012 - 12:20 pm
I was pretty much tweeting the same thing last night Doug, I asked the same questions to those who said the main thrust of the economist article was not being challenged.
#58 by Shuggy on April 13, 2012 - 12:31 pm
Can we agree size per se vis-a-vis health of economies is a gross over-simplification that is used by both sides of the argument? And being a large country does not protect you from a debt crisis obviously. With regards to the examples you cite Ireland has is it’s banking sector carries more weight in its economy than the UK. Iceland, on the other hand, had a colossal banking sector but didn’t bail them out. Perhaps a lesson for a few people. Problem for Nationalists is that these were the very examples held up as a pattern Scotland should follow – and none more so than Ireland with its Euro membership. The fact of the matter is, the economic case for independence is in trouble because of the way the SNP framed it. They should have been more careful.
The UK is not bankrupt and it is unfortunate that the Tory line has taken hold so thoroughly. The national debt is currently somewhere between 70 and 80 percent at the moment? Britain emerged from WWII with a debt around 250 percent of GDP. Against that background, the postwar government set up the NHS.
#59 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 1:18 pm
I think even calling it a gross simplification is giving too much credit to the idea that size has anything to do with it – it’s just plain wrong. As the saying goes, it’s not the size that counts, it’s what you do with it.
As for it being used by both sides, I simply don’t agree. The nationalist argument is not “Scotland would prosper because it is a small country”, and the old Arc of Prosperity was not about saying “these countries are doing well because they’re small.” It’s about negating the old “too wee” argument, and saying “look, here are examples of small countries doing well, and there is absolutely no reason why Scotland couldn’t do the same”. Nobody said Scotland should base its economy on a property bubble, for instance. In fact, it’s quite silly for anyone to suggest that Scotland would base its economy on any single industry- even oil would merely be a component part.
The unionist argument, on the other hand, is very much predicated on the idea that bigger is better. It used to be just “Scotland is too small to prosper”, but it’s now evolved to the slightly more subtle “Scotland would not have the security it enjoys under the union”. Of course, it’s just “too wee” in slightly less blatant terms, especially when the veil drops slightly and people say countries like Norway and Sweden (i.e. small countries) don’t have the same global influence as countries like the UK and France (i.e. big countries).
So it’s not only a completely wrong argument, it’s also one that is only utilised by one side.
#60 by Ken on April 13, 2012 - 11:45 am
I take it this is first time a lot of people have ever seen an Economist cover in their life then?
A quick Google image search will show a multitude of provocative covers ranging from re-naming the US states to something more insulting (State of the Union); ridiculing Italy and Berlusconi (The man who screwed an entire country) ; Sarkozy’s height (The incredibly shrinking president); ‘Obamacare’ (This is going to hurt); Gordon Brown (Europe’s new pecking order); France (Can anything perk up Europe?); Ireland, Portugal and Greece (Saving the euro) and so on.
It’s what the Economist does – it’s a provocative cover to get you to read the articles, but you don’t have to buy the bloody thing. As a non Scot, the reaction is telling. The referendum is a while away, so pace the outrage.
#61 by Shuggy on April 13, 2012 - 12:34 pm
Ha! A related point is how many people outside those of us who are politically obsessed actually read the Economist? Not many, methinks.
#62 by CW on April 13, 2012 - 8:11 pm
I read it every week because I get it free in my work. I’d just like to quote Gerry Hassan on the subject:
“The unstated motivation in this is ‘The Economist’ vision of the UK (and beyond that globally). Their idea of the UK is a shining free market Camelot on the hill, a ‘global kingdom’ of deregulation, marketisation, outsourcing, hucksterisation and bloviating: believing this toxic cocktail is the new zeitgeist of the 21st century.”
Its high time we all understood economics a little better – the Economist only represents one perspective, one which largely goes unquestioned due to widespread economic illiteracy.
#63 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 12:35 pm
Yes totally – a lotof people will never have seen it before.
Interestingly I just heard from someone who was furious that the economist had called shetland the shitland isles.
In actual fact I don’t think the cover picture does say that – they are called the shutland isles.
But that’s just the way things go isn’t it?
The real misjudgement here is a) the graphic itself – I don’t believe they would have been quite so contemptuous of any other country but b) making the graphic file available online. So people can tweet the image you see without a link to the content or indeed context.
So what you end up with is provocative cover and an article that will not be read by most people except real political anoraks – but many more will see the picture and think so that’s what they think of us, is it?
To go back to my point to Duncan – yeah it’s not actually a disaster for the anti-indy parties. But it’s not good. And it’s really not good that so few of them have been willing to say graphic was a step too far.
#64 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on April 13, 2012 - 12:58 pm
Exactly. The reaction to this is dispiriting to those who want a reasonable debate. There’s every sign that the SNP have peaked too soon with their outrage. By autumn 2014 (sorry, I mean, by whenever the government decides after taking the views of Scots in their consultation into account) there’s a danger that they will be seen as the boys (and a few girls) who cried wolf.
#65 by Iain Menzies on April 13, 2012 - 2:41 pm
I aint sure that ‘dispiriting’ covers it.
My god is well and truly smacked by the reaction to this here.
I didnt have much hope of a sensible debate about the ‘issues’ but this reaction takes away what little hope i had left.
#66 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 7:44 pm
Sorry, are you actually being serious here Duncan, or are you trolling? Accusing people of taking things too much to heart is one thing, but to say that it’s those of us who have taken offence to it that are stopping a “reasonable debate” is just bare-faced cheek.
Here’s an idea for getting reasonable debate: how about unionists actually speak up for Scotland for once and say “sorry, but we don’t want this sort of rubbish being portrayed as the case for the union”?
You do understand that it’s not just SNP members that have taken offence to this, yeah? Folk from the other pro-independence parties and those of no affiliation have also said it’s insulting. If it’s reasonable debate you want, why not try and be honest about the make-up of both sides?
#67 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on April 13, 2012 - 8:28 pm
I’m being entirely serious. And the fact that you think reasonable debate would be fostered by all parties conforming to the “every comment that suggests indy isn’t a good idea is an insult” monoculture of the SNP shows how far gone we are.
You don’t seem to get it. You are not “speaking up for Scotland”. You are speaking up for your political beliefs, your aims and your thin-skinned pride. Scotland is full of people who can laugh this sort of nonsense off. You are not speaking for them.
And I hope you realise that a number of people from the SNP were also saying this was inoffensive and untroubling last night. I doubt they are saying that any more, of course, because the party machine has decided to issue a press release about it – possibly one of its most malodorous ever – and the SNP is nothing if not a well-oiled, single-opinion machine.
But I’m very serious in saying that this sort of hysteria as a response to satirical comment is an embarrassment. I’m embarrassed that my government responds to a joke like this with a full on gnashing of teeth. I’m embarrassed for Scotland.
I wonder if Barack Obama issued a whining, self-indulgent press release in response to this: http://theeconomist.tumblr.com/post/2959478330/tomorrows-cover-today-the-unions-troubled What do you reckon? Do you think he did?
#68 by Doug Daniel on April 14, 2012 - 1:21 am
No Duncan, reasonable debate would be fostered by all parties being honest instead of resorting to such low-brow tactics. Reasonable debate would be unionists acknowledging (like they had started doing) that Scotland would not become a wasteland upon independence, which is exactly what this cover depicts. No one is saying Labour et al must come out and say “this cover is a lie! How dare anyone suggest Scotland wouldn’t be better off independent?” But it would be nice if once in a while they could see past their prejudices and acknowledge when someone has crossed the line from being disparaging about independence and into being disparaging about Scotland.
You’re the one who doesn’t get it. In your eagerness to dismiss genuine annoyance at this cheap nonsense as a sense of humour failure, you’re dismissing the many people who are quite simply fed up of this sort of rubbish being touted. Bringing up that other cover is just as cheap. You know very well it’s a different kettle of fish – the USA were not in the middle of an independence debate, it was criticising the state of the economy at that time rather than making bold, ill-informed predictions about the future, and most importantly, it wasn’t just the latest in a long line of “too poor” jibes.If you don’t understand the difference, then perhaps it’s no wonder you can’t understand the difference between slagging off independence and slagging off Scotland.
The cover is of the same level as some of those ridiculous anti-AV adverts and posters that were going around last year. I would like to think that even people on the anti-AV side were embarrassed about rubbish like “what she needs is a maternity unit, not a new voting system”, just as I would have hoped there were unionists who would have seen this and thought, “nah mate, crossed the line there.” But no, going by your logic, it’s not the small-minded idiots that made those posters who were lowering debate – it was the pro-AV campaigners who took it too seriously. It’s quite a feat of spin to claim that those who are offended are at fault for bringing the tone down.
Incidentally, I assume your “I’m embarrassed for Scotland” comment was ironic, yeah? Or are you allowed to speak for Scotland while other people aren’t?
#69 by Iain Menzies on April 14, 2012 - 2:46 pm
Considering the response this has provoked from many people calling them scots, and purporting to speak for scots and scotland, i personally am embarrassed to be a scot.
#70 by Indy on April 14, 2012 - 11:35 pm
That’s a very revealing comment. Because I can undeerstand why someone might shrug their shoulders and say I’m not really offended by this. But to be embarrassed by the fact that others are?
Might be worth your while working out why that is.
#71 by Doug Daniel on April 15, 2012 - 11:29 pm
Well that may be so, but you’re embarrassed for yourself, which is your prerogative. However, Duncan is claiming to be embarrassed for Scotland – i.e. on the behalf of everyone, even those of us who don’t agree with him – which is exactly the same as claiming to be outraged for Scotland.
So if he’s being ironic, fine; if not, he’s a hypocrite.
#72 by Don McC on April 14, 2012 - 5:04 pm
Duncan, I think this is a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the Unionist parties (and their supporters) falling into a trap and turning this into the disaster Roberston tweeted about.
People are genuinely insulted by that picture. Okay, you think that’s an overreaction. But it’s not just nationalists who are upset and insulted. It’s people who vote for labour, or the lib dems or even tory. It’s people who might have voted No in the referendum. But, you are so scared to be seen to be siding with the nationalists, you dismiss the fact they are insulted. Yeah, they should just grow up, shouldn’t they?
The problem with that attitude is it allows the SNP to claim, yet again, to be the only party standing up for Scotland. This has turned into an own goal, not for the nats, but the the Unionists through their supporters. All it would have taken was a “yeah, no very nice picture, was it?” and job done. Instead, the unionists couldn’t help themselves. Played like a violin.
#73 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 9:10 pm
A debate about what?
Surely there is no debate to be had about the graphic the Economist used to illustrate its front cover.
It was a crass, stupid and offensive error, end of story.
Why does it seem so extraordinarily difficult for you to acknowledge that?
#74 by R Pollock on April 13, 2012 - 12:46 pm
The Economist is a magazine that offers snap shots of situations. It doesn’t purport to give detailed analysis of a topic to the nth degree. This is essentially a snap shot of the arguments against independence. It is not particularly enlightening to anybody engrossed in the topic. However, it is not meant to be. Scottish independence is a reasonably interesting topic and people will take a glancing interest in it all over the world. The Economist aims to give people a critical view of it in an article so many words long. It would be nice if it was more balanced but hey that’s never going to happen.
A lot of the unionist journos and politicos seem to think that the article is damning new stuff. They are annoyed that many in the yes camp merely regard it as “same old stuff”. Well….the thing is….it is “same old stuff”. Are we supposed to pretend it is otherwise? That’s exactly what it is. A summary to the disengaged of the “same old stuff” arguments that we’ve all heard before.
The problem I have with the cover is this: It merely propagates the myth that Scotland is a subsidy junkie, we are of no real value, we couldn’t run a bath. We are not a subsidy junky. That is a fact detailed in their own mag as one of only 3 contributory “regions” of the UK going by the government’s own statistics. This fact will be lost amongst the general laughter at the front cover.
The cover gives off a potent smell that Scotland could not survive on its own. I have lived abroad and the general consensus I’ve heard is that Scotland is a poor place that gets money from England to survive. The figures don’t back this up yet that’s what we get. I could (almost) live with being part of Britain if the general view was more akin to the facts. We are, as it stands, currently a rich part of Britain that has contributed a lot in the past and continues presently. However, I don’t want to be part of a country that pretends otherwise for some self-serving reason. How can we trust them to do the right thing for us if they have such a skewed idea of what Scotland is?
(Probably my worst comment ever but I’m not going back to change it now. I’m struggling to really make the point I want. May come back later.)
#75 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 1:03 pm
No I think that is very well put – and I think that ties in with Jeff’s feeling that if Scotland was actually valued as part of the UK it wouldn’t even occur to them to have done that graphic.
#76 by Greig Aitken on April 13, 2012 - 12:57 pm
One thin para in the main article on Scottish renewables, ending with: “The anticipated fat profits from renewables could prove as elusive as the fabled Loch Ness monster.” Real deep analysis there. Amazed, though not surprised, to see on Twitter Scots hacks fawning over the legendary Economist ‘authoritativeness’ and depth of economic insight. A draft cover of a ‘Scotland island’ hewn off (lots of jagged lines) from the rest of UK and adrift in the Atlantic, with Eck mugged up as Robinson Crusoe and Dave passing him in a deluxe speedboat while quaffing Bolly, has surely been mocked up at Economist HQ already.
#77 by Chris on April 13, 2012 - 1:28 pm
Meanwhile on the same planet
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57403849/borat-anthem-at-sport-event-angers-kazakhstan/
#78 by Alec on April 14, 2012 - 11:33 am
I am deeply sorry that Armenia won’t be participating in this year’s Eurovision in Azerbijan.
~alec
#79 by Dave Coull on April 13, 2012 - 1:42 pm
My wife (an American citizen born and raised in California) has occasionally bought the Economist. She didn’t agree with its right wing politics, but she considered it interesting and informative. My son (born and raised in England) occasionally bought it for similar reasons. But this is ignorant, gutter journalism, and the Economist has lost at least two readers as a result. Can you imagine the outcry there would be in England if some FRENCH or GERMAN magazine published a cover like that with reference to the UK? Some Unionist politicians have referred to “faux outrage” from SNP politicians. Neither my wife nor my son are politicians, neither are supporters of the SNP, and the outrage from them is real, as are their separate individual decisions to stop buying the Economist.
I agree “there’s no reason why this should be an SNP vs unionist issue”. I will be voting for independence in the referendum, but I’m neither a member nor a supporter of the SNP, and I didn’t vote for them in the Scottish Parliament elections.
However, I have to DISAGREE with your view that “the article in the magazine itself is reasonably balanced”.
In my opinion, while not as bad as the cover, the article was also blatantly biased. I have written detailed criticisms which will follow.
#80 by Alec on April 14, 2012 - 11:40 am
>> Can you imagine the outcry there would be in England if some FRENCH or GERMAN magazine published a cover like that with reference to the UK?
As others have said, the Economist has produced similar cover-pieces on just those economies with nary a cheap.
Here is the State of the Union cover which, as far as I know, didn’t result in US State Governors going straight into outrage mode:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/01/indebted-state-of-the-union-economist-cover/
#81 by Alec on April 14, 2012 - 1:19 pm
Although, for accuracy’s sake, the 2001 one about Silvio Berlusconi did elicit a [ultimately failed] defamation case.
~alec
#82 by Dave Coull on April 13, 2012 - 2:16 pm
The ignorant “Economist” article begins by saying that the Darien scheme of 1698 failed, but gives no analysis of WHY it failed. The Darien scheme was the brainchild of William Paterson, who had visited Darien when he was a pirate/privateer with Captain Morgan. Paterson was nobody’s fool – this is the founder of the Bank of England we’re talking about. His plan to establish colonies on both sides of the narrow Panama isthmus, and a land route between them, and so cut thousands of miles off the long sea journey round the southernmost tip of South America, was a far-sighted one. Even before the Panama Canal was built, that was exactly the route taken by most of the folk who took part in the California Gold Rush of 1849 (it being easier and safer than crossing the USA by land). The main reason the venture failed was that Paterson had underestimated the active hostility of the King of England, and the Government and Parliament of England, and the senior ranks of the English navy and army, and of course the East India Company in which all of them, from King William down, were shareholders. The East India Company wanted a monopoly, and regarded the Company of Scotland as a deadly rival to be strangled. The King (who was also the ruler of the Netherlands) let it be known that if anybody on the London, Amsterdam, or Hamburg stock exchanges invested in the Company of Scotland, they would be blacklisted from ever being considered for any contract from the English or Dutch governments. People in the English colonies in the West Indies were ordered not even to trade with the Darien settlers on normal commercial terms, on pain of imprisonment; and English ships were encouraged to harass ships of the Company of Scotland as if they were the enemy.
Nowadays, the government of England just wouldn’t get away with behaving as the government of England did then. Nowadays, the monarch and the royal family being major shareholders in a controversial company seeking to establish a global monopoly by strongarm methods would be rather more controversial. Nowadays, other European governments and their citizens would be less cowed by the government of England than they were then. For these and many other reasons, the comparison with 1698 is not a valid one.
#83 by Craig Gallagher on April 14, 2012 - 7:10 pm
I love this comment more than I know what to do with.
#84 by Edinburgh observer on April 13, 2012 - 2:28 pm
I’m not going to take ‘sides’ – as ever, I feel that both nationalists and unionists have each made some good/fair and some bad/unfair points in this debate. This highlights my overall concern about the referendum debate – neither side are currently convincing me.
However, in the context of “Economist-gate(!)” it may be worth noting that the Economist has form: see http://theeconomist.tumblr.com/post/2959478330/tomorrows-cover-today-the-unions-troubled. I haven’t noticed the good ole USA feeling terribly badly done to.
#85 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 8:01 pm
It might have escaped your attention, but the USA isn’t in the middle of an independence debate, so it’s not a very good comparison…
Also, that cover is on about the current (at that time) state of the USA. It wasn’t gleefully predicting the demise of the US economy if they dared to vote a certain way.
#86 by GMcM on April 13, 2012 - 2:59 pm
Just so you know Labour have rejected the cover as an accurate reflection of an independent Scotland and says the issue is not about Scottish survival post-referendum but about whether or not we would be better off.
Compare that to the nationalist outrage that goes as far as comparing this to making jokes about the Great Hunger in Ireland. A little bit of perspective would be useful here.
I think it’s quite clear who has been the more measured party in response to this matter.
#87 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 7:55 pm
If you’re referring to my comment, it wasn’t a joke about the Great Hunger, it was a criticism of The Economist – I consider this to be as ham-fisted as the suggestions I made would be. In fact, you could take any of the times Alan Partridge managed to insult people through cack-handedness and put it there instead – episode five of series one is particularly ripe pickings.
As for Labour, they’ve not done a very good job of making themselves heard. All I’ve seen from Labour types is the kind of brushing under the carpet we’ve seen from Duncan and co on here.
#88 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2012 - 8:03 pm
Actually, that should have been episode three as I was referring to the farmer insults, although episode five is probably the next in line.
#89 by Gerard on April 13, 2012 - 10:34 pm
DD I’m a massive fan of Alan Partrdige but what you were doing, perhaps not makin fun of the Hunger, was trying to draw parallels with that event and Scotland.
I just think it was poor taste if I’m being honest and think what happened in 19th Century Ireland has no place in this discussion.
I don’t think you were trying to cause offense but as I said, I think it was poor taste.
#90 by Doug Daniel on April 15, 2012 - 11:33 pm
Aye, no offence meant, so sorry if any was caused.
#91 by Indy on April 13, 2012 - 9:13 pm
Most people are entirely unaware that Labour has made any response at all – and they have surely only done so because the SNP did.
Otherwise I fear you wouldn’t even have noticed, far less cared.
#92 by Dave Coull on April 13, 2012 - 3:54 pm
The Economist also trots out the tired old moan about RBS. Fact: The Bank of England is an institution which just happens to have the word “England” in its title, but it was founded by a Scotsman, William Patterson, and 39 other merchants from both EDINBURGH and London. In exchange for loaning King William of Orange 1.2 million pounds to finance his war against France, these merchants were granted the right to print their own promissory notes based on the money that the King now owed them. And yes, they can print more bits of paper any time they like. But increasing the number of bits of paper doesn’t increase wealth. The Royal Bank of Scotland is an institution which just happens to have the word “Scotland” in its title, but it is in fact an international bank. The USA “bailed out” the RBS (as well as various other international banks) in the USA because it was considered to be in the interests of the United States to do so. They were bailing out a dodgy global system from which the USA benefits. The same is true for London, where most of the RBS operations were conducted, under the lax, laisser-faire regime of the City of London and the London Stock Exchange, under the lax, laisser-faire regimes of successive UK governments from Thatcher on which followed Thatcherite policies, and under the lax, laisser-faire approach of the Metropolitan Police. There is no reason to believe any conceivable government of an independent Scotland would be quite so short-sighted as all those lax, laisser-fairists in power in London. So why on Earth should we have to pick up the tab for London’s mistakes?
#93 by Dave Coull on April 13, 2012 - 6:55 pm
The Economist’s bias is shown in its claim that the emphasis has moved from Scotland being part of an “arc of prosperity” and “advocates for independence have pointed instead to the Nordic countries”. There is no “instead” about it. The country to which advocates of independence have all along mostly pointed as an example, the country which is included in both “arc of prosperity” and “the Nordic countries”, is of course Norway. Same size of population, similar in oil wealth, etc etc. But the biased Economist article, which mentions both Ireland and Iceland by name, manages to avoid naming the country which has always been the number one comparison – Norway.
#94 by Iain Menzies on April 13, 2012 - 7:06 pm
Don’t we all believe in the benefits of a free press?
#95 by Indy on April 14, 2012 - 1:26 pm
Totally – and as I said earlier the press have given this story big licks. That is not because of a pro-SNP agenda. It’s because they recognise the graphic was an insult to Scots and they don’t have any reason to pretend otherwise.
#96 by Don McC on April 14, 2012 - 5:07 pm
Yeah, the press should be free to print whatever they like, regardless of how truthful or insulting it is.
#97 by Robert Seaton on April 13, 2012 - 10:46 pm
Images can have great influence. The Economist’s cover of the late 80s showing the peoples of Yugoslavia as enemy tribes was influential in persuading the Tory politicians of the time (Rifkind, Hurd being particularly guilty) that they should not intervene to prevent the revanchist Serb government from seeking to dominate and subdue its neighbours. Is this more of the same?
#98 by Alec on April 14, 2012 - 10:41 am
Even if that were so, Robert, we now have access to a much greater range of such images.
Also, Rifkind et al. descended into a hysteria which went much deeper. I don’t mean this is the Internet-sense of “a blog piece which I don’t agree with and will start making non-hysterical hyperventilated comments about”, I mean this is the sense of bizarre open-air tantrums… such as Rifkind (never seen even National Service) howling at US Senators that they didn’t understand “the horror of war” (including Bob Dole, who’d lost an arm in the Second World War) and almost getting decked by John McCain for his revolting behaviour.
~alec
#99 by Allan on April 14, 2012 - 12:38 am
Not really sure what’s so offensive about the cover, after all if/when Gideon Osborne is finished “fixing” the economy we’ll all be living in “skintland”…
I suppose the debate about “The Economist’s” article says it all about where the Independence debate is at the moment, that the flare up occured about a cover on a magazine. Of course, maybe thats because the Anglocentric media is so far behind the curve on this story, that Jeff probably blogged about it in his SNP-TV days.
#100 by Grahamski on April 14, 2012 - 9:21 am
Anybody who reacts as furiously as Mr Salmond did to this piece of clumsy joshing has issues.
A confident person at ease with him or herself should be big enough to take this on the chin.
That Mr Salmond and many in his party are incapable of doing so, while not surprising, is certainly disappointing.
#101 by Alec on April 14, 2012 - 10:35 am
Yes, Grahamski.
Two bald men fighting over a comb springs to mind.
~alec
#102 by Indy on April 14, 2012 - 1:33 pm
You guys are just regretting now that you weren’t more decisive in your initial response.
You see it is a perfectly natural human reaction to feel offended when your country is ridiculed and insulted.
And that’s a natural reaction whether or not you support independence.
That’s the reason so many papers in Scotland have run this story.
The question therefore is why was Labour so much on the back foot in responding to this? Is it perhaps because they don’t feel confident or at ease in themselves in articulating any sentiment which could be interpreted as nationalistic?
#103 by Alec on April 14, 2012 - 9:02 pm
Speak for your own interpretations. Secondly, Salmond is not a member of the public… he’s the FM, so that places a certain degree of responsibility on his head which mere bloggers are unencumbered with.
I’d prefer an FM who said summat like “we are confident that an independent Scotland would prove these predictions wrong, and here is how”.
~alec
#104 by Observer on April 15, 2012 - 8:52 am
I think you are missing the point – it’s important to establish that the level of contempt shown in that picture is not acceptable. There will be a debate about the economics of independence but it will be a grown up one and the kind of sneering condescension displayed by the Economist front cover will not be tolerated by the SNP.
#105 by Alec on April 15, 2012 - 6:53 pm
Again, speak for your own interpretations.
This stramash began with the sub-text that this was a unique attack on Scottish affairs… before it was observed that this is par for the course with Economist cover pictures. And a lot milder than some.
Grown-up countries – even grown-up US States – were able to brush those aside.
Then there was the sincerely held belief – not just in this thread – that UK-wide Parties had been complicit in the picture. Maybe this was lack of thought, maybe it was the presumption that those Parties controlled the Fourth Estate ‘cos that’s what the SNP wish to do (there is summat fundamentally creepy about any national political leader, with all the power and access to media outlets this entails, demanding that one publication recant a critical piece).
Who knows? Either way, any belief that UK-wide Parties were involved was utterly wrong.
And, it looks as if the SNP realizes they’ve over-reached, as seen with Sturgeon on C4 News last night – Salmond being kept offstage – saying, to the effect, that the conversation should move-on from perceptions of the cover picture.
Sorry, old bean, it never would have been there in the first place had it not been for Salmond, Robertson and others. Objecting to negative coverage of the SNP’s response strikes as a child who’s eaten too much cake and is crying because their stomach hurts.
There is no other way to put this… the orchestrated reaction to this was wrong-headed from the start, and can be seen to have been accepted as wrong-headed. Changing the terms of comparison is not a sign of honest debate.
Not to be thought to be on the back-foot, though, Sturgeon slipped in a plaintive plea to understand how offensive “communities in Scotland” found this.
Has she asked them/us? No. As Duncan said at the opening of the thread, the SNP is not the arbiter of all Scottish opinion. Criticism of the SNP is not a synonymous with anti-Scottish sentiment.
By all means talk-up the intrinsic qualities of Scotland and her inhabitants. When the debate becomes one of bleating about being hard-done by from Westminster (another piece from the edition of the Economist shows that this is as refutable as any claim that Scotland is a tax-drain) or demanding blatantly dishonest separation packages (such as per capita share of toxic debt from banks previously touted as Scottish which – like a reverse of anecdotal news report of a successful British sportsman becoming Scottish on defeat – have become British or, better, England-based; whilst expecting geographic-based share of oil revenue) it has poisoned the attitude towards Scotland south of the border as Shuggy has experienced.
Well, poisoned further… I remember being jeered at and spat at in the 1980s ‘cos of my so-called English accent.
It’s not an English accent. It’s identifiable as Scottish to anyone who’s not Scottish and quite a few who are. There is an insular, truncated, bigoted subset of Scottish identity which finds it offensive.
In light of this, Salmond’s risible afterthought that his ire was being directed at the Economist ‘cos he wouldn’t dream of insulting the people of England the way this English publication (sic) just had insulted Scotland was doubly offensive.
Not to mention asinine, puerile and redolent of a complete lack of seriousness.
~alec
#106 by Dave Coull on April 14, 2012 - 10:15 am
Okay. It’s just a magazine. A magazine with an offensive cover and ignorant content. A magazine with declining circulation which has decided to go for the disaffected Sun reader type. (Specifically, to go after readers of the English “Sun”, since the Scottish “Sun” also owned by Murdoch has a completely different policy.) But it’s a magazine which is considered by many in London and the London-centric media to be a “quality” magazine. That such a magazine can be so offensive, and so ignorant, about Scotland, and yet seem quite “normal” to them (because they share so many of its offensive atttitudes and its ignorant assumptions), shows that the United Kingdom is indeed finished. If one party in a marriage habitually takes it for granted that the other party is just a sponger who contributes nothing, then separation and/or divorce is gauranteed.
#107 by Iain Menzies on April 14, 2012 - 2:48 pm
You do realise that the Economist is an international magazine and not just an english publication yeah?
#108 by Angus McLellan on April 14, 2012 - 11:10 pm
The cover isn’t international though (and the content varies a bit too between markets).
The Economist has, I feel, dumbed down a bit. Not quite Sun levels though … At one time I’d have bought it as an essential part of my long-distance travel kit. These days Architectural Digest has replaced it in my affections and I’d probably buy (or better yet cadge) the WSJ or FT instead for news.
#109 by Alec on April 15, 2012 - 9:48 am
Oi, less of the the Sun bashing! It’s a competently written newspaper which appeals to a particular demographic and set of interests, not least one which is more interested in sport than highfalutin current affairs matters.
Using it as a synonym for anything which is objectionable, and by extension ridiculing the large section of the population which reads it, is linked to the causes of distrust felt by the general public towards the political ruling class and wannabe political ruling class whom they cannot or do not want to distinguish between.
The Economist remains a good resource for snap-shots, as someone above said, on current affairs matters which, if I want to, I can look into further. But, yes, the FT is the sole consistently good daily newspaper… shame it’s now £2.50.
Hadn’t heard of the Agricultural Digest. Is it this one?
Yes, this should be reinforced. The suggestion that anything more than a fraction of the customers at those outlets with do stock it have seen the cover (and are so lacking in discernment that they’ve gone for their pitchforks) is duff enough, but the implication that it’s been broadcast across the globe is based either on shooting from the hip or deliberate misrepresentation.
~alec
#110 by Angus McLellan on April 17, 2012 - 11:11 pm
That’s the one Alec. Frightfully posh in an American way.
As for the FT’s ridiculous cover price, that’s why you’re better trying to blag a copy. Usually easy enough in an airport. And I don’t have a problem with the Sun. Best written tabloid by a mile. I always read it first when I go for a haircut.
#111 by andrewgraemesmith on April 15, 2012 - 1:09 am
The decision to use that cover image was obviously a commcercially driven one as well as a political one. Being as Scotland is 10% of the UK we can assume that Scots are unlikley to make up more than 5% of the total readership of the magazine (i’m assuming a disproportionate readership in London).
I wasn’t offended by the cover because it’s clearly a purposefully provocative satirical design, and from the looks of the response it’s got it has probably increased their circulation. I don’t agree with the senimtents of the cover, but I also don’t think that it’s good practice for any Government to be releasing statements on a magazine cover, it just strikes me as being a bit petty.
In terms of the response of the unionist parties, I don’t understand why any of them even attempted to engage in a debate on it, a much better response would have been ti simply say that it doesnt represent their viewpoint and they don’t think it’s the sort of thing that warrants a serious response.
Pingback: Oh, to still be on holiday… – Scottish Roundup
#112 by Longshanker on April 15, 2012 - 10:55 am
Iain Menzies
I’m glad there are guys like you around.
Covers like this are the Economist’s stock in trade. It made me laugh, I even like the cleverness of some of the neologistic puns.
I’m not embarrassed to be Scots, but I am embarrassed for some of the Scots making the most laugably ludicrous and insecure comments I’ve read in a long time.
They’re unbelievably funny and confirm that some Nationalist are straight out of the People’s Front of Judea party.
And I’d like to read the dictionaries of the people making risible claims that the cover is racist.
#113 by jmanonsun on April 15, 2012 - 11:27 am
I suggest we actually start giving out awards for this sort of unionist stuff. What about a Jump the Salmon(d) award?
#114 by Hugh MacDiarmid on April 15, 2012 - 11:33 am
Haven’t read all the comments yet so maybe this has already been covered, but Duncan Hothersall’s remark…
“First, this is the UK Economist cover only, the international edition has something about the US presidential race, so your argument that this will somehow jade the view of Scotland around the world is mistaken.”
caught my eye.
I live and work in Shanghai, China, and I can assure him that I and my colleagues, both expat and Chinese, are fully aware of the Economist cover (the Scottish one).
There’s this thing called the Internet…
#115 by Dave Coull on April 15, 2012 - 8:16 pm
Alec 106, I belong to neither the political ruling class nor the wannabe political ruling class. I am a bricklayer, although, at age 70, a tired, or retired, bricklayer. As for “less of the Sun bashing”, having frequently had my own choice of reading matter mocked in building site canteens (and given as good as I got), I think I’m perfectly entitled to bash the Sun as much as I damn well like. And of course millions of people around the world have seen that cover. Haven’t you heard of the internet? Party politicians like Salmond may think their verbal protest enough. Personally, I think a bit of good old fashioned direct action is called for.
#116 by Dave Coull on April 15, 2012 - 8:26 pm
Observer 102, you say “the kind of sneering condescension displayed by the Economist front cover will not be tolerated by the SNP”. However, members of that political party will be restricted in their response by the very fact that they are a political party. But this cover designed by one of the hooray-Henries of the Bullingdon Club has caused widespread offence amongst the general public in Scotland including amongst folk who are not likely to be as restricted in their response as the SNP.
#117 by Alec on April 16, 2012 - 2:53 pm
>> However, members of that political party will be restricted in their response by the very fact that they are a political party.
It hasn’t stopped them.
>> But this cover designed by one of the hooray-Henries of the Bullingdon Club has caused widespread offence amongst the general public in Scotland including amongst folk who are not likely to be as restricted in their response as the SNP.
Again, amongst whom? There is a lot of construction of fantasies going on here.
~alec
#118 by Alec on April 16, 2012 - 2:59 pm
>> I think I’m perfectly entitled to bash the Sun as much as I damn well like.
And, by extension, I’m jolly well entitled to respond to you.
Furthermore, I was not defending the Sun‘s position. I was responding to the characterization of it as poorly written (it’s not) and the fare for thickies (which suggests a loathing of the masses often found amongst those who think they are in touch with a profound insight into the world).
>> And of course millions of people around the world have seen that cover. Haven’t you heard of the internet?
Let’s say three millions have, and they all lack the discernment you have to see through it. That leaves thousands of millions who haven’t.
Perhaps it’s the minority of who obsessively pour over political blogs who have mistaken their level of emotion on a subject for actual, groundswell opinion.
~alec
#119 by Dave Coull on April 16, 2012 - 5:17 pm
Alec wrote “I’m jolly well entitled to respond to you”. Of course you are. That’s so obvious it didn’t need saying. Unlike MY response to YOUR peremptory instruction “less of the Sun bashing”, which really DID need saying. So far as the quality of factual writing is concerned, there are two different aspects to this. (1) Knowledge, and (2) Readability. You need both for something to be good quality writing. Some of the most knowledgeable thinkers have been very bad at communicating their thoughts in a readable style. On the other hand, something can be very readable, and yet sloppy so far as knowledge based on research is concerned. My criticism of that Economist article (as distinct from their ridiculous cover) is that it displayed a sloppiness of research and understanding more usually associated with the likes of the Sun than with an allegedly “quality” magazine. As for “out of touch with the masses”, how many years did YOU spend working on building sites?
#120 by Alec on April 17, 2012 - 6:40 pm
I think you have to click your heels together three times to make the Economist article “an insult to Scotland” (Tm.).
Fact is, this stramash began and ended in the Twitter/blogosphere. By the time Nicola Sturgeon was on Channel4 News on Saturday she was imploring people to move-on from the situation her Party had sought to create.
The print and broadcast media has forgotten about this, if ever they knew about it. They haven’t even been dwelling on it as a means to criticize the SNP.
Much as you might want to see an uprising in Scotland against the Economist as News International experienced, it hasn’t happened.
There are two possible conclusions to take from this Either the masses in Scotland just aint as intelligent or insightful as you are – the MSN is pretty crafty to have pulled the wool over their eyes, but you’re more so ‘cos you’ve seen through it sort-of-thing – or, and I personally think this is far more likely, they simply are not fussed about one cover images on a minor newspaper with an established reputation for scatological and caustic satirical cover pictures.
Wait, what is this? Only people who’ve worked on building sites can claim to speak for the common man?
Duncan said it above… don’t presume things about your opposite numbers. You don’t know my work record. I, on the other hand, know you and others have been using the Sun as a byword for semi-literate, poorly presented fare.
(Others have said the Economist was worse than what “lunatics” might produce. Great. Insulting the mentally ill as well.)
It is written to a high standard of prose, and is slickly presented. Speaking of it in the way it has been in this thread does smack of snobbery because the implication is that stupid, gullible people read it.
When you were working on the coal-face, did you ever tell your many colleagues who read it what you thought of their intellectual capacity? Did they tell you what they thought of being lorded over by someone who thought he was much more insightful than they?
~alec
#121 by Robin on April 22, 2012 - 12:55 am
Dave Coull, excellent posts which put The Economist to shame.
The reason the likes of The Economist and BBC Scotland publish lies, distortions, half truths and biased articles is they know they can get away with it.
There must be thousands of people capable of challenging their distortions but they do not have a platform to do so. If the same people who read the distortions could also read the repudiation of the distortions by knowledgeable and objective commentators, the reputations of the likes of The Economist and BBC Scotland would be in tatters within a very short period of time. That is the ONLY reason why BBC Scotland has banned comments on its articles.
#122 by Dave Coull on April 22, 2012 - 6:47 pm
Thanks, Robin. The Economist has a habit of being on the wrong side of history. Towards the end of the American Civil War, after Sherman had taken Atlanta and Savannah and everybody else could see that, while American industry was booming, the US blockade of Southern ports had doomed the economy of what was left of the Confederacy, The Economist was still insisting that the slave-owners of the South could win. Basically, The Economist’s reactionary instincts tend to triumph over common sense. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. On the other hand, Dr Jim Walker, a globally-respected economist who is head of the Asianomics economics consultancy in Hong Kong, says this is just “par for the course in what the magazine laughingly calls ‘analysis’. Happily for us, while its economics editor titters on his Twitter account about the political reaction in Scotland to his portrayal of Scotland as being impoverished (the only oil-rich country on the planet to be seen as such) it is just one more reason for Scots to look at the bankrupt policies of the British state and its one-dimensional economic policy managers and say: ‘Bring on the 2014 independence referendum’. We know which way we shall be voting.” (mind you, he’ll have to come home from Hong Kong if he wants to vote……)