Banner

General

By G.A.Ponsonby
 
A magazine has caused outrage after a map to be published on its front cover re-named Scotland ‘Skintland’.
 
The map of Scotland, which is featured by London based Economist magazine, shows Scotland surrounded by islands and regions each given derogatory names which suggest a lack of finances.

The capital city Edinburgh is re-named ‘Edinborrow’ whilst the Highlands are renamed the ‘Highinterestlands’ and the lowlands renamed ‘Loanlands’.

The map was revealed in a tweet by the SNP’s Angus Robertson.  The MP claimed that the map is to feature on the front page of the UK edition of the Economist this weekend.

Mr Robertson’s party colleague, Humza Yousaf, reacted to the image by suggesting it would increase support for Scottish independence.  “Being called 'Skintland' by the London-based Economist?! That should add a few more percent to the 'Yes' vote”, he re-tweeted.

The magazine headline accompanying the ‘map’ proclaims ‘It’ll cost you – the price of Scottish independence’

In the mock image, Scotland’s oil and gas rich regions are also given derogatory names with the Orkney and Shetland islands called the ‘Orkward Islands’ and the ‘Shutland Islands’, the latter has a sub note saying it is ‘leased to Norway’.

The image conforms to stereotypes of Scotland as promoted by a London centric media which promotes the idea of the Northern subsidy junkie living off of the wealth of our Southern neighbours.

However despite the 'subsidy' myth having been disproved by countless studies and official reports, it continues to persist not least due to claims made by Scottish born Unionist politicians and news media here in Scotland.

The Times Scottish political editor Angus Macleod complained that the SNP reaction to the front cover was an “over-reaction”, tweeting:  “The Economist cover is juvenile but is the SNP over-reaction a tactic to divert people from the thoughtful piece inside.”

SNP MEP Alyn Smith called the front page cover a “publicity stunt” and called on SNP supporters to “1. tweet less; 2. www.snp/join; 3. Contact your local branch and come help campaign!”

Comments  

 
# clootie 2012-04-12 22:31
yahoo more members and votes.
 
 
# fynesider 2012-04-13 09:45
Can they not be sued by the Scottish Govt.?

This is surely racist?
 
 
# Keep UTG 2012-04-12 22:34
If Angus McLeod thinks the article was "thoughtful" then journalism has definitely went down the pan.
 
 
# doonhamer 2012-04-13 01:10
Quoting Keep UTG:
If Angus McLeod thinks the article was "thoughtful" then journalism has definitely went down the pan.


Angus McLeod would need to climb out the spout before he fell in the pan,.
 
 
# Dances With Haggis 1320 2012-04-13 11:34
Its not just in print they are doing it, they have this video full of falsehoods on youtube
www.youtube.com/.../
 
 
# Arthur G 2012-04-13 13:00
'gone' downhill, surely?
 
 
# tartanpigsy 2012-04-12 22:38
s0.2mdn.net/.../...

These are details for their recruitment departments, the best I could find, I've already contacted London however on reflection I think direct contact to The States is probably better, this piece is disrespectful, bordering on racist, let alone a pile of lies and nonsense .... let them know
 
 
# Vincent McDee 2012-04-13 12:59
The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC.

A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England, owns the rest.

A board of trustees formally appoints the editor, who cannot be removed without its permission.

In addition, about two thirds of the 75 staff journalists are based in London, despite the global emphasis.

From wiki: en.wikipedia.org/.../...
 
 
# Macart 2012-04-12 22:41
Its a ripsnorter of a cover, as are the two articles. Oh woe are we poor Scots, financial basket cases and incapable of tying our shoe laces without the wise and wonderful financial sector that is the city of London.

Laugh at them, pat them on the head and wish them all a fond farewell.

Another 1000 votes guaranteed. :)
 
 
# gt-cri 2012-04-13 10:51
Quoting Macart:
Laugh at them, pat them on the head and wish them all a fond farewell.


Nice wee soundbite that, Macart! Mind if I nick it for the F/book share?
 
 
# Macart 2012-04-13 16:22
Fire away gt, here tae help. :)
 
 
# gt-cri 2012-04-13 16:55
Done! Got a few likes too- another couple of "Don't Cares" influenced. Thanks!
 
 
# Macart 2012-04-13 17:19
Great stuff gt, although after this howler they'll be queuing up to convert. :D
 
 
# Kiltshy 2012-04-13 17:04
Thats not all Macart once we vote for Independence they can kiss their AAA credit status goodbye, as we disappear round the corner with all gas & oil reserves We will have the last laugh when they ask for our help to dig them out of the hole that they will find themselves in.
 
 
# Macart 2012-04-13 17:24
Very true Kiltshy, still we've got to remember ourselves that the oil and gas is finite. I reckon though, that we'll make far better use of those reserves for however long they last, whether it's twenty years or a hundred. As it is the UKs AAA is on a shoogly peg, without that resource rich wee nation underpinning their finance sector they're going to require some nifty footwork post referendum. No more spend, spend, spend.
 
 
# Barontorc 2012-04-12 22:41
We now see proof that the anti-Scots headline is thought more effective than the following text, yet, an old hard-nosed journo Angus McLeod tries to spin-it as "juvenile". What he should be saying is that it's a racist slur and sheer effrontery. He's dropped a notch in my estimation.
 
 
# Christian_Wright 2012-04-12 22:45
"Times political editor Angus McLeod [sic] complained that the SNP reaction to the front cover was an “over-reaction”"

I don't know. Certainly it reinforces the ethnic/racial stereotype of the freeloading Scots. In that sense the cover is arguably, offensive, derogatory and demeaning.

Angus Macleod's divination that the SNP reaction is "a tactic to divert people from the thoughtful piece inside”, is remarkable, evinces his deep prejudice, and appears pulled whole and unadulterated, from that orifice wherein the sun don't shine.

Mr MacLeod can be a sensitive soul of course when he imagines an insult to himself.

scotcourts.gov.uk/.../...
 
 
# weegie38 2012-04-13 06:45
Quoting Christian_Wrigh t:
Angus Macleod's divination that the SNP reaction is "a tactic to divert people from the thoughtful piece inside”, is remarkable, evinces his deep prejudice, and appears pulled whole and unadulterated, from that orifice wherein the sun don't shine.

MacLeod ignores the fact that the cover itself torpedoes any "thoughtfulness" the articles within may have. By drawing the readers' attention via a stereotype-reinforcing image, readers will be framed to read it according to their perception of the stereotype. Poor journalism from both MacLeod and the Economist, in neither case unexpected.
 
 
# Christian_Wright 2012-04-13 11:37
" . .readers will be framed to read it according to their perception of the stereotype. "

Indeed. The magazine cover picture does paint a thousand words, most defamatory and none promising thoughtful analysis within.

Content and cover then, are well matched, despite MacLeod's protestations to the contrary.
 
 
# Hing em high 2012-04-12 22:49
I am probably repeating myself from another article but it is offensive and racist. If the Brit Nats amongst us cant see that then they clearly have severe problems.

I welcome all the the converts to the Yes cause on the back of this and I will spread this to everyone I know including die hard Brits!
 
 
# McHaggis 2012-04-12 22:51
Change the map to Africa and put as many derogatory re-naming of countries and cities and gauge the reaction.

I always said Scotland would get independence not through the actions of the likes of the SNP alone, but that England would need to give up on us as well. At this point, I consider they have now done this.
 
 
# Hing em high 2012-04-12 23:02
Do that for Europe or any other part of the world! The reaction would be lost trade or worse!

It seems they no longer give a damn. It is more than just arrogance though there is a disturbing underlying racial belief that they still rule the waves.
 
 
# richardcain2 2012-04-13 06:04
Exactly. Just imagine if someone did something similar for England. What claims of small-minded, xenophobic parochialism would ensue!
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-04-13 09:25
Saw this on another board:

DIRELAND over a map of Ireland...

Offensive?

You bet!
 
 
# Thistle_2014 2012-04-13 07:57
The map from a supposadly serious publication is a disgrace.

It reminds me of the Tory Atlas of the World from the Spitting Image annual from the 1980's sending up the Tories.

.../toryatlasoftheworld2.jpg
 
 
# A_Scottish_Voice 2012-04-13 08:51
Very good point McHaggis. I too have been angered for a long time with the amount of racist anti Scottish sentiment that comes from South of the border, English programmes and comedians.

For some reason it seems to be fair game to have a pop at the Scots, and because of the media set up being unidirectional with no way to respond, we just have to take it on the chin and be “grateful “ for the pocket money they give us.

However, due to the unprecedented achievement of the SNP in the Scottish elections last year, we now have a once in a lifetime chance in two years time to answer back and have our voices heard.

Let’s make sure they hear us
 
 
# megsmaw 2012-04-13 20:11
The red lion awakes!
 
 
# Adrian B 2012-04-12 22:57
I'll save a copy of this and fire it straight back to them on the tenth anniversary of Scottish Independence.
 
 
# J Wil 2012-04-12 23:13
Just as well there are not too many Scots read this publication, but it should amuse the English - for a short time at least.
 
 
# Dancemaster 2012-04-13 00:00
Quoting J Wil:
Just as well there are not too many Scots read this publication, but it should amuse the English - for a short time at least.


The worry is that many will read it online as so much focus is being placed on it. It is already dominating the Scotsman forum.
 
 
# J Wil 2012-04-13 08:13
Just go out and ask one or two friends and colleagues what they think about the Economist front page. My typical response is a blank look.
 
 
# rhymer 2012-04-13 11:03
Dance aster
The worry is that many will read it online as so much focus is being placed on it. It is already dominating the Scotsman forum.

The Scotsman just lost it's editor in chief
(I wonder if that will change their political bias)
 
 
# Dances With Haggis 1320 2012-04-13 16:36
"The Scotsman just lost it's editor in chief(I wonder if that will change their political bias)"


I doubt it..Hope springs eternal
 
 
# pa_broon74 2012-04-12 23:38
I suspect people at The Economist know how devastating Scotland leaving the Union will be for what remains.

This is their pathetic attempt, a kicking & screaming tantrum that they think will simultaneously scare us back to the fold and bolster British confidence in what is a thoroughly defunct union.

Its a big old meh from me.
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-04-12 23:47
This was doing the rounds on twitter long before Angus Robertson brought it to the fore but its good he highlighted it as the disgusting piece it is.

It matters not what the content of the article is, since the readers mind will have been conditioned to look for negative connections.
 
 
# Am Fògarrach 2012-04-13 00:11
Quoting Sleekit:
This was doing the rounds on twitter long before Angus Robertson brought it to the fore but its good he highlighted it as the disgusting piece it is.

It matters not what the content of the article is, since the readers mind will have been conditioned to look for negative connections.


Sleekit, I am afraid you are correct. I just read the leader, which is negative in several places, but I don't have time to read the articles at the moment. I will be doing that soon.
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-04-13 00:27
Then when reviewing please pay close attention to the removal of Norway from the Arc Of Prosperity, and various other already rebuffed points such as EU membership.

But MOST OF ALL....

Look at the closing line!

"Edinburgh was once known as the Athens of the North due to its architecture, it would be a pity for it to be known as such again for other reasons" (Or thereabouts - working off memory)
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-04-13 09:19
You have to wonder at people who landed a job whereby they get to spend hours of their day dreaming up negatives about another country and reinforcing stereotypes.

I read the economist piece and there were a few flaws in their argument:

1) They brought up the Darien Scheme (again) as some sort of proof of an inherent flaw in the ability of Scots to survive independently.

2) When discussing the ‘Arc of Prosperity’ they did not mention Norway.

3) They claimed that small countries have suffered worst in the Global Recession – Norway, Sweeden, Netherlands, Denmark etc… not mentioned as evidence in contrary to that statement.

4) They assert that Scotland would suffer due to volatility in Oil prices and that its almost gone anyway… where have I heard that before?

5) They assert that Post Oil (50+ Years from now), Scotland would struggle to fill the gap in taxation by assuming that the wider economy will not be transformed by the investment possible from controlling our own taxation and resources.

6) They regurgitate the myth that Scotland will not be a member of the EU upon independence.

7) They roll out the line that Scotland would have been responsible for the entire Bank Bailout, when in actuallity the debts that would have accrued to Scotland would have amounted for only around 5%. The debts were covered by the countries in which they were liable, i.e. England (due to London Banking).

8) They assert that as such, Scotlands Financial sector would collapse. This is strange since Edinburgh is one of the largest financial centres in the world, ranked within the top 20 at least. This is international banking and as such would not have disrupted the Scottish Economy, except for short term loss of Corporation Tax (If the banks hadn’t avoided it already)

9) They then go on to cast aspersion on the Scots by saying that Edingburgh was once known as the “Athens of the North” for its architecture, before saying it would be known in the future as the “Athens of the North” for its economic collapse.

The piece is biased from the get go and most importantly (and ironically given that it is the Economist)…

THEY DO NOT PROVIDE ANY DATA OR FIGURES OR QUOTES TO BACK UP THEIR ASSERTIONS.

Their analysis is as useful as a conversation overheard in a lift!
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-04-13 09:20
Read it for yourself here:

economist.com/.../...
 
 
# Embradon 2012-04-13 10:07
It appears that "The Economist" is an oxymoron.
 
 
# Holebender 2012-04-13 11:54
Maybe the name means economical with the truth?
 
 
# Dances With Haggis 1320 2012-04-13 17:58
Sleekit..Due to typing laziness [rather than lack of knowlege] I used a good portion of yer post in answer to the drivel in the article using the comments section of the Economist.

As it is for the cause i thought you would not mind. Its not an attempt to plagerise yer fine work its just that typing is so laborious for me and i would have just said the same thing anyway. so I hope yae take it as a compliment as I have when others have used some of my posts in the past..Cheers M8
 
 
# Robabody 2012-04-13 21:42
Anent no 6 - EU member? No probs for me but then, that's just me
 
 
# oldnat 2012-04-12 23:51
The categorisation of the Orkneys as the "Orkward Isles" only works if you use a Southern English accent, with their "intrusive 'r'".

Sadly, London is so introspective, that they don't realise how parochial they are.
 
 
# Dancemaster 2012-04-12 23:59
'London Based Magazine'?

I think we need a new headline writer.
 
 
# ubinworryinmasheep 2012-04-13 00:09
en.wikipedia.org/.../...

Ok Wilkipedia is unreliable sometimes but unless you know different.
 
 
# Dances With Haggis 1320 2012-04-13 18:08
Wikipedia is accurate [citation needed]

seriously I'm a big fan of wiki its good for quick first reference before advancing on to more authoritive sources some of which most Wiki pages have links too. Heres an idea, a Scottish wikipedia page devoted soley to explaining Scots independence and exploding Brit nat lies, It could be based around NNS Unionist Lexicon to start with.

So any good typist researchers with time on there hands out there?

Wikipedia is accurate [citation needed]

seriously I'm a big fan of wiki its good for quick first reference before advancing on to more athoritive sources some of which most Wiki pages have links too. Heres an idea, a Scottish wikipedia page devoted soley to explaining Scots independence and exploding Brit nat lies, It could be based around NNS Unionist Lexicon to start with.

So any good typist researchers with time on there hands out there?
 
 
# megsmaw 2012-04-13 20:24
Sounds good. I have loads of time on my hands and can type quickly - I'm not a typist researcher, but point me in the right direction and I'll help anyway I can. :D
 
 
# oldnat 2012-04-13 00:09
Or perhaps new posters! While The Economist is a world wide publication, its home office is in London and two thirds of its journalists are based there.

Few Americans would have come up with "Orkward" as a meaningful concept.
 
 
# Sleekit 2012-04-13 00:28
The American Issue is runnng a different cover
 
 
# Am Fògarrach 2012-04-13 00:05
I just checked the 14 April online at economist.com. It contains a leader and two articles on Scotland but the cover is nothing like the one shown in this article. They must have chickened out.
 
 
# Hing em high 2012-04-13 00:09
They are a bit late if they have!
 
 
# shackled to a corpse 2012-04-13 00:11
They do different covers for different "regions". This is the UK cover.

Here's the article: www.economist.com/.../21552572
 
 
# oldnat 2012-04-13 00:18
It's always remarkable that these British articles refer to our share of the UK debt, while making no mention of our equivalent share of the UK assets.

As Frank Sinatra sang many years syne - "You can't have one without the other".
 
 
# ubinworryinmasheep 2012-04-13 01:51
Quote:
It's always remarkable that these British articles refer to our share of the UK debt, while making no mention of our equivalent share of the UK assets.


It must be true. All the unionist posters on FB believe we will get nothing when we leave. One question I have been asked is 'Where will we get the money for an armed forces ? ' ...Honestly some of them are either ignorant or just being stupid on purpose.
 
 
# scottish_skier 2012-04-13 15:19
"It's always remarkable that these British articles refer to our share of the UK debt, while making no mention of our equivalent share of the UK assets."

Yes, we own 8.4% of e.g. this (Paris Embassy):
i642.photobucket.com/.../...

This nice pad too:
usa2011.chchchoir.org/.../...

And of course 8.4% of these:
cdn2.spiegel.de/.../...

And 8.4% of what's left of this:
news.bbc.co.uk/.../...

etc, etc....

And unless we get our 8.4%, then we won't accept any debt. There is no way an independent Scotland can be forced to take on any UK debt as that is in the form of 'UK' bonds etc - no mention of the scottish treasury/government on them. Any debt we take on would be a debt to the rUK unless we borrowed from elsewhere to pay our share off to Westminster.

So, what we do is we take our 8.4% of all those lovely, luxurious embassies, nuclear submarines etc and use the cash to pay of as much debt as possible. We just need a nice wee office in e.g. Paris - maybe we can share this more modest pad with Ireland for example...

dfa.ie/.../picture%20006.jpg
 
 
# Dances With Haggis 1320 2012-04-13 18:15
How much would we get for Trident on
e-bay?
 
 
# doonhamer 2012-04-13 01:27
The article is nothing more than a regurgitation of the usual half-truths, innuendos, smears and unionist propaganda points that we have all seen many times before. It is so unsupported an article that any attempt to refute the fantasies is hardly worth the effort. A sad attempt to play to the prejudices of the diminishing London readership.
 
 
# Kinghob 2012-04-13 00:23
Times "Scottish" Political Editor Angus McLeod complained “The Economist cover is juvenile but..........."

Hoho-you didn't get a say then! Mere Scottish editor as you are-and that is why Angus can't argue for this kindergarten articulation of gung-ho unionism, he is not only supporting juvenile journalism but defending it as a subordinate, a 'young yin with nay say'......and proud of it!

Away you go you half wit.

Don't insult the intellect of your Scottish readers (how many or perhaps better how few?) as we look on the accompanying articles as comic book rhetoric, a joke in fact and far from an insult as you rail against those you actually fear.

In a small mind this 'big' news about Scotland as 'Skintland' is worth defending with your fantastic pseudo Mash/Onion effort that accompanies it, but ultimately David Cameron and "we inhabitants of Scotland " know the revenue Scotland brings to the union is not that bad that you want to get rid of Skintland ..............quite yet.

Oh no.

Scotland produces money a plenty.

I do not find this pathetic potentially antagonistic nonsense offensive at all, just another nail in the unionist coffin as negativity always is ultimately an off putting thing lacking imagination but easy to do.

Keep it going.

Kinghob
 
 
# dundie 2012-04-13 05:43
Couldm't agree more, Kinghob. Let them keep it up. He who laughs last, etc., and juvenile insults like this merely serve to demonstrate the paucity of the unionist argument against independence.
 
 
# lambiejay7 2012-04-13 00:59
The name Skintland will be more appropreate to England when we get our Independence,
to quote the old song oh how we'll miss you tonight. ( and from then on )
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-04-13 01:07
AFAIK those part of England which qualify are already skint just now, a symptom of the same affliction Scotland is suffering from, Westminster.
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 03:47
Indeed. Are there any good graphic people who can create a similar image of England??? Come independence, and Scotland can no longer be milked by London, it is England that is likely to be 'skint'.
 
 
# Jim1320 2012-04-13 07:57
Don't think we should stoop to their level. The argument in favour of independence is about social democracy and economics and is robust. It doesn't need childish nonsense like this. Let the Unionists play in the sand pit of abuse and scaremongering. It is all they have.
 
 
# Macart 2012-04-13 09:09
I've been generating digital maps for decades, but I don't think I could clean my hands enough after stooping to that level RL. Lets leave the dirty stuff to them.
 
 
# megsmaw 2012-04-13 20:41
If I had my desktop up an running I'd make one just for my own amusement! No online publishing, just for me!
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-04-13 01:05
Ahh the economist, to quote author Michael Lewis, “The magazine is written by young people pretending to be old people, if American readers got a look at the pimply complexions of their economic gurus, they would cancel their subscriptions in droves."

Obviously they got sick of constantly having a go at Amnesty International for having the cheek to point out human rights abuses.
 
 
# amcl 2012-04-13 01:41
Pardon me if I'm not offended. As somebody said on Twitter, the funny part of this is imagining the pimply-faced gurus (thanks pmcrek!) guffawing and hooting and snorting as they come up with yet another spiffing wheeze. I say! What japes!
 
 
# Dougie Douglas 2012-04-13 03:27
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
 
 
# CharlieObrien 2012-04-13 11:00
Gandhi,was clever and so are we,well we got some real clever guys here in Scotland and some real angry ones as well.So Economist thanks a bundle we might just keep our bundle now.
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-04-13 15:18
Yeah thats a great quote Dougie, here one of my favourites from the esteemed Mr Gandhi which I believe may be apt also:

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 03:45
Honestly, this truly has the stench of despair written all over it. The fear amongst the London 'elite' that Scotland really will just leave and take its assets and industrial base with it is tangible.

Let's be clear, at first glance this cover is truly offensive, but on second thought, it is genuinely dumb, and is a gift to the independence cause.

I have already spoken to some who say they will be joining the SNP tomorrow. They are furious.

Let's make this utterly ridiculous and infantile piece of offensive propaganda something we can use for the independence cause.

When I see that cover on that magazine, then I know we are winning, then I know they are feart.
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 04:08
Photoshopped Alex Salmond pic. - check.
Misinformation - check.
Disinformation - check.
Lies - check.
Scaremongering - check.
Unionist bias - check.
Smears - check.
Distortion of facts - check.
Assertions with no facts for back up - check.
Derogatory statements - check.
'Better in the union' - check.

Check, check, check ad nauseum. (Sigh!)

Insulting trash masquerading as economics journalism ready to be picked apart here:

www.economist.com/.../21552572
 
 
# km 2012-04-13 04:46
Was just about to post link to this related story in the Economist, but you beat me to it.

You got it right - insulting trash masquerading as journalism.

You can easily tell this, when it says, "The first problem is oil". Is Scotland the only country in the world where oil is considered a problem?

Someone posted on the Economist site a reply to this article - I copy it below because I've never seen it posted quite like this before, and I hope that it convinces many of the diaspora Scots in Canada and U.S to get involved:

Quote:
Y'know, there's a political movement in the US whose goal is to unite the US and Canada into a United North America. Their argument to Canadians is that Canada would become part of a larger economy, offering protection from volatile world markets (because of course, the US has done really well out of the credit crisis) They argue that Canada will have a larger influence on the world stage and a seat at the coveted UN Security Council. They argue that Canadians and Americans enjoy strong cultural, historical and family bonds that will be stronger as a single nation. They argue that since the US is Canada's biggest trading partner, a lack of integration will jeopardise trade. Ask yourself if those arguments sound familiar. And ask yourself how many Canadians would ever vote for their Prime Minister to dissolve their parliament, reduce Canadian representation in the new parliament by 90%, and hand over control of Canada's economy, defense and foreign affairs to Washington. Scotland seems to be the only country in the world where people are expected to make the case FOR independence. Ask a Dane to justify why their country should exist as a sovereign state and he will rightly tell you where to go. Ditto an Australian, Swede, Mexican, Malaysian, Peruvian, German....... If every other country in the world is independent and they wouldn't give up their independence for the world, then why not Scotland?
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 05:06
Hi km!

Yes, The Economist, eh! That arbiter of economical truth (Or, being economical with the truth!).

According to The Economist's own website:

"The Economist online offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science and technology."

Well, not anymore it doesn't!
 
 
# mysterywhiteboy 2012-04-13 09:40
I love that. Its simple to the point and makes unionist arguements seem a little silly.
 
 
# hiorta 2012-04-13 08:14
Looks like they're very afraid of something.
Wonder what is is?
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 05:35
This pre-kindergarten level of 'journalism' was not perpetrated by one of the scandal- and slander-mongering 'Red Tops'. Oh, no, no!. This was from the 'respected' Economist ...

So CEO, Andrew Rashbass gives the order to Editor, John Micklethwait who passes it on to his various department heads. Eventually, an order is given for some schmuck to pore over a map of Scotland and find placenames that can be linguistically altered to fit into the "Skintland" ("See what we did there!") meme and be 'funny'. Writers are ordered to submit an article full of troll-worthy 'facts' to complement the 'funny' "Skintland' map...

Respect... Gone!!

Anyway, so who gave the order to, or okayed, the CEO and Editor to run this?
 
 
# dundie 2012-04-13 05:49
Frankly, we don't need the respect of a bunch of so-called economists whose only interest is to 'big up' the London-based economy in the hope that the rest of the island's population is taken in by them. The more of this the better, from the point of view of the independent-minded. The 'points' they raise are so easily shot down that it's almost positive propaganda to anyone with half a brain.
 
 
# Zed 2012-04-13 05:48
Lord Foulkes tweets that it was "humour" and our reaction was "paranoid defensiveness"
 
 
# admiral 2012-04-13 06:50
Quoting Zed:
Lord Foulkes tweets that it was "humour" and our reaction was "paranoid defensiveness"

Foulkes does not realise that The Economist is supposedly a serious magazine, that is read in influential circles across the world in politics, business and academia. This will cause harm to Scotland's image, as it will be taken as serious research by a usually serious magazine. Everyone with Scotland's well-being at heart should be doing everything they can to counter this false image.

I know the SNP will stand up for Scotland - what about the rest? They'll be loving it! What a sad state of affairs that those who would lead us would also wholeheartedly support anything and everything that would do us down!

Of course, the unionists' delight in the denigration of the Scottish nation and people is par for the course. You do wonder about their mentality.
 
 
# Barontorc 2012-04-13 08:05
Indeed Admiral! - From Wikipedia:-

"For July to December 2010, it reported an average weekly circulation of 1.5 million, above half of which are sold in North America and English speaking countries.[5]

The Economist claims, correctly, that it "is not a chronicle of economics."[6] Rather, it aims "to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."[7] It takes an editorial stance which is supportive of free trade, globalisation, and environmental regulation[cita tion needed]. It targets highly educated readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers.[8]

Given this targetted coverage does this not amount to libel to Scotland and its wellbeing?
 
 
# Jim1320 2012-04-13 08:19
George has never struck me as someone with much of a sense of humour. That said his attempted amendments to the Scotland Bill might suggest a satarical bent.
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-04-13 15:27
No doubt it was such "humour" which led him to assault a police officer:

georgefoulkes.blogspot.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Sulzer27 2012-04-13 05:55
Perhaps a campaign against the distibutors in Scotland might be worht considering. If WH Smith are coming under fire for selling this bile, they may withdraw it even locally - which in itself becomes a news story an another opportunity to advance the cause.
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 06:57
You could try calling WHSmith and politely explaining the offence you believe this disgraceful publication may cause. Explain that you think it is racist, offensive to Scots, factually untrue and grossly misleading.

It is important to explain your point of view politely and calmly as they are under no obligation to agree. If enough people call, then at the very least it will draw it to the attention of the management of WHSmith.
 
 
# Marga B 2012-04-13 08:55
If some kind of boycot or picketing of WH Smith could be arranged in Scotland - people don't like their name associated with popular agro.
 
 
# gus1940 2012-04-13 09:35
As far as Scottish distribution is concerned try John Menzies.
 
 
# dundie 2012-04-13 06:04
Haven't entered a WH Smith in years anyway, for some previous anti-Scottish transgression I've long forgotten the details of!
 
 
# BEN MACDUI 2012-04-13 06:17
Oh dear, the msm are at it again.
Truely pathetic this one.
Lets see how many new votes we get because of this.
 
 
# Louperdowg 2012-04-13 06:40
A truly embarrassing 'effort' from the Economist which reveals their true feelings.

Of course, they will still want to hang on to us despite Scotland being the biggest basket case the world has ever seen.
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 06:46
Of course that is the ultimate Irony. London unionists describe Scotland as a financial basket case, full of benefit scroungers, yet they desperately want to keep hold of Scotland.

It might make a person think they are lying.
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 09:48
It might also make people wonder what the Union has done for us if we are back where we started 300 years ago - in poor economic health.

Difficult to sell the idea of the 'Union Dividend' when you are telling people they live in an economic basket case.

Even the Co-op divi had more going for it than the Union Divi.
 
 
# Marga B 2012-04-13 11:19
Maybe one of the talented wordsmiths on here could do a similar hatchet job on England ...
 
 
# admiral 2012-04-13 06:47
Personally, this looks like an admission from London that their 300 years of misrule of the resource rich nation of Scotland has produced such ruination, that they have sucked us dry.

What a boost for the independence case! Ask any unionist - if you truly think this reflects the state of Scotland, what are you going to do to improve things? Easy answer - the same as we have always done - NOTHING!

Ask an independence supporter the same question. Again, easy answer. We are going to use Scotland's wealth to benefit Scotland's people, not send it all down to London to be squandered on British Imperial projects and the City of London.
 
 
# Fungus 2012-04-13 07:19
Ach I'm with Robert Louis, this is a great cover. They have no argument they can bring to the table and they well know it so they fall back on the insults, smears and appealing to the baser instincts of their audience. The establishment did it when gays, women and black people were fighting for their rights so it's no surprise that they are doing it now.

People weren't taken in then and won't be now.
 
 
# Dundonian West 2012-04-13 11:10
Fungus."The establishment did it when gays, women and black people were fighting for their rights so it's no surprise that they are doing it now."

You're dead right.The use of smears against minorities is stock in trade to the British Establishment.
Shame on them.
MANY people in Scotland,includ ing me, are 'minorities',and every time the British Establishment utters an anti-minority 'frightener' the minorities,and all decent people,become stronger in their resolve.
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-04-13 07:20
If you read the majority of responses to the article they all (except the odd troll) say what a poorly informed piece of writing it is.

When I last looked the only unpleasant posts came from Unionists - 'cybernat' responses were informative and clearly argued.
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 07:22
For reference;

The Economist
25 St James's Street
London, SW1A 1HG
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7830 7000
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7839 2968
 
 
# scottish_skier 2012-04-13 07:39
You can smell their fear.

To use a quote from Iain MacWhirter...

"If you keep telling people they can’t stand on their own two feet, eventually they’ll try to prove you wrong."

heraldscotland.com/.../...

One of my favourites from Iain.

This is a vote winner for independence and the SNP, of that there is no doubt. Articles such as the economist one don't annoy me, they make me smile. They have done so much to help the cause of Scottish independence we must continue to be thankful for them. Remember, even before the advent of the internet when people had nothing but the bile of the MSM newspapers to go on, a majority was still won for Devolution in 1979.

Polls continue to show the SNP well out in front as we head for May 3rd. Big gains for the SNP/other independence parties will be of major significance. If you think London is desperate now, watch what happens after the council elections. Assuming all goes to plan, major SNP gains will mean Scotland is no longer controlled by London based parties at 2/3 levels. The last level will be dealt with in 2014.
 
 
# Macart 2012-04-13 09:14
Absolutely skier, couldn't agree more.

Any site I'm on in the next couple of days is getting links to this story and their site. It really is a bit of a gift. But we should never interrupt the enemy when they are making mistakes, yes?
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-04-13 07:51
What a lovely thing for the economist to do, ridicule in such a schoolboy fashion the country of birth of it's founder, Scotsman James Wilson.

This is who the economist are, from Wiki:

The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England, owns the rest. A board of trustees formally appoints the editor, who cannot be removed without its permission. In addition, about two thirds of the 75 staff journalists are based in London, despite the global emphasis.
 
 
# Fr33dumbfi8ter 2012-04-13 07:52
I love humanity despite all the grave errors we make...

I adore the majority of English citizens I'm proud to call 'friends'...

What I find disgusting is this....

How dare those who are in a position of power to dictate what is right for the Proud Scottish people. This was never the decision of the English government or the Tory party, the English media, The economist.
 
 
# Jim1320 2012-04-13 07:53
The cover is a gift - instead of getting too wound up we should make hay as it is a glowing beacon of a sun to work under.
 
 
# Marga B 2012-04-13 08:57
Jim, it's not a case of getting wound up, it's a case of extending the noise - how many ordinary people would normally see The Economist? Make sure everyone sees it. It's too good an opportunity to miss, and paid for in full colour by The Economist!

You couldn't make it up, as they say.
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 09:45
Quote:
Jim1320 2012-04-13 08:53
The cover is a gift - instead of getting too wound up we should make hay as it is a glowing beacon of a sun to work under.


I think that is a double edged sword. many people will see the magazine on the newstands with that cover but they wont read the articles. So the message they will take from it will be purely based on the cover i.e. an Independent Scotland would be an economic basket case. And this will be given weight by the fact that it is the cover of the Economist which they know has a weighty reputation - or at least they think it does and that will be enough for them.

So perhaps the fewer people who see the cover the better.
 
 
# Marga B 2012-04-13 09:54
Legerwood - I hardly think that even the most unconnected Scot would feel it was "serious" to call their country "Skintland" - but then what would I know.
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 15:57
Marga B,
Possibly but you also have to take account of those who just skim the headlines - or in this case the cover page - and never engage their brain in any critical analysis of what is actuall;y being said.

I bought the Economist on my way back from Glasgow today and read thwe articles in question.

I have to say that they could not be described as an in-depth analysis. Just the same old hoary re-treads about RBS and oil running out.

The glaring omission in their arguments is of course what happens to rUK. The oil may be running out - in about 40 years or so - but it will 'run out' a lot faster for the rUK when Scotland becomes independent and takes our oil with us. That issue was not addressed.

It is the elephant in the room. A super big African elephant not a wee Indian one.

one other thing I noticed on the same page as one of the articles was a short item on the rude health of Scotland exports in the luxury sector such as food and whisky. The particular example they quoted was the Highland Choclatier. Apparently the company has just been to a Fair in Dubai and hopes to build on orders from that to increase production from about 6 tons of chocolates per year to 30 tons. i do hope they export the bulk of it because I could feel my hips expanding as I read it!
 
 
# Jediirnbru 2012-04-13 10:22
Absolutely.

I just laughed at the utter desperation. It's now funny the depths they will sink.

Social media has just ensured that a massive, massive amount of people have seen this that would normally never have known of its existence.

Power to our keyboards
 
 
# Jim Johnston 2012-04-13 08:00
A fine example of Eton and Harrow playground humour I suppose.

As for Angus, well, and old man in his dotage springs to mind.

What does have more than a ring of truth to it is GAP's paragraph ... "However despite the 'subsidy' myth having been disproved by countless studies and official reports, it continues to persist not least due to claims made by Scottish born Unionist politicians and news media here in Scotland." [Dont forget the BBC]

Now there LIES the enemy.
 
 
# Ready to Start 2012-04-13 08:01
God antidote to Economist in Scotsman to-day by George Kerevan

scotsman.com/.../...
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-04-13 08:11
Not so sure about that. In his first example of how to create growth and get us out of this mess he suggests this :

The Global City Model relies on inward investment and mass immigration to provide the stimulus for high growth, and sells directly to the world market place. To achieve this you need to de-regulate and let the free market rip. King of the Global City Model is London, now semi-detached from the UK economy.

(my highlighting)

Now where have I heard this before ?
 
 
# cirsium 2012-04-13 17:31
thanks for the quote tartanfever
"Global City Model" this sounds so pre-2008! The following is a more up-to-date description of London - the world's money laundering capital
rowans-blog.blogspot.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Ready to Start 2012-04-13 08:04
To recap,

Every time anyone mentions Scotland’s deficit remind them of the £69 billion share of UK fixed assets we are due on a population basis.
Last year Scotland’s fiscal position was stronger than that of the UK.

Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of UK taxes, but we received only 9.3
per cent of UK spending in return.

With only 8.4% of the UK population we paid more than our share and got
less back.

Two years ago in 2009-10 Scotland paid in 9.4% of UK taxes, but again only
9.3% came back.

Even when North Sea revenues fell by 50% Scotland paid in more money to
the UK Treasury than came back.

Last year we had a £2.6 billion advantage over the UK. An advantage
worth £510 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

And over the last five years that advantage totals £8.6 billion

That’s over £1600 for every man woman and child in Scotland.

That’s the real story of Scotland’s finances. Scotland pays more to
the UK than we get in return.
According to leading accountants Ernst and Young, in a report now spread
widely through Channel 4s fact check blog, international inward
investment is now more successful in Scotland than any other parts of
these islands, including London.
Contrary to what we sometimes hear, a recent study
by the independent Centre for Economics and Business Research confirmed
that Scotland receives no net subsidy from the rest of the UK.

And they worked that out whilst allocating Scotland less than our full geographical
share of North Sea Oil and Gas.

These figures are in fact so compelling and so persuasive that some of the
most strident opponents of independence now accept that there is no
economic barrier standing between Scotland and independence
 
 
# Wee-Scamp 2012-04-13 08:20
Another economic reason for supporting Scottish independence....

telegraph.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# G. Campbell 2012-04-13 08:22
BBC Balance in action:

BBCDouglsFraser #Economist mag: an indy Scotland could be "one of Europe's vulnerable marginal economies"; Edinburgh the new Athens of the North. #indyref
about 9 hours ago

BBCDouglsFraser #Economist: "If Scots want independence for political or cultural reasons, they should go for it. National pride is impossible to price"
about 9 hours ago

mobile.twitter.com/.../

The second tweet is supposed to be more positive, but both imply we'll be skint.
 
 
# Jake62 2012-04-13 08:24
I might buy a few copies to leave lying around in GP's surgery, etc. I'm sure they'll persuade a few fence-sitters to vote for indy.
 
 
# Willow 2012-04-13 08:24
Hi,

Last night on twitter "the economist" was trending in Glasgow.

I didn't really notice much upset coming from unionist parties, but many non political people were certainly upset.

Labourhame tweeted for the first time since 4th April

"@TheEconomist front cover isn't embarrassing for Scotland. The @theSNP throwing the toys out the pram whenever someone questions them is"

twitter.com/#!/labourhame
 
 
# John Lyons 2012-04-13 08:26
The thing about this is, The title should be

"It HAS cost you!
The Price of being in the Union!"

If Scotland is skint, it's as a result of being part of a London Centric union for 300 years.
Why do we have so many spongers on the dole?
Cause the UK Government ripped our industry apart.
How can we resolve this problem?
By taking control o our own resources.
How do we do that?
2014. Vote AYE!
 
 
# gus1940 2012-04-13 09:44
Some time ago somebody highlighted the relative population numbers between Scotland and England in 1707 and the present day. This showed a disastrous fall in Scotland's percentage of The UK's population.

This clear example of the much trumpeted Union Dividend would surely be a useful weapon in the Campaign for Independence.

Can somebody come up with the figures I mention in para 1?
 
 
# Nation Libre 2012-04-13 11:31
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-04-13 13:06
Yeah scotlands growth rate for the first 100 years of union was half the European average and three times less than countries like Holland.

I knocked up some figures on this a while ago, without the union, Scotland would be a nation of between 8-10 million people today.

Emigration South and to the Empire due to Scotland being a political wasteland for 300 years is the major culprit.


As such its interesting to note that for the first time in history, English folks are net migrating to Scotland since devolution. Its amazing what even limited Democracy can do for a nations fortunes.
 
 
# Mac 2012-04-13 08:39
People should approach their newsagent point out this front page map and demand they remove this copy of the Economist from the shelves. It is the only way to deal with such insults.
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 09:15
Let's never forget some of the excellent comments made by Sir Roger Carr, president of the CBI, to CBI Scotland, during a Speech in Sept 2011;

"Scotland has the third most patents in the world in relation to GDP, which can be translated into new and innovative products and services"

"In Scotland there are 8,000 creative firms, a 27 per cent increase in the last decade"


"Scotland is endowed with some of the best energy resources in Europe. It‟s a net exporter of electricity, provides 25 per cent of Europe‟s wind power and is number one in the world in developing deep-water offshore wind farms."

"Manufacturing productivity has recovered faster in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, which could bode well both for profitability and investment."

"And you can‟t be in Scotland without mentioning whisky. It‟s one of the UK‟s top-five manufacturing export earners and supports 41,000 jobs: 36 bottles a second go overseas."

Source;
cbi.org.uk/.../...


And as for distilling, let's see the most recent figures, according to the Scotch Whisky Association;


Exports of Scotch Whisky are up 23% to 4.23 billion in 2011

Scotch Whisky exports now contribute 134 pounds per second to the UK balance of trade.

Exports to the USA were up 31% on 2010, breaking the 600 million barrier for the first time, a total of 654.9 million pounds.

Source;
scotch-whisky.org.uk/.../...

As for oil and gas, well here's what the industry body said in February 2012;

"We estimate that there are up to 24 billion barrels of oil and gas remaining to be extracted offshore in the UK and with the right business environment, investment in and economic recovery of that resource will be maximised."

Source;
www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/.../694

In addition;

"Oil and gas production from the UKCS has contributed £293 billion (2010 money) in tax revenues over the last forty years."

"In 2010/11, the industry paid £8.8 billion in tax on production, which is 20% of total corporation taxes received by the Exchequer. This is expected to rise to over £13 billion in 2011-12, providing over one quarter of total corporation taxes."

"In 2010, the UK's balance of trade in goods and services was boosted by oil and gas production to the tune of £32 billion, almost halving the UK's deficit."

"Three quarters of the UK’s current primary energy demand is met by oil and gas. In 2010, oil produced on the UKCS satisfied 87% of domestic demand while gas produced in the UK met 61% of demand."


source;
www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/.../

Upon independence, Scotland would have around 94% of the total oil and gas resources.

oh and as for renewables, this is an area in which Scotland is especially rich;

"The natural resource base for renewables is extraordinary by European and even global standards. In addition to an existing installed capacity of 1.3 GW of hydro-electric schemes, Scotland has an estimated potential of 36.5 GW of wind and 7.5 GW of tidal power, 25% of the estimated total capacity for the EU, and up to 14 GW of wave power potential, 10% of EU capacity.

Scotland's renewable electricity generating capacity may be 60 GW or more, perhaps ten times greater than the existing capacity from all Scottish fuel sources of 10.3 GW.
"

source;

www.scotsrenewables.com/.../



Oh, and whilst talking of energy, never forget that England does NOT produce enough electricity to meet its needs 24/7, whereas Scotland is a net exporter of electricity.



Oh, yes, poor wee Scotland. Only an utter clown would believe the nonsense in the laughingly titled 'Economist' comic.
 
 
# scottish_skier 2012-04-13 09:44
You forgot food (meat and dairy, fish/ shellfish are big exports and growing) and forestry (Scottish Government have a major reforestation plan). Oh, top universities too....

Also, which country can't even supply itself with water now as it sold off all its water assets for a quick buck? Going to be a long, hot and dry summer in the shires. Factories may have to start closing etc towards the end of the summer at this rate...
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 10:10
As regards food exports, you must mean this;

scotland.gov.uk/.../20084101

or maybe something like this;

globalscot.com/.../...

Or maybe even this;

whisky-drinker.com/.../...


Yes, this is all making me thirsty. I'll just reach over, turn on the tap, and have a long drink of clean, fresh, Scottish spring water, run on behalf of the Scottish Government, and wholly owned by the people of Scotland.


No wonder London is getting hysterical.
 
 
# Fr33dumbfi8ter 2012-04-13 13:32
As I quickly scan through your words, I attempt to grit my teeth and prevent myself from shouting 'Self-sustainable, creative,proud, historic,intell igent nation of Scot's'!!!!

Were going to win and it's going to happen in our lifetime. Our ancestors are jealous.
 
 
# Stevie Cosmic 2012-04-13 11:09
Howdy RL.

I see you already have the relevant figures for NS Oil and Gas for 2011/12, but here's another source for you, one that I continue to post on FB whenever I can. All part of the ammunition :)

publications.parliament.uk/.../...
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 12:26
A great link, showing the value of Scottish oil, straight from Westminster's mouth.

Thanks
 
 
# Caadfael 2012-04-13 12:41
Excellent stuff RL, I do hope youve sent this to yon silly comic!
Oh, the facebook page "Vote no to Scottish Independance" are absolutely wetting themselves over it!
LMAO!
 
 
# Robabody 2012-04-13 22:17
Talking of the CBI - How's Mr McMillan getting on these days?
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 09:31
Quote:
The Times Scottish political editor Angus Macleod complained that the SNP reaction to the front cover was an “over-reaction”, tweeting: “The Economist cover is juvenile but is the SNP over-reaction a tactic to divert people from the thoughtful piece inside.”
Mr MacLeod is being disingenuous. He knows full well that many many people will not buy the Economiost to read the thoughtful articles BUT they will see the cover and that will give them their take home message on the economy of an independent Scotland.

As for comments in the article that the oil is running out - we are all well aware of that BUT it is NOT just in Scotland that it is running out. And it will not be tomorrow that it happens. What about all the other oil-dependant countries and their economies?

It also begs the question: With oil past its peak (but still many years to go) who is better placed to direct Scotland's post-oil economy and the lead up to that day - a Government in London or a Government in an Independent Scotland?
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 09:37
You make some good points, especially in relation to oil. As it runs out worldwide (not just in Scotland), its value will continue increasing, so the money from oil and economic benefits to the Scottish economy will continue, as the output slows.

Even more important is the fact that Scotland unlike many other countries (that begin with the letter 'E') is rich in renewable potential from numerous sources. Not only is Scotland rich in these resources, but Scotland itself, due to the foresight of the Scottish Government has made the right investments in developing innovative technology in the field.

Either way, as the oil runs out over the next thirty years, I'd much rather have the revenue coming to Scotland rather than going to London - actually that strikes me as a bit of a no brainer, really.
 
 
# Wee-Scamp 2012-04-13 10:14
Sorry Robert Louis but whilst I admire your loyalty and enthusiasm the reality is that both Scotland and the UK are well behind the curve in investing in the development of renewable energy technology. There are a couple bright spots with some potential but others are I'm afraid a long way ahead in commercialising renewable energy technologies.

In fact, the argument should be that one of the major problems Scotland has is a lack of investment in energy R&D funding and an even larger lack of private sector investment in new energy technology companies and that is entirely due to Westminster policies and the attitude of the UK financial sector.

In fact the big question for me (and I'm a consultant/analyst in the sector) is why we haven't already established and grown a bunch of renewable tech companies and how do we use independence to resolve what is actually a problem across all sectors and that is dealing with the low company birthrate and lack of availability of risk equity capital.
 
 
# Robert Louis 2012-04-13 10:18
I think you make fair points. The Scottish Government has the right attitude, but its hands are tied, as ever, by London.

Perhaps the right investments would be easier with independence?
 
 
# Wee-Scamp 2012-04-13 10:30
I think independence should provide the opportunity to rejig how Scottish financial institutions operate and most critically it's an opportunity to reconnect the financial sector with the rest of the economy.

To call on something JF Kennedy said we need to change the attitude of the financial sector from one of "thinking what the country can do for us" to one of "what can we do for the country and ourselves"...
 
 
# Mac 2012-04-13 09:42
Of course Scots can produce a new map of England that reflects prevailing Scottish attitudes.
 
 
# border reiver 2012-04-13 10:02
In the next few years carbon credit trading is going to become even more important as countries struggle to meet their emmision targets, Scotland will undoubtably be in a very strong position to generate a huge slice of this market because of our excellent renewables policies.

"carbon trading may dwarf that of crude oil within the next 5 years. Worth a staggering $2 trillion dollars"
CFTC commissioner
 
 
# cirsium 2012-04-13 17:34
border reiver - we want to keep well clear of carbon trading. This strikes me as another example of casino capitalism.
 
 
# bringiton 2012-04-13 10:07
Perhaps they are looking at a future Scotland which is still under management from the GREAT Borrowing corporation.
 
 
# balgayboy 2012-04-13 10:11
I would still prefer an Independent "Skintland" rather than be part of the status quo. When Scottish people choose to become independent in 2014 "Skintland" will very quickly be renamed "Mintland" and these morons in London will rue the day that their disrespect of our nation helped to drive the momentum of Scottish people to vote for their independence. I hope they keep up this nonsense, more yes votes for the cause and enjoy their droughts. Roll on 2014
 
 
# Peter A Bell 2012-04-13 10:12
More telling than the infamous Skintland cover is the eagerness with which "Scottish" Labour embraced it's derogatory depiction of Scotland.
 
 
# Robabody 2012-04-13 22:19
Yes Peter, it would appear they can't help themselves.
 
 
# Mark MacLachlan 2012-04-13 10:18
Masterclass in subtle propaganda from the BBC elders of obfuscation.

.../young-unionist-warrior-know-your-enemy.html
 
 
# A_Scottish_Voice 2012-04-13 10:44
What struck me about Brian Taylor’s presentation was the obvious loyalty he has towards the union, and dislike he has towards Alex Salmond and the SNP, especially since he is meant to work for the "unbiased" BBC Scotland.

I would genuinely be ill if my children were contributing to his salary.
 
 
# rhymer 2012-04-13 13:04
Quoting A_Scottish_Voic e:
What struck me about Brian Taylor’s presentation was the obvious loyalty he has towards the union, and dislike he has towards Alex Salmond and the SNP, especially since he is meant to work for the "unbiased" BBC Scotland. I would genuinely be ill if my children were contributing to his salary.


Both Brian and Brillo pad win the "Sleazy journalism award" for their obvious bias against an independent Scotland.
 
 
# Dcanmore 2012-04-14 01:36
I noticed that he used 'we' twice when referring to the Union.
 
 
# GrassyKnollington 2012-04-13 11:09
Cheers for these Mark. Fascinating viewing.
 
 
# Louperdowg 2012-04-13 11:26
Brian strutting around with all of his prejudices showing.

I had to laugh when he said that Alex Salmond was offering 'bacon and eggs followed by sausage and beans'.

I remember watching Brian in an Inverness hotel during an SNP conference and that's pretty much what he had to kick off with :P

Its shocking though, that we pay this man's wages.
 
 
# Dundonian West 2012-04-13 11:36
The BBC is the British Establishment State Broadcaster,and follows the Union line.
Everyone is compelled to pay for these broadcasts ----on threat of hefty fines or imprisonment.
Remind you of any countries in the news recently?
 
 
# balgayboy 2012-04-13 12:41
Quoting Mark MacLachlan:
Masterclass in subtle propaganda from the BBC elders of obfuscation.

.../young-unionist-warrior-know-your-enemy.html

Thanks Mark, watched & listened to the breathless BT speech and noticed that he referred to Scotland's First Minister by his surname yet gave Darling, Lamont & Clegg their christian as well as their surnames. Truly impartial..I'm ashamed he relates to being a supporter of one of Dundee's football team's when his politics should have him sitting in the corporate boxes of the London clubs..paid by the license payers off course. Yes tool on 2014
 
 
# Rafiki 2012-04-13 10:30
Strange - I was looking at the Economist in Tesco yesterday and while I cannot remember what the cover was it was defintely not the one shown.

I see today's Herald refers to the "much respected" Economist!
 
 
# thomsor 2012-04-13 10:34
Hope this is still available as it will be worth the cost just to get the front cover to photocopy and distribute.
 
 
# velofello 2012-04-13 10:41
C'mon England, keep your spirits up, forget Scotland there is other fish in the sea to plunder..Right now we are talking to Iceland for power, right bang past Scotland with a big cable, that'll teach 'em. I read it in the I paper today. Scotland doesn't even get a mention in the article. Iceland, Norway, Wales, ireland, but no Scotland. Ha ha.
" Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile lad smile".
".
 
 
# G. P. Walrus 2012-04-13 11:01
Clearly the Econopissed was written by a bunch of undergraduates during a good night down the pub :-)
 
 
# John Souter 2012-04-13 11:08
The 'Article' is fundamentally flawed with major deficiencies in it's democratic base and in the economic argument it derives and accentuates from its democratic failures.

The major argument on the democratic issue is the admittance Scotland would have been rich had the truth of Scotland's resources been made public in the 1970s.

This, in a backhanded way, is advocating the use of corruption through secrecy is a plausible resource legitimately available for use in the Westminster armoury.

Not only does it find these tactics legitimate it then goes on by accepting cause to ignore the effects and maintains the people of Scotland should continue to accept this dichotomy of worth on the basis the 8.4% tail will never wag the 91.6% dog.

Of course the Elephant they ignore is the glaring omission of any reference to the fact the economy of the 91.6% dog and, by reason of the 8.4% tail still being attached to it, the economy they refer to is in fact a tape worm economy intent in slowly destroying its host in order to satisfy its own insatiable greed.

The article then expands this lacuna by arguing on the economic front that Scotland having been successfully defrauded on the resource front, cannot now be considered capable of having the necessary wit, aspiration, motivation or innovation to play a meaningful and productive role in the leagues of nations.

I find this a bit rich from a publication that backs a Westminster/Establishment hegemony whose ideology is to support the financial industry tape worm, that has, in four short years seen the UK drop from being the fourth world economy to the seventh and by 2015 will probably drop to being the 13th or 14th?

Ally this to the fact that even as the fourth largest, the hegemony created one of the largest gaps between the rich and poor of any industrialised nation does, I believe, reduce the logic and legitimacy of their argument to the same level of a battered wife being delivered back by the police to her abusive husband.

On the whole the article is a pretty pathetic piece of propaganda. Which, if its believed by those it targets says more for their vulnerability in their dog eat dog world than it does for the tail trying to remove itself from it.
 
 
# sid 2012-04-13 11:16
I find rubbish like this to be quite uplifting. is that all theve got to attack us with??? it is the kind of sillieness you would expect from schoolkids certainly not "well respected" grown ups
Sid
 
 
# Dundonian West 2012-04-13 11:21
Just a thought.Scottish Labour MP's in London read this magazine free of charge in the House of Commons.
Representing their constituents when reading this nonsense?
Never.It passes straight over the top of their heads.
The sooner they're brought back from the Mother of Parliaments the better.
 
 
# rob4i 2012-04-13 11:22
Well done Economist OR whoever peddled the notion! Please keep it up and, oh yes..... bye-bye London, come 2014!!
 
 
# AshleyJHP 2012-04-13 11:22
To copy in the comment I posted on the offending article on The Economist. The campaign for Scottish independence has forced me to seriously question whether I believe in the Freedom of the Press. Whilst the media in a democracy functions as the guardian of public interest, it is also an exceptional means of manipulating and controlling public opinion. An article like the one above demonstrates how statutory regulation is the only option which would prevent the publication of sheer lies and the resultant mass public deception and manipulation of public opinion. There is no longer any question as to whether or not Scotland could afford independence - the answer is yes and the case has been closed. The objective, non-political figures based on the official national accounts of the respective governments, along with huge professional opinion, a plethora of studies and articles, clearly show that Scotland is not subsidised by the UK, and that in actual fact, Scotland subsidises the UK ; that the Scottish economy is consistently in a stronger position relative to the UK economy as a whole, and that as an independent nation, not only would Scotland survive economically, she would positively flourish. As many others have highlighted, all of the individual points cited in the piece as testifying to Scotland's economic vulnerability have already been exhausted elsewhere in the British Media and have been conclusively and repeatedly discredited and disproved by reality - a quick google search will prove this. I just hope that the people of Scotland see through this scaremongering, another London based unionist organisation telling us we're too wee, too poor and too stupid, and that support continues to amass for the positive, confident and successful vision of an independent Scotland, the real picture. Scottish independence would come at a high price - to the rest of the UK.
 
 
# Exile 2012-04-13 12:45
Ashley, I wonder how many of the people of Scotland read the Economist. And how many of those who do would be incapable of recognising propagandist excrement when they see it? Not many, I would wager. I think this 'London-based magazine' is just whistling in the dark in an attempt to contain their own fear of losing the cash cow.
 
 
# UpSpake 2012-04-13 11:34
I wrote to the 'Letter's section of the Economist several months ago on the subject that the Economist simply doesn't get Scotland. A similar complaint went to Channel 4.
The essence of my complaint is that with no 'correspondant' by either organisation in Scotland and working within the bubble that is the M25 beltway, all they ever could hope to do is regurgitate the utter garbage coming out of the MSM and the BBC. My view, after this ill-informed article is, nothing has changed.
When will the penny drop ?. Until it does, these organisations remain excellent recruiting sargents for independence but not I hope, in every case, for the SNP, as there are other views on this important subject from others than just the SNP.
 
 
# Nautilus 2012-04-13 11:42
If the quality of article inside is as inane as the cover, the rag is not worth opening. Any journalist giving it any credit at all is of a similar standard.
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 16:17
Nautilis,
I bought the Economist today to read the articles and they are not by any description substantial pieces of journalism or analysis. Just a re-cycling ogf the hoary old chestnuts about RBS and oil running out.
 
 
# cirsium 2012-04-13 17:43
Nautilus - both articles are available here
www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014

as posters have said above, the articles are at the same level as the cover.
 
 
# Will C 2012-04-13 11:58
I have just thanked the Economist for their contribution to the cause of Scottish independence; pointing out that their racist, juvenile article, will add thousands to the YES vote in 2014. As a too wee, too poor and too stupid Scot, I thought it only right to be grateful!
 
 
# J Wil 2012-04-13 12:17
I thought I read some time ago about the high standards of journalism there was and that they were educated in these at university. Things like, truth, integrity, respect and staying within the law.

It seems that these aims don't last five minutes once they are sent out into the wide world. Just another addition to the corruption that we continue to witmess from London.
 
 
# Leswil 2012-04-13 12:20
How about Newsnetscotland asking for a debate with the writer and Editor in Edinburgh?
I will buy a ticket!
 
 
# Leswil 2012-04-13 12:39
Can anyone advise just who you make a complaint over racialist issues to?
I feel offended as will others and perhaps we should all make a complain made against the Economist/ Editor for allowing it.
 
 
# drumsmudden 2012-04-13 12:42
O/T-- where are all the bleeding heart labour supporters today when call me Dave is on an official visit to Burma whaurs yer human rights supporters noo?
Oh I forgot Dave is their special friend he will save them from those nasty Scottish Nationalists who have the cheek to give their own OAPs free travel,free prescriptions etc. etc. nothing like keeping yer ain fish guts for yer ain sea maws and I trust when independance is achieved that those negotiating for us will remember this.
 
 
# mackdee 2012-04-13 12:44
Lets make a "Boristan" version, ie London.
Im sure we could get it on the front cover of Needlework Monthly. Its equally irrelevent that way, just like this article.
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 12:53
From The Economicalwitht hetruthist:

"The Economist is and always has been a publication of sometimes radical opinion with a reverence for facts [sic]. It is firmly established as one of the world's most authoritative and influential publications."

Hhmmm....

"Objectivity
The Economist is different from other publications because it has no by-lines. It is written anonymously because it is a paper whose collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists. This ensures a continuity of tradition and consistency of view which few other publications can match."


Ehh..., aye, right .....
 
 
# Teri 2012-04-13 13:06
Oh dear, it's only after we leave the Uk that they will realise that rUK is Skintland, not us. Aren't they in for a shock. And No, we wont be helping them out when their credit ratings plummet.
Roll on Independence.
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 16:13
Indeed.

The oil may run out in 40 years or so but when Scotland becomes independent the rUK's oil will run out in 2015 or so or at the very least be significantly reduced. An issue not addressed by the Economist.
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 13:07
The Economicalwitht hetruthist's Gallery of Rogues, sorry, Board of Directors:
economistgroup.com/.../...
 
 
# scotsmanc1 2012-04-13 13:40
I hope that contributors to Newsnet don't mind but based on several comments and factual information provided on here, I have also submitted emails of complaint to the Economist regarding the derogatory remarks made about Scotland as reported in this Newsnet article.

Thanks in anticipation of the help you have provided with some facts and your understanding of the situation.

From a friendly insider there, I understand that the comments/complaints submitted have now been passed over to the Editor of the Economist.

I will keep you informed of any response I receive.

If the Economist and its Unionist friends stop telling lies about Scotland, we will stop telling the truth about them.

Thank you once again.
 
 
# Neale SNP 2012-04-13 13:40
These are the following codes I believe the Economist has broken

1 (i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

12 (i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race

Lodge your complaint here

pcc.org.uk/.../...


Rise above the midden of the Unionist Trolls. Right will prevail.
 
 
# Mako 2012-04-13 13:41
The Daily Record has put up an online article about this and gave a Tory the last word to insult the SNP.
 
 
# balbeggie 2012-04-13 13:52
Article on the Guardian web pages

guardian.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Barontorc 2012-04-13 13:58
O/T - I've been told that post-independence the situation obviously will be that Scotland + England + Wales will continue to share the landmass of Britain. No surprises there then, however, then, I'm informed that England and Wales plus N.I.,will be officially called "rUK".

ie., "rUK" = Remainder United Kingdom
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 16:10
Are you sure we are going to be allowed to continue to share the land mass that is the British Isles?

From the way some of the pro-Union supporters speak it would appear that Scotland post-independence will be 'elevated' to a special level of 'foreignness' usual;l reserved for aliens or martian persuasion. As in: 'We wont buy warships from... etc etc.
 
 
# Scotchprofessor 2012-04-13 13:59
Just to put this into context: I spend much of the year in Germany, and I've just shown this cover to some friends (two Germans and an American). Unanimously, they believed this to be unalloyed racism, with the Germans drawing parallels to Nazi propaganda of the 1930's. The American friend was most shocked that anything like this existed outside Fox News...

This cover is not a comment on the proposal for Scottish independence; rather it's a sneering put-down of the country itself, playing up to age-old stereotypes. Is someone collating these incidents: from Question Time to the Daily Mail, from David Starkey to Kelvin MacKenzie? Can't someone put a website together?
 
 
# Wee-Scamp 2012-04-13 14:02
"But if they vote for independence they should do so in the knowledge that their country could end up as one of Europe's vulnerable, marginal economies."

But we already are part of one of Europe's vulnerable, marginal economies. It's called the UK and the idea behind independance is for Scotland to get out from under the malign influence of the City and the Treasury which has led to the economic mess the UK is in now!
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 14:03
The Guardian has an article (from the Press Association) headed, "Alex Salmond: Economist will rue 'Skintland' jibe at Scotland"

They haven't opened it up for comments which is normal for The Guardian being part of the Establishment as it is. (Although, to be honest, I'm kind of surprised they didn't as this is the kind of stuff they push to increase their web hits, thus pleasing their advertisers. The comments would probably break their all-time record! It would be a veritable troll-fest!)

The article quotes Angus Robertson. However, and it's a big 'however', The Guardian chose to cut the following:

"He added: "For a pro-Union, London-based magazine to portray Scotland and our communities in this patronising way is a disaster for the anti-independence parties.
"I trust that they too will disassociate themselves from it.
"The Economist's own inside article doesn't even reflect its ridiculous front page.
"As it says, Scotland is not subsidised from Westminster, the Scottish economy performs better than any other nation or region in the UK outside South East England and we account for 10% of the UK's GDP with just 8.4% of the population.""

More suppression of the truth from the 'fair and balanced' MSM.

But,they couldn't resist leaving in the final couple of paragraphs which end the article (from the Press Association) by quoting the (dis)'honorable' David McLetchie, yes this "David McLetchie" who "..announced his resignation as Scottish Conservative Party leader on 31 October 2005, after it was revealed he had spent £11,500 of taxpayers' money on taxi fares, more than any other MSP. The problem was not so much the large bill, but the fact that he had used taxis for Conservative party business (as opposed to constituency business)". (Wikipedia) you know, just to add some more insult to injury:

"But Scottish Conservative constitution spokesman David McLetchie said: "The SNP would be better advised to answer the important points made in the article about Scotland's future. Instead, they are manufacturing outrage aimed at anyone who dares to question their perspective that a separate Scotland would be a land of milk and honey, a line they are constantly peddling about our future."

Pathetic, honestly. A parcel of rogues.

guardian.co.uk/.../...

The Independent has the full article: independent.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Dancemaster 2012-04-13 14:32
Do you not think Salmond is making a fool of himself over this?

The Economist is famed for this kind of front page. Here is a very similar one they did on the USA in 2011.

theeconomist.tumblr.com/.../...

Obama was clever enough to ignore it and not give it any free publicity.

Salmond's leadership of the SNP needs more critical analysis than is currently being given.

We need to make it clear we are not a one man band, especially after gaffes like this.
 
 
# Hing em high 2012-04-13 15:06
Rubbish. It is racist and it is time that such racism was confronted. This is what they think of us and that needs to pointed out.
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 15:14
"Do you not think Salmond is making a fool of himself over this?"
No. In what way is he "making a fool of himself"? Do tell.

"The Economist is famed for this kind of front page."
Really? I thought it was a 'respected organization'?

"Obama was clever enough to ignore it and not give it any free publicity."

USA pop. 313,349,000 (approx.) 4.47% world's pop. (figs.?)

Scotland pop. 5,250,000 (approx) 0.8% world's pop. (figs.?)

"Salmond's leadership of the SNP needs more critical analysis than is currently being given."

Really? Okay, the floor's yours. Please critically analyse.

"We need to make it clear we are not a one man band, especially after gaffes like this."

Really? Again, the floor's yours. Make it clear.

Oh, and if The Economist is "famed for this kind of front page" , how then is it "a gaffe"? Do tell.
 
 
# Marga B 2012-04-13 14:32
As some have said, quite apart from the content, it's a back-handed compliment when this kind of thing happens - look at the Time Magazine cover photo of a mere footballer - but of course, it's not just a footballer, it's Messi. ;))

Funnily enough, only in Europe, Asia, South Pacific and not the US edition.

media.zenfs.com/.../...
 
 
# Georgerov 2012-04-13 14:44
Discounted the Economist years ago as a serious rag with their anonymous articles and no editorial details of any kind. They got a couple of monetary articles proved seriously wrong in subsequent months and there was no one that you could pinpoint as being the culprit !.
 
 
# DG 2012-04-13 14:46
Keep it real, people. Albeit cultural stereotyping, mass propaganda, and the last ditch attempt of an outdated unrepresentive Wastemonster to rubbish a mature, level headed referrendum on Scotland's future, we are not a different race. There is always danger that our anger and dispair over the governmental administrative control of the South reflects the thoughts and opinions of its people, we share many cultural aspects, and many of them share our thoughts and understand our desire. However, I think we are over emphasising the economic arguement for independence. I cannot think of a country that sought independence thinking it would be immediately better off. Change always costs money, but it depends on your value system. Since the Thatcher years, all the islands of the UK slowly became affected by the rot of Individualism and Greed that was the Tory manifesto for 18 soul destroying years. Don't think for a minute that this has been erradicated completely by the affects of any successive Labour or ConLib circus shows. The selfish rot is still there and it exists in our Country. I am adamant that the eceonomic case for Scotland to not only survive, but prosper as an Independent Country has been made on many levels, most importantly a much more solid arguement than than case for prospering in the Union. But here's the thing, I don't need it to make my decision for Independence, if we had to tighten the purse strings a bit to get it then the end justifies the means. These blogs are a great tool for those, already convinced by the arguement, to refine their points, but it is pointless ego massaging if left at that alone. I look forward to the debate beyond the economic standpoint, where people ask themselves what value they are prepared to put on their right to govern themselves. With an incredibly bias media, it is obvious that our case must be taken directly to the people themselves, to bypass the media inevitable spin, and truelly create a revolution of reasoned and informed debate in the minds of the people of our Country. That revolution will not be televised, written in newspapers, on youtube or in fecken blogs either. So get mobilised guys and when I have finished my work contract I'll see you on the doorsteps.
 
 
# Dál Riata 2012-04-13 14:49
Sorry, missed this bit.

The full article ends with yet another paragraph of lies from McLetchie:

"If this is the level of debate we are going to get from the SNP while we wait 1,000 days for their referendum, then it is no wonder that they are more interested in trying to avoid the big questions on issues such as currency and welfare."

Even The Guardian left that out, for crying out loud!
 
 
# Juteman 2012-04-13 14:54
Will they never learn?
Nemo me impune laccesit.
 
 
# Suomi 2012-04-13 14:58
I have a half brother living in London who believes the nonsense printed in this article.I have pointed out to him that the UK is broke and only survives due to the contribution of Scottish resources.He was very surprised to learn that.However,I do not worry about such attitudes,espec ially if it persuades more people to vote for independence.
 
 
# Dundonian West 2012-04-13 15:00
O/T.Milliband,Balls ,and Prescott coming to Scotland's local elections!
Will join Lamont.
Also Darling---he of the UK financial meltdown.
dailyrecord.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-04-13 15:29
So much for Labour in Scotland then - the local politicians obviously aren't up to the job that they have to fly in the westminster mob for reinforcements.
 
 
# Jim Johnston 2012-04-13 15:51
I'm surprised this midfield trio want to be associated with the doing that's heading their way on 3rd May.

Still they are very welcome, it all adds to the YES vote.
 
 
# Macart 2012-04-13 16:29
Took the words right off my keyboard TF. Apparently they can't be trusted to run their own show.
 
 
# clochoderic 2012-04-13 21:40
Quoting Dundonian West:
O/T.Milliband,Balls ,and Prescott coming to Scotland's local elections!
Will join Lamont.
Also Darling---he of the UK financial meltdown.
dailyrecord.co.uk/.../...


Just read the article - the comments are hilarious, well worth a read.
 
 
# Caadfael 2012-04-14 06:19
Think this says it all ...
www.youtube.com/.../
 
 
# govanite 2012-04-13 16:05
I'm pretty sure this article is gonna create a serious bonfire, the Economist has blundered if it thinks this will damage Independence.
What it has done is put the economic debate, literally, front-page.
We are going to hear a lot of comment about this & there are serious objective voices yet to be heard who will not shrink from criticism of cheap, lazy or weak analysis of Scotland's economy.
Plus, it gives Salmond the chance [and he needs no invitation] to stand up for our country, while the tories & labour talk Scotland down.

Priceless.
 
 
# Juteman 2012-04-13 16:12
Spot on Govanite.
We keep waiting for the positive argument for the union.
There isn't one, and if this front page helps to focus minds on the actual economics of independence, then there is only one winner.
 
 
# Displaced Patriot 2012-04-13 16:20
The biggest insult in all this is David Mcletchie attacking the SNP and not the Economist.
How any self respecting Scot be they Nationalist, or Unionist can not be enraged by this kind of London crass claptrap is beyond me.
It just goes to show how subservient and how inferior Britnat Jocks truly are as a species.
 
 
# Islegard 2012-04-13 16:49
When we talk about Skintland maybe we should mention the current UK national debt estimated by official government figures as £2.5 trillion (173% of GDP). In fact the national debt more accurately estimated by including pension liabilities, and a reasonable estimate of the likely liabilities to be incurred by the government in respect of the banking sector is actually £5.5 trillion (392% of GDP) (1 trillion = 1000 billion), over six times the size of the declared national debt.
iea.org.uk/.../....

In the calender year 2011 the UK recorded government net borrowing or a deficit of £124.6 billion (8.3% of GDP).
ons.gov.uk/.../....

In the calendar year 2010 the UK recorded general government net borrowing or a deficit of £148.9 billion, which was equivalent to 10.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). [url:error]

The UK has ran a deficit for the last 9 years. Labour doubled the UK national debt while in power.

During this period Scotland has been in surplus with its budget only recording its first deficit on the last GERS report.

This clearly indicates the debt and deficit is an English debt and deficit.

There is a skintland its called England it will be changing its name to bankruptland following the loss of Scotland's resources and the largest tax raising area after London.
 
 
# Mark 2012-04-13 17:49
I would have liked to hear some objections to The Economist's degrading and racist front page from some of the Scottish unionist politicians who have been going out of their way in the last few months to tell us how much they "love their country".
 
 
# Legerwood 2012-04-13 18:08
Hopefully you have not been holding your breath while you wait!
 
 
# Teri 2012-04-13 18:31
Seemingly they cant see what the fuss is about. It's only a joke they say, so it should be taken like that. Remember the SNP are outraged and feel it is an insult,the unionist view has to oppose that.
 
 
# proudscot 2012-04-14 12:00
Quoting Teri:
Seemingly they cant see what the fuss is about. It's only a joke they say, so it should be taken like that. Remember the SNP are outraged and feel it is an insult,the unionist view has to oppose that.


Well said, Teri - according to the "principle" as tweeted by Labour stalwart Willie Bain.
 
 
# Kerle 2012-04-13 19:37
If Scotland is too poor surely this is as a result of failed encomic policies by Westminster and a reason for fiscal independence. If Scotland is richer than the rest of the Uk the we should enjoy the benefits of this. If we are poorer then we need independence to create growth through control of taxes. Its a weak argument the quisings have in bringing Scotland down.
 
 
# velofello 2012-04-13 20:09
DG: You should consider re-submitting your comment as an article here. your post is excellent.
It is not about a few pounds +-, of us being better off, it is about self esteem.
Re- industrialisati on will bring prosperity.Renewable energy requires Scotland to re-industrialise.
Having endured the Thatcher years the prospect of substantial industry again in Scotland is very pleasing.
 
 
# nottooweeorstupid 2012-04-13 20:36
You know what guys? Better skint than part of the UK. Now, after this, more than ever.
 
 
# Nautilus 2012-04-13 23:28
Oh no, #Dancemaster. I think Alec has some very good advisers who have told him to milk this one ('The Economist' cover) as much as possible, knowing full well the mass recruitment it will bring to his cause.

Hell hath no fury like a Scotsman insulted (even a Unionist one).
 
 
# mealer 2012-04-14 06:04
Well,well.A shocking piece of "journalism" ridiculing a nation and its natural and rightful aspiration.
 
 
# schawaldowris 2012-04-14 10:04
The comments of London journalists, reviewing the map on Sky news this morning was very revealing.

All the old cliches were wheeled out for the amusement of their majority audience
in southern Britain

"side splittingly funny, subsidy junkies, bankrupt Scots etc"

I wonder if a Scottish publication had published a similar map of England as a global centre for arrogance; would they have found it so "side splittingly funny?"
 
 
# Hamish100 2012-04-14 10:21
This whole issue of the English establishment and political parties is worthy of discussion and yet BBC Scotland leading political comment is about the resignation of a candidate from the forthcoming council election and Bill Walker's resignation. If you want to read anything about the economist you need to link with the various newspaper's website -if your lucky. Carry out a search on BBC and you get news.bbc.co.uk/.../4997606.stm.
Explain BBC why you feel that The Economist's article this week is not worthy of reporting. CENSORSHIP at it's worse.
Surely BBC you can ask the political parties in Scotland if they are content with the cultural, ethnic, social and racist negativity against Scotland and all it's people.
 
 
# Dundonian West 2012-04-14 12:40
Coming up to Scottish local elections-----BBC Scotland can't go asking questions like that!
What BBC do is give Tory/LibDem Westminster government blanket TV/radio coverage for the Far East business trip,including Burma----coming up to English and Wales local elections!!
Censorship-----the people aren't stupid.
 
 
# mmarsattacks 2012-04-14 13:06
Does anyone have a link to a mirror of the article? I'm intrigued to read whatever puerile nonsense is being propagated but reluctant to contribute to their advertising revenue by visiting their site.
 
 
# Louperdowg 2012-04-15 15:06
Aye, its all our fault for not having a sense of humour.

bbc.co.uk/.../...

We're meant to take any old sh*te that's thrown our way and laugh.

Sorry, Douglas, its got to be funny in the first place.
 
 
# Dundonian West 2012-04-15 16:03
I take issue with Fraser's comment about me--
"----they seem to be unable to handle satire and ridicule."
By the State Broadcaster,wit hout my right of reply.

Democracy has gone walkies in Scotland,and the Scottish State Broadcaster is now unfettered Master---not the people or electorate.
Ring any bells?

Goodbye BBC.
 
 
# edinburghdave 2012-04-15 16:11
Yes. It now seems that the beeb are acting in the place of opposition.

Utterly disgraceful
 
 
# Jim1320 2012-04-16 09:03
The cover was a mistake and it lends ammunition to the pro-independence camp. The Unionist side know this and are in a desperate rear-guard action to try and label those critical as somehow lacking in humour. The problem they have is the cover isn't funny.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner
Banner

Latest Comments