In the article, they've also used a rather amusing picture:
The result, of course, has been SNP outrage and cybernat pandemonium.
Here a few choice words in response:
- Total
- po-faced
- chippy
- humourless
- NUTTERS.
This applies to the SNP leadership as well as the cybernats, of course. It just goes to show what some of us have always thought: that the one reflects the other, the grassroots fanatics are actually like the leadership and vice-versa.
It also exposed the nasty, bullying side of Kim Sal Mond as well. What exactly did he mean by promising the Economist that it would "rue the day"? Would it be banned in an "independent" Scotland? That happens to the Economist quite a lot, actually, in places like Zimbabwe, China and even Singapore. Does His Immensity not believe in a free press?
The articles are both good, balanced and correct, of course. One of the little facts which has somehow escaped the CyberNattosphere is that they were probably written by one Peter Jones - otherwise known as Mr. Rhona Brankin.
Good job, Pete.
17 comments:
Talking of husbands and wifies, I see your old pal Jenny Hjul now has a weekly gig at the Courier ;0)
Yes, my mum informed me of this a few weeks back. She's offended because she really liked the columnist Jenny replaced.
We're not actually "pals" - "nodding acqaintances" is as high as I'd put it.
Ah, yes, John J Marshall. He gave the Courier a slightly harder edge than the more insipid approach they'd employed hitherto.
Don't know about your mum, but in his earlier days he used to lay into Dundee and Holyrood politicians, but in his latter days he seemed to get bored of this and strayed onto the kind of stuff that's available in umpteen different newspapers, so I went off him a bit.
Still the best of the Courier's columnists though, but Ms Hjul is an adequate replacement.
I liked the way she started on celebrity chefs and suchlike in her first couple of columns, but then got onto the SNP's 'banana republic' and suchlike. LOL.
How many Scots read the Economist?
Cybernats getting a major rant on about a non-story as usual.
But funnily enough, haven't seen any comments about a certain council candidate who had a wee rant on Facebook :p
I assume you got beaten up at school for being a broon nosing wee wanker and clipe! It's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for you being such a complete and utter tosspot who likes taking it up the arse from his "betters" in the Unionist parties! LOL! SAOR ALBA! p.s. bet you moderate this off ya pussy!
I don't know who Anonymous is referring to, but I sense that he/she may be a touch critical of the article.
And that's a big "thank you" to "anonymous" for providing an example of the kind of Cybernat behaviour we have to put up with.
I think I'll leave it up as a memorial.
"The articles are both good, balanced and correct, of course"
Does that description apply to The Article's contention that Scotland "performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade?"
Of course it does - it illustrates how good the Union has been lately, doesn't it?
But of course we're only looking at GDP / GVA, which has certain limitations as an index of national "wealth".
I mean, who actually believes Luxemburgers are more than three times richer than Britons?
Hold on, "Hapless" Swinney probably does.
"Of course it does - it illustrates how good the Union has been lately, doesn't it?"
Lately? you mean having an SNP government fighting Scotland's cause? I might give you that...
Find me a Nat policy which has unamigbuously aided growth.
This will be amusing, because at the end you will have to admit to being a Tory.
sm753 said...
Of course it does - it illustrates how good the Union has been lately, doesn't it?
Does it? The people of NE England or the West Midlands or Yorkshire should, presumably, be matching Scotland's performance. They're in the Union too, you know.
So, why is Scotland, inside the Union, outperforming ALL UK regions outside London and the SE?
"So, why is Scotland, inside the Union, outperforming ALL UK regions outside London and the SE?"
To start with, let's note that "London and the SE" accounts for around 15 million people, so if they are doing well then "greatest good of the greatest number" applies.
Secondly, I do not at this point know what the Economist have done about North Sea revenues. The basic ONS dataset assigns them to the "Extra Regio"; did they increase the Scotland number by adding ~90% of the North Sea to it? If so, how did they divvy up the remainder, which would have been shared between NE, NW, Wales, East, East Mids and even SE (Wytch Farm - onshore oilfield).
Comparing these numbers with a previous set (http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/union-has-failed-scotland-economically.html) causes a bit of suspicion - did Scotland's economy really overtake that of Eastern England between 2007 and 2010, given all the banking stuff?
I don't have time to check all this out now. The main point from the Economist stands: there is no "hidden" "stolen" cache of billions to be realised on "independence", we'd end up with public finances no better than now. Worse, in fact, when you factor in the costs of setting up and running all the "independent" institutions like FCO, MOD, Treasury, DWP, central bank and so on. What's the point?
I had a mixed reaction to the articles/cover. There were some good points in the articles although I did not agree with the overall assumption that an independent Scotland's economy would not change from what it is now.
Once Korea was a complete basketcase up until the 1950s. Occupation, war, exploitation, partition. Yet the south is now in the G20 - a country with little natural resources.
Not sure what your position SM is on banks and oil. Is it oor oil and also oor banks or is it oil held in common and oor banks----
A bit nostrophobic if you ask me.
Anyway since you object to chippiness, po-faced etc I suppose you will not mind these beauties---- and the comments attached.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVfCqUWs9mo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltLA22xZuf0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITI43umKeXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHFGf5-TxJc&feature=related
Some unpleasant views aye - particularly by the video Turk, but if we feel the need to indulge in Scottish nostrophobia then it be fair to indulge in British as well---
So Jenny's billet in the Courier - she was whining about Cybernats making "spiteful comments". Thought to myself that for some it is a hobby - for you it is a profession Jenny love---
Behind all nationalist movements there tends to be economics behind it. Let it be the American colonialists, the Slovenes and Croats, the Baltic States or even the Czechs in the Austrian Empire.
The UK is very skewed economically. This hereby lies the problem. In Germany political and economic power is more equitably distributed - hence no serious sepratist movement even by the lying British unionists who claim there is a strong one in Bavaria (check Struan Stevenson passim).
However despite 400-800 years together the skewing in neighbouring Habsburg Empire collapsed like a pack of cards in 1918 unlike Germany which had only been together since 1871.
In tribute to the defunct Austrian Union and the upcoming jubilee, a little light music---
GOD SAVE QUEEN ELIZABETH (hee!)--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv99xk-MaAM&feature=related
(of Hungary, Bohemia, Galicia, Croatia etc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cduhs3e1c0
Smee, from time to time in The Hootsmon I post comments headed NEWS FROM THE SECOND FRONT. These are cut-and-pastes of views expressed (usually in The Telegraph) by the growing constituency of Middle England's Tory Separatists.
There will be a batch posted within the next few hours but I thought I'd give you a sneak preview:
"Here's the (English) answer to the West Lothian Question...
**** *** Scotland. We don't want you. We don't need you. Go it alone, you ungrateful bunch of ******s.
If you make a success if independence...fine. If not, that's fine too.
We just don't care."-#lordmuck
==================================
And here is a post by a man after your own heart -save for his separatism:
" It would be so much simpler, easier and better if England had its own parliament. Damn the Scots and damn the union. Old England and John Bull don't need them."-Grand0ldTory
===================================
My point is this: why don't you branch out to do some ENGLISH nationalist myth-busting. For I tell you, the separatist pressure building there makes that of Jowly Eck's outfit seem tame. And it reaches right to the top of the Tory Party. I wonder what your favourite lesbian kick-boxer made of the recent cat let out of the bag by Peter Cruddas, (also caught out selling access to the PM for big bucks).
This bog is simply embarrassing, it's like watching a middle aged man dancing at a wedding.... take it down.
AB
"I did not agree with the overall assumption that an independent Scotland's economy would not change from what it is now."
Well, with the same currency & interest rates (apparently) and the fact that London will still be there, will you let me know how that hopey-changey stuff works out fur ya?
Cyn
I think you overestimate their chances. As well as their importance, numbers and indeed sanity.
Muttley
Tell me, which one of us is the one who ran a blog which got him sacked? Ah yes. It's you, isn't it.
Post a Comment