2007 - 2020

Diminished Responsibility

BYji5RcIEAAXg-d.jpg large

Britain will be ‘diminished’ – ‘pull yourself together!’ ‘A country that cannot hold itself together is scarcely in a position to lecture others’. The simple message from the incandescent Economist magazine that seems to have a real thing about Scotland. From it’s infamous Skintland map to its more mundane everyday Jock-Bashing (‘Cosa Scotia‘) – something is putting the fear of panic into these people. In their recent issue they whine ‘Britain once ran the world’. It’s like a ‘serious’ magazine that has become a giant Trolling fanzine. A glossy high-production newsletter for wealthy but slightly dim people.

In ‘Little England or Great Britain?‘ they suggest that the stark choice facing, er, ‘us’, somehow is that: “Britain could emerge from all this smaller, more inward-looking and with less clout in the world (and, possibly, with its politics fractured). Or it could become more efficient, surer of its identity and its place in Europe and more outward-looking. Call them the Little England and Great Britain scenarios.”

Um, okay. If you say so.

We’re touched by the notion of ‘Britain’ emerging ‘surer of its own identity’ through the referendum process, but less convinced of the Economists gravitas having confused Caledonia and Hibernia. Och well, Micks and Jocks eh?

And we love the idea that ‘Britain would be more inward looking’ from England voting to leave the EU. This is a magazine with a serious identity crisis.

BYjeB0zIYAA9yYo

Comments (0)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Dave Coull says:

    I suppose “a Hibernian state could more or less pay its way to begin with” could be intended as a sort of extremely belated re-assurance for the folks in West Britain (capital, Dublin), but, if so, the rest of that sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

  2. Andrew Ellis says:

    Another truly dreadful article from TheEconomist; totally barking premise as well as poorly researched and proofed!

  3. B McGhee says:

    We must remember that The Economist is written not by wise old investors but by bright young economic graduates with heads full of ideology and no experience of the world whatsoever.

    1. James Coleman says:

      I am afraid you have got that a bit wrong. The Economist is written by the recent products of the English education system which turns out people who are half educated and with a view that SE England is the world. (trying to palm off the Hibernia/Caledonia error as something to do with Latin translations is hilarious)

  4. So full of geographical and factual errors from an author who has never been north of Watford by any measure. Ignorance, in this case, is truly bliss …..

  5. Abulhaq says:

    The tenor of the Economist articles is akin to the Dad’s Army character flapping about shouting “don’t panic”. England or UKGB can come out of this if the Scots can be persuaded, cajoled or threatened to keep their 32% land area and energy-producing territorial waters in Westminster’s grasp. Should the worst Scottish play scenario prevail England must not turn to Ukip or quit the EU and turn isolationist though. No mention of the bruised rUK turning revanchiste vis-à-vis the “Hibernian” ( Celts, they’re all the bloody same) ingrates. The English are not keen on immigrants but they do fill gaps in the economy the natives wont or cant fill. If only “we” could make stuff like the Germans the garden of Eng-Lond would be perfect. Note, of course, that sovereign Scotland would be ineluctably doomed to marginalization and political irrelevance: so no substantive change there.. Essentially we have started something “they” would prefer to be able to ignore. England’s establishment has lost an empire and has still to find a rôle. Better Together? not likely mate!

  6. Written as if Scotland is somehow an asset? Primarily, this sounds positive – like a tip of a cap, but of course, absolutely no chance.

  7. douglas clark says:

    “If Scotland votes for independence, whatever remains will be shaken.”

    I’d have hoped so. ‘Whatever remains’ needs to be shaken out of it’s love of imperialist fantasies.

    It might find that killing people in Afghanistan and Iraq and other countries is not a sustainable foriegn policy.

    Perhaps they would get a bit of realpolitik?

  8. Tony Collins says:

    Check these omniscient Economist peeps out, you can learn more about the London bubble from this clip than anyone could about ‘the Celtic Fringe’ (that’s us btw) and our drive for separateness

    http://www.economist.com/multimedia?bclid=1242934274001&bctid=2817009064001

  9. James Morton says:

    Once again a little insight into how flimsy the UK really has become. I would argue that the hollowing out began long before Thatcher, but she certainly took a hammer to what was left. Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron have presided over its decline. Mismanaged decline that is.

  10. Jim says:

    I do believe the Economist has taken on board a couple of your comments and changed the article accordingly. It now states “Caledonian” rather than “Hibernian”!

    1. bellacaledonia says:

      Good to be of service

  11. Harald says:

    Does Bella have a “real thing” about the Economist? Of all the metropolitan media, the Economist is surely among the better – and generally more reliable – reads. And, at times, deliberately provoking. Good.

  12. Lochside says:

    Really this latest Economist’s article encapsulates all the reasons that any sane Scottish democrat (i.e.me) can’t wait to dissolve the dysfunctional disaster that constitutes the ‘union’. Poorly written, based on desperate illusory beliefs about ‘separists’ buying ‘political snake oil, the latter of which will ‘dry up’,(that is the real oil of course!). Suddenly the economic geniuses of this rag who never saw the crash coming and who have sneered at ‘SKINTLAND’ are now scrabbling around like drowning rats trying to reassure themselves that ‘britain’ can only survive If they hang on to us in ‘Hibernia’. Why would we want to, does not occur to them as the rational view is to take our resources and go. Our ability to see beyond the totally bankrupt neo-con economic model that these myopic little Englanders worship is what drives them into a blind panic of Private Jones-itis. Don’t panic indeed, well it’s too effing late!

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.