1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Skintland: pick up the English burden?

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by txtmsgspk, Apr 14, 2012.

  1. Unlike yourself, I have actually read the original article in the Economist. Yes, it's a none too tactful cover page , and it plays right into Kim Jong Salmond's hands and those of all his wee Braveheart underlings. But can you tell me why the substance of The Economist's argument about the economic perils of independence is wrong?
  2. Don't be too quick, txtmsqpl, to assume that KJS isn't economically literate or his wee Braveheart underlings don't (or, now, didn't) subscribe to things way too difficult for their tiny wee Scottish brains. But since you ask ...
    The Economist’s writers (as the English elite generally) are profoundly ignorant about Scotland. Take the Economist explaining the Act (acts) of Union signed (‘touched’) in 1707: all down to Darien. O.K., let’s skip the English contribution to bursting that financial bubble, the Scottish people were indeed bought and sold for English gold. The reasoning of the elites was, however, political not economic. The Acts were panic about a French-backed Jacobite invasion during Churchill's war and terror of a Roman-Catholic king. It is no wonder the Economist is pig-ignorant of the mere facts of Scottish History: do you know how many supervisions there are on the subject in the universities these Hooray Henries go to (unless they are sooo thick that it has to be Fine Art at St Andrews)? We know why they are ignorant, but that is no excuse when they set about instructing poor benighted natives in what is good for them. The burden of the Economist’s complaint is that the uppity natives won’t listen to opinions delivered in an ‘English accent’, let alone (the editor wails) ‘a plummy one’. Just as well we read their stuff without having to listen to the braying beggars’ plummy pratings.

    The economic arguments are well-known: hydrocarbon impact on a small economy, tourism, golf, whisky, reduced spending on foreign wars and so endlessly on. There will be micro-changes (OK not stochastic shocks) when we get our government and diplomatic apparatus back - Edinburgh consulates grow up and become embassies and Scots get accredited as HMAs. If you know the economic literature, it is clear, for example, that Slovakia has thriven and the rump state (F CZ) is not suffering. Evidence is that Foreign-Direct-Investment follows independence (with positive fx implications), and Scotland has an added advantage in that the natives speak the world’s international language (key when global multinationals make investment decisions). So far as I know, the absolute star performers in Telecommunications are the newly-independent states (penetration ratios over 1.43), and DT and FT are fighting off rival investors from sovereign funds and venture capitalists to get in. So, go easy on assuming Scots are ignorant of Economics or haven’t the wit to run an economy. The F UK might well have a problem but we can always send economic aid.
    The Economist gets dishonest when sound economic argument runs out. Tiny detail, RBS: is in substance though not name NatWest. England is not the EU member and come freedom’s happy return, Scotland and R UK will, equally, be successor states to F UK. Saying anything else betrays the attitude that the Scotch are an ungrateful lot, not appreciating England’s generosity in welcoming 45 uncouth Scotch MPs and the ‘best’ 16 out of the unspeakable hoard of Scotch peers back in 1707. Yes, there are scare stories: the National Debt (English wars created it so they might as well keep it). The ‘Euro’ is headed for perdition (come F UK it will still be the currency of Europe’s biggest economy and ECB is, as even beginning economists learn, BuBa re-incarnated).History as peddled by the English elites is ignorance. Their Economics is a lie. These lads and lassies are scared. It might spoil more than just their grouse moors or a spot of gauf between Henley and rooting for Dave (OE and BNC) and Nick (OW and A&A) at the opening of the Westminster Parliament.
    We will manage just fine when freedom comes. It is the English elites that have to worry. The twits who approved that insulting cover and wrote that ‘economic’ nonsense have got public school and Oxford written all over them. Same lot that run the Westminster show. Every time the Scots have freed ourselves from the rule of English elites the economy recovered. If you knew anything about the Scottish economy in the long run, you would know England is the problem and Europe the solution.
    If you are even half an economist, think ‘fallacy of composition’. Businesses ‘fail’, sovereign states have all sorts of instruments to hand, Scotland hacked it in Europe before and can do it again. Dave doesn’t fancy going down in History as the OE who lost England’s last big colony. Behind the scare stories is the unspoken idea that these uncouth jocks couldn’t run an economy in 2020 any better than they did in 1690. The elites don’t dare say it openly but the schoolboy jokes in that racist cover let the mask slip.
    Come 2014, Dave is F UK. Get used to it.
  3. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter


    Like most nationalists, it doesn't take long for the mask to slip. Your latest diatribe is littered with references to "English elites" and inferences to people of wealth which is typical of grievance politics. You even suggest that the European Union (run by Germany & France for Germany & France) is the solution to our woes and are happy to wrest the economic levers from the Bank of England / Westminster and then give them not to an Edinburgh based bank but to a bank in Europe / Brussels. The best bit is you called the English racist.
  4. FREEDOM !! I guess the Oxford Sir Humprhies can take
    our RBS, but not our Buckfast, eh? Let’s forget the failed Panama scheme of
    three centuries ago and address the current economic situation, shall we?

    The Scottish economy is as dangerously unbalanced as
    the English. Prior to the crash of 2008, it was overdependent on financial
    services with a bloated public sector making up the slack. Some parts of
    Ayrshire in 2007 were more Sovietised than the USSR. Nothing wrong with public
    services, but we also need a vibrant wealth creating sector and manufacturing
    base. Since we have not really made things that the world wants since the
    1960s, if we had been independent around 2007-2008, we ran the risk of an
    Iceland or Ireland style meltdown, complete with high taxes, an overregulated
    economy and probable budget deficit. Salmond points to the Norwiegan, Sweidish
    or Finish examples, but where is our Ikea, Siemans, or Sovereign Wealth Fund?

    You ignore the fact that The Economist does concede
    that North Sea oil and gas may have provided a financial basis for independence
    in the 1970s, but today has probably a decade until the taps begin to dry up.
    The Dear Leader's cry that 'it's Scotland's wind' is laughable. Aside from his
    shambolic defence policy, we would have no currency of our own, no central bank
    or control over interest rates under Salmond's own plans; and he ultimately
    wants to free us from London rule to turn it over to Brussels - if they would
    even have us. The Spanish, wary of setting a precedent for the Basques or
    Catalans, would certainly make it difficult.

    Scotland is not a country of stupid people ; it's
    SNP propaganda which promotes that as the argument of the London set. But trust
    me, although Cameron and co would never
    admit it, they really can't wait for Scotland to go. There would be no West
    Lothian issue, majority Tory governments, and a good share of the national debt
    and most of the toxic assets of a couple of dodgy banks could be gone in one
    fell swoop.
  5. Panama was the text for Oxford’s First Epistle to the Skints. I don’t buy Oxford Simple Scotch History but I do wonder why others are so keen to lick Oxford’s anatomy.

    I hadn’t noticed any collective farms in Socialist Ayrshire but the place is not doing that well under Unionism’s Industrial Plan. It is no news that Ayrshire-near-Glassgone could’t run an economy but it is surprising to hear that an embargo on Buckfast Abbey’s exports is a big issue. Not even Our Tam (OE, Kings) raised the Buckie Question.

    Elite English schools litter our politics. Give them their due, schools that cost mummy and daddy GBP 30,000 a year, have to be good to shoehorn half-wits into Oxbridge. It is the Uncle Tams who tag along that amaze me.

    Fair enough the Scottish economy, as Text Message speaks, 'is as dangerously unbalanced as the English.’ Any idea who might have created the situation? 1997 and that plausible OF who had honed his skills at Johns. Somerville gal doing her bit for Mining and Metals in North Britain back in the 1980s? If, as Unionists think, Oxford’s finest have created the present economy, I just don't get why Skintland needs yet more of the same.

    I do agree wholeheartedly that the English elites would just love to be shot of Skintland. They hated the McMafia and truly winced at that unspeakable Glassgone Speaker. Tory MPs are indeed rarer than pandas. So, Unionist Text might quite plausibly message why would the Old Boys pass up the prospect of an eternal Tory majority in F UK?

    Understand their narrative. These guys on the Economist would just hate thinking an OE lost the empire. Sit in chapel and browse the war memorials during ‘congers’. Their myths explain the elite’s puerile racist jokes. These geezers know perfectly well that the sniveling subsidy junkies in Skintland are the Englishman’s burden. The point is they were brought up to bear it, to reap the old reward.

    The racist jibes that slipped out are a pure gift to grievance politics but the fact remains they were grossly offensive. Put 'Israel' instead of tight-fisted 'Skintland' and it really would go beyond the pale. I doubt if anyone who knows these boys would take the stuff to heart but they are not usually daft enough to reveal the mindset and for me the interesting thing is the glimpse of how elites still think. The interesting thing in what has been said here is the Uncle Tam reaction. Form is a matter of taste, but is there any argument against substance? The elite is rattled. Their cover is indefensible. Why defend them?
  6. Aber1991

    Aber1991 New commenter

    Why do you hate the English so much? They have their faults (Who has not?) but, overall, they are not bad people. Do not judge the English by the few idiotic journalists among them. Please remember that the controversial journalist tends to be widely read and the widely read journalist tends to be wealthy. A journalist is the print equivalent of the Page 3 topless model. If people buy a newspaper to read what that so-and-so has written this week, that so-and-so has done a good job.
  7. I haven't read the article but I find the snippets I have seen offensive - because they're desperately unfunny. I don't mind sick jokes but they have to be funny.
    That said, the journos may be right about an independent Scotland toiling economically. And Alex Salmond's reaction seems to have been way over the top.
  8. Whaaat???
    This will be the English who brought Protestantist depredation to Ireland? Surely they're almost as bad as the Presbyterian Scots who settled in Ulster?
  9. socrates82

    socrates82 Occasional commenter

    Nope, different "English" surely? The people who did things centuries ago are well gone. Why hold a grudge against modern-day English people?
  10. Aber1991

    Aber1991 New commenter

    No, they are not nearly as bad.

  11. What ever persuaded you, Aber, that I disliked the English? Just like you, and I'd guess the lot of us, no reason to dislike any nation. When (and if) the particular young adults responsible properly master the necessary technique, the long-awaited grandchildren will be 75% English. No, my wrath was directed at a tiny elite and I took to the keyboard simply because ‘Skintland’ reminded me of where, exactly, these jokers come from.

    The nexus between barely 20 schools and, perhaps, 20 colleges is noxious. It becomes a public menace when it produces England’s leaders and Scotland’s proconsuls. Tory (OE), Liberal (OW) or Labour (OF): same self-seeking Oxford twit, different wrapping. The system is rotten. Dig out the obituaries on that minister who died recently and read between the lines. ‘The Master’ never spoke to ‘undergraduettes’. Never much encouraged oiks (of either persuasion) from inner-city, multi-whatsit comps to apply. Daft thing is, at the time, we thought these dear old cards were mildly amusing. Really daft thing, when you are young you just assume that’s the way things are, enjoy the world’s best university, have fun and move on.

    The lower orders accept Tony and Norman, Dave and Nick running the show and minding the colony. It is only when someone happens to remember where the 'Skintland' jibes are coming from that it gets scary. Picture their mates editing ‘Skintland’; hoary racist jokes, the more puerile, the better. Hoots mawn, Jock! Run an ekaunomy! In Edinborrow?

    What consenting adults do among themselves is their business but it’s a pity that so few Skints get to see their ruling caste prance and caper in its natural late-adolescent habitat. But no, Aber, the English are fine. It’s the elite-clique that worries me. It’s sad, however, that quite so many Skints fall for ‘economic’ scare stories or tug their forelocks and grin inanely at Old Boy witticisms. All the moral fibre of your average cocker spaniel.
    And, before anyone speaks up for Spaniels, one of my best friends ......
  12. cochrane1964

    cochrane1964 New commenter

    Coherent response from BernieKilwinning and a stereotypically depressing knee-jerk set of accusations from others. Why should the ambitious aspiration to run your own country mean you 'hate the English?' England is not my frame of reference as a global citizen as many of the shameful and piratical actions of the empire should make us cower from association. Forza Scotia!
  13. Cower from association? Would this be the same empire that Scots played a disproportionately large role in governing, fighting for, and settling/ subduing the natives on behalf of??
  14. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter

    Some people would view it as an ambitious aspiration to keep running their own country the way it is without resorting to nationalistic drivel.
  15. Gosh, thanks, Cochrane, for speaking up for forza scozzese. There was never much to worry about from the Unionist poodles here: they do keep yapping but there's never much substance to them. Skintland’s finest.
    But give the boys at Westminster their due, they do know how to play for Queen and Empire. A sticky wicket but there is an outside chance of getting over 2014. Down to tail-enders is no time for wild strokes. Even Unionism’s Skintish correspondent here saw that careless cut was ‘none too tactful’ before being run-out on arguments. Wherever Salmond learned his game he’s Skintland’s first decent eligible player since Jockie Jardine last bowled. And, unlike Jardine, even plays for the home team. But, sooner or later it will be time to clap the gallant loosers off the field on the walk from Dunbattin, through Bowling and back to Footinmouth-upon-Tweed. They could always burn to their acts of union and keep the Ashes.
    But I went too far, with that none too tactful notion that our own dear Unionist poodles were like cocker spaniels. I was unpardonably rude to spaniels and was getting worried they might have friends in forza per la Liberazione di cagnolini. So thank you for that assurance. May le forze be with you.
    Anyway, must dash, the wife wants to use the computer. Something about the neighbours getting cross.

  16. Sorry Bernie, this Unionist Vichyite Uncle Tom, quisling,
    Oxford **se kisser disputes that he run out of arguments! I just neglected to respond to another grievance
    laden rant attacking elite schools, ‘racism’ and ‘half wits’. You
    also missed the subtle point I made about Scotland not producing ‘things that
    the world wants’ since the 1960s before the predictable assault on a Tory PM
    who didn’t go anywhere near an elite secondary school. Please stop the juvenile attacks on people of
    a unionist persuasion and not view any acknowledgment that you may have a
    sliver of a point on certain things as a sign of weakness or admission of
    defeat. </font>

  17. Well done, Bernard. They try to take you on at your own rhetorical game, but their Unionist grammar always lets them down.
  18. Indeed, Cthulthum, indeed. Some can express a four-letter word without resort to ****. One cannot but agree that in Either of the Universities one becomes habituated to accurate expression. The problem comes with one's supervision partner who cannot survive 50-minutes against some evil don, bereft of m'tutor's spoon-feeding. Blood sports are nothing compared to that game. All sorts are let loose on an unsuspecting labour market with an MA (Oxon) to their name. But if the grammar is a lost cause, Txtmsgspk's economics may not be beyond redemption.
    So, Txtmsgspk, your comments were not ignored, one simply thought it unwise to be too heavy-handed with what seemed rather feeble stuff. I lost my taste for blood sports. But a week has passed and you still insist there is an economic case. Fair enough, some Political Economy. Other folks are doing their bit to lambast Wasteminster and Loandon, Cthulthum has been somewhat unkind, so time to elevate the tone.

    Take it back to first principles and model a theoretical situation. Tell us all how sub-diving a component makes a difference so significant the parties should recoil in horror from the division.

    The several sovereign state of the USA are, mutatis mutandis, analogous to the British Isles within the EU. Suppose Colorando wants to split into Colorando North and Colorado South. Now, tell us exactly how, in the name of Arthur Marshall, Maynard Keynes and all the Holy Saints and Prophets of Economics, does anyone conclude that CN is, a priori, headed for certain economic perdition. Why would an economically-rational CS seek to avert such an outcome?

    Economic statistics do not exist for every unit. No one knows the balance of trade between Colorado and Kansas. It must exist. It may be knowable. It is presently unknown. We cannot model all the inter-connected changes but look at the big picture. Lots of European states have launched into independence: nobody sinks. There will be innumerable changes: that&rsquo;s the economic dynamic. Why fret over petty detail? Change will happen, there will be winners and losers but that will happen whether Skintland stays in the UK or leaves the F UK to get on with it. Economies never know where exactly they are going. The UK certainly doesn&rsquo;t know, so why worry about what Skintland or the F UK knows?

    The 'economic' case is spurious. There may be an argument that the Skints are genetically incompetent indeed and will meet a horrible fate (again). Perhaps the prodigal will need to be clutched up once more to Britannia's ever-generous bosom. I know there is a mind-set back at the alma mater that sees things that way but I don't see a big lot of difference between one load of Unionists remembering 1690 and another telling us to remember 1698. Scare tactics and pseudo-Economics. There is an ugly side to Unionism but there is no economic sense in them.
    Over to you to model CN and CS. Should be a gas.

  19. 'Twould be perfect, were it not for Mike Russell. I hope that after a successful result in 2014, Scottish education can return to its traditional model, whereby pupils have to learn huge amounts off by heart and, if they fail, are beaten to within an inch of their lives. You think I'm joking...?
  20. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter

    I would like one of the SNP supporters to unravel the hypocrisy of how you can take control away from one legislative body and give it to another legislative body based even further away, with less structural and cultural links to Scotland, and still call this "Independence".

Share This Page