The Wiki Man

Why is nationalism OK when prefixed by the word ‘Scottish’ but not ‘British?’

They're scared to praise British culture, so they talk money. It doesn't work

13 September 2014

9:00 AM

13 September 2014

9:00 AM

My second favourite religious joke is an old Jewish joke (which I read in the Harvard Review, so I assume it has passed the political correctness test).

Two Jews pass a church displaying a sign promising $1,000 to all new converts. After much debate, one of the men decides to take up the offer and enters the church. An hour passes, then another as the friend waits outside. Finally he comes out of the church and his friend eagerly asks, ‘So, did you get the money?’ The first man glares back and says, ‘Is that all you people think about?’

You could transfer this punchline to the Scottish independence debate.

Imagine you proposed divorcing your husband, and he responded by compiling a spreadsheet listing the additional costs of maintaining two households and implored you to stick together to save on the household bills. The thought is hideous. Any appeal to equate loyalty with economic self-interest is instinctively repellent to normal people. The argument that two countries should stay together solely for financial reasons may be economically sound but it is psychologically tone deaf.

Allowing money to affect your allegiance never goes down well with the punters, as Judas and Ephialtes both discovered. The ‘no’ campaign should have spotted this. Most Eurosceptics find it distasteful when the case for remaining in the EU is framed in purely economic terms. In any case, economic arguments will inevitably favour greater centralisation, since the cult of economics is obsessed with the theory of ‘economies of scale’ (a doctrine which has been used to justify many corporate mergers, even though all evidence suggests these mostly fail).

The late Elinor Ostrom showed that the human reality is more complex than this. Human organisation is naturally polycentric — think of ancient universities, which are divided into both faculties and colleges, or the way the military is structured. Some things are better centralised; other things aren’t. In city police departments, it makes sense to centralise specialisms such as forensics, but for all the supposed economies of scale, things get worse if you combine separate police precincts into larger, anonymous units, where group cohesion breaks down. In part, unity within a group is driven by rivalry with nearby groups. This can be found in nation states.

When you do need to create unity in larger groups, you need more than narrow appeals to self-interest: you need emotional appeal too. Writing about the ‘cognitive revolution’ which transformed Homo sapiens into a uniquely social species, Yuval Noah Harari suggests ‘the truly unique feature of our language is not its ability to transmit information about lions or about men. Rather, it’s the ability to transmit information about things that don’t exist at all… Many animals and many human species could previously also have said something like careful, there is a lion. But, thanks to the cognitive revolution, Homo sapiens acquired the ability to say [….] there is a lion-man spirit which is guarding our tribe.’

The simple problem is that the ‘yes’ campaign can invoke the lion-man as much as they like but the ‘no’ campaign can’t. ‘Nationalism’ is somehow OK when prefixed by the word ‘Scottish’ but not by the word ‘British’. No one on the right can praise British culture, because it makes you sound like a skinhead, and nobody on the left can do so because you have to maintain the pretence that all cultures are equally admirable except for those practised by white people you don’t like. So they talk about money instead.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Rory Sutherland is vice-chairman of Ogilvy Group UK.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Fenton!

    No: talking about nationalism in conjunction with Britain does NOT make you a skinhead. I may be short on top but I have luxurious curly ears.


  • gerontius

    “The argument that two countries should stay together solely for
    financial reasons may be economically sound but it is psychologically
    tone deaf.”

    I agree, but the No Campaign appears to be winning.

    • Rik

      In spite of its self

    • MountainousIpswich

      No. It’s literally neck and neck. Every poll showing one side or the other ahead is now well within the margin of error.

      But No started with a 20 point lead. It’s now nothing, there’s a week to go. The outcome is highly unpredictable but I would be immensely surprised if Yes doesn’t win.

  • Terry Field

    Economics is a fine discipline of no value whatsoever.
    Because no governments take the slightest notice of it as they bankrupt their societies to buy the living standards and votes of the hordes of the proles.
    In the context of Independence for Scotland, economics offers the proof that our ‘leaders’ (slugs and cockroaches in evidence not everywhere, but thick on the ground) know the price of everything, and the value of nothing,
    Except that they even lie about the price of everything.

  • E Hart

    Spot on, Rory, but for one thing… If you think back for a moment, it is difficult to imagine Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Che Guevara, Wesley, O’Connell, Galileo… galvanising the people by saying: “We are going to have a lot more of the same… I don’t have a dream, as it happens, in fact I don’t really have anything to offer at
    all. Oh, but wait, I have this, it’s a 307-year-old pup which bites and shits
    all over the carpet… I know. I know. You want something different. I hear
    want you’re saying but you’re not going to get it.”

    Without a referent that takes people from one domain to another we are closer to nature than we like to think. Surely, our ability to make metaphors separates us from the beasts. Marx noted: “What separates the worst of architects from the best
    of bees is the architect first constructs the building in his imagination.” The Better Together campaign has de-constructed everything without imagination. It’s gone to the window of opportunity and thrown itself out. Who told them an iniquitous,
    impoverished stasis presided over by detached, corrupt, complacent and unrepresentative politicians (passing legislation without a mandate in the case of NHS) was the stuff of dreams?

    This isn’t entirely their fault as with everything being commoditised or rationalised the only remaining predicate is whether a particular action is “good” for business. It doesn’t matter whether it is any good for the people in whose sovereign name it
    is enacted, just so long as it pleases an unaccountable autarkic entity known
    as capital. Oh, the risks! The risks! This comes from political parties and
    businesses which collaborated in bringing the world economy to its knees. Experience is full of risk but that’s how we learn. One of the enduring characteristics of humanity is that we’ve taken the long view since the Paleolithic that if it ain’t broke – for God’s sake fix it. As consequence we can now watch the Great British Bake-Off from the Lazy-Boy recliner or buy something from those serial tax-avoiders Amazon or Starbucks rather than go out a-hunter-gathering.

    People couldn’t give a damn about paying slightly more in Asda if the referendum delivers a popular, sovereign, representative, accountable democracy. Oh, and that marvelous additive – hope. Nothing kills the human spirit more than stasis. Similarly, where a brass plaque is in relation to RBS is inconsequential. It could be in Edinburgh, London, on the chairman’s bog seat, or perhaps, as it may be soon,
    in Frankfurt. When the Better Together campaign needed something over-arching
    to sell the union, all it could find was a name that danced a gavotte with
    irony and an endless stream of negatives. The possibility that the NHS – one of
    the few state bodies held in any esteem by the electorate – will be hived off
    to the private sector, leaves precious little of the union to support. What is
    there? History? Vodafone? B&Q? The City? Far from being lion-man or
    lion-hearted the union is in danger of being a rat rampant. To face tomorrow,
    you need a better prospectus that what happened yesterday, especially if wasn’t
    very good.

    Martin Luther King could see the Promised Land; Gandhi, O’Connell, Mandela could see independence and freedom; Wesley had Methodism; Galileo had truth and knowledge; Guevara, a brand of socialism… What does Better Together have? It offers an increasingly meaningless pageant which sidelines the demos to the role of one dimensional man – the archetypal Eloi – he or she who asks nothing and expects nothing. This is the nadir for an endlessly creative species seared with a concept of justice. The Scots referendum on the ground has created a buzz. It may fail in its objective but it has enlivened the population with the realisation that it possesses power. It can go to the ball.

    No may, of course, still prevail but it’ll be out of fear rather than from reason, right,
    inspiration or aspiration. The reason for this is manifest. For the majority of
    people, the union is going downhill fast. It just remains for the Marlboro
    cowboy to ride up to the NHS with a writ for loss of earnings and the coup will
    be complete. A state were power is devolved to business and the electorate are
    mere spectators in a process rubber stamped by compliant, corrupt politicians,
    is dead to democracy. Indeed, it’s fascistic. No bloody wonder so many of the
    Scots want independence!

  • aurila

    if you promote British culture you will be punished because you are not promoting multiculti

    the consequence is that Scotland will leave the UK

    all predictable from the moment multculti started getting promted

    • global city

      as is the intention.

    • maharbbal

      If you promote British culture you will be punished by the gods of good taste. You’ll probably end up in some isolated corner of Hell (presumingly called Infernoshire) pushing a Vauxhall Astra up a hill that never ends while loudspeakers blast Maggy T’s Winter of Discontent speech.

  • beenzrgud

    In some respects it’s difficult to argue with these statements, but they would make far more sense if those in Westminster were actually following a sound economic policy that was for the benefit of the entire UK. Instead Westminster’s primary purpose seems to be to implement some great social experiment and blast whether it makes economic sense. The only economic considerations that appear to matter are those within the M25 and in their own bank accounts. Everywhere else is treated with ambivalence at best, and downright disdain at worst.

  • Roger Hudson

    The best expression of what i have been saying for weeks, though i like the word ‘nationhood’.Perhaps the Londoners think of the old stereotype of a Scot obsessed by how many groats they have in their sporran so concentrate on the economy.

  • Ludo

    London’s politicians & media have been kicking Britishness to death for decades. Did you really expect them to put the corpse on display as part of the No campaign?

    • Moderator

      Those half dead fear in their eyes Orangemen who walked through Edinburgh yesterday certainly seemed to be on their last gasp of air.

      • whattheflip

        Seems that the Orangemen are the only people who actually still give a sh*t

        • Moderator

          Sht is what the UK is…

          • whattheflip

            Brilliant! Almost a proper sentence

  • It’s certainly been a very enlightening dry-run, to see precisely the kind of economic blackmail that will inevitably be trotted out, when and if we get an EU referendum.

    • global city

      Yes. The good news is that only an emotional plea has had any resonance with the ‘NO’ potential voters…a plea that the Eurofanatics cannot make for the EU…. whilst all of the blackmail and threats of doom caused the leap in the ‘Yes’ vote. If I were Scottish i would vote Yes just to spite the manipulative and immoral Westminster elite with their lies of commercial Armageddon.

      Peter Hitchens sums up the absurd situation much better than I

    • colchar

      If Scotland leaves and turns into an economic basket case, as is entirely possible, I wonder how that would affect any push for what remained of Britain to leave the EU? I wonder if watching Scotland sink might make people reluctant to vote against the EU?

  • global city

    Since WWII we have had a relentless assault on anything and everything British, as part of the silly games or revisionists, ‘revolutionaries’ (usually glib, usually from the Arts and academe) and other stupid Lefties.

    If that identity is trashed then what’s left other than the old national allegiances? The Left have assumed that if they killed of the UK state and any notion of ‘Britishness’ the grateful masses would form a new identity based on internationalism and solidarity with the new elites (the lefties).

    The trouble with most stupid lefty ideas is their delusion that the march to the sunlit uplands is linear, progressive and inevitable. History teaches us otherwise….but they never, ever learn.

    • Livia

      You’re in a country ruled by a govt. of people descended from the English aristocracy, who are the dancing monkeys of corporate giants, and you think the country is overrun with leftists. I applaud your insanity but wish you a speedy recovery.

      • global city

        All the evidence shows that ‘the eye opening’ always goes the other way, as with years come wisdom, and just sheer understanding of reality.

        Rejecting your twee call to global revolution and cultural Marxism aplenty is not to support the current set up or the cliques who rule the roost at present.

        Don’t you read history or modern political books? Your fetishes have been implemented any number of times, in many a diverse community round the world… they have always failed, but not before reducing ‘the workers’ to misery and oppression for years.

      • whattheflip

        The establishment IS dominated by leftists especially the BBC. You only need to watch an episode of eastenders to see that

        • mandelson

          Eastenders – a trendy metropolitan’s revolting concept of something he/she know nothing about – the white working class.

          • whattheflip

            Even worse than that. The script-writers seem to be genuinely interested in reversing gender roles. Women are portrayed as “strong” and their cruelty and violence is acceptable (the daughter of the Queen Vic landlord threatened to “kick the crap” out of some bloke. Illegal immigrants are portrayed as “salt of the earth” compared to the native “scum”. I can’t think of a single positive male role model. Disgraceful! It would be good if people refused to pay the licence fee on mass.

  • Cymrugel

    The NO campaign have focused primarily on economics because those are the priorities of the Westminster elite and the money men in London.
    These are people who as Wild said know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.,
    Yet we have allowed them to take over the country and run it fcor over a geberaytion andnbow evrhwhere but a small area ofLondo is quite literally fallingapart.

  • rtj1211

    Well, I suppose you need to ask whether it was the Scottish Empire or the British Empire which imposed itself of the world. The answer is that Scots were part of the British Empire imposition, but that the post 1945 era has been about imposing London-ness on the Scots whether they like it or not. Plenty of Scots involved in London-ness too….

    Difficulty about Britishness is that most of it is about wars, Empire and imposition.

    We don’t have a British education system, we have one in England/Wales, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland.

    Most major sports are run on a national basis, not a British Basis. We don’t have the British Premier League, we have the English Premier League, which specifically excludes the Scots. If Britishness were so important, all the Establishment would have told the Scottish FA numpties that the Leagues would be merged, with associated regionalisation at the lower levels for transportation and cost reasons. It’s a matter of national pride that this hasn’t happened. So not much evidence of Britishness there. Same in cricket, rugby and the other major ‘traditional ‘British’ sports’: the ‘England’ cricket team (not the British cricket team) is run by the EWCC, not the BCC, isn’t it? The four unions exist in Rugby Union, with Northern Ireland in fact aligned with a distinct sovereign nation. We cobble together a team once every four years to represent Britain and Ireland which works pretty well, but we don’t compete normally as Britain.

    We don’t Have the Bank of Britain, we have the Bank of England. We’ve had 300 years to rebrand something or other as the British Central Bank, but we’ve never done it. So much for British culture at the heart of our financial institutions. England and Scotland remained willfully separate throughout the 300 year Union. Strange that, isn’t it??

    So what do we have? We have a unified Crown, which was a necessity rather than a democratically chosen event. We have unified armed forces run from London and Northwood. We have unified embassies across the globe and unified political representation at the UN. We have a passport.

    None of those things make me feel especially bonded to the other nations of the Union, to be honest. They are things which just are.

    Strange that we privatised BRITISH Steel, we privatised BRITISH rail, we privatised BRITISH Airways, we privatised BRITISH Leyland. We privatised BRITISH Petroleum, which is no longer seen as a national icon except when President Obama of the USA wishes to apply punitive damages to lower share prices for his AMERICAN oil behemoths to buy at a cheaper strike price. We’ve just started privatising the ROYAL Mail, which is a truly british service. Most of those things with the BRITISH badge on them were pilloried by the Conservative and Unionist Party as being the epitome of socialist evil. Really?? They were communally owned commercial ventures which were highly visible daily symbols of British endeavour. Now they are all owned by who knows who, but plenty fo foreigners to be sure. And you wonder why BRITISH culture is diluted out??

  • JoeDM

    Promote British values and you’ll be called a racist !!!

  • Mike

    There’s many a ‘bored’ wife who divorced with the expectation of getting most of the ‘spoils’ of their union and leaving debts behind and in many cases the family courts give them more than 50% even when there are no kids involved. I know, I only got 45% and I had to pay the lazy b**** maintenance on top until I retired. That said, I’m the happy one now whilst she wallows in self pity at her predicament years later.

    Maybe its not best to point that out with any type of divorce but it had to be said if not for Scottish deniers & fools but to put our position clear on the future of England and the fact that we wont be shackled with any financial baggage from the past. The markets demanded it and it was right to raise the subject.

  • jim

    Another excellent, stimulating article from consistently the best and most thoughtful contributor to the magazine.

  • davidofkent

    So the article is saying that the Scots want to separate because they don’t like us (the English, I presume). That idiot Sturgeon kept saying that they don’t want a Tory government that they haven’t voted for. If they don’t understand democracy and can’t work out what’s in their best interests, they ought to leave. That sort of person will never be missed.

    • Livia

      They can understand democracy, that’s the point. Nobody at all voted for the b*****d child of the Lib Dems and the Tories, which in the end produced a wholly Tory govt, just with some Tories wearing yellow ties. The scots have one Tory MP between them. One. And yet their entire country is at the mercy of a true blue Tory leadership. Imagine how well represented the English would feel if a party with one MP in England, say the Greens, was in charge of the whole country. The answer is not at all.

      • statechaos

        We have a Coalition government made up of Tories and Libdems, the latter have 11 MPs from Scotland. More people in the Uk voted for the Tories and Libdems combined than for any other party therefore they have a democratic mandate to form a government. Or would you prefer PR which will mean permanent coalitions?

  • statechaos

    The fact of the matter is that money is important, because without it you can do nothing. At the moment Scotland receives more per capita, over £10,000 per annum, from central government Than any other region in the UK, followed by Wales and Northern Ireland. the South-East receives the least, under £10,000 per capita. The rest of the UK subsides Scotland so they will be immediately poorer on independence. They will have to set up all sorts of institutional structures that are currently provided by Britain as a whole and all of these will cost money, not withstanding the companies who will relocate because it is no longer a part of the UK. Public sector jobs which are currently for the whole of the UK will also leave Scotland. I listened today to Yes campaigners condemning the austerity that Labour support in Westminster and the naive belief that if they go it alone they can somehow afford not to have any cuts. Still when they have got the independence they so crave and they enter fiscal meltdown instead of arrive in the Land of Milk and Honey at least they’ll be happy because the are no longer British!

    • Moderator

      Your semi-literate rant is fact-less and boring.

  • “They’re scared to praise British culture, so they talk money. It doesn’t work”

    The ‘No’ campaign knows that of course, which is why the ‘No’ campaign also refuses to discus the following, as does The Spectator, proving Marxist co-option…

    “Alex Salmond: A rare moment for any nation”

    Dean Jackson: Britain isn’t ANY nation!

    Marxist agents from abroad have the audacity to come to Scotland and agitate for dis-Union…

    “The group has had support from all over the world, with one woman travelling from as far away as Australia to add her weight to the pro-independence lobby.”

    Translated that reads, the ‘Yes’ camp has so few Scottish volunteers that Marxists from abroad are brought over to canvass! Notice the silence of the media concerning this outrageous behavior by the ‘Yes’ campaign in using Marxist ringers.

    The concept of Union has always meant security from outside invasion, the original threat to Presbyterian Scotland and Anglican England being an invasion from either Catholic France or Catholic Spain. What else would bring two such diverse cultures together, the Celts of Scotland and the Anglo-Saxon Normans of England? And the threat of foreign invasion is more subtle today, even unseen, because the enemy is weak in numbers, hence the enemy’s need to conceal its identity. Who is this enemy that threatens Britain?

    The enemy is within and without, and are Marxists who’ve co-opted the political parties of the West, including the West’s leading institutions, from the media to religion. We know this to be true not only because we were warned of the enemy within by KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn in 1962, but because the West’s institutions failed to warn its populations that the collapse of the USSR (and East Bloc nations) was a strategic disinformation operation, as proved by the West’s failure to not only verify the collapse, but de-Communize the Soviet Armed Forces officer corps (which was 90% Communist Party officered in late 1991), and failure to de-mobilize the six-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Ministry of Interior and militia to control the populations in the larger Soviet cities.

    The West’s fate depended on verification of the collapse of the USSR, verification’s absence proving co-option of the West’s institutions. On the Soviet side, there could be no collapse when (1) the Soviet Armed Forces officer corps remained Communist Party dominated; and (2) six-million vigilantes continued to control the population. There can be no collapse of the USSR without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-Mobilization.

    A United Britain is a threat to the USSR and her ally China, and a hindrance to their global strategy to “liberate” the world by means of infiltration of the West’s institutions.

    In order for Scotland to decide on Union or independence, Scots must be armed with all the information that’s necessary to make the correct decision. The co-opted media will not present the facts as laid out above.

    • Livia

      The world is firmly in the hands of the neo-liberals. Corporatism isn’t Marxist, and that’s all there will be until the end.

      • “The world is firmly in the hands of the neo-liberals.”

        What didn’t you comprehend in my comment? Especially the following..

        ‘There can be no collapse of the USSR without…

        Verification, De-Communization and De-Mobilization.’

        As I said, all political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the collapse of the USSR, otherwise the West would have performed those three functions in co-operation with the “freed” Soviets, since the survival of the West depended on those minimum three actions being completed.

  • Jonathan

    Sutherland is wrong because the ‘yes’ campaign could make an emotional appeal every bit as effective as that of the ‘no’ campaign.

    is vitally important because every time the ‘no’ campaign raises a
    valid economic issue – such as currency – the dishonest Salmond (a
    professional economist) calls it ‘scaremongering’. That dishonesty alone should be enough to vote ‘no’ — and the
    ‘no’ campaign should be saying that.

  • Richard

    I arrived from southern Africa some years ago, having British grandparents on both sides, and was amazed at the change I found compared to visiting in the 1980s. It really is the closest I have ever come to finding a country that is really just a geographical location, with no identity, no direction, just nothing at all. It really is living in a vacuum, which I find profoundly depressing. Nobody seems to have any real opinions (unless they are Leftist), nobody judges anything, nobody seems driven by anything at all other than a desire to make money. There are no real conversations about anything of consequence, no real intersection with reality. Perhaps I am missing it, but after fifteen years of living here, it still seems as strange as it did when I arrived. Growing up, it was always “UK’s not UK anymore” from everyone. I can certainly understand what they mean, as what this nation achieved couldn’t have been managed by the living-dead that occupy it today.

    • terence patrick hewett

      Well; I sypathise with what you say Richard but if you examine the comments sections of all the newspapers and websites you will find that people do care and are pretty forth-right about telling people so. I presume you are talking about England because it is not like that in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. As a professional engineer my interests are etymology, entymology, history and a good deal more and if I get a converstion on any of these subjects it is unusual: for the reality is I am afraid that the English are to a great extent (and always have been) quite philistine but do not think for one moment that equates with stupidity or lack of caring and charity. That is why the English form clubs: so they can associate with like minds. So join some clubs and find some good pubs.

      • Rory Sutherland

        Generally if you live in a more Celtic part of the UK you will have a lower standard of living but a higher standard of conversation.

  • Martin Jennerson

    Exactly right. The Westminster political-class/Labour Party are surely one of the few political movements in the world that actively eschews and dismisses its most loyal working-class constituencies – e.g. the Orange Order this weekend. Absolutely pathetic, unsustainable and ridiculous.

  • WFB56

    Excellent insights, thank you Mr. Sutherland.

    A pity that Mr. Darling and his hacks didn’t seek out your advice at an earlier date.

  • BigCheddar


  • Hegelguy

    ” nobody on the left can do so because you have to maintain the pretence that all cultures are equally admirable except for those practised by white people you don’t like”

    Depends on what you call the Left, doesn’t it?

    As a matter of fact plenty of people on the Left have been sternly condemning Islamist extremism for YEARS before your Right got on to the subject (the Right had been backing, funding and arming the Islamists to the hilt to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan.)

    The French Communist Party is a tough defender of the ban on hijabs in France.

    a Hindu I know that many on the Left have no time for Hinduism.

    So what gives?

    Nor do I think braying like a skinhead about “Britishness” will get you anywhere in Scotland. From being (narrowly) ahead, the NO vote will crash, in fact, if the NO campaign is stupid enough to take your advice.

    • Ed  

      You’ve run in to the strange and unpleasant meeting place of socialist and nationalist. They’re often found together. While sometimes nationalist socialism can be quite mild, there’s an undertone that’s about as dark as can be. Many socialists don’t (or won’t?) understand this dynamic.

      • Hegelguy

        Depends on what you call the Left, doesn’t it?

        As a matter of fact plenty of people on the Left have been sternly condemning Islamist extremism for YEARS before your Right got on to the subject (the Right had been backing, funding and arming the Islamists to the hilt to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan.)

        The French Communist Party is a tough defender of the ban on hijabs in France.

        So what gives?

        • Edward Johnson

          Yes, France.. a country where 16% of the population support the bloodthirsty cult of ISIS. You make your point very clear sir. The French left are doing a wonderful job!

        • Ed  

          What gives? I think that’s a question for the French, British and Scottish National parties, not me…..

  • Jonathan

    You’re wrong because the ‘yes’ campaign could make an emotional appeal every bit as effective as that of the ‘no’ campaign.

    is vitally important because every time the ‘no’ campaign raises a
    valid economic issue – such as currency – the dishonest Salmond (a
    professional economist!!) calls it ‘scaremongering’. Salmond’s
    professional dishonesty alone should be enough to vote ‘no’ — and the
    ‘no’ campaign should be saying that.

  • Ed  

    The whole damn thing is silly. The British ran a quarter of the planet. How? The English formed governments all over the place, while the Scots built the ships and railways.

    While I realize that many Scottish nationalists don’t realize it, in celebrating Scotland, they’re inadvertently celebrating Britain. Shame on us all for not pointing this out.

  • flippit

    That’s a really good point. The economic risks have been the main plank of no, with plaintive calls of ‘we want you to stay’ on the sidelines. It probably was off-putting from the start. But then, the English aren’t really bothered if the Scots stay or go except that their leaving is a risk to our economy. And the Scots would much rather go, but there’s a risk to their prosperity.
    End of the day it’s just a contract, there isn’t much heart in the Union, I don’t quite believe it when I hear politicians arguing ‘passionately’ for it, and if I don’t why should the Scots? The Union began as a contract for mutual financial gain and neither side minded much then about whether there would be a heart in it. But it was the loss of power by the Scots that wasn’t foreseen and they want their power back. But really, the only power now is economic power, and that’s where the no campaign started.

  • Diggery Whiggery

    “They’re scared to praise British culture, so they talk money. ”

    They’re not scared, they’re the Labour party. They hate British culture, it’s in their DNA. This referendum is about cutting out the middle-man between Scotland and the EU. Labour supports the assimilation of the UK into the EU superstate so they don’t really care for the British state other than for the fact that it hides somewhat the EU elephant in the room.

  • evad666

    The English will decimate the Lib,Lab, Con Multicultis at the next election. All three parts of the party can now see the writing on the wall. UKIP roundheads are taking names and will hound them to destruction.