Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Crivvens, what a stramash there’s been over the cover of the Economist’s UK edition this week. Skintland is a pretty feeble effort, really, and one not entirely supported by the evidence the Economist brings to support its case. Nevertheless, the dismal chippyness of much of the nationalist reaction to this was more offensive than anything any London newspaper could say on the subject of Caledonian indepndence.

There was talk, on twitter admittedly, of reporting the Economist to the Race Relations Industry as well as the Press Complaints Commission. The cover illustration was reputed to be grossly offensive (to all Scots, no less) and, worse still, it was said to be a classic example of Little Englander imperialism.

Perfect tommyrot of course but, lo, it has never been easy to thwart a Scotsman in search of a grievance. As anyone who has spent any time listening to Celtic and Rangers supporters bore on can attest, concocted witless outrage is a great national enthusiasm. As in football, so in politics.

Amidst all this taking the huff, however, it should be noted that this brouhaha was another example of the nationalist genius for playing both sides of an argument. Imagine, for instance, that the Economist had come out in favour of independence: the SNP would be hiring trumpeters to spread the happy news. See, even the internationally-respected Economist endorses independence! #Winning!

But, though the newspaper accepts that Scotland could be a sensibly viable state, its mildly-sophomoric cover illustration can be used to stir up a frenzy of resentment. Who do they think they are, insulting Scotland like that? How dare these Londoners patronise us in such terms? All patriots should resent this and rally to the standard carried by Scotland’s party! #Winning!

This ability to argue the case from any given angle – this slipperiness if you prefer – explains how an apparently unpromising intervention can be spun to the SNP’s advantage. It is one reason why the SNP were happy to focus attention on this tiny, jury-rigged controversy. It peps up the troops no end. This is not a question of policy or economics. Instead it is a means of controlling the debate and, to some extent, determining who is permitted to make any respectabel contribution to it. The Economist has been shoved into the same category as English Tory MPs: Useful Foes whose interventions “talk Scotland down” and can be easily, even airliy, dismissed as being of alien and thus no account. It is a matter of sentiment, not policy. 

Granted, all this is all so very tedious but that’s the nature of the games these days and there’s nothing like manufactured outrage to ram home the point that not all voices are welcome in this debate and some folk should really consider their place before daring to venture an opinion. It is not especially edifying but it serves a purpose which, I hazard, is why usually-sensible SNP MPs were happy to pretend to have been grossly offended by the Economist’s little wheeze.

I say they pretended to have been grossly offended because the alternative – that they really were – is even worse than all this boorish high-horseyness. Who would have thought nationalists were so easily bruised? If so, it would suggest a certain lack of confidence and even, dare on suggest it, a certain kind of SNP cringe?

Finally, it may be worth noting that the Scottish government responded – via the Mercury Newslink – to the Economist article with a seven point rebuttal listing “seven key strengths” of the Scottish economy. It concluded:

There is much to be done to make Scotland even better, but Scotland’s Seven Key Strengths will remind every Scot that our nation is one we can be proud of now, and confident about for the future. While Scotland has a higher rate of employment and lower economic inactivity than the UK as a whole, we need to do more to reduce unemployment and tackle poverty.

“But we know that we have huge potential as a nation – and that with the powers of independence we can do more.”