The Scottish Cultural Cringe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18870
  • Start date Start date

Deleted member 18870

Guest
Hey everyone,

I recently posted about my new novel titled Who's Aldo?. Apart from writing fiction I write articles for newspapers. I wrote this one on the cultural cringe in Scotland. I thought some people on here might find it interesting.

The Scottish Cringe as described by Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) refers to the Scots lacking personal and political confidence in their ability to govern themselves. Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) argue the Scots suffer from a sense of psychological inferiority in which Scots have come to see themselves and they are seen by England i.e. as being inferior to and dependent upon the largesse of England. Sociological theorist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence can be deployed as another means to understand Scotland’s sense of culture inferiority because this notion of Bourdieu is used to explain how the more powerful are able to structure the self-perception of the weak, so that social groups are not only conquered or colonised militarily by a more powerful nation as there is another defeat or war waged that is done via or by culture (Bourdieu and Waquarant 1992) i.e. Scots collude in and co–produce their subordination because they sincerely believe their culture is not equal to that of England. On this matter, Carol Craig (2003) argues that Scots are harshly disparaging to their own culture and by doing so create apprehension in the Scottish persona.

Another key term utilised by Bourdieu (1979) is the concept of habitus that describes how and why people become subdued by social conditions and exercise amor fati rather than rebel against their subordination because their habitus aligns the agent with his objective possibilities and so his subjectivity ‘falls into line’ with their objective life possibilities; so, that rebellion becomes an unrealistic course of action.

In this regard, Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) applied Franz Fanon’s (1967) notion of inferiorisation in Third World nations to the Scottish context to highlight Scotland’s self-colonisation. Through the lens of Fanon, then, inferiorism is the processes in which the indigenous population comes to internalise the dominant culture or narrative of the coloniser at the expense of their own native, local, traditional culture. For Fanon, to effectively penetrate another culture and to colonise another population’s self-consciousness, their history must be revised to mirror the point of view of the oppressor. On this point, Billy Kay, a renowned advocate of Scottish culture, recalls how the Scots were not taught Scottish history prior to the Act of Union (1707) as this would mean a ‘return of the repressed’ (Robinson 2008). The idea of repressing the events of Scottish history prior to 1707 seems to corroborate Fanon’s idea of inferiorism as this practice has become so entrenched in the Scottish psyche that historian Ash (1980) has talked of the “strange death of Scottish history” and of the Scots being a people without history (Wolf 2010).

In terms of culture, inferiorism as articulated by Fanon was deployed by Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) to express the historical neglect of Scottish culture which led Scots to absorb a sense of natural or spontaneous subordination within the national character. Through the neglect of Scottish history as previously documented not only corresponds with Fanon’s concept of inferiorism but exemplifies Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic violence. By some Scots disregarding their own nation’s history it reinforces the idea of Scots yielding to England by seeing their own history as over and so they never give a thought to making it in their own right again as an independent nation and so they fail to challenge their own alienation.

Perhaps the key areas where cultural inferiority has been established among the Scots is language. Well into the seventieth century Scots remained the established national language and the medium of high and low culture that was distinct from English (Hoffman 1996). Scots in the seventieth century was the language of administration, legal documents, parliamentary records and the royal court with all social classes embracing it without any hint of inferiority (Hoffman 1996).

As England had a Protestant Reformation first in the 1520’s, the 1559 Reformation in Scotland was Scotland falling into cultural line with England and already in the sixteenth century however during the Protestant Reformation, Catholic apologists such as Winzet and Kennedy criticised the Protestant Reformers for importing German theological errors via England and doing so in the medium of the Southern tongue i.e. English. During the seventieth century Scots’ linguistic value began to recede amongst the middle classes who perceived it as tainted and as the language of the less educated working class (Hoffman 1996). In 1561, the Bible was translated into English but, crucially, not in Scots so that Scots lost its prestige, while the Union of Crowns in 1603 saw King James VI of Scotland becoming James I King of England with the court being relocated to London where all royal affairs were now in English (Hoffman 1996).

Crucially, King James’s relocation to London saw the Scottish upper classes follow with the intention of imitating their English peers leaving Scots socially adrift (Hoffman 1996). Through the Scotland Education Act (1872) the English language was promoted with the desire of suppressing Scots as well as Gaelic (Hoffman 1996). Education Scotland (2016) reveals the mistreatment of Scots in education was still evident until the 1980’s as children who spoke Scots could suffer corporal punishment for not speaking English at school.

When viewed through the sociological lens of Bourdieu (1979), such realities evidence how language is crucial for securing cultural subordination and how the notion of ‘linguistic communism’ (where every social actor possesses the right and ability to speak and be heard) is not true in Scotland.

The Scots language corresponds Bourdieu’s concerns as everyone does not have the right to communicate via Scots, as this can place them in opposition to the deemed universal language of English. If we take the term field (Bourdieu 1979) used to describe arenas where social agents operate within and include politics, parliament, patronage, court, and religion which grants legitimacy to the language which Scotland has lost, one player was Sir John Clerk of Penicuik (one of the Scottish negotiators of the Union of 1707) who remarked ‘’the English language … since the Union wou’d always be necessary for a Scotsman in whatever station of life he might be in, but especially in any public character’’ (cited in Balilyn and Morgan 2012, p. 85).

This prophetic comment is epitomised in an incident at an Edinburgh court where a young man was held for contempt of court for answering aye (Scots for yes) instead of using the English form of yes (Crowther and Tett 1999). Similarly, Lord George Robertson remarked “Scotland has no language and culture” (NewsNet Scotland 2014) during the 2014 Referendum; a comment which is a wonderful example of cultural inferiority insofar as it suggests Scotland is void of a recognised culture by its own political elite and representatives. Billy Kay enquired to a Fife headmaster if pupils were encouraged to engage with Scottish Literature and was startled by his response: ‘’No. This is not a very Scottish area” (Robinson 2008, p.5).

Other examples of what seems to be cultural ‘self-hatred’ came when, in response to the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014, Conservative councillor Callum Campbell and Labour Councillor Danny Gibson proposed to have the Scottish Saltire removed from Stirling council’s headquarters and to replace it with the Union Jack (Wings over Scotland 2013). Both councillors said they wanted to see the emblem of ‘our country’ flying from Stirling council’s rooftop, evidencing perhaps the native abandoning their own national identity and culture and embracing that of the coloniser. These councillors allude to Fanon’s theoretical perspective of inferiorism but also to Bourdieu’s idea of symbolic violence whereby Scots not only participate in their own servitude but are the creators of it. The loss of the yes campaign in the Scottish Independence Referendum (2014) can be identified as a contemporary example of the Scottish cringe. The people of Scotland shunned their opportunity to reclaim their liberty the reasons for which are captured in sociological theorist Paulo Freire’s quote ‘’The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom’’ (Freire 2016, p.46).
 
I don’t buy this tbh.

Alexander Fleming, Alexander Graham Bell, John Logie Baird, James Watt, John Loudon MacAdam, William Cullen, Thomas Telford, Adam Smith, David Hume

Penicillin, the telephone, the tv, the (revolutionary advance of the) steam engine, the bicycle, the pneumatic tyre, tarmac roads, the first passenger steam boat, cast steel, roller printing, the post mark and adhesive stamp, universal standard time, logarithms, modern economics, the encyclopaedia Brittanica, modern geology, insulin, anaesthetics, x ray photography, fridges, flushing toilets, the lawnmower….

Scotland quite literally discovered / invented the modern world. As Churchill said “Of all the small nations of this Earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.”

Something went wrong somewhere, but all the above was post union, bar the earliest years of David Hume’s life; it wasn’t that.
 
I don’t buy this tbh.

Alexander Fleming, Alexander Graham Bell, John Logie Baird, James Watt, John Loudon MacAdam, William Cullen, Thomas Telford, Adam Smith, David Hume

Penicillin, the telephone, the tv, the (revolutionary advance of the) steam engine, the bicycle, the pneumatic tyre, tarmac roads, the first passenger steam boat, cast steel, roller printing, the post mark and adhesive stamp, universal standard time, logarithms, modern economics, the encyclopaedia Brittanica, modern geology, insulin, anaesthetics, x ray photography, fridges, flushing toilets, the lawnmower….

Scotland quite literally discovered / invented the modern world. As Churchill said “Of all the small nations of this Earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.”

Something went wrong somewhere, but all the above was post union, bar the earliest years of David Hume’s life; it wasn’t that.
Yeah mate, I'm not disputing Scotland has accomplished much more than most nations. The cultural cringe is a very real thing though. For example I write fiction in east coast Scots (Edinburgh dialect) but a lot of Scottish people have remarked it's isn't a real language. People have regarded it as NED talk and we've been programmed to believe this through education etc. We've also allowed ourselves to be governed by our next door neighbours simply cause theirs a lack of belief that we can go it alone. The thing about supressing another culture is it's done subtly. You're not meant to recognise what has been done and this is evident when you look at Scotland's relationship with England. Also, it's not just Scotland, most countries who formed the British empire have had similar experiences I was speaking to tutor in Canada and they said they can relate to this article.
 
I don’t buy this tbh.

Alexander Fleming, Alexander Graham Bell, John Logie Baird, James Watt, John Loudon MacAdam, William Cullen, Thomas Telford, Adam Smith, David Hume

Penicillin, the telephone, the tv, the (revolutionary advance of the) steam engine, the bicycle, the pneumatic tyre, tarmac roads, the first passenger steam boat, cast steel, roller printing, the post mark and adhesive stamp, universal standard time, logarithms, modern economics, the encyclopaedia Brittanica, modern geology, insulin, anaesthetics, x ray photography, fridges, flushing toilets, the lawnmower….

Scotland quite literally discovered / invented the modern world. As Churchill said “Of all the small nations of this Earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.”

Something went wrong somewhere, but all the above was post union, bar the earliest years of David Hume’s life; it wasn’t that.
Nothing to do with the discussion really, just being a pedant.

'Edgar Hooley, a local Nottinghamshire County surveyor, perfected the method of making road surfaces stick in the early twentieth century, with Radcliffe Road in Nottingham subsequently becoming the very first Tarmac road in the world',

Dahn near Forest grahnd yooth. He didn't even get his name on the stuff.
 
Hey everyone,

I recently posted about my new novel titled Who's Aldo?. Apart from writing fiction I write articles for newspapers. I wrote this one on the cultural cringe in Scotland. I thought some people on here might find it interesting.

The Scottish Cringe as described by Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) refers to the Scots lacking personal and political confidence in their ability to govern themselves. Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) argue the Scots suffer from a sense of psychological inferiority in which Scots have come to see themselves and they are seen by England i.e. as being inferior to and dependent upon the largesse of England. Sociological theorist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence can be deployed as another means to understand Scotland’s sense of culture inferiority because this notion of Bourdieu is used to explain how the more powerful are able to structure the self-perception of the weak, so that social groups are not only conquered or colonised militarily by a more powerful nation as there is another defeat or war waged that is done via or by culture (Bourdieu and Waquarant 1992) i.e. Scots collude in and co–produce their subordination because they sincerely believe their culture is not equal to that of England. On this matter, Carol Craig (2003) argues that Scots are harshly disparaging to their own culture and by doing so create apprehension in the Scottish persona.

Another key term utilised by Bourdieu (1979) is the concept of habitus that describes how and why people become subdued by social conditions and exercise amor fati rather than rebel against their subordination because their habitus aligns the agent with his objective possibilities and so his subjectivity ‘falls into line’ with their objective life possibilities; so, that rebellion becomes an unrealistic course of action.

In this regard, Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) applied Franz Fanon’s (1967) notion of inferiorisation in Third World nations to the Scottish context to highlight Scotland’s self-colonisation. Through the lens of Fanon, then, inferiorism is the processes in which the indigenous population comes to internalise the dominant culture or narrative of the coloniser at the expense of their own native, local, traditional culture. For Fanon, to effectively penetrate another culture and to colonise another population’s self-consciousness, their history must be revised to mirror the point of view of the oppressor. On this point, Billy Kay, a renowned advocate of Scottish culture, recalls how the Scots were not taught Scottish history prior to the Act of Union (1707) as this would mean a ‘return of the repressed’ (Robinson 2008). The idea of repressing the events of Scottish history prior to 1707 seems to corroborate Fanon’s idea of inferiorism as this practice has become so entrenched in the Scottish psyche that historian Ash (1980) has talked of the “strange death of Scottish history” and of the Scots being a people without history (Wolf 2010).

In terms of culture, inferiorism as articulated by Fanon was deployed by Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) to express the historical neglect of Scottish culture which led Scots to absorb a sense of natural or spontaneous subordination within the national character. Through the neglect of Scottish history as previously documented not only corresponds with Fanon’s concept of inferiorism but exemplifies Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic violence. By some Scots disregarding their own nation’s history it reinforces the idea of Scots yielding to England by seeing their own history as over and so they never give a thought to making it in their own right again as an independent nation and so they fail to challenge their own alienation.

Perhaps the key areas where cultural inferiority has been established among the Scots is language. Well into the seventieth century Scots remained the established national language and the medium of high and low culture that was distinct from English (Hoffman 1996). Scots in the seventieth century was the language of administration, legal documents, parliamentary records and the royal court with all social classes embracing it without any hint of inferiority (Hoffman 1996).

As England had a Protestant Reformation first in the 1520’s, the 1559 Reformation in Scotland was Scotland falling into cultural line with England and already in the sixteenth century however during the Protestant Reformation, Catholic apologists such as Winzet and Kennedy criticised the Protestant Reformers for importing German theological errors via England and doing so in the medium of the Southern tongue i.e. English. During the seventieth century Scots’ linguistic value began to recede amongst the middle classes who perceived it as tainted and as the language of the less educated working class (Hoffman 1996). In 1561, the Bible was translated into English but, crucially, not in Scots so that Scots lost its prestige, while the Union of Crowns in 1603 saw King James VI of Scotland becoming James I King of England with the court being relocated to London where all royal affairs were now in English (Hoffman 1996).

Crucially, King James’s relocation to London saw the Scottish upper classes follow with the intention of imitating their English peers leaving Scots socially adrift (Hoffman 1996). Through the Scotland Education Act (1872) the English language was promoted with the desire of suppressing Scots as well as Gaelic (Hoffman 1996). Education Scotland (2016) reveals the mistreatment of Scots in education was still evident until the 1980’s as children who spoke Scots could suffer corporal punishment for not speaking English at school.

When viewed through the sociological lens of Bourdieu (1979), such realities evidence how language is crucial for securing cultural subordination and how the notion of ‘linguistic communism’ (where every social actor possesses the right and ability to speak and be heard) is not true in Scotland.

The Scots language corresponds Bourdieu’s concerns as everyone does not have the right to communicate via Scots, as this can place them in opposition to the deemed universal language of English. If we take the term field (Bourdieu 1979) used to describe arenas where social agents operate within and include politics, parliament, patronage, court, and religion which grants legitimacy to the language which Scotland has lost, one player was Sir John Clerk of Penicuik (one of the Scottish negotiators of the Union of 1707) who remarked ‘’the English language … since the Union wou’d always be necessary for a Scotsman in whatever station of life he might be in, but especially in any public character’’ (cited in Balilyn and Morgan 2012, p. 85).

This prophetic comment is epitomised in an incident at an Edinburgh court where a young man was held for contempt of court for answering aye (Scots for yes) instead of using the English form of yes (Crowther and Tett 1999). Similarly, Lord George Robertson remarked “Scotland has no language and culture” (NewsNet Scotland 2014) during the 2014 Referendum; a comment which is a wonderful example of cultural inferiority insofar as it suggests Scotland is void of a recognised culture by its own political elite and representatives. Billy Kay enquired to a Fife headmaster if pupils were encouraged to engage with Scottish Literature and was startled by his response: ‘’No. This is not a very Scottish area” (Robinson 2008, p.5).

Other examples of what seems to be cultural ‘self-hatred’ came when, in response to the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014, Conservative councillor Callum Campbell and Labour Councillor Danny Gibson proposed to have the Scottish Saltire removed from Stirling council’s headquarters and to replace it with the Union Jack (Wings over Scotland 2013). Both councillors said they wanted to see the emblem of ‘our country’ flying from Stirling council’s rooftop, evidencing perhaps the native abandoning their own national identity and culture and embracing that of the coloniser. These councillors allude to Fanon’s theoretical perspective of inferiorism but also to Bourdieu’s idea of symbolic violence whereby Scots not only participate in their own servitude but are the creators of it. The loss of the yes campaign in the Scottish Independence Referendum (2014) can be identified as a contemporary example of the Scottish cringe. The people of Scotland shunned their opportunity to reclaim their liberty the reasons for which are captured in sociological theorist Paulo Freire’s quote ‘’The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom’’ (Freire 2016, p.46).
What have you done with @egb_hibs ?
 
Yeah mate, I'm not disputing Scotland has accomplished much more than most nations. The cultural cringe is a very real thing though. For example I write fiction in east coast Scots (Edinburgh dialect) but a lot of Scottish people have remarked it's isn't a real language. People have regarded it as NED talk and we've been programmed to believe this through education etc. We've also allowed ourselves to be governed by our next door neighbours simply cause theirs a lack of belief that we can go it alone. The thing about supressing another culture is it's done subtly. You're not meant to recognise what has been done and this is evident when you look at Scotland's relationship with England. Also, it's not just Scotland, most countries who formed the British empire have had similar experiences I was speaking to tutor in Canada and they said they can relate to this article.
Colin I must admit to skimming last time and missed the fact this was your article (vs you quoting one). Apologies for that and congratulations on your publishing achievements. I may well give your novel a bash.

However, while I don't really have an opinion on scots being framed as ned speak (tbh i associate it more with rugby players at burns nights) - though I don't think it's behind the failure of indy - on a second read I found something in the article a bit ironic.

Namely, the post modernist language you reference is guilty of all the things you claim about English vs Scots and more materially, at least in our own time. If ever there was an argot designed to undermine cultural self confidence then this is it - indeed it's part of the point of the whole post modernist approach. It's also deliberately exclusive and used to cement the position of a new priesthood.

Try as I might I cannot make head nor tail of this for example;

"Another key term utilised by Bourdieu (1979) is the concept of habitus that describes how and why people become subdued by social conditions and exercise amor fati rather than rebel against their subordination because their habitus aligns the agent with his objective possibilities and so his subjectivity ‘falls into line’ with their objective life possibilities; so, that rebellion becomes an unrealistic course of action."

I'd be interested in your take on this observation! Oh and welcome to the board.
 
Last edited:
Ps I think the reformation point is a bit upside down. Scots were much more ken dodds od conviction vs it being largely imposed on the Saxons due to Henry VIIIs marital ambitions. And it wasn't really very protestant either until later on.
 
Another key term utilised by Bourdieu (1979) is the concept of habitus that describes how and why people become subdued by social conditions and exercise amor fati rather than rebel against their subordination because their habitus aligns the agent with his objective possibilities and so his subjectivity ‘falls into line’ with their objective life possibilities; so, that rebellion becomes an unrealistic course of action."
Now you know how loads of us feel. 😂😂😂😂😂
Just a wee tongue in cheek yank on yer chain mate. 👍
 
Now you know how loads of us feel. 😂😂😂😂😂
Just a wee tongue in cheek yank on yer chain mate. 👍
I know what you mean mate, it's a bit of tongue twister lol. Basically, it means Scots have been programmed to endure their social conditions by Westminster.
Now you know how loads of us feel. 😂😂😂😂😂
Just a wee tongue in cheek yank on yer chain mate. 👍
Yeah it's bit of a tongue twister mate Lol. Basically, it means Scots have been so programmed to fall into line with the social conditions that Westminster have created that we just accept them i.e cost of living crisis. So we have just reside ourselves to our fate without possessing the possibility that we could prosper better as an independent nation
 
I know what you mean mate, it's a bit of tongue twister lol. Basically, it means Scots have been programmed to endure their social conditions by Westminster.

Yeah it's bit of a tongue twister mate Lol. Basically, it means Scots have been so programmed to fall into line with the social conditions that Westminster have created that we just accept them i.e cost of living crisis. So we have just reside ourselves to our fate without possessing the possibility that we could prosper better as an independent nation
How would we do that though ? I think close to the opposite. I think the fact we don’t run things for ourselves allows us to entertain a fantasy view about economic realities. That’s among the reasons I want independence, to be done with such arrested development.

We are in an economic crisis that spans the whole western world, and we run pretty much the worst budget deficit within it.
 
How would we do that though ? I think close to the opposite. I think the fact we don’t run things for ourselves allows us to entertain a fantasy view about economic realities. That’s among the reasons I want independence, to be done with such arrested development.

We are in an economic crisis that spans the whole western world, and we run pretty much the worst budget deficit within it.
By achieving independence mate, that's my point in the article. We've become blinded by the idea that this is as good as it can get for us. I remember I was speaking someone in 2014 about independence. The person in one breath was telling me they basically scrape by each month but wouldn't vote for independence as their happy with what they have just now. For me whether independence is a success or not I would rather it's our own decisions that decide whether we make it or not. With the UK we're being exposed to extreme poverty and foodbanks. I can't see it getting much worse for us an independent nation, in my opinion the only way is up.
 
By achieving independence mate, that's my point in the article. We've become blinded by the idea that this is as good as it can get for us. I remember I was speaking someone in 2014 about independence. The person in one breath was telling me they basically scrape by each month but wouldn't vote for independence as their happy with what they have just now. For me whether independence is a success or not I would rather it's our own decisions that decide whether we make it or not. With the UK we're being exposed to extreme poverty and foodbanks. I can't see it getting much worse for us an independent nation, in my opinion the only way is up.
I agree with you that we should make our own decisions. But the rest I have trouble with : I feel Indy is sold on false pretences. The impression given - at least in my opinion - is it will provide more of what it will provide less of, at least in the medium term.

I do believe Scotland can prosper better than England in the longer term - in fact I think England is doomed - but that’s precisely because we are potentially small and nimble enough to escape the sclerotic doom loop they are in. And pretty much all of the western world is in.

In short, there’ll be a lot more scraping by in the event of independence, but the potential prize is our children won’t. If people are not accepting of that trade off, or of the reality that we’ll end up a low cost English speaking tax haven, rather than a socialist utopia, then they should really be unionists. That said, I’m glad they aren’t albeit they’ll have to learn the hard way of our dreams become reality.

There is nothing special about Scotland, we won’t make something work that no one else has made work, especially given our starting point from age profile to health is worse than most - indeed possibly all - in the western world.

We should have self determination because we are a nation. But we are not a magic or special nation - that’s blood and soil nationalism and it’s bollocks as well as all the other pish that goes with it.

Ps not sure if you read the forum before joining in, but please take for granted that any robustness in debate is just that, and not ‘hostile’ for want of a better word. I think it’s fucking brilliant we have a published author joining in, and I’m really admiring of your accomplishment.
 
Hi mate, I do agree with what you're saying and even though I support Independence I've been left unconvinced by the SNP. The thing that draws me to regaining our independence is that being apart of Britain has left most living in the UK in total poverty. I don't think we can be put in worse position on our own than we are in now. Britain is designed to favour the rich and though there's not any guarantees this would change in an independent Scotland there's at least a possibility it might. But I do think it would at least secure a better future for the Scottish generations to come.

And no worries mate, I don't expect everyone to agree with what I say as each one of us views things differently. I've really enjoyed being on the forum everyone has been great. And thank you for your kind words mate, they're really appreciated.
 
Hi mate, I do agree with what you're saying and even though I support Independence I've been left unconvinced by the SNP. The thing that draws me to regaining our independence is that being apart of Britain has left most living in the UK in total poverty. I don't think we can be put in worse position on our own than we are in now. Britain is designed to favour the rich and though there's not any guarantees this would change in an independent Scotland there's at least a possibility it might. But I do think it would at least secure a better future for the Scottish generations to come.

And no worries mate, I don't expect everyone to agree with what I say as each one of us views things differently. I've really enjoyed being on the forum everyone has been great. And thank you for your kind words mate, they're really appreciated.
In what way is Britain designed for the rich, especially more than any other comparable country ?

I think Britain is fucked due to: an aging population; some of the highest levels of family breakdown or non formation; a lack of entrepreneurialism and work ethic; high cost of production due to high tax, high energy cost, high labour cost; offshoring and mass immigration; low interest rates to support state borrowing but driving up house prices; a political duopoly wedded to outmoded ideas - shared by the SNP.

I think right now Scotland is worse than England on most if not all of these counts. I’m not sure it’s designed at all - I think all parties have been clueless since 2008 - and I don’t think it favours anyone. The truly rich are leaving in large number by some reports.

Scotland has a better chance outside the UK but it would need to change completely, which I think is just about possible, though unlikely, and not possible for England.