The Economist certainly grabbed attention with its cover page- yes everyone is talking about it. Personally I saw it as adolescent humour- and not worthy of a serious publication. Granted their cartoon covers are often intended to raise a smile, but I think that this one did miss the mark, and I believe that many people could easily have been moderately offended.
What the cover actually did was to misrepresent the thrust of their own analysis of the finances of the Union versus an Independent Scotland contained in the less discussed article. By doing so the journal was also misrepresenting the abilities of the Scottish people by setting out the position that without the Union (i.e. English support) Scotland would collapse- it is of course the old TWTS (too wee…)argument.
Nobody got really hurt but the eye opener is the “Scottish Unionist” applause for the page and all it represents. The bitterness and loathing for the Scottish Nationalists who removed the Labour lifelong right to govern, runs so deep that the Britnats are lining up to offer their Scottish backsides for a daily kicking in the ironically misguided belief that what harms Scotland harms the SNP and therefore must be good. (a.k.a the extended Bain principle). The irony of course is the foaming at the mouth and constant accusations against the SNP that they believe that SNP and Scotland are synonymous terms. In fact there really is no evidence that this is even a moderately held belief within the party. It is clear however that such a belief is far more widely held across the wall in the unionist camp. Kick Scotland Kick the SNP!- which is why they cheer on each denigrating statement that flows from the mouths of those that hold Scotland and her people in very low esteem.