The Economist, London based, naturally has taken the Scotland secession vote of last week much more seriously than the American media. They had been running articles on it nearly weekly, editorializing that secession would be bad for everyone. Scotland's economy would be weakened, and British morale would be torpedoed. In the last weeks before the vote, when the polls started to show secession could win, they did a lot of hand wringing.
After the vote, where secession was voted down by 10%, a solid win, the Economist had nothing to say. No "Thank God they came to their senses" editorials, no letters to the editor, no post election vote counts, zip zippo zilch. Not a word. I expected at least a sign of relief. Maybe the whole topic was so distasteful to the Economist that they were glad to drop it? The Brits have not been happy about their loss of empire, prestige, and world leadership over the past 60 years. To have Scotland, pull out of the United Kingdom after 300 years would have been totally demoralizing to the Brits.
One thought I saw some where. The real driver behind the secession voters was the takers against the makers. The secessionists promised far more socialism than the UK parliament would ever do. Parliament has been on an "austerity" kick trying to bring the UK budget deficit down. Perhaps the Scottish makers realized that secession would make them poorer to do more handouts to the takers.