After being heavily involved in the Scottish Independence referendum debate, in person, on twitter, a small amount of Facebook and this, my blog, I have realised something strangely peculiar
When separatists are presented with very straight forward facts or logic that mitigates against secession, they react in a very odd way. The most extreme exponents of this “ideology” are “Wangsologists” the practitioners of “Wangsology.”

The £

Take the £. It is pretty clear now, from the treasury, the Bank of England and all the main UK parties, that a currency union is not going to happen. The lack of a currency union is bad for an independent Scotland, we would have no lender of last resort, further and more crucially, we would have zero fiscal control over the £ (or the Euro or any other none indigenous currency if we chose to use it). Nat’s say it’s our £ and we can use it, then put fingers in ears and hands over eyes when you agree that if course we can use it, but not control it, print it or influence it. We could “use” ANY currency in the world but that “use” is not the point. It’s frightening really, because most intelligent people understand when there is a real problem, they don’t just ignore it. Some even formulate plan “B” but not Scotgov, Wangsologists think this lack of concern entirely normal.
Nat’s will also say we can create our own currency from scratch, which is absolutely true, of course we could, however the fiscal fallout from Scotland seceding from the cUK at the same time as creating a new currency, while also trying to renter the EU, is mind boggling, but apparently they think it’s easy peasy. Some Wangsologists even advocate this risky approach as a preference. So in respect of currency, with no logical steer from the official Yes camp, Nat’s just make it up as they go along, parroting stuff from Wings Over Scotland contributors, the “font” of all hard line separatist knowledge. The phycology behind this thinking is pure Wangsology practised by Wangsologists (disciples), nothing but blind faith and obstinate refusal to see and consider real downside issues. https://stevensayers.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/the-great-scottish-currency-debate-iscotland-currency-options/ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-analysis-assessment-of-a-sterling-currency-union

Anti Scottish

Another really strange thing is that some of my very intelligent friends who are pro independence, get heavily afflicted with Wangsology, it’s quite disconcerting to listen to them throw logical thinking out of the window to state that it’s “just wrong” and “anti Scottish” to oppose independence and that Westminster is undemocratic and evil. How can it be anti Scottish to vote No to an arrangement that is likely to increase austerity for the foreseeable future? reduce our influence in Europe and the ROW? reduce scientific investment and, well, etc. etc.? Both sides are voting for their preferred Scotland model, calling it anti Scottish is just pure negative Wangsology.


Next take Europe. Separatists insist the EU would never “kick out” 6 million EU citizens. They conveniently ignore it is the UK which retains EU membership, if we leave the UK we wave goodbye, at least for a while, to the EU. There is no way our “new” membership application can be resolved in Salmond’s timescale, if ever. So when you explain this, out come the fingers and hands to block orifices again, no doubt they are singing lalalalalalalala in their heads as well. Even if they reluctantly accept we need to apply for EU membership, they still believe, because Wangs tell them so, that citizens of an independent Scotland would retain EU citizenship. Absolutely incorrect. Wangsology, bulled up by an Ex European beurocrat with a heavily indy bias and tons of hot air strikes again, “it says we will be in EU on Wangs, so we will!” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/citizenship/docs/guide_free_movement_low.pdf Some separatists even think that they can retain UK citizenship therefore retaining EU citizenship, that will not happen https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274477/scotland_analysis_borders_citizenship.pdf

Fairer Society

The sticky one for many no voters is when Nat’s say an iScotland will be a fairer better society, lifting people and children out of poverty and hunger and making everyone better off. The reason it’s sticky is that most of us are naturally empathetic to suffering and the poor, it’s why Brits are so generous when it comes to charity. We don’t like being though of as uncaring or unfair. When you actually challenge them on exactly how things will be fairer, that relative poverty in the UK and particularly in Scotland is no where near as bad as they claim (comparatively good in fact), when you point out there are 256 food banks in the European Continent including Norway, they struggle to respond logically, Wangsology has such a grip that they do not realise there is no evidential backup for their claims, and definately no detailed strategy for “improving” things other than spending and borrowing. http://www.eurofoodbank.eu/portail/index.php?lang=en https://stevensayers.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/poverty-friend-of-separation/ They will even blame the UK for the problems of men’s health in Glasgow while ignoring the fact it’s completely different 30 miles away! Only a died in the wool Wangsologist can fool themselves this way.

Oil and “stuff” – “UPDATE oil price collapses, stays flat Wee Eck loses bet with Sun Journalist 14/12/15”

“it’s oor oil” No it isn’t, it was and still is a UK Asset, the UK have however agreed to share it with us if we decide to leave, very British of them. The actual split will be the subject of very tough negotiations around a myriad number of other complicated issues (assets and stuff). Wangsologists however believe that international maritime law will force the cUK to divide the oil as Scotland sees fit, yeh right! Appendages flash headwards again as they refuse to accept we are part of the UK, we are not a state yet, that the international community will stand well back and let cUK sort it out at the minimum detriment to them. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-legal-warning-over-north-sea-1-3105828 http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/cmsfiles/modules/publications/pdfs/EC040.pdf

Shared History

Wansology dictates that the UK is the evil empire, that we were forced to join by treacherous Lords, that we did not engineer some of our own problems with Darien, that we would have been more successful and wealthier if we had not formed the UK, that the whole of our shared 307 year history was a waste of time and achieved nothing of merit. To me, this jaundiced, spiteful, small minded and myopic view of our glorious shared culture and achievements is despicable, it’s a streak of meanness that should shame Scotland. Is it the politics of jealousy? Is it an inate inferiority complex? I don’t know, but it smells. It’s what causes them to hate London and Westminster with a passion believing we are morally different to the rest of the UK population. Hopefully losing an MEP to UKIP has disabused them of their unfounded claim to moral superiority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_history


“We want the government we vote for” Why do they not realise we as voters get the government we vote for ? We live and vote in one of the worlds foremost representative democracies. One man one vote. Yes it may be improved by altering first past the post, but that is no reason to separate. There is no democratic reason to separate, the same issues will apply in an independent Scotland. Wangsologists don’t accept this because they have been told via Bath that Westminster is undemocratic, and for who knows what reasons, they believe it. Some will throw in the HOL, but that’s just meaningless when we understand how a second house works and how the Scotgov committee system does not. Reform the HOL, Don’t separate because of it. https://stevensayers.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/if-scotland-votes-yes-is-it-a-blow-for-democracy/


Even worse is when you have had a specific debate with a Nat and a month later the same point comes up, you remind them if this, woosh, off they go on a tangent because they wanted to release Wangsology tension anyway, arguing for arguing’s sake. Another tack is the paired Wansologists, once you have silenced number 1, number 2 kicks off on exactly the same path, like a Wings relay. Is this a Wangsology ploy, to tire me out? It doesn’t work, they get a blog link 😉 and often act as the inspiration for a blog post.


Disgruntled chancers seeking to sunder the UK by the application of failed logic while suffering from an intense feeling of inferiority coupled with a pathological loathing for the seat of UK parliamentary sovereignty.


Twitter and Facebook, often hunting in packs and keen to abuse No voters (yes there is abuse from both sides, but with twice as many Wangsologists on-line QED). And when you are on the receiving end it gets tiresome, boring and ineffectual. Typification Believes everything that appears on WOS and resorts to ad hominem attacks,normally within three tweets/posts when you make it plain you will vote no and can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Identification Anyone who likes or follows Wangs anywhere. Exceptions granted for study purposes.


Failure due to the complete lack of detailed plans to deliver an essentially emotional rather than a rational requirement, without structure or an appreciation of the pitfalls. The preverbal irreversible leap in the dark. Epilogue Unfortunately it seems some of our Yes Campaign bigwigs are converts too, Sturgeon has retweeted WOS, Salmond won’t proscribe them even after they misled Gunn or attacked Lally and Rowling, Swinney announces unprecedented borrowing to support their as yet un costed vision.

Thankfully it will all soon be over, the polls over time show we will comfortably vote No, so perhaps Wangsology and Wangsologists will become very scarce? Let’s hope so 😃 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis 20140621-001414-854130.jpg

Ps we voted no, 62% of us did not support separation.