The Economist is a serious magazine, but it is also known for a sense of humour.
The latest edition carries a pretty well balanced article on the costs of a separate Scotland.
There are obvious pros and cons about the idea of independence. I myself, on balance, am against a totally separate Scottish state, but I will admit that there are some positive aspects. It is just that on balance I don't think the potential benefits of independence stack up against the potential costs.
Many of my SNP friends obviously think differently- and we have many good natured debates about it.
Alex Salmond, on the other hand, thinks that any one who does not support his version of the Scottish separatist agenda is solely motivated by the basest motives and is probably either a traitor (if Scottish) or an Imperialist (if from elsewhere in the UK).
His typically bombastic attack on the Economist "they will rue the day they thought they would have a joke at Scotland's expense" is a typically humourless piece of victimhood.
The fact is that while many Nats are prepared to have a real debate on the pros and cons of independence, Salmond himself is not. His view is that since all would be rosy in the "free world", we do not even need to consider what the downsides might be.
It is totally dishonest- any fool can see that a fair debate needs to recognize the pros and cons- and The Economist article does precisely that- and even under some cases it recognizes that independence is not only justified but necessary. Yet it is also a serious examination about what the costs are- and that is what Alex Salmond cannot stand.
He is not being straight with the Scottish people- and as a result loses his rag when someone challenges his cloud cuckoo land political and economic assumptions.
Humourless and arrogant- Salmond has already poisoned the Scottish national debate- but sooner or later the Scottish people will be asked to judge on these issues- and they will remember that Salmond put up a barrage of bullying bombast when he should have engaged with his critics.