THE FISCAL QUESTION 131 



prosperous under protection, and it would be prosperous 

 were its trade free ; for its people are thrifty and 

 industrious. And I should say the same of the British 

 Empire : it will survive its policies, if it keeps its char- 

 acter. But we have been forgetting the human elements 

 in the problem, and dealing with affairs of State as if they 

 were questions in abstract economics. The result is a 

 distorted view of the whole situation and a change in the 

 true perspective of things. The whole picture is false, 

 for the focus is wrong. Imperial Britain is pictured by 

 our orators as a fiscal unit, held together by economic 

 bonds, pitted against other fiscal units in a competitive 

 conflict in which what one gains the other loses. The 

 unity of the Empire is represented as consisting of two 

 strands unity of sentiment and a unity which privileged 

 commercial relations are expected to bring ; good feeling 

 plus sound business. But the unity of sentiment is 

 thought of comparatively little moment, as if it were 

 feeble and fragile as well as intangible ; while all the 

 emphasis is thrown upon the material bond, if bond it be. 

 And, of course, the obligations of the citizens to the 

 Empire must suffer in consequence ; for the meaning of 

 patriotism depends upon the conception we have formed 

 of our country, and if the latter is superficial the former 

 will be shallow. 



It was this shallow, "property" view of one's country 

 which was rebuked by the old blue-gown Edie Ochiltree, 

 when the Antiquary suggested that he had not much to 

 fight for. ' ' Me, no muckle to fight for, sir ! " was the 

 reply. "Is na there the country to fight for, and the 

 hearths of the gudewives that gie me my bit bread, and 

 the bits o' weans that come toddlin' to play wi' me when I 



