Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all based on a concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’.
Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all based on a concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’
Scottish nationalism, we are always told, is civic, tolerant and open, different to other nationalisms. So welcoming in fact that many signed up to independence will argue that it isn’t really nationalism at all.
From Billy Bragg’s distance it all looks very cuddly. Up close though, finding safety in numbers through a process of division, it looks a lot less pleasant.
Taking just a few examples: demonstrators gather outside the BBC and unfurl banners denouncing people as ‘anti–Scottish’, claiming that only the ‘corrupt media’ stops people supporting Independence.
A writer, Alan Bissett, prominent enough to be invited to perform to the conference of the governing nationalist party, describes current constitutional arrangements as ‘Subjugation; cultural, political and economic’. The acme of liberal independence supporting commentators, Gerry Hassan, expresses satisfaction that the Scots ‘are becoming a people’ and ‘developing voice in its deepest sense’.
It’s easy to recognise tropes here familiar from other, less favourably looked on nationalisms. Principally that only by asserting ourselves as a nation can we throw off alien influences and truly be ourselves. Perhaps then, Scotish nationalism isn’t all that exceptional after all.
Responding to JK Rowling’s endorsement of a No vote, a writer from the ‘National Collective’ declares Scotland is ‘a State of Mind’. Independence is all about ‘the story we choose to believe in’.
How very open, how very welcoming; anyone can be Scottish, provided they share our state of mind.
Except this, naturally, involves embracing independence. The status of those of us unwilling to do this isn’t quite spelled out. Neither is the corollary; if anyone can be Scottish by sharing ‘our’ state of mind. Also, what if, like myself, you don’t? If the ‘story you choose to believe in’ is a multi- or even non-national one, are you somehow less Scottish?
This is as much about exclusion as it is inclusion. And it is this process, more than independence that is developing momentum. Robin McAlpine, director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation and one of the gurus of the Radical Independence Campaign, used to describe non Indyfan lefties as ‘fellow travellers‘ for whom they should ‘keep a seat at the table’. He now issues dire warnings that ‘We are not afraid of you, we are going to win and history will remember you for how you behaved’.
Of course, all of the above matter much less than the SNP and the Scottish government. Recently, Nicola Sturgeon drew a distinction between ‘essentialist’ and ‘utilitarian’ nationalists. This isn’t anything to do with fundamental outlook, just a tactical difference about the timing of state formation. The deputy first minister went on to explain, in a phrase redolent of Michael Gove on steroids, that she wanted a new Scottish constitution to ’embody the values of the nation’.
What those values might be were (thankfully) left undefined. Add to this the vaguely sinister sounding intentions of education secretary Mike Russell that the views of scientists on research bodies ‘might be aligned’ with those of the Scottish government.
A more serious indicator of what might be in store was given when Ed Balls and George Osborne, invoking the national interest of the rest of the UK, said they didn’t support a currency union with an independent Scotland. They were immediately decried by the First Minister and his supporters as ‘bullies’ ganging up on Scotland.
In the howls of anguish that followed, it was taken as read that assertions by the UK couldn’t be valid in themselves, they were merely attacks on Scotland. The ‘Scottish’ interest wasn’t just deemed to be the most important or priority viewpoint, but the only legitimately held opinion.
The economics or even politics of the situation (eg If Balls or Osborne were interested in having a supranational banking arrangement deciding governmental borrowing limits, they would have joined the Euro) were abandoned in favour of the financially illiterate spasm of ‘It’s our pound too’.
Stripped to its essence, it was a case of the leader of a nationalist party building support for a policy by saying foreigners were attacking the country. If that looks like it has worked then don’t think it will stop on September 19. Nationalist ends won’t be willed in the referendum without embedding nationalist means to sustain them afterwards.
Clearly the SNP aren’t some sort of Jobbik style proto fascists. But suggesting that ‘Technocratic Administrative Boundary Adjustment’ or ‘Blood and Soil’ are the only two possible settings on the nationalist dial isn’t right either.
Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all predicated on defining and separating, with concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’. Real progressive politics does the opposite. People at home or in the places that will shortly be abroad if there is a yes vote in September would do well to remember that.
Stephen Low is a Labour Party member and part of the Red Paper Collective
268 Responses to “Up close, Scottish nationalism looks a lot like other nationalisms”
Andy Ellis
Sadly for your strawman “alternative future”..it’s nonsense. the only polling I’ve seen any evidence for in relation to whether the Northern Isles would want to secede from Scotland, or remain part of the UK, in the event of a Yes vote was in the Aberdeen Press & Journal last year I believe. (Easily searchable tho!). It showed over 80% in favour of staying in Scotland.
The fact that, according to accepted principles of international law, the islands would have no claim to any oil reserves if they remained part of the UK (being regarded as an exclave within the putative Scottish EEZ) might have coloured their view. So…no cigar for you then… any more frothing britnat scares you’d like to air? No…?
Trevor Moore
If you are on the Yes side of the debate it is perhaps less easy to see how the Yes campaign tries to stifle the debate. If, on the other hand you enter online debates on the side of the No campaign, or subscribe to open No campaign web sites you will see how quickly they are overwhelmed with Yes voters both shouting down opposing arguments and handing out abuse. A very good example is the Huffington post website, on which any article about independence is immediately flooded with Yes campaigners, many of whom are so well informed that they can only be part of an orchestrated campaign.
The SNP’s attempts to influence the BBC’s editorial decisions is an attempt to stifle the debate and ensure only pro-independence arguments are heard.
We can, indeed, have solidarity with people from other countries, but there can be no doubt international borders and different nationalities are an impediment to this.
The reason the SNP are sinister is because ultimately they offer nothing. They muddy their argument for independence with talk of a fairer society, social justice etc but will ultimately be unable to deliver either. This is because the hopes, needs and aspirations of the Scots are the same as those of people in the rest of society, and they will vote accordingly as soon as independence is achieved. There are two reasons why Scotland votes differently at present: 1). thatcher seriously misjudged the Scots and alienated them for a generation, and 2) they have been convinced they do not have sufficient skin in the game to make a difference (which is a fallacy). Once these two factors disappear, their enthusiasm for a fairer society and social justice will decrease as they are asked to pay for it. This dividing the country will benefit the cause of the left not one jot. We are better winning the argument in the UK.
As for the UK having a neo-liberal government for the foreseeable future, I disagree. Neo-liberalism is on the wane. People are tired of it and if the Tories couldn’t win a majority in the circumstances under which the last election was fought, I’d say they are on the wane also. Labour does need to provide some credible leadership though in order to win over the electorate and fight off the scourge of nationalism.
You should remember that Scotland and the Scots had a disproportionate influence in creating the Westminster political system and establishment therein, so it seems unlikely that rule from Edinburgh will be significantly different.
I don’t imply that independence for Scotland has anything to do with right with nationalism, I state it as a matter of fact. Strip away the fluff and it’s all you are left with. I am amazed that anyone with as much political astuteness as you seem to possess can’t see through their deceit.
Heather
Now here’s an interesting article. The debate we are not having… http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/01/yes-or-no-the-idiotic-question-with-the-intelligent-answer/
Tom
Who says they’d remain part of the UK?
If they became an independent state themselves then they certainly would have the right to an extensive part of the oil reserves.
Perhaps they’ll use the same arguments used by the SNP to justify their independence – ‘we don’t want to ruled by a government hundreds of miles away that we didn’t vote for and that takes all our oil money and spends it on the south where most of the voters are’.
Tom
None of those parties have a chance of becoming the government.
An independent Scotland would remain a two party state of two like-minded establishment, pro-big business, pro-rich parties, just like the UK.