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”
HulloHulot
‘None of those parties have a chance of becoming the government.’
Except as part of the coalition governments the Scottish Parliament was designed to encourage and for half it’s lifetime has had.
The LibDems managed to be a part of two of those governments: 1999, 2003
John Mitchell
That’s not true at all. Scotland’s votes do affect the outcome of UK general elections. 11 of Scotland’s 59 MPs represent the governing UK parties. Saying that we may as well all “stay at home” epitomises the problem. The Conservatives won the most seats at UK level with a mandate of around 33% across the UK. People not bothering to turnout gives parties that don’t seem to offer much difference the right to exist.
I disagree. Scotland marginalises itself by leaving the UK and Scotland would find itself weakened and its influence depleted on a whole range of issues at international level.
Austerity isn’t a “lie” as you put it and I don’t think it’s ending anytime soon. I think it’s terrible and is hitting the most vulnerable in our society the hardest. However, where in the world is it not occurring? Is it just the UK that is committed to austerity? Of course that isn’t the case. Scotland leaving the UK could have the opposite impact and accelerate austerity and make it even worse for people who are already finding it difficult.
I wouldn’t accuse you of lying but I would say that equating a “no” vote to a vote for the Conservatives is inaccurate. David Cameron as Prime Minister isn’t forever where as separation is likely irreversible.
John Mitchell
I would say that SNP councillors and candidates appearing behind a Labour banner is deceitful.
Peter A Bell
Stephen Low’s problem, of course, is that he is not “up close” to Scottish nationalism at all. He cannot get “up close” to Scotland’s civic nationalist movement because his British Labour tribalism will always intervene. Like so many other British nationalists, Low purports to offer a reasoned, objective analysis, but actually ends up doing no more than dragging on stage that warped caricature of Scotland’s independence movement born of an unsavoury mix of resentment at a sense of denied entitlement and the need to rationalise both British Labour’s alliance with the Tories and the often quite appalling conduct of the anti-independence campaign.
The selective, out-of-context quotes from various figures on the independence-supporting left are certainly the stuff of crude propaganda rather than dispassionate political commentary. One might have thought that denouncing people with the impeccable left-wing credentials of Robin McAlpine and Billy Bragg as proponents of “less favourably looked on nationalisms” (a mealy-mouthed euphemism if ever there was one) would have given Stephen Low pause. But no! He is on a mission to smear those who challenge his “One Nation” British nationalism and is not about to be deterred by the possibility of looking foolish in the process.
But it is when he launches into his rant about the currency union issue that Stephen Low truly abandons all pretence of rationality and enters that curious Orwellian mode in which truth is totally turned on its head. Just as those who protest the proven bias of the BBC become, in Stephen Low’s mind, the enemies of freedom of expression, so George Osborne is miraculously elevated to the status of a hero of the Labour movement while Alex Salmond is cast in the role of virulent reactionary.
Low refers to Osborne’s “sermon on the pound” as if the threat to abolish the currency union was an act of clear-headed economic calculation instead of an act of wrong-headed political desperation. Alex Salmond’s response was not “howls of anguish” but a calm, measured reiteration and defence of the Scottish Government’s position. The “howls of anguish” came from British nationalists deeply irked by the fact that Salmond had not succumbed to the panic and confusion they had hoped would be induced by their bullying bluster.
The threats from Osborne, his LibDem puppet Danny Alexander and his British Labour ally Ed Balls were not dismissed merely as “attacks on Scotland” or on the basis that “assertions by the UK couldn’t be valid in themselves”. Nor was there the slightest suggestion of Scotland’s interests being the sole concern. On the contrary, sound reasons were laid out as to why retaining the currency union would benefit BOTH Scotland AND the rest of the UK.
How can we suppose that Stephen Low could get “up close” to Scottish nationalism when he can’t even get with hailing distance of reality?
What Stephen Low is actually doing here is peddling the specious “solidarity” argument favoured by British Labour spin-quacks. The utterly defeatist argument that, if we can’t improve the lot of all, then it is wrong to seek to improve the lot of any. The wholly irrational argument that we must forego the opportunity to implement progressive policies in Scotland in the hope that one day we will be able to implement those policies everywhere. Although it is worth noting that, for “One Nation” British nationalists such as Stephen Low, “everywhere” stops at the UK border.
This is not the Labour movement which inspired millions. This is not the Labour movement which transformed an entire society. This is not the Labour movement which gave rise to the welfare state and socialised healthcare. This is a cruel mockery on that Labour movement. A dessicated, shrunken thing that seeks only to excuse its failures and rationalise its lack of ambition.
Not only does Stephen Low have no aspirations for Scotland, he clearly despises those who do. Those who would build in Scotland a better, fairer society in the hope of inspiring progressive change elsewhere are reviled as enemies of “The Party” because they pose a threat to the structures of power and privilege which define the British state. British Labour has become the staunchest defender of the old order and the old ways.
Whilst I naturally resent Stephen Low’s grossly slanderous misrepresentation of Scotland’s independence movement, it is possible to feel some sympathy for him. Somewhere, buried deep beneath suffocating layers of unthinking party loyalty, there must surely be at least a small fire of frustration burning when someone with any kind of socialist leanings finds themselves in the situation of fervently opposing genuinely progressive politics for the sake of partisan expediency.
Andy Ellis
I already said that was one of the two option posited by some britnats didn’t I? There isn’t any significant support for either option, but it is at least arguable that the Northern Isles & the Hebrides are much more likely to get increased autonomy from an independent Scotland than from the UK.
Even if Shetland (or Shetland & Orkney) voted for independence, they still wouldn’t have that much in the way of oil reserves, as their EEZ would have to be re-negotiated with both Norway and indy Scotland, and would be relatively modest because the islands aren’t that big relative to their “mainland” neighbours.
So, to sum up there’s zero evidence of any appetite for this in the isles, and even if there was they wouldn’t have much in the way of oil reserves. Great future for them them!