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
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
268 Responses to “Up close, Scottish nationalism looks a lot like other nationalisms”
Heather
Psst Leon – that bit you quoted was a joke – you know a parody of the kind of thing people on here, including your good self, have said to me.
You really don’t seem to like me at all do you? I’m a liar, PC abuser and hater (whatever that is), a propagandist, a smasher of borders (?) an imposer of borders, a debate stifler, a silencer of voices, a British hater, right wing, nationalist, a SNP voter, a separatist… Whew! Have I missed anything? If I have just add them below. Ta!
Phil
Except all of those groups are unelected and therfore unrepresentative.
I would hope the body that drafts the constitution for all of the people of Scotland will represent all of the people of Scotland, not self selected interest groups, or do people who have voted no not deserve a say in their countries founding document?
Hettie
Correction without the people who tactically voted for the party offering a referendum on independence, which resulted in an overall majority within a P R system designed to produce minority Governments., this “conversation would not be taking place.
So internal competition is ok then is it.?
Even before the EU Irish people could come and go at will. Most of the motorways were built by Irish labour.
Hettie
I refer you to the Wings over Scotland where you can find evidence of how the Scottish Labour MPs affected the outcome of General Elections.
I agree David Cameron isn’t forever…..so who are you pinning your hopes on? New Labour who were the first to privatise a hospital and who are still committed to NHS privatisation? . New Labour when they ditched Clause 4 ceased to be a party of the Left. You would be better off voting for the Greens.
Keir Hardy, one of the founding Fathers of Scottish Labour fought for Home Rule for Ireland AND Scotland.
Jim O'Rorke
well, feeling a bit sensitive Andy Ellis? Typical of nationalists throughout history that if someone has an opinion differing from yours they will be attacked, denigrated. If you are so sure of your arguments why stoop to personal insults. You don’t know me Andy, what gives you the right to call me a “frothing britnat” or term my view as “nonsense”. I’m not as clever as you Andy, so I don’t know what a “strawman alternative future” is. Actually I didn’t describe my view of the future. Why so touchy Andy? People have a different view from you. Get over it.