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”
Guest
Your post would? I see. Well, Alice, that’s your choice.
And for one thing, the Nordic System. Which has a cross-party dedication to People’s Socialism which is utterly lacking in Scotland, and a subsequent reluctance to make revolutionary changes to the social contract.
That you see facts as being “obsessed”..how dare it be said! How dare the truth come into this!
Guest
No, Lord Blagger, you are an adult and have full responsibility for your actions, criminal.
Gary Scott
As I said, it has already been agreed by Westminster that dual/multiple nationality is possible. That in itself confirms free movement across ‘the border’. As with Greenland when it became independent of Denmark it would still be a part of EU until it left. Juncker has stated Scotland would be a ‘special case’ and Westminster has confirmed it would do its best to ensure full membership from day one of independence. NB being part of the EU applies to the country and not the people living in Scotland. As stated about nationality they would, in any event, continues to be EU citizens. This is the reality. Scotland’s population has either dropped or remained stagnant for decades, its situation being very different from the overall UK. Regardless of Schengen there is freedom of movement within EU, Schengen only really benefits land borders. Arriving in UK by air, or even travelling internally, requires ID and only valid passports are now accepted. There is unlikely to ever be an issue as immigration EU wide means that if ANY country accepts non EU residents as citizens they would then have the right to live and work in any other country. This HAS been misused, notably by Malta ‘selling’ passports but UK has since followed suit. There are also issues for rUK taking citizens from Commonwealth countries under the Commonwealth agreement, this skews UK immigration figures as there a sizeable bloc living/working ‘temporarily’ in UK (usually England). There are problems but they are a lot smaller for Scotland as we don’t have large numbers coming from overseas to live, like I said, the population is stagnant after a long period of dropping numbers.
Hettie
There will be a Constitutional Convention where interested parties …not just political parties can put forward their views, I suggest you go to the Scottish Government site and click on Publications
The National Collective have been touring Scotland organising events where people are invited to write down what they want their Indy Scotland to be to imagine. Young and old.
It is exciting to witness a different way of “doing” politics along side the conventional meetings.
I was a Labour (old ) party activist and I saw the way the party was going during the miner’s strike, I said at the time that if Kinnock continued to take the party in the way I saw it going then we would end up like America with both Cons and Lab so similar that the people would become disillusioned and disinclined to vote. I had no idea that Blair and co would be so ruthless. New Labour is the result and I could no more vote for them than I would the LibDems
There is something rotten at the heart of the British State and I think Independence for Scotland is way long overdue.
Hettie
Centuries of democracy!!!! The franchise grudgingly meted after pressure and agitation It took over 200 years….People died to get us the vote.
Deny my own policies!!! Whit???
Back to the SNP. Minority government was the norm in the Scottish parliament until the SNP won the last election on the referendum ticket. The VOTERS tactically voted and gave them an overall majority for just that purpose. Post indy it will be back to normal with people voting for whomsoever they will. And a lot of them WONT be voting for the SNP
Now I hope this clarifies things for you. Just one more thing, everything is not black and white, rather more like multiple shades of grey. Sometimes there is a need for pragmatism but I don’t think you’d get that either.