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”
John Mitchell
On 25% of the popular vote on a 50% turnout across Scotland. It’s not what I would call a majority but neither is the Conservative vote at a UK level, around 33%. The SNP offer on independence was conveniently tucked away within their 2011 manifesto and is not immediately recognizable if you just happened to read the first few pages and lose interest.
The PR system is designed to build coalitions, not minority governments which are typically weak and subject to either working through certain aspects such as economic policy which the SNP did with the Scottish Conservatives during their 2007 to 2011 administration, or calling another election. The Tories at UK level could have gone down that road at Westminster but didn’t because they didn’t want to face another immediate election.
Hettie
Well now why don’t you enlighten me!
John Mitchell
Wings over Scotland and Stuart Campbell has zero credibility to me. Personally attacking your opponents as he does in an insulting manner crosses the line. It’s not journalism, in certain cases it’s electronic bullying and baiting which is very unhelpful to the debate which has been divisive enough already.
Parties of the “left” don’t exist anymore in the strictest terms. As you suggest the Greens are probably the only party that falls into that category but are more irrelevant in Scotland than UKIP who in the past three by-elections have finished above the Greens and beat them in the European Elections in Scotland also. Which suggests that Scotland isn’t as “left wing” as is portrayed. New Labour did get a lot of things wrong and when Tony Blair was leader especially, inequality was not a concern.
Andy Ellis
No it isn’t – a typical troll tactic. You’re perfectly entitled to your view on a subject, just not to require the rest of us to accept it as factual when it patently isn’t. International law does stand, and it doesn’t support what passes for your argument.
I’m not denying anyone anything. any independent nation is entitled to an EEZ; the issue in relation to what the EEZ of Shetland would be either as an independent state, or if it remains part of the UK. Again in both cases it is abundantly clear what the position would be for bot, and again it doesn’t support your position. Come back to me when you’ve done some actual research, huh?
Andy Ellis
Well, feel free to provide some actual evidence to support your woo-woo views, or even better engage in actual debate and show where I and Mahdi Zahraa (and the International Court of Justice quoted in his article) have all gotten it wrong, and the weight of evidence supporting your case….. well? I look forward to you reasoned response 😉