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”
Andy Ellis
Your relationship with the truth seems tenuous to say the least Leon Wolfeson. Feel free to come back and actually debate on the evidence. An EJIL article, peer reviewed with extensive footnotes and references to the case law is hardly some random google mined opinion. the fact you haven’t come back with any actual counter arguments, still less back up in the form of evidence, suggests that you’d rather rely on “truthy” statements you wish were true, in the absence of any actual evidence supporting your desperately weak argument.
Feel free to get back to us when you’ve done some more work; otherwise probably best to stay under your bridge and stop embarrassing yourself further?
Andy Ellis
But according to your last post above Leon, you had better things to do… and yet like a dog returning to its own vomit, you return! What on earth for? You obviously haven’t got any more in the way of evidence. I’m not spinning anything… I’m simply pointing out the accepted position under current international law. What “facts” is it you think I’m denying? I’ve said no such thing as that the law on EEZ’s is null and void… quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps you have reading difficulties? Or perhaps you can’t see properly through the spittle flecked outrage of your previous evidence-free posts?
I have no interest in silencing you; rather the reverse. Your lack of evidence simply shows you have no case. Your constant ad hominem in lieu of actual debate betray the desperate weakness of your debating skills, and the fact that you have no actual back up for your position. Why else would you try to insist I hate democracy and self determination for others, when the opposite is the case?
If Shetlanders want independence and vote for it, or indeed to stay in the UK, I’d fully support them; same goes for various other peoples around the world. The fact remains that the delineation of their territorial waters and EEZ’s is governed by international law, agreements and negotiations between the parties. NONE of these support the case you were trying to make, assuming you do actually HAVE a point…? No…? Thought not…!
Andy Ellis
So all the other NATO member except rUK and France are hypocritical too then? For all you know post a Yes vote Scots may not even vote to be part of NATO, but you can hardly use non-nuclear status as a stick to beat either the SNP or any other pro-indy campaigners with given all the other NATO states except the USA, France and rUK won’t have them either! Facts, dear boy…!
John Mitchell
Scotland had the chance to show their intention of wanting to change the FPTP electoral system in 2011 with the alternative vote referendum. Scotland, as the UK did, unanimously rejected reform.
Every time the nationalists repeat the same argument of “Scotland doesn’t get the government it voted for”, it can be pointed out that Scotland had a chance to indicate it wanted electoral reform at UK level and that the majority of voters in Scotland turned it down.
John Mitchell
There are at least another five in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Holland and Turkey that house nuclear weapons in their territory as NATO members.
The SNP are rightly attacked for their hypocritical stance seeing as they’re supposedly wanting to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons and yet also claim that a “yes” vote will do so whilst wanting to enter NATO. Which doesn’t appear to be realistic.