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
Why is it unrealistic? The Spaniards used to host US nuclear weapons (even before they were part of NATO) and now as NATO members, they no longer do so. Canada hosted US nuclear weapons until 1984, but no longer does so, and Greece until 2001 but no longer does so.
Perhaps all these states (and the majority of NATO states who refuse to host nuclear missiles) are being hypocritical, but being part of a nuclear alliance doesn’t oblige you to be a nuclear host….so why are you holding the SNP or a future independent Scotland, to a different standard? Seems like the hypocrisy is on the side of those making your argument if anything.
Interesting thoughts on this from Will McLeod:
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9263-scotland-doesnt-have-to-keep-nukes-in-the-clyde-to-be-in-nato
John Mitchell
NATO is a nuclear alliance, that’s what I was suggesting was hypocritical in the nationalist argument and not being a non-nuclear state.
Canada, Greece and Spain are the exceptions. I believe Germany and Holland no longer wish to keep the nuclear weapons but they also realise that in order for this to change they would need the agreement of all 28 NATO member states.
This doesn’t factor in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which is operated by countries such as Norway that don’t house nuclear weapons.
Jim O'Rorke
wow, there’s no stopping you Andy, is there. You just can’t help yourself. So certain of the “right” of your point of view you can brook no other, your mind permanently closed to other opportunities, points of view, concerns etc. Do you attack everyone who has a different point of view to you? Do you never discuss? What are you afraid of? The only thing that scares me is the fundamentalist, closed mind attitude that I perceive from your posts, and that from many other Yes supporters I’ve read and heard. I really do worry what an “independent” (although not from the EU, Bank of England or NATO) Scotland would be like if this was the mind-set of those who would lead us. Try this Andy; I’ve no doubt Scotland could survive as an independent nation; I agree with the need for self-determination at a more local level. I just believe that the current set-up is best for our country.OK?
Gary Scott
Any citizen of the EU can live and work in any other part of the EU. Schengen is the removal of border checks for EU citizens. In UK we have one land border between UK and ROI, this is covered instead by CTA. If you are a UK citizen therefore you have free movement and would continue to do so. If UK decided to erect a land border against Scotland, both in the EU, it could, but why would it? Why spend millions to slow down existing trade? Population is important, Scotland needs to attract people in, unlike UK overall. Allegedly UK is worried about Scots immigration policy and this is the reason for considering borders. However, anyone accepted as a citizen of an EU state can move to any other, border checks do not prevent this. Talk of borders is purely to give worry to those considering a YES vote. Of course the EU President cannot make decisions for the whole EU, just as the previous President could not. None of the states have said they will vote against Scotland, including Spain and UK. Scotland is already compliant so I’m not sure why anyone would think there’s a problem (see my remark about Greenland). Remember, its not policy to remove citizenship, so Scots would remain citizens. The nightmare scenario envisaged goes against stated UK policies.
Andy Ellis
Seems like you are making my case for me, since there appear to be a number of different policies toward physically hosting nukes &/or allowing them in your harbours or territorial waters? I still don’t see how you can label the SNP as hypocritical, but have no issues with other non-nuclear NATO states essentially doing the same thing.
The question is whether NATO would accept a totally nuclear free Scotland; of all we know they might, as it would be a better alternative to the Scots not being in NATO at all. Of course, there is no guarantee that current SNP policy will become the policy of an independent Scotland anyway. I imagine most Scots would be quite happy being part of NATO (which is no doubt behind the SNP change of policy on the matter), and seeing Trident removed from the Clyde.