Even at its highest and most aspirant, nationalism demands self-interest over mutual interest between nations.
Even at its highest and most aspirant, nationalism demands self-interest over mutual interest between nations
Einstein was a little harsh when he said that “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind”. But given his circumstances, it was understandable.
Nationalism is a particular expression of “we” that can give us safety in a world of nebulous identities, an expression of commonality and it is potent.
Scottish Nationalism is of that brand which is curated not from a dominance challenged, but casts itself as the defender of the oppressed. Like in Catalonia or Quebec it is defined by notions of insurgency against the dominant order to provide dignity to those marginalised by over central states, often governed by aloof politicians.
It is important to understand this, because it’s not of that sort of nationalism which fears the immigrant, nor covets ethno-centric unity. It’s ‘other’ is not a weak phantasm created to bully a fearful, economically shattered class into a connivance of oppressing scapegoats. Pretending otherwise will do Unionists no good.
The argument put to the people of Scotland by the SNP is that they should embrace a civic nationalism imbued with all these qualities, where all are welcome and participation in the national society is to be rooted in qualities of shared humanity; a commitment to social democracy, ethnic inclusion, sexual and gender minority.
This is championed as the best avenue to achieve progressive aims by writers such as Ian McWhirter and Lesley Riddoch, who promote a move towards the Nordic model, embracing a pluralistic localism.
This is a persuasive and aspirational facet of an ideology which speaks easily to the tribal in a nation such as Scotland.
However, that is just what it aspires to be – a ‘tribe’. And I find this such a paltry ambition for the Scottish people.
The problem, even with nationalism so cushy as this, is that the ‘we’ still necessitates a ‘they’. Nationalism must always have an ‘other’ in order to exist. And indeed the entire language of the nationalist project is geared towards this end; ‘Westminster Rule’, ‘London’ ad nauseum.
Of course there are legitimate criticisms of Westminster politics, but what is being said is that there is something Unscottish there.
It simply doesn’t hold to scrutiny.
This Westminster that has had a Scot occupy every major office of State since the 90s? Which created the NHS, implemented a minimum wage and Equal Marriage? Scottish Social Attitudes survey shows clearly that Scots and English are very close on most big political issues. Even our mistakes are together – a majority of Scots supported the Iraq War in 2003.
This debate must in part ask the question ‘what is the purpose of the nation state?’ Most of the arguments put forward so far are about short-term gain, as if this were a general election campaign, but it is not. Nations last for decades and centuries, they outlast this or that Tory Government and the political opinions of populaces change.
Further complicating this question in a world of ever rising globalisation is the extent to which countries can ever be truly ‘sovereign’ in the way quacked on about by euro-sceptics or Scottish nationalists. Big business can flit across borders, for a tax rate here or lower wages there.
In such a situation, how can it make sense to divide and not combine our political powers of regulation in everyone’s interests? It is antithetical to any notion of Solidarity to say to the left voting NE and Wales who were also ravaged by Thatcher’s excessive monetarism that we shall hide behind Hadrian’s, cut tax powers to lure business away from you to us and leave you to probable Tory dominance.
Most of all, however, when a Scottish MP and former chancellor of the exchequer is being heckled live on TV as to whether he has a residency in Scotland, when the first minister’s closest advisers Joan MacAlpine questions the Scottishness of unionists, and when the only substantive economic proposal put forward for an Independent Scotland is to begin a corporation tax war with England, it’s time to be suspicious about how inclusive nationalism can ever be.
Even at its highest and most aspirant, nationalism demands self-interest over mutual interest between nations – it is forever and irrevocably rooted in parochialism.
I hope the Scottish people heed its most successful author when she writes the words for Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, “We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided”.
John McKee is an activist for the No campaign and LGBT rights
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
21 Responses to “How ‘inclusive’ really is Scottish nationalism?”
Kevin Breslin
Anything said about a Scottish nation here could equally transfer to a British nation, so to me believing this can be an absolute solution to class struggle is wrong. If there is partition in Britian, does it end the British class struggle? Actually, if you look at the partition in Ireland you would think not, but the struggle still survives on an all-Ireland basis, many Irish socialists from across the island come over to Britian. James Connoly of the cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland, highlighted brilliantly that you don’t demand a new nation like a customer, you work for it. Why stop at Britian, why not Ireland, why not Iceland, why not France?
Einstine while calling himself an internationalist is a bit of a hypocrite because he was a Zionist, he needed a home for the Jews, even if it doesn’t resemble the Israeli state of today. Unless we are prepared to be nomads, we will always have the infantile desire for a home or nation I.e. From the Latin Place of Birth. I don’t believe borders will stop interaction in open border Europe.
People make nations, nations don’t make people. The pro-unity left speaks of a solidarity with England and Wales, but ultimately it’s the same land and same people overall, regardless of a border, just as Ireland would be with Northern Ireland and the a Republic of Ireland.
dougthedug
In such a situation, how can it make sense to divide and not combine our political powers of regulation in everyone’s interests?
So you’re for a United States of Europe as a road towards One World Government?
If nationalism is wrong then all nationalisms are wrong including British nationalism.
But your leader Miliband is a British nationalist.
But he said he did not back an “inexorable” process of political union and Labour would “guarantee” an in-out referendum if the UK was being asked to transfer more powers to Brussels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26538420
littleoddsandpieces
Scottish nationalism is not what independence is about.
It is protecting the Scots from a future Tory government, when Tories are not voted into power in Scotland, bar one, so never forming a government in Scotland, yet Tory policies are forced onto a suffering nation that the population has not voted for.
The Pension Bills from 2010 and most recent May 2014 will abandon housewives, widows and divorcees and poorest workers to nil state pension for life in old age.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
And massively reduce state pension for many women and a lot of men, when this is their sole income in old age.
With independence, the Scots can end austerity, welfare and pension reform that is a cause of starvation rising in England and Wales by 70 per cent since 2010.
The welfare state is all but abolished in England and Wales, yet the poorest have such suicide causing taxes as Bedroom Tax imposed upon them.
Labour cannot always protect the Scots from the Tories forever into the future.
MK
“This Westminster that has had a Scot occupy every major office of State since the 90s?”
They may have been Scottish, but they did not work in the interests of Scotland. And which major office of state is occupied by a Scot right now?
“Which created the NHS”
…and is currently privatising the English NHS, with funding effects for the Scottish one.
“implemented a minimum wage”
…at such a low level that it is impossible to live comfortably off it.
“and Equal Marriage?”
Fair enough, but you only note the positive things – not the bedroom tax, not the benefit cap, not the DRIP mass surveillance bill, not the top rate tax cut, not the VAT hike… The list goes on and on and on.
“Scottish Social Attitudes survey shows clearly that Scots and English are very close on most big political issues.”
Again, it is not Scot vs English but Scotland vs. Westminster. Westminster politicians often do not reflect the views of English people either.
This article, like so many attacking Scottish nationalism, is so quite on the subject of British nationalism. It brings up mutual interests. Well, do not the British and French have mutual interests? It is purely a sign of self-interest that Britain and France are not one nation? How is Scotland and England/Wales/NI any different?
John Mitchell
The stupidest question of the entire debate was on Alistair Darling’s address. It is unfortunate but it seems that there are some in Scotland (as in other countries) that have a view that isn’t fazed by actively promoting or fostering exclusion. This isn’t necessarily promoted by the nationalists themselves publicly, but some supporters of independence (a minority), do subscribe to a hard-edged nationalist viewpoint, of that I have no doubt.
That’s why I would agree with the latest findings within a newspaper poll where two thirds of respondents think that this referendum process overall has been “bad for Scotland.”