During a recent discussion thread one of the commenters admitted to not knowing what the difference is between a nationalist and someone that supports independence. Given it was Jeff, I promised to explain my position, which is, as the title suggests, in favour of independence but against nationalism.
Crudely, there are romantic arguments for particular territorial boundaries, and there are pragmatic ones. The arguments for and against independence can both be divided in this way. If someone believes that larger nation-states carry more clout on the world stage, that the costs of implementing Scottish independence outweigh the benefits, and that the Westminster system is the most efficient form of democracy ever devised, for example, they are certainly a unionist but not necessarily a nationalist of any flavour. Those are pragmatic positions, and their merits can be debated.
If, however, they believe that Britain has a splendid history, that Britishness is important to their identity, and that we therefore belong together, they are a British nationalist. It sounds unpleasant, because of the association with the British National Party, but it’s really no more logical nor any less savoury than Scottish nationalism. Nationalists believe in flags and anthems and symbols of collective identity. Unless it’s the Jolly Roger, I’m broadly against flags. Any form of nationalism is like a faith position, and it is hard to debate sensibly with a person who adheres to one of them.
Similarly, Scottish nationalism has independence as an end in itself, an emotional objective irrespective of any other political changes. Patrick and I once took a drink with an SNP MSP who shall remain nameless. Patrick asked what their campaign priorities would be after independence, and got the memorable reply: “what do you mean?” Another round of pressing still failed to elicit any secondary policy objectives, like perhaps tackling poverty, or even apparently an understanding of the question. Eventually the answer came that they’d leave politics – job done. That’s nationalism in its purest form, and it frankly baffles me.
Personally, I came to support independence as a pragmatic position, entirely devoid of any nationalist sentiment – only the 90 minute version has any effect on me. I look at Westminster politics and despair. I no longer think it likely that we will in my lifetime see an end to corporate politics there, or a fair electoral system, or a party of government opposed to privatisation, or a government prepared to make a positive case for immigration and honouring our asylum commitments. Obviously Labour started small, and the Greens couldn’t have a better bridgehead in the Commons than Caroline Lucas, but the inertia (at best) and copycat neo-liberal politics seen at a UK level is frankly beyond depressing.
So I don’t want to be offered an independent Scotland which would reproduce Westminster at Holyrood, something where the constitution won’t be written by the people, without a choice over an elected or a hereditary head of state, or where money politics still rules. I want to see independence for something, for a purpose. I want to see a fairer Scotland, one that relies on wind and wave, not oil and gas, one where money stops being wasted on motorways and is diverted instead into public transport, and one where politics is cleaned up and opened up. The list is enormous, and in general it’s what you’d see if you merged the last Green manifestos for Holyrood and for Westminster. Only a referendum on a truly democratic independent Scotland gives me any hope that I’ll live in a country like that.
The irony with this, of course, is that plenty of people who get called nationalists – SNP members, or even SNP MSPs – are not nationalists by this definition, or not just nationalists at least. Like me, they want independence for a purpose: some to deliver a version of social democracy, others to continue down a neo-liberal path. The leadership recognise the ideological and emotional strands in the pro-independence camp too, and so they use rhetoric that mixes nationalism and pragmatism, designed to have a broad appeal beyond the flag-wavers.
Another example further from home provides a footnote. Consider the 18th century American campaign for independence and the colonists’ famous slogan “no taxation without representation”. This was not a nationalist position, although it was part of the ideological foundation for a war for independence. It’s a pragmatic political position, and if George III had had any sense he’d have offered them representation. Who knows how that would have turned out? Similarly, if the unionists had been smarter and hadn’t blocked the assembly plans in 1979, who knows whether independence would seem so essential now?
#1 by Paul Flannery on April 11, 2012 - 6:29 pm
An initial point, there is no such thing as British nationalism, it is a misnomer. Patriotism, maybe, but it cannot be nationalism as there is no British nation.
One thing I want to pick up on is that you say the SNP leadership recognise the ideological and emotional strands in the (non-nationalist) pro-independence camp. That they use nationalist rhetoric which aims for broad appeal. I would go further by saying that the SNP forward particular discourse(s) aimed at the creation/strengthening of emotional strands – creating what ‘Scotland’ or ‘Scottishness’ is in the minds of the electorate. We can see the ‘cultural turn’ which has taken place within the SNP leadership within the past year. The self-proclaimed civic nationalist party is now undeniably run by cultural nationalists who seem intent on placing limits upon Scottishness through, for example, legislating what cultural expressions are allowed within Scotland. Although aiming to end a societal problem, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 ultimately denies particular cultural expressions by two sections of Scottish society, both of which have connections with, and possible allegiances to countries other than Scotland. The claim of it’s not where you are from, but where we are going seems to have caveats.
You don’t have to be a flag-waver to be a nationalist, in fact, as Billig says, it tends to be the unwaved flags which are the most effective in the daily creation of the nation. SNP MSPs have even shown that they are unaware of their inherent cultural tendencies: even as they protest to hold no cultural notion of Scottishness they adorn their person with culturally specific jewellery, “I don’t wake up in the morning and feel the need to define my national identity. I don’t intellectualise it…I don’t wear it on my sleeve” (Leith & Soule, 2011, pg. 128). Why do you want Scotland to be independent, why not aim for the secession of a different territorial entity; maybe the SNP discourse appeals to you at some, possibly subconscious level, even though I accept that you say that you are not a nationalist.
#2 by James on April 11, 2012 - 6:49 pm
Paul, I disagree about the possibility of British nationalism. Its exponents clearly believe there is a British nation, and both are equally arbitrary (although, despite favouring independence, the sea border does have its merits – leaving aside Northern Ireland).
And I take your point about a different secession. If Edinburgh had pretensions to be a Venetian city-state, that might appeal. But I think a country of 5+m people with its own legal, educational and Parliamentary tradition is the basis for a good-sized state. I don’t claim it’s logically better than some other line on the map, just it’s pragmatic given the current situation. If parts of Scotland (e.g. the Northern Isles) wanted not to take part, that’d be fine by me. Or if Berwick upon Tweed wanted to come back, that’d be fine too. But no, the cultural nationalism as you describe it leaves me totally cold.
#3 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2012 - 6:37 pm
What we have here is someone who is afraid of the word “nationalism”. To be fair, there may be some excuse for this. The term has been hi-jacked by the more shallow-minded elements of the anti-independence campaign and decked out with contrived and spurious allusions to the European nationalist movements of the early twentieth century.
Whether foolish error or malicious dishonesty we have a straightforward choice when faced with such misrepresentation. We can either retreat in the face of the onslaught of ignorance and allow others to define our political philosophy to suit their own agenda, or we we can assert a bit of intellectual independence and insist that our nationalism is what we say it is.
I am a nationalist, not because I am inspired by a great past, but because I aspire to a better future. For me, the nation is conceived, not in terms of common characteristics, but in terms of a shared commitment. My concept of nationalism is more to do with people than place. It is a matter of pragmatism, not patriotism.
I am a nationalist because good government is never any more distant from the governed than is consistent with its function.
I am a nationalist, not because I regard Scotland as superior to other nations, but because I refuse to accept that we are inferior.
I am a nationalist, not for anything that is promised, but for everything that is possible.
About that mysterious SNP MSP. What was his/her constituency? Brigadoon?
#4 by James on April 11, 2012 - 6:54 pm
It’s only out of politeness that I’m not wishing to identify the person we spoke to. Chats in the Holyrood bar should follow the Chatham House rule, I think. As a result of not wanting to name and shame someone with such an odd perspective, you’re free to believe I made them up. But I’ve met a fair few in the SNP who I could imagine saying the same thing, although I think it’s a minority position in the Holyrood group.
#5 by Andra on April 11, 2012 - 8:12 pm
Peter,
Your comment starts to fall appart when you say that state that good government is never more distant from the govened than is consistent with it’s function.
The SNP seems to suggest that Edinburgh is the optimum or highest place of government for all matters, and for all time in the future.
Surely the optimum changes over time, so while law and order might have been administered by local sheriffs several centuries ago, it now many a national issue (to fight national and international organised crime). While education in Scotland was initially inspired and run at a parish level, it is now largely national with respect to curriculum (education is no longer just to get you a local job), and regional with respect to administration.
We are seeing some elements of governement being moved to a more local level – e.g. many powers transferred from Westmister to Scottish government, and similar to London and other regions / nations.
Over time, the management of our currency is gradulally moving further from home and I am generally in favour of this. Over time we are seeing more international co-operation with defence.
Over time, we are seeing a move to EU level with respect to trade regulations and this is almost always a good thing.
Within the UK we can continue to devolve some fuctions and centralise other functions as the world changes (communication / travel / trade / educations are all very different from 1707 – so why should level of government be put back to 1707??).
By moving to an independent Scotland we will restrict our ability to manage our affairs at the right level of government.
It appears to me that Nationalism is not based on valid logic, but it primarily based on everything that is wrong being the fault of Westminster and that everything will miraculously be better after independence.
#6 by scottish_skier on April 11, 2012 - 8:58 pm
“By moving to an independent Scotland we will restrict our ability to manage our affairs at the right level of government.”
My wife is French. I pointed out your comment to her. She would like to ask if you think France should come under Westminster rule (say with maybe 9% representation in the HoC) and how you see this reducing restrictions on the ability of French people to manage their affairs at the right level of government, as per your Scotland case.
We’re both looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks in advance.
#7 by Andrade on April 11, 2012 - 11:23 pm
Right nitty gritty – what currency do you propose we use?
Do we go for the pound managed by the uk as now (keep uk)
Or do we tag onto the English pound? (I.e. no power to influence a foreign currency)
Or do we form a joint government of the pound with other users (how would that be any different from now)?
Or do we join the Euro even if our main trading parter is using the pound?
The current optimum level of government for currency is the Uk (I.e managed by a uk government – in peters words government at the right distance consistant with function.
#8 by Don McC on April 11, 2012 - 10:21 pm
That must be what the likes of Norway are doing wrong then.
#9 by Andra on April 11, 2012 - 11:26 pm
Or Iceland, or Ireland?
What is your point?
Norway have no influence on eu trade policy, yet are bound by all eu trade policies. They have zero democratic control of that part of government – please justify that.
#10 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 10:47 pm
You’re completely missing the point. The localisation of power on the one hand and the increased co-operation amongst nations on the other are not reasons to remain in the UK – rather, they are reasons why the UK is entirely redundant. It’s neither small enough nor big enough to do the job.
Where is the valid logic behind your British nationalism?
#11 by Andra on April 11, 2012 - 11:30 pm
You can have local control, without giving up control of other aspects at a higher level.
Why do you want us to give up influence over the influential uk military – do you have no faith in our ability to do the right thing?
We mostly have common interests with e,w, & ni – why do we want to weaken our voice – our opponents will be delighted to see us divided.
#12 by James on April 11, 2012 - 11:48 pm
Who are our military opponents right now? Like Yes Prime Minister, is it the French as usual?
#13 by Peter A Bell on April 12, 2012 - 12:06 am
One word answer. Iraq! So long as we are bound to the British state we will be dragged into its imperialistic military adventures. This is also one of the more powerful arguments against devo-whatever.
#14 by M G on April 11, 2012 - 7:17 pm
James,
you “dont want to be offerered an Independent Scotland which would reproduce Westminster “, I would suggest that whatever the outcome of the Referendum ,Scottish politics will not be able to return to the “good old days ” as the more politically aware (by 2014 ) will have invested too much time and energy .
Surely,whether ‘nationalist ‘ or not ,any pro Independence voter will keep pushing for progress.
What I do find interesting though is,you recommend the ‘Greens manifesto’ for your vision of the kind of country you would like to live in yet…why are’nt the Greens shouting from the rooftops about Dalgety Bay,about it being compulsory for new builds to have solar panels fitted,for shared car days,the list goes on ,yet the ‘Green Party’ is carrying on business as usual.
Whenever Patrick Harvie appears on a panel or TV,his message resonates, yet at the moment,the distinct impression is, it is up to the SNP to put forward the case for Independence so come on James ,never mind trying to define what you ( a non nationalist ),thinks a nationalist is or a Britnat,lets all be Independents afterall ,we may want different things in an Independent Scotland but we all want it to be better.
#15 by James on April 11, 2012 - 7:38 pm
Thanks Margaret. However, I’m not sure what’s “business as usual” about the Greens’ proposals for a fairer and greener Scotland, nor why it’s up to someone else whether the difference between nationalist and non-nationalist reasons for independence matter. Also, despite the title, “better” means all sorts of things, and I suspect mine might be a bit different to yours.
#16 by Jeff on April 11, 2012 - 7:24 pm
Thanks James, much appreciated.
I genuinely didn’t know the difference, wasn’t being facetious, but I get it now. I am certainly, like yourself, more in favour of independence than I am a Nationalist, though I am more a Nat than you are.
I have often wondered why I should feel more affinity with someone from Kent than someone from Calais just because I happened to be born on these islands, but the fact of the matter is that I do feel more affinity with someone from Kilmarnock than either of the two (or any other Scottish place that doesn’t begin with a C or a K). So, flag or no flag, there’s a bit of Nationalism behind that somewhere.
I guess we have to draw our borders somewhere and, while a separate Scotland makes sense for pragmatic reasons, it makes sense for people with a deeper shared culture and shared characteristics to come together and make decisions than to try and make quite significantly different peoples fit into a one-size country, as we currently try (and fail) to do in the UK.
I’ll be wary of throwing ‘Nat’ around in future now…
#17 by James on April 11, 2012 - 7:36 pm
My pleasure. We are a little different. If I don’t know someone, whether they’re from Brigadoon or Bangalore, I feel the same minimal human solidarity. If I do know them, whether they’re from Kinshasa or Kinfauns, I feel a stronger connection. And I’m no more likely, proportionately, to like people from around here than I am people from anywhere else.
#18 by Jeff on April 11, 2012 - 7:39 pm
I’d say there’s a difference between having an affinity with someone and liking them, but I get where you’re coming from of course.
I have to say my misty-eyed notion of motherland Scotland takes a bit of a blow when I get on a bus and some blitzed bawbag is annoying every other passenger.
#19 by An Duine Gruamach on April 11, 2012 - 8:35 pm
I’m perfectly happy to call myself a nationalist, I’ve no qualms whatsoever about the term. I also can’t help but feel that some people miss the point when they dismiss flags, anthems and other symbolic trappings of the nation. Myths and symbols are important to any construction of identity.
#20 by Teri Forsyth on April 11, 2012 - 8:51 pm
I see Independence as the beginning, not as the end as the MSP you chatted to seemed to think. I see it as a chance for those who live in Scotland to be involved in shaping the future of Scotland as a country in its own right. Although born in Scotland I feel my cultural identity is Irish because of my upbringing and heritage. I suppose because of that I dont have a sense of Britishness but I do feel that, being born and living here, Scotland should be independent and not more of the same as we have just now only smaller and I think that realy is what most who want indepence would expect. I can only say that if the MSP you spoke to cant see beyond the goal of Independence then it is best that the person resigns and lets someone with vision take his/her place.
#21 by Gerard on April 11, 2012 - 11:25 pm
Teri I define myself as an Irish-Scot. I don’t really get your reasoning behind supporting separation. I too am born and living here but that doesn’t draw me to the same conclusion as you. I too don’t feel a great sense of Britishness but I am British and Scottish by birth.
Also do the people who live here not aleady shape our future? Are we an emasculated people that isn’t a real nation and don’t stand on our own two feet?
If co-operation is a sign of weakness then yes we should separate and do our own thing; but if co-operation is the problem that separation will solve then I’m afraid a separate Scotland will be a poorer place (not just economically). Unless of course we would co-operate with other countries? Is it just co-operating with our neighbours who we share history and culture with that is the problem?
#22 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2012 - 9:08 pm
Type your comment here
Where do they suggest this? The Scottish Parliament is in Edinburgh. But that is not by the SNP’s choice. And it has to be somewhere. But where does the party say what you claim? Has the SNP not taken committees to other venues? Is the SNP not proposing a Rural Parliament?
Try to remember that belief in face of contrary evidence is the definition of a faith position.
#23 by Gerard on April 11, 2012 - 11:29 pm
The SNP have also centralised heavily during their tenure. The don’t believe in devolution at any level Peter. They want power given to them; it just so happens the seat of power is Edinburgh. The rural parliament could be a good thing but the proof is in the pudding as they say.
#24 by CW on April 11, 2012 - 9:09 pm
We do actually share a culture you know; just because we take it for granted doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. You don’t even need to be a cultural nationalist to acknowledge that. It rather saddens me that the world has become so technocratic and utilitarian that cultural nationalism is used as a term of disparagement. It used to be that even Labour MPs such as Norman Buchan or Donald Dewar were quite comfortable being described as cultural nationalists while (obviously) not being political nationalists. It is worth observing, even though I should’t have to, that people who are cultural nationalists are usually cultural internationalists too, because cultures that exist in isolation, without external influences, tend to be weak and parochial, and those who have a serious interest in their own culture work that out pretty quickly. This is surely a crucial cornerstone for the kind of civic nationalism that is the only worthwhile nationalism – a community of shared ideas and ideals. Indeed I would probably so far as to say that it’s laughable to refer to any national community without accepting that it has a cultural basis of some sort. Nationalism is not always chauvinism – its value is entirely dependent upon what people do with it.
#25 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2012 - 9:10 pm
Type your comment here
Simplistic nonsense.
#26 by James on April 11, 2012 - 11:14 pm
Further comments like this one and the one it replies to will be deleted, wherever they stand on the Yoonyon. Please let’s keep the debate civil.
#27 by Dennis Smith on April 11, 2012 - 9:37 pm
I’m not sure if I want to get involved in this, but what the hell … In many respects I’m a classic see-both-sides-of-the-argument fence-sitter, as well as a pedantic splitter of hairs. But it does seem basic here that words like ‘nationalist’ have several distinct senses (and the same also goes for ‘independence’). So there’s nothing odd or illogical in saying (as I would) that someone can be a nationalist in some senses but not in others.
As a very rough and incomplete start, a nationalist may 1) believe that nations do (and should) exist; 2) believe that existing nations have a right to self-determination; 3) believe that a given nation should in practice exercise its right to self-determination; 4) believe that a nation has the right to promote to promote its interests to the detriment of other nations; 5) believe that some nations are superior to others. (For the record, I would sign up to 1 and 2, tend towards 3 but reject 4 and 5.)
One key definition has to be: a Scottish nationalist is someone who thinks that Scotland is a nation. I know that ‘nation’ is almost as slippery as ‘nationalist’ but it still seems pretty clear to me that Scotland is a nation. The Declaration of Arbroath talks about ‘nacio Scottorum’ and Scotland has, and has long had, a range of explicitly national institutions. It acquired a National Gallery in the 1850s, a National Portrait Gallery in the 1880s and a National Library in the 1920s. There were various controversies about all of these but I’m not aware of anyone arguing that they were illegitimate because Scotland was not a nation. One implication of Scotland’s being a nation is that its superordinate, Britain, can’t be – at least not in the same sense of the word. There’s a lot to be said for viewing Britain as a relict empire – very much shrunken but still retaining much of its old imperial structure. (Think of the continuing role of the Order of the Brtiish Empire.)
If you accept that Scotland is a nation, and that nations have a right to self-determination, the next question is: is it right and/or expedient for Scotland to exercise that right? And that’s where things get interesting.
#28 by Gerard on April 11, 2012 - 11:38 pm
Sorry if I’m misreading your comment.
Are you suggesting we don’t exercise the right of self-determination in Scotland at present?
I think some people conflate ‘independence’ and ‘self-determination’. They are not the same thing so when we are told that we should be able to exercise the right of self-determination it is inferred that we currently are deprived of this right.
(not a question for you just a general query) How does Salmond square up his statements of not needing to be freed with clearly saying we are denied our basic rights and are therefore not free?
#29 by Peter A Bell on April 12, 2012 - 12:11 am
Let us never forget that the people who now oppose independence are the same people who, right up to 6 May last year, were determined to deny our right of self-determination. They still seek to place limits, constraints and conditions on that right. If nationalists continue to assert our right of self-determination as vigorously as our desire for independence it is not for no reason.
#30 by Rory on April 11, 2012 - 9:39 pm
James, I entirely agree with what you’re saying about Independence as a means to an end – and I would also hold up the Green manifesto as an illustration of what that particular end might look like – but your analysis of Scottish nationalism is far too generalised.
Modern perceptions of nationalism in the UK and Scotland are understandably skewed by English or ‘British’ (although I think we’re yet to see a BNP councillor in Scotland) examples, but I think those exclusive, intolerant forms are exceptional in the modern world. Across the globe, nationalism has been a powerful means to an end in recent decades – from liberation from authoritarian rule in post-communist states or the Arab Spring, to promoting greater unity between regions (isn’t the EU a sort of Euro-nationalism, after all?), inclusive civic nationalism is a positive force for change.
Humankind benefits from anything that encourages greater unity. We are too globally diverse to create some uniform, global brotherhood under a single authority, so we form into smaller groups that can cooperate comfortably while retaining our cultural and political idiosyncrasies – and we can celebrate and develop the unity of those groups through nationalism, and yes, sometimes that involves flags and anthems.
The issue you touch on is that creating or enhancing that sort of unity in Scotland through independence should not be the final act, but a way of ensuring that the collective strength of a newborn nation can be put to powerful use, i.e. tackling inequality, promoting wellbeing, protecting and preserving the environment.
Of course, nationalism should never be used as a way of overriding people’s better judgement by exploiting gut instinct – but that doesn’t mean we can’t benefit from a inclusive, thoughtful civic nationalism.
#31 by Gerard on April 12, 2012 - 12:09 am
“so we form into smaller groups that can cooperate comfortably while retaining our cultural and political idiosyncrasies ”
We currently have that in terms of the ability to express ourselves in a uniquely Scottish way within the UK.
“and we can celebrate and develop the unity of those groups through nationalism”
So the pride in each nation can be celebrated and developed within the UK and strengthen the unity of the UK?
#32 by Daveinmaryburgh on April 11, 2012 - 9:39 pm
Thanks for the article James and agree that Independence can’t just be about taking control from Westminster and then replicate what they are doing. I would however have to confess that as a younger man independence was just about becoming a country again, although in my defence I was also a Labour supporter at the time 🙂 After many grey hairs and working around the world I realised that independence should be about creating a fairer society for all who call Scotland home rather than symbols. As for being a nationalist I never really thought about it, just a tag due to membership of the SNP.
I’m looking forward to the debate moving on and would hope that we can start to discuss issues such as a constitution written by the people in Scotland, how we can support those that need it, the way government raises money to make it fairer for all not just the ones that can afford a good accountant, corporation tax and the way a company operates not just in Scotland but globally, land ownership, a balanced transport system, if that means new roads, fine. As for dependence on oil and gas I agree we need to reduce our dependence on these for energy and I would hope that we can lead the way in finding alternatives and be able to leave significant reserves in the ground. Just hope that these don’t get buried in the squabble over who owes, owns what.
#33 by Daniel J on April 11, 2012 - 10:16 pm
Echoes my own feelings too. Which is I think why it grates when I’m told to wait till after independence before discussing many issues and ‘we’ll see’.
#34 by Malc on April 11, 2012 - 10:35 pm
Jings. James doing a treatise on nationalism. For what my opinion is worth (and I doubt it is very much) this is an excellent explanation… and one that might be useful for future independence debates (if we ever get to anything of any substance, that is).
#35 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 11:04 pm
Going by some of the posts so far, I would agree with this. Once we’re past the referendum minutiae and we get different people explaining why it is they support independence, we could be in for a real treat. Especially once the Greens and SSP start getting properly stuck in (assuming they’re not just ignored by the media…)
#36 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 10:41 pm
“Scottish nationalism has independence as an end in itself, an emotional objective irrespective of any other political changes.” I dare say there are people who think like that, including the MSP you mention. But this does a massive disservice to those of us who see independence as merely the beginning to a better Scotland; a necessary hurdle to get past so that we can get on with making Scotland a better place without having one hand tied behind our back at all times. Nationalists are often accused of thinking independence is a panacea for all Scotland’s ills, but I personally know very few nationalists – if any – who subscribe to the “job done” attitude that you mention. Once we’re independent, the really hard work begins, which is why I’m not in favour of trying to get everything done all in one go. I want all the things you want (well, mostly…), but Scotland needs the power to decide these things for itself first.
I identify myself as a nationalist, but in reality I only see independence as a necessary step towards what’s really important. I view those who oppose independence in the same way as I view people who support FPTP, people who opposed minimum unit pricing, and people who insist that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. In short, people who oppose independence are just dragging their heels, trying to put off the inevitable, and delaying progress while they’re at it. If people wouldn’t choose to believe silly tales about why we need to remain in the UK, we could be getting on with making Scotland into the country we want it to be. And as soon as the referendum is won, that’s exactly what we’ll do. After a week of boozy celebrations, that is – we are Scots, after all…
But the thing is, what’s the word you would come under? You explain why you don’t call yourself a nationalist, but don’t tell us what you would call yourself instead. Nationalist is a handy word, far handier than the alternatives. “Independence Supporter” is a bit unwieldy, especially on Twitter. In the same way that Lib Dems often insist that they’re not unionists because they claim to have different ideals to the uber-unionists in the Labour and Tory parties, the fact is it’s a binary debate – do you want independence or not – and so it’s handier to just talk about nationalists vs unionists.
If Scottish nationalism truly was about independence for the sake of it, then I would not feel comfortable describing myself as a nationalist. At a push, the very narrowest definition I would say it refers to is people who are in the SNP, which obviously doesn’t include you, James. But what’s the word we can use to describe you instead?
#37 by Gerard on April 11, 2012 - 11:55 pm
“one hand tied behind our back at all times”
So we ARE an oppressed nation.
“but Scotland needs the power to decide these things for itself first”
Why? Why do we need to decide them just for ourselves? Can we not work in partnership with the other nations of the UK to deliver what you want?
“trying to put off the inevitable, and delaying progress while they’re at it”
I don’t subscribe to this at all. This is the progressive myth again, that the union is holding us back from a truly progressive future. It is untrue and we’ve debated this before.
“silly tales”
Read that sentence back to yourself DD – you’ll be kicking yourself! You slipped off the Positive Podium there and landed in the Negative Net. 😀
#38 by Peter A Bell on April 12, 2012 - 12:16 am
If there had been an adequately functioning partnership over the past decades then there would be no nationalist movement. Or, at least, not one that enjoys such widespread support.
#39 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2012 - 11:50 pm
Type your comment here
Norway’s relationship is the product of democratic choice.
#40 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2012 - 11:52 pm
Type your comment here
Unsupported assertion.
#41 by James on April 11, 2012 - 11:57 pm
Actually, the concordat and the CT freeze are hard not to see as centralising.
#42 by Gerard on April 12, 2012 - 12:13 am
Just what I was going to reply.
As I mentioned in the comment above – the Rural Parliament could be a good thing but it is dependant on the powers it has devolved to it and the SNPs record is shaky at best on this front IMHO.
#43 by Peter A Bell on April 12, 2012 - 12:13 am
What powers are removed from local government?
#44 by James on April 12, 2012 - 12:16 am
The power to raise local taxes and protect public services without losing grant for doing so.
#45 by Peter A Bell on April 12, 2012 - 12:03 am
Type your comment here
You perhaps unwittingly hit on one of the key arguments for independence. Choice! As an independent nation we would have the ability to choose whether monetary policy can adequately and appropriately managed within a currency union, or whether we would be better to go with another option.
As things stand, and because of wider circumstances, a currency union with RUK would suit all parties. But it has not been true in the past that UK-level monetary policy worked well for Scotland, and it may not be true in the future. We need the power to decide such things for ourselves.
Nothing to do with history, or flags, or anthems. Nothing exceptional at all. Just plain good sense and the same status and powers as are taken for granted by other nations.
#46 by James on April 12, 2012 - 12:23 am
God I’m bored of this discussion.