“I’m not a Nationalist” announced Denis Canavan at the Radical Independence Conference event in Glasgow over the weekend. The emerging Father of the Nation figure was no doubt speaking from the heart but this line is nonetheless a clever way to soften the pro-Yes cause that can at times be too hardline, too patriotic and too, well, radical for the floating voters to get onboard with.
It’s a shame then that Denis was wrong in his assertion.
We’re all nationalists, every one of us. National boundaries must be drawn somewhere and we are unable to avoid taking a view on where this somewhere should be. How we arrive at that view can take many different forms but they are all a form of nationalism.
So what type are you? How do you decide in your mind’s mind which country you wish to live in? Here’s how I see the main options:
An economic nationalist
‘I’d be financially richer if we drew our border closer/further to home’ is the mindset of the typical economic nationalist. It’s not particularly worthy but it’s perfectly understandable.
The logical extension of economic nationalism is a small island, chock full of extremely rich people, driven largely by a motivation that no undeserving poor scoundrel will get their hands on his/her money.
This type of nationalism in milder forms is much more palatable. Most people work most days and questioning who it is you are working for, what it is you are helping drive towards, is not an unreasonable question. Picking a smaller or larger economy because it better suits your outlook is valid, and, despite what I wrote above, may not even necessarily involve being richer as a result of your choice. Ireland is scraping the economic barrel at the moment but you’d do well to suggest that they’d vote to join the United Kingdom.
That said, there is clear evidence that there is a significant tranche of economic nationalists in Scotland right now given a fairly recent poll that showed that about 60-odd% of us would vote Yes if we would be £500/year richer under independence.
The flip side of this little factoid is that many economic nationalists, and probably most, do not currently believe that they will be richer under independence and their inner economic nationalist is driving them to vote No in 2014.
A cultural Nationalist
A person who wishes to draw their country’s borders based on which people he/she feels an affinity with. It would primarily be political outlook, language, religion or race that would make the crucial difference. It could also be music or Wars gone by, as recent unionist arguments have hoped.
For me, and particularly with the relative success of the EU, I can’t say that I have more of a bond with someone from Dover as I do with someone from Dusseldorf. I do however sense I’m a part of something other, and greater, when I consider life through a Scottish prism. That’s neither wrong nor right, just the way it is.
One would expect that cultural nationalists have already made up their minds as to whether they are voting Yes/No, although in a political sense there may yet be some flexibility. Scotland and the rest of the UK may use the same words, but do we really speak the same language?
I suspect both sides will try to answer that question with different answers over the next two years but you either feel more British or Scottish, and noone can tell you any different if you believe that should dictate which country you wish to live in.
A Tartan Army Nationalist
I was tempted to mix what I consider Tartan Army nationalism in with cultural nationalism above, but I suspect those that go doe-eyed at the thought of St Kilda expressive dance at the Festival Theatre are not in the same bucket as those hardy souls who troop out to the Faroe Islands to watch the Scottish football team get their backsides handed to them by a bunch of fishermen.
And yet, I wouldn’t bet the mortgage that the Saltire-heavy, face-painted mob are squarely in the Yes camp.
There’s only so many times you can suffer footballing heartache before having any Nationalistic confidence crushed forever.
If we can’t beat Macedonia at home, can we really run the country ourselves? It’s not altogether a daft question.
A British/Scottish Nationalist
For me, no such thing really exists. You’re cultural nationalism may result in you wishing to live in a separate Scotland or stay in the UK but ‘British nationalism’ is not a philosophy in its own right. Something deeper must underpin it.
My personal belief is that many Scots see themselves as British nationalists but don’t know why and if they dared to scratch deeper might find they’d take a different view. I’m referring to the disappointingly many Scots who happily claim ‘I’d leave Scotland if we ever got independence’.
If there’s an economic or cultural reason for such statements then that’s fine. I just don’t believe there is.
A Nihilist Nationalist
There are sadly too many nihilist nationalists at the moment, those who would go out of their way to take no part in the brewing debate and who claim to have no interest in whether they live in the UK or Scotland. People too tired to think perhaps, or, for whatever reason, afraid of forming their own view.
And that’s a shame, because all views are valid and the referendum process will be richer the more people put into it.
My cultural nationalism has always leant me towards independence. I believe I’d be more motivated at work, I’d be even more engaged with our country’s politics and I’d generally be more optimistic for the future if Scotland was independent. That has recently been topped up with an economic nationalism directing me the same way what with defence savings and concentrated oil revenues likely to allow Scotland to balance its books quicker than the current UK is on course to.
All in all, I just hope the wider debate can at least discuss the correct forms of Nationalism – cultural and economic rather than bluntly Scottish and British.
#1 by Grahamski on November 27, 2012 - 9:15 am
“We’re all nationalists, every one of us. ”
I’m not and I refuse to be dragooned into this debate by folk who need a salve for their own consciences.
I mean those decent folk who know deep down that nationalism in pretty much all its forms is but a step away from malignancy but need to find an excuse for their own ( as they imagine it, benign) nationalism.
Jeff, your argument that everbody is really a nationalist is similar to a racist claiming everyone is a racist – but some are just more honest and admit it.
Not that nationalism equates to racism, you understand.
The referendum debate will not just be conducted by Scottish nationalists versus British nationalists.
The non-nationalists will have a say and that is something the nationalists will just have to put up with.
#2 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 10:30 am
I think you’re just trying to cling into your preference that ‘Nationalist’ is an ugly word and a stick with which to beat the Yes camp. The reality is that it’s a perfectly natural feeling that sits inside us all to a greater and lesser extent.
#3 by Braco on November 27, 2012 - 2:00 pm
I am not. No I am not. No definitely not! I don’t identify with the society that lives around me or try to interact with it in ways that influence it’s development, both social and political. I certainly don’t find my self imperceptibly influenced day by day, second by second, through the constantly adapting language, arts, laws, practices and social norms that as human beings most individuals, despite themselves, unwittingly weave together invisibly through the processes of their daily contacts. Mysteriously forming that most concrete and yet intangible of things, geographic and time specific human cultures. I find the idea that these constantly fluctuating and living formations would at some point come into contact with each other and so, through ideas, violence, compacts, geographic anomaly etc form natural limits of potency and influence over each other and by eventually reaching equilibrium form generally accepted borders as simply laughable! These petty lines on the map are simply vicious figments of the yet unevolved Nationalist world view. Britain, far from being a Nationality as is so often claimed by those self same Nationalists, was and is, the first step in true humanities next evolutionary step. Borders, languages, legal juristictions and other such like pettiness’s are of no interest to us British non nationalists. That’s why we are, (and always will be) at the heart of, first European unification and then, god willing, world governance and standardisation. This is why every mainstream British political party has embraced a Britain at the core of a border free Europe and encourages world immigration. ‘”Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!” It must be apparent to even the most fevered of nationalist’s such as yourself Jeff, that the tide of history is coming in once again and the petty castles of sand that you seperatist’s insist on building will be washed away. No, I sit squarely at Grahamski’s back, so please do not sully the likes of us with your assumptions of petty and backward Nationalisms.
#4 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 7:53 pm
That’s all very (very) well worded but you’ve still not really tackled any of my points head on.
#5 by Braco on November 27, 2012 - 9:06 pm
Sorry Jeff, I was just embarking on a thought experiment by trying to channel the thoughts of someone who claims to live in a world outside of nationalisms, as so many British ‘non nationalists’ claim. It seems to distance me from my direct cultural surroundings and lead me to be supportive of political policies such as open immigration, global superstate governance, etc. Oddly enough almost directly the opposite of the main policies of the main ‘non nationalist’ British parties which they support. I can only surmise from this that they are in fact just nationalists the same as everyone else. Flag waving, jubilee celebrating, royal wedding and our brave boys supporting, gold medal counting British Nationalists. Which is of course fine but doesn’t really allow for the strange accusations of filthy petty and obviously dangerous nationalism that they regularly throw in the direction of us self determination supporters. I was also hoping that it might uncover that illusive ‘positive case for the union’. I suppose it did, but only if you go on and support still further and wider continual European and global union within which you are happy to see the UK union subsumed. Not something I hear too often in response to my arguments for Scots self determination so maybe the search will have to continue.
#6 by Topher Dawson on November 27, 2012 - 9:03 pm
Braco, my irony detector started clicking when I read the first part but when I read “..This is why every mainstream British political party has embraced a Britain at the core of a border free Europe and encourages world immigration…..” it went off the scale and blew a fuse.
I’m not sure that Jeff has clocked it, so congratulations for slipping one past him.
#7 by Braco on November 27, 2012 - 10:44 pm
Oh you old cynic Topher.
#8 by Indy on November 28, 2012 - 9:43 am
That’s fine Braco but let’s go a bit deeper. Depending on what side of a border you live in you will have an NHS free at the point of need including your medication or you won’t. Depending on what side of a border you live on you would have to pay 9000 each year to attend university or you wouldn’t. Depending on what side of a border you live on you would have to pay for personal and nursing care or you wouldn’t. Depending on what side of a border you live in you would have a government who supports nuclear energy or you wouldn’t.
Borders do in fact matter because they define the group of people who will make the decisions about what happens. Scottish people decide what happens in Scotland regarding the NHS, tuition fees, free personal and nursing care and nuclear power because the Scottish Parliament decides on those things and they are elected by the Scottish people.
Other areas like defence, welfare, economic policy are decided by all of the people of the UK through their elected representatives. Scottish people don’t decide them for Scotland, they are decided at a wider level and when you end up with a situation where the majority of people in Scotland don’t agree with those decisions – mainly because the outcome is a huge increase in the huge and huddled masses – that is just tough.
What the pro-independence side is arguing for is that all decisions affecting Scotland should be taken in Scotland. Not just devolved policies but reserved as well – those that are currently taken at Westminster.
It’s nothing to do with creating borders. Those borders already exist. Neither is it to do with creating division. That division already exists. It may be that you are a free market Tory who is quite satisfied with the direction and progress of the Cameron government but you are in a minority there. It is not debatable that the majority of people in Scotland disagree strongly with the political and economic values of the Conservatives.
The real question is what to do about that – whether to leave the political arrangements which allows the Conservatives to govern Scotland without the support of the people who live here or whether to accept that this situation is an inevitable outcome of the Union and just put up with it.
#9 by Indy on November 28, 2012 - 9:54 am
Oops I have just realised you were being sarky. Well played, you took me in entirely!
#10 by Braco on November 28, 2012 - 6:18 pm
Sorry Indy! If it’s of any consolation you really warmed my cockles, so thanks! smilywinkysmile
#11 by James on November 27, 2012 - 9:30 am
I’m really not a nationalist, Jeff.
#12 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 11:39 am
Not that it’s for me to say what you are or what you aren’t James but, well, you’re wrong.
Surely a Nationalist is someone who has a belief that he/she should share borders with a certain group of people. As you believe you should share a border with fellow Scots, you are a Nationalist of some description. Far be it from me to decide whether that is economic, cultural or some other type… But it’s probably cultural. 😉
It doesn’t make you a flag waving idiot, as you seem to prefer ‘Nationalist’ to mean.
#13 by Malc on November 27, 2012 - 12:31 pm
Gellner (who, I guess, is the kind of standard in the field of nationalist studies) defined nationalism as being: “primarily a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent”.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone who supports independence is a nationalist, because the reasoning that some give for Scottish independence has little or nothing to do with seeing Scotland as a nation and (as I think in James’ case) everything to do with pragmatic principles of a smaller unit being able to better provide for its people.
I’m in the difficult position of actually kind of agreeing with both of you here, because when I see Euro-sceptic Tories/ UKIPers lining up to bash the EU and demand the UK’s right to sovereignty, they are using the same arguments for independence from that union as Scottish nationalists do from the UK. But I guess it comes down to whether we define ourselves in these terms, and I think most probably don’t.
#14 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 12:50 pm
Interesting Malc, I was struggling to find a decent definition but that’s very clean and concise.
I would argue against the suggestion that those who want a Government presiding over a smaller area are not Nationalists as their views have nothing to do with Scotland as a nation. If that is indeed the case, is it not a remarkable coincidence that these supposed non-Nationalists want to draw the borders along the same line as the supposed Nationalists.
Surely it’s more a case of two groups who are close to each other on the Nationalist spectrum simply not wanting to have much to do with the other, with a sprinkling of party politics thrown in for good measure…?
#15 by Barbara Gribbon on November 27, 2012 - 9:45 am
What about a political nationalist? I’m not talking about political outlook but a view of a place as a distinct, self-sufficient political entity. Anywhere can have a cultural identity, but Scotland has the institutions of a nation, whether it is the education system, Scots Law, footie, or of course, the Parliament, on which more complex aspects of identity can be hung. I can’t really call myself a cultural nationalist – I love Scotland, I’ve been to a few Dougie concerts, read some Scots authors and enjoy a ceilidh, but that’s about it and to would be an act of cultural appropriation to claim to be all about Scots culture. So for me, it’s political.
#16 by Commenter on November 27, 2012 - 9:56 am
Totally agree Jeff. “Nationalist” as a term undoubtedly has baggage, which is why some people eschew it. Generally it’s people who have a high opinion of themselves, or who adhere to a political dogma that denies the realities that motivate nationalist feeling, including their own mild form.
#17 by Paul Flannery on November 27, 2012 - 10:50 am
Jeff,
Obviously this is an irreverent look at nationalism, but your last sentence when you mention “the correct forms of nationalism” made me think.
David McCrone says that ‘the nation’ is bound up with social praxis (McCrone, 1998, p. 3), and you are clearly attempting to distill the different actions and experiences of people’s relationships with nationalism here. McCrone also says that nationalism, like any other social category, gets caught up in theoretical deconstruction which can prevent the reality of lived experience from being known. Although historical development is important when considering nationalism, it is far more important, in my opinion, to understand both the conscious and subconscious mechanisms which enable the formation of national identity.
Craig Calhoun says of cosmopolitan democracy that it is limited in its conception of the organisational powers of nationalism and national identity, and fails to gasp just how fundamental nationalist categories are to conceptual frameworks of democracy, legitimacy, and the nature of society (Calhoun, 2007, pg. 8). Nationalism matters because of its efficacy as the preeminent maker-of-meaning for people in different arenas of life, and it is important to identify and understand the different ways in which it is produced and reproduced. For Calhoun, the ‘discourse of nationalism’ aims to present arbitrary divisions and boundaries as something natural, ancient and inevitable, and this form of social solidarity is one of the foundations on which modern democracy is built (2007, pg. 1). Nations matter because culturally and historically they have enabled people to imagine the world as composed of sovereign nation states, but this development of large-scale identity and structure is constituted by and constitutive of the discourse of nationalism.
However ‘normal’ nations and nationalism appears, ultimately they are implicated in the processes of elite manipulation and political struggle for power at both the personal and societal levels. Indeed, it is generally the existence of ‘the nation’ which gives legitimacy to the actions of elites. This legitimacy can be said to be derivative of nationalism as a discursive framework for understanding the world, as nationalist rhetoric is all pervasive in contemporary society it encourages the separation of nations into bounded, culturally distinctive wholes (2007, pg. 40). From a social constructionist viewpoint we understand the world through the language we use to describe it, and through this language citizens are keenly aware of their position as members of one particular society rather than another. This takes the form of ethnic or civic nationalist claims: with ethnic based on blood, birth, kinship, language and common culture; and civic based on an apparent loyalty to the state, and that citizens adopt national identity through choice. But if the discourse of nationalism is so pervasive what choice is there?
Nationalism remains the preeminent rhetoric for attempts to demarcate political communities through claiming rights of self-determination and legitimate rule by reference to ‘the people’ of a country. Nations are pivotal to the structure and construction of modern society: loyalty, culture, and identity all stem directly from the discourse of nationalism. Therefore, the discourse of nationalism necessarily becomes part of the interpretive repertoires employed by people as they make sense of the world and their place within it. As a result, national identity acts like a heuristic subliminally influencing people’s decision-making abilities, political or otherwise.
#18 by EyeEdinburgh on November 27, 2012 - 11:30 am
We’re all nationalists, every one of us
You may be. I’m not.
#19 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 12:16 pm
Marriage used to mean a man and a woman coming together. I don’t think you’d complain about the definition softening (hardening? whichever) over the years to mean something different.
It is similar for “nationalism”. It may have meant something negative in yesteryear, but that sits at odds with mainstream phrases such as ‘economic nationalism’ or ‘cultural nationalism’ today which are contradictory to the idea that nationalism must mean one nationality thinking it’s better than another.
I just think the word continues to hold negative connotations that are unwarranted and tend to play into the hands of a partisan politics that it would be nice to move away from.
#20 by EyeEdinburgh on November 27, 2012 - 12:50 pm
Marriage still means two people pledging to love, honour, and cherish each other lifelong. That definition hasn’t changed. I have a problem with people who claim that marriage has changed because same-sex couples aren’t presumed banned from making that pledge.
I’m not a nationalist by your own definition: “National boundaries must be drawn somewhere and we are unable to avoid taking a view on where this somewhere should be.”
“How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one’s country; is it hate of one’s uncountry? Then it’s not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That’s a good thing, but one mustn’t make a virtue of it, or a profession… Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.”
#21 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 12:55 pm
That’s a nice quote, but it’s ultimately meaningless in the cold light of day.
Society needs Governments and Governments need borders. If you want to be a nihilist nationalist that’s fine but it doesn’t change the fact that people need to decide where they want their borders to be.
#22 by EyeEdinburgh on November 28, 2012 - 12:26 am
Okay. If I get to decide, I decide my national borders should be at the Kármán line.
Unfortunately, they’re not.
#23 by Indy on November 27, 2012 - 1:11 pm
I think the idea of either hating or loving a country is slightly mental. If that is your definition of nationalism then I am not surprised you don’t think you are one but it is not a very realistic one is it?
#24 by Iain Menzies on November 27, 2012 - 3:21 pm
then i must be mental.
A number of times me and my other half have taken drives around the west of scotland. One of the places we sometimes go is to the top of the lyle hill (i think its called) over greenock. You stand there and look across the clyde (trying to avoid the sight of greenock) and i defy you not to love what you see.
That being said the time i was in greece, when it was very very hot (and my not being someone who does well in the heat) i hated that country.
I didnt hate the greeks, tho i do wish they would shut up about the elgin marbles, or the greek state.
There is a difference between a coutry, a nation and a nation state.
#25 by EyeEdinburgh on November 28, 2012 - 12:35 am
Exactly. I love that quote (Left Hand of Darkness, btw) because it expresses my feeling about Scotland – and specifically Edinburgh: I’ve lived here ninety-percent of my life and I love it. The view from the top of Whinney Hill down across Leith to the firth. The light on Arthur’s Seat. (The sunset light on the Maritime building this evening.) The Victorian swimming pools with the sturdy but elegant tiling. The silly awkward gorgeous noisy cobbles on so many of the roads. The Shore, where the water of Leith turns into the old port.
All over Scotland. The lift and shove of the water where the Atlantic meets the North Sea up by the Orkneys. The sea lochs in the mist. The walk up the Clyde with the arching bridges and the pyramids. The path by the Tweed through where the wild garlic blooms and the whole riverbank smells good enough to eat. I don’t set a national boundary on that feeling, and you can call it mental if you like, Indy, but I call it love.
#26 by Indy on November 28, 2012 - 9:48 am
Sorry I think I am just too full of common sense for that kind of palaver. You can’t actually eat a riverbank. If you were really going hungry because Tory policies had resulted in you being sanctioned by the buroo you would not be able to eat for real. That is the kind of concern that makes me a nationalist.
#27 by EyeEdinburgh on November 28, 2012 - 11:49 am
That concern doesn’t make me a nationalist. I don’t just care about the Scots who get hit by the Tory “reforms”.
#28 by Braco on November 28, 2012 - 7:06 pm
EyeEdinburgh below, luxurious position we world citizens are lucky enough to to wholeheartedly live, however I can’t help but feel for those lesser incomplete nationalist types who see no contradiction in helping and prioritising first those that they feel new state powers could help to remove from destitution, social stigma, ill health and state judgement. I see, as you do, that raising the shameful working class mortality rates in Glasgow will, in and of itself, obviously lower those same working class mortality rates in Liverpool, Cardiff, Belfast, Plymouth, Algiers, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and just about every other working persons home town, wherever they may through no fault of their own find themselves. I wouldn’t waste your time debating with them, especially that Indy. There are, indeed, none as blind as will not see.
#29 by Tom Dunlop on November 27, 2012 - 12:27 pm
I am and INTER-nationalist
I am scot, living in another country (Finland). My professional career beyond my education has been outside the UK. My wife is a mix of german, dutch, french,swiss and italian (with a whiff of tartar blood as well) heritage. My son is mixture of all of these.
I support the need for international cooperation through the UN , its associates bodies and the EU (conditional on its reformation into a democratic entity).
It does not stop me from thinking the best route for my home country is being a small efficient technology driven social democracy with its own polity and institutions which speak for themselves in the international stage.
I think this is what, in part, Mr Canavan is trying to articulate.
This is the most attractive part of modern scottish “nationalism”-it is very outward and forward looking as well as open- More like internationalism than nationalism.
#30 by Indy on November 27, 2012 - 1:06 pm
It’s kind a circular argument whether someone feels themself to be a nationalist or not. They may not feel that they are nationalists but they live in a world where the basic unit is the nation state. Those nation states chop and change over time, as do their relationships with each other, but the currency stays the same. So people can say I don’t believe in nation states or nationalism and I accept that is a genuine belief but nonetheless that is the nature of the world we live in and it will not change.
I think the vast majority of people are what you would define as economic nationalists in that they want what is best for them and theirs. There is nothing wrong with that. I don’t think it is just about money or that it implies that greed is the great motivator. I think what most people want is a decent standard of living, a good future with a wide range of opportunities for their children and the reassurance that at the end of their own lives they will be provided with good healthcare and social support so they can live out their days in comfort and dignity.
They will vote for the form of government they think can best provide that.
#31 by Gavin Hamilton on November 27, 2012 - 2:34 pm
What a good topic and what an interesting post Jeff.
I have often thought of nationalism as an ism an wondered what it is.
I have also been struck by many on the nationalist or pro-independence side that swear blind they are not nationalists. Then I have thought I see their point here but are they not being a little disingenuous.
And I have often found – and I’m not trying to be rude here – that nationalism is by itself intellectually a little weak. presumably because of its focus on the nation and as a result a diluted focus on what makes society better.
But i think you have nailed something here Jeff – and it is important as we debate what sort of Scotland an independent Scotland might be.
Clearly there are left wing or socialist nationalists – there are many of these around the world who see self determination as a route to achieving a more just society. There is a lot of tis in the SNP and I believe the Greens are a subset of this.
Civic nationalism is also very important in Scotland – which as I understand it is a non xenophobic nationalism and a counter-blast to ethnic nationalism. I think at root a lot of our nationalist thinking comes from the idea of a voluntary civic nation and representative democracy and has as its routes the French and the American revolutions. As an ism this has a lot to do with liberalism.
This shows a potential – and really interesting – philosophical tension within the scottish nationalist big tent. The potential tension between the radical left – republican, socialist, sometimes readical green, against nato; and the centre left – more moderate, monarchist, low corporation taxes, pro nato.
nationalism has negative conotations because of etnic or racial nationalism, or ultra nationalism which gave rise to facist movements. Scottish nationalism has never really been in that camp – although, unless careful, some nationalists can drift the way of national prejudices.
There is also self determination out of anti-colonialism or anti – imperialism – which the odd nationalist in scotland uses the language of.
But i think the point is understanding the sort of Scotland we want and wat is on offer – and just as nationalists ask this question of unionists knowing there are several different answers – it is important to ask it of nationalists and pro independence supporters.
because the decision in 2014 – the really interesting decision we have – is more than yes or no – it is what sort of Scotland do we want to live in!
#32 by Colin Macleod on November 27, 2012 - 2:55 pm
“to have accomplished great things together, to wish to do so again, that is
the essential condition for being a nation.” Ernest Renan
I think if you believe you can make a difference to your nation and want it to improve, then you can count yourself as a nationalist. I agree with jeff that there are different types of nationalism and you are free to choose which best describes you.
#33 by Doug Daniel on November 27, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Nationalism is just an extension of the tribal instinct, but on a wider scale. So there may be people who don’t consider themselves to be nationalists per se, but they will, at some level, have what they consider to be their “tribe”, even if they don’t think of it in those terms.
It’s human instinct. Our brains are hard-wired to think in terms of tribes because of the evolutionary advantages – after all, humans are social animals, so we seek to form bonds with others like us, as well as other benefits like security, “hunting in groups”, shared resources etc.
Nation-states are just ways of trying to organise groups of people in a way that enhances all the aspects of tribes, and independence movements are just ways of trying to find the optimum balance between sharing resources and compromising for differences within groups. I think we get confused about what a “nation” actually is, since we tend to think of it in terms of borders, but all those native American tribes who got kicked out of their homes by colonialists organised themselves into “nations”, which was just about providing governance and organisation between tribes of the same background. Nations came about because as our worlds expanded, we needed ways of having control over that expanded geography and organising collaboration with other tribes.
So, I think you’re half-right Jeff – while it’s perhaps not true to say that everyone is a “nationalist”, it IS true to say that everyone (or as close to “everyone” as you can get) has some sort of definition of who or what their “people” are, which is effectively what folk who call themselves “nationalists” are doing. A nation isn’t about borders, it’s just about having a shared sense of culture, language, history, or whatever. But in today’s world, it makes complete sense for land borders to be organised around nations, since that’s how we define where a nation’s home is, what we have control over and how we interact with other nations. We’ve gone from tribes to big, colonised land masses, and now we’re finding a happy medium.
(Some of that might be rubbish, but I’ve been playing Assassin’s Creed 3 lately and it’s all about the dying days of the colonial period, the Iroquois Confederacy and stuff like that…)
#34 by Juteman on November 27, 2012 - 7:42 pm
The term ‘nationalism’ has a different meaning if you don’t have a nation. It can be an aspiring adjective. For example, i’m a Scottish Nationalist now, but hopefully won’t be one after 2014, if that makes sense?
#35 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 7:55 pm
Personally I don’t believe it does make sense, if you don’t mind me saying so. Just because Scotland is independent, it doesn’t mean you can’t believe in a nationalism that favours Scottish independence. It’s just a pleasing situation (for you at least) that your preference is the same as reality.
#36 by Juteman on November 27, 2012 - 8:07 pm
But Scotland isn’t independent Jeff, that’s why i’m a nationalist. When she is, i won’t be. I’ll be an internationalist.
#37 by Jeff on November 27, 2012 - 8:09 pm
All internationalists are also nationalists, unless you think the world should be one big country.
#38 by Iain Menzies on November 27, 2012 - 9:42 pm
I always understood internationalist to place the role of the supranational above or before that of the national.
I dont think you can be a nationalist and an internationalist.
It all depends to which point you are an internationalist.
For example, does supporting NATO memberhsip make a person an internationalist? After all there is, to a limited extent, a degree of pooled sovereignty. Or does it make one a nationalist, since you can make a case that NATO membership is in the self interest of most of its members?
That being said from juteman has said…i dont think he is a nationalist. Seperatist is much more appropriate term.
#39 by Braco on November 27, 2012 - 9:43 pm
Believing in self determination and independence for your country is easier to justify without being forced subconciously to import all that imperialistic, subfascist and militarist historic baggage associated with the word Nationalism. That’s why the unionists will continue to sneer ‘nationalist’ at parties that are quite frankly trying hardest to make the real break from those nasty 20th century concepts. These are the same people who happily use the ownership of weapons of mass destruction and their support jobs or the boast of the 4rth biggest military budget in the world as good reasons for the union. They seem blind to the ironies of their ‘non nationalist’ Britain’s military adventures and armies of occupation around the world and down through our entire history. Blind to these real living traits in today’s Britain, these ‘anti nationalists’ raise their straw men and tilt again and again at their easier to attack evil separatist imaginings.
#40 by Juteman on November 27, 2012 - 8:30 pm
But i’m only an aspiring internationalist at the moment. 🙂
#41 by No_Offence_Alan on November 27, 2012 - 9:59 pm
I have never regarded myself as a “nationalist” – I think I was about 9 years old the last time I waved a flag, when the Queen passed through my local town.
If pressed, I tend to describe myself as a “proper Unionist” i.e one whose Unionism crosses the English Channel as well as St Georges Channel.
So why do I support an independent Scotland?
As someone who has been involved in party politics for a long time I have got increasingly frustrated by, on the one hand, the Scottish “Unionist” parties constantly looking over their shoulder to their London-based HQs before making policy and, on the other, the timidity of the SNP’s policy-making for fear of upsetting either their left or right wings. Thirteen years of devolution and the SNP still think the basic rate of income tax should be the same in England and Scotland – pathetic!
Hopefully when independence is delivered, these log-jams can be cleared and Scotland’s problems can be solved by a smaller, nimbler government.
A body politic of 5 million people should be able to adapt policy to its people’s needs more quickly than one of 60 million. Obviously there needs to be some degree of cultural and geographic distance between the 5 million and the others, which I think Scotland possesses but, say, Lancashire does not.
#42 by Colin on November 28, 2012 - 9:41 am
enjoyed this. i’d say i was a cultural internationalist!
#43 by Longshanker on November 28, 2012 - 10:36 am
Jeff
There are sadly too many nihilist nationalists at the moment, those who would go out of their way to take no part in the brewing debate and who claim to have no interest in whether they live in the UK or Scotland. People too tired to think perhaps, or, for whatever reason, afraid of forming their own view.
It’s this sort of patronising patrimony that irritates me about Nationalists.
There’s an element of sanctimony about it that grates.
I reckon I’d fit into the definition in the strictest sense.
To suggest that I’m lazy about having my own views is risible.
I fail to see, given the current arguments, the relevance of Independence.
Indy summed it up in one of his earlier comments. The only reason the SNP are even at this stage in their careers is due to the big turn off that Labour, Lib-Dems and the Tories have induced in the Scottish electorate.
The SNP majority was just one big protest vote luxury by the Scots electorate.
Having lived and worked in both England and Scotland, I can say in all honesty, I don’t care where I live – preferably somewhere warm.
If the nationalists we have at the moment had something radically different on offer that would benefit myself or my family then I’d possibly vote for Independence.
As is becoming increasingly clear, they’re just more of the same. And I’m fed up of the undercurrent of anti-Scottishness being aimed at those who don’t buy into the vision thing.
No offense, but you’ve come up with better ideas than this.
Scottish nationalists and the Yes campaigne need to drop the idea of “we do things differently here”.
We don’t.
Regards
#44 by Jeff on November 28, 2012 - 11:28 am
I am sympathetic to that outlook but I maintain that people ‘should’ take a view on this referendum; not necessarily today, but certainly this side of Autumn 2014. I am unapologetic that that is a bit holier-than-thou given I’m partly on the receiving end of the swathes of Scots who are so self-satisfactorily apathetic when it comes to these issues.
It’s not enough to say that the two sides are as bad as each other, like some plump King or Queen impatiently waiting to be entertained by the court jesters. If everything is perfect in both visions, then one could be forgiven for checking out of the process but that’s patently not the case. The SNP and unionists are offering competing visions, not radically different, granted, but different enough that everyone, yes everyone, should get involved, form a view and vote accordingly.
The UK and Scotland doesn’t belong to MSPs or MPs, people should get involved and take control rather than claim hollowly ‘nowt to do with me guv’ and/or huffily sit back and mump and moan. No offence or anything.
#45 by Indy on November 28, 2012 - 1:04 pm
Sure – I don’t just care about Scots who get hit by Tory reforms either. I think it is awful what is happening in England. But here’s the thing – they voted for it. We didn’t. That is a nationalist perpsective if you like because I am talking about “they” and “we”. But it is also a fact. The Tories won the election down south, they lost it here. So what do you want to do about that? Wait till they lose an election on a UK-wide basis or say actually we don’t want to continue with this arrangement, we’ll just have our own government.
#46 by EyeEdinburgh on November 29, 2012 - 10:30 am
But they didn’t vote for the “Tory reforms” in England either.
And the Conservatives didn’t win the 2010 general election any more than the LibDems or Labour did.
Cameron’s government is largely unsupported, crony rule, which every poll says is going to lose badly in 2015: and the LibDems are going to lose worse.
#47 by Braco on November 28, 2012 - 6:13 pm
Jeff, the reason that intelligent unionist debaters such as Longshanker persist with the ‘what difference will it really make’, ‘I would, but politicians are all the same aren’t they and these ones are even worse than the last ones’ etc. , is in order to have ‘soft’ (wink) nationalist bloggers such as yourself, through your natural and agreeable blogging charm, concede the point. This, if you don’t mind me saying, is bullshit! What we are discussing goes beyond party political personalities and even policies. As I see it, this is about power, who wields it and on who’s behalf. Two bloody British civil wars were catalysed by The Scots before, over just such apparently ‘difficult to see the relevance of’ issues. This is radical. Even at it’s most apparently mundane, don’t scare the horses or the queen version. It was just such a radical, ‘let’s keep the monarchy (but on our own terms) war cry, that precipitated the English nations most radical moment to date. A Republic! This is the most important moment in my life so far and I don’t mean just since I entered this monastry. I don’t expect a return of the 17th century approach to constitutional problem solving but I still believe that the core fault lines that pre date this apparent Union are just as sore and sensitive as ever they were. We seem to be living through an age where the population is willing to countenance removing the filthy bandages to see where that gangrenous stench is coming from. I think this time the solution is again within our democratic reach (just as it was out of it, throughout the cold war for example). This could be epoch making (maybe it wont, but it definitely could). Wow!
Longshanker, now that I am all excited, I feel able to interlock. I have read many of your interjections on many different pro independence sites and as I say, your approach is very intelligent (and dare I say sly?). I would definitely not want you as the defender standing in front of me on Cup Final Day. But… (and it’s a big one), your tactic, although very, very, effective seems to give no support to your strikers, or in failing that even your midfield at least. Are you simply hoping for a no score away points win? I hope you are hoping for a no score away points win because there is only one game in this tie and it’s at home. I look forward to your analysis as to how football is not what it used to be and even if it was it would be just the same as today anyway so why not just support the team that won the last time as it’s bound to lose eventually proving that these footballers are all over payed prima donnas anyway etc.. Smilyfaceandwink
#48 by Braco on November 28, 2012 - 6:14 pm
That was for Jeff and Longshanker at 11.28. sorry
#49 by Braco on November 28, 2012 - 6:24 pm
Dear Moderator, me again.
My comment at No 7 seems to be invisible again. I have just posted at numbers 10, 44 and 45 just in case they are invisible too! Thanks and regards, Braco.
#50 by Longshanker on November 28, 2012 - 10:13 pm
Jeff
Your point would have more relevance if I was sitting back like some “plump King” waiting to be entertained.
Neither side is very entertaining. Aesops fable, the Bat, the Birds and the Beasts, covers my, and I’d bet countless others, view on the debate.
At least I’m voicing the fully deserved contempt both sides have earned.
I’m not waiting to be entertained Jeff. I’m waiting to be convinced. So far you have a choice of obfuscation, sophistry, false assertion, bluff, defamation and outright lies – from both sides. Unconvincing in extremis.
In terms of a crass football analogy, your argument is similar to; your either Celtic or Rangers – take your pick because you have to.
The independence debate is like a myopic argument over a shoogly door in a condemned building when the whole edifice is due to come crashing down about our ears.
“People should get involved and take control…” is a fine sentiment. But that’s all it is – sentiment. Just what type of involvement do you suggest I should get involved with in order to take control? Workshops, talking shops, direct action?
I thought politicians were there so that I didn’t need to take control. As far as I am concerned my vote is control enough. Are you suggesting it’s not?
Maybe it does sound like mumping and moaning, but I genuinely fear, in a similar mould to that voiced by Simon Pia, that the ongoing debate is going to polarise Scots in a manner which could easily become ugly, fractious and unpalatable.
So, no offence taken Jeff. You’re the real McCoy and I respect your view. It’s just, in this instance, being told what I am or am not, from a nationalist perspective, rankles.
Regards
#51 by Jeff on November 28, 2012 - 10:21 pm
For the Celtic vs Rangers analogy (sorry to pick and choose, but short on time), I just don’t think that stacks up.
Scotland has two options and two options only, be independent or be part of the UK. I could maybe just about cede a third option of having a European superstate but that’s the Partick Thistle of the bunch, it’s just not going to fly.
So let’s accept therefore that Scotland can only be independent or part of the UK. Either one thinks there is no difference between the two or they have a preference.
The above is not the same as being forced to support Celtic or Rangers, because there are other teams out there (and you don’t have to support a team from Scotland, but if you live in Scotland then that is your only country/nationality. Ok, you can move away, but then you really are out the game entirely, which is fine, but I hope we agree irrelevant here).
So I just wanted to say that I don’t believe your analogy to the Old Firm stacks up.
And all anyone has to do in order to get involved is be interested and take an honest view.
#52 by Iain Menzies on November 29, 2012 - 9:50 pm
Man walks into a pub and ask the barman fpor a pint.
The barman looks at him and asks ” are you a prod or a catholic?”
The man says “im an athieist.”
the barman ponders this then asks (aye, but are you a protestant athieist or a catholic one?”
(I think longshankers point is that in this joke you are the barman jeff….and he does rather have a point.)
#53 by James on November 30, 2012 - 11:39 am
Exactly!
#54 by Braco on November 29, 2012 - 1:55 am
Longshanker please give me, and everyone else that has taken the time to read this political blog just a wee clue of the future you hope for your nation, whichever one it is. Just once, try putting forward your ambitions in their purist forms for others to analyse and discuss. You may change the future. It is hard. If you try, and I try, then who knows…? You seem an intelligent enough fellow mortal with diametrically opposed views to myself who I could possibly learn from. I do flatter myself that we might both learn if we were to meet in honesty and good will. Any chance min?
Pingback: How UKIP are on course to help out the Greens… « Better Nation
#55 by Grahamski on November 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm
I think the thing a lot of nationalists need to get their head round is that for the vast majority of Scots the constitution is not particularly important and is way down their list of priorities.
Most people don’t view everything through the prism of Scotland’s place in the UK and the SNP are in danger of coming across as boring obsessives by doing just that.
Personally I find it just a wee bit baffling how desperate many nationalists are to accuse me of being a nationalist – why are nationalists so keen to tar everybody with the same brush?
Can they really not understand a viewpoint which comes from a more nuanced position than geographical tribalism?
#56 by Longshanker on November 29, 2012 - 11:05 pm
Jeff
Having lived and worked in Glasgow for the past eight years I think the Rangers/Celtic analogy is close enough to this nationalist dilemma to be an apt analogy.
I often used to get asked which of the two teams I favoured most and was always treated with scepticism when I said neither. It was as if there was no alternative. That’s why in this instance I believe the analogy does stack up.
Of course there are alternative diddy teams to support. And that’s why we have the Yes campaign.
I think I approach the debate with enough honesty Jeff. I’m sceptical to the point of cynicism. But I’m not bereft of idealism and that’s why my vote is still at the floating stage.
Braco.
You make the assumption I am a unionist by a presumably presumptive fallacious logic I presume.
Being sceptical of or hostile to the Scottish Nationalists does not by necessity make you a Unionist.
You even allude to my lack of unionist credentials yourself when you make your football analogy.
I’ll refer you to my first post when I mentioned Aesop’s fable the Bat the Birds and the Beasts.
In this fable I associate with the bat and that’s why certain nationalist pronouncements – such as Jeff’s here – drive me batty.
In short, I don’t know what the answer is. The Union is broken and desperately needs fixing – with or without independence being won.
It’s a must, for either scenario to work.
I’d appreciate if you could provide evidence in anything I have said here or elsewhere that is pro-Union.
Regards
#57 by Jeff on December 1, 2012 - 2:17 pm
Longshanker,
I can see your point now. You originally said ‘which of Celtic or Rangers do you support’ which is subtly but substantially different to ‘which team do you prefer’ which, in theory, one could argue that everyone should have a view on.
I maintain that the country we choose to live in is a bigger deal and deserves move interest than stupid football teams. I at least understand the analogy now and wish I had been quicker on the uptake.
I do also think ‘which country would you prefer to live in, UK or Scotland’ is considerably higher brow than ‘who do you prefer out of the Old Firm?’. Politics is unavoidable, football is not.