Separatism is a dirty word, apparently. The No campaign use it all the time about those of us who support independence, just as non-nationalists for independence constantly get called nationalists by them too. Aside from partisan naming of US legislation, the independence referendum has been the site of perhaps the most intense linguistic and political battles I’ve ever seen.
I see why “separatism” gets used like that. Togetherness sounds warm and fuzzy. Let’s all have a big British cuddle. And what about your auntie in Bristol? Don’t you want to stay in the same country as her? Would you genuinely rather see a really big pair of scissors cut Scotland adrift, to float off into North Atlantic isolation? It’s a fine bit of rhetoric, even though a fair proportion of those same people would quite happily see us be much less Together with our European friends and family.
And socially, I agree. I’m part English, with countless friends and family members there. And when I say England already feels like a foreign country, for me that’s a compliment, or at least neutral. The Netherlands or Greece or America feel like foreign countries too, and (not being a ‘kipper or a near-‘kipper), I like going there and I like the feeling of being abroad. Differences are sexy.
But then I look at the institutions of the British state: the endless crown to symbolise the people’s powerlessness, the House of Lords to remind us that the gentry should inherit their right to legislate (and an arbitrary subset of bishops too), the corrupt House of Commons with an electoral system designed to preserve the rule of two grim neoliberal parties, the City with its unbalancing greed and unrestrainable influence, and the pound sterling, managed to suit the City rather than the people. I see an uncodified constitution which offers the public no clarity, no protection, and no real democracy, and I see some unpleasant international entanglements too – notably NATO.
I don’t want anything to do with any of them. Not a jot. I may not be a nationalist, but I am a constitutional separatist. I want to be separated from these institutions entirely. I’d love to see my friends in England find a way to make a break from those institutions too (as brilliantly set out here on sparkling blog A Thousand Flowers). But they don’t seem to be making much progress, and I don’t want to wait another thousand years for reform or revolution to fix what’s wrong with the British state. I’d rather Scotland had a chance, nothing more than that, to be a progressive beacon on a hill to inspire the rUK left.
In short, therefore, although I am a signatory to the Business for Scotland pledge (being in business and in favour of independence), I strongly disagree with this post on their site. It’s a small-c conservative position, as one might expect from a business organisation. What we’re offered by the SNP isn’t very inspiring, but if separation from all the institutions of the British state had indeed been on the ballot next year, that might just have lit a spark.
#1 by douglas clark on June 8, 2013 - 5:38 am
Now that is an interestingly different viewpoint. It certainly resonantes with me.
#2 by Peter A Bell on June 8, 2013 - 1:55 pm
It’s probably no secret that I find self-conscious shunning of the word “nationalist” tiresome at best and foolish at worst. Tiresome because it is pointless. Foolish because it implies acceptance of others’ definition of the term and a readiness to indulge whatever negative associations they want to attach to a perfectly benign and useful term so as to turn it into a derogatory epithet.
I resent the hi-jacking of the word and I also resent those who facilitate its expropriation by the anti-independence campaign.
I am a nationalist. But I am the sole authority on what that means to me. I will not pander to those who would write their own pejorative descriptions on a label I knowingly and freely choose for myself.
The little patience I might have for this timid aversion to the word “nationalist” is strained to breaking point when I encounter someone who, having gone out of his way to make a public show of rejecting it, goes on to evince attitudes that are almost a text-book definition of civic nationalism.
How I wish such people would have the courage of their convictions. Scotland’s civic nationalist movement is something that we should be proud of. To treat it as something shameful insults everyone who is part of the effort to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status.
#3 by James on June 8, 2013 - 2:14 pm
I don’t treat it as shameful or use it pejoratively, it just isn’t how I’m wired. I’m happy to work with nationalists to achieve independence, and there are nationalists and non-nationalists on both sides, as set out here. That’s my definition, not anyone else’s I’ve just adopted.
#4 by Peter A Bell on June 8, 2013 - 2:36 pm
My point is that it self-evidently IS how you are “wired”. Everything that you say about rejecting the institutions of the British state whilst maintaining social and cultural ties wouldn’t be out of place in a Wikipedia article on civic nationalism. And your term, “constitutional separatist”, might well serve as a synonym for “civic nationalist”.
#5 by James on June 8, 2013 - 7:10 pm
Peter, do you understand the point I’m making in that other piece? If someone thinks the flag is important (either one) and that the border is magically right (either one), they may be a nationalist of one sort or another. I don’t care about flags at all – or rather I’m against all of them. And if the Borders votes no or Cumbria wanted to join us, it’d be fine by me to draw the border there. I don’t feel any particular fondness for either arbitrary line, and I don’t think Scotland’s any better or any worse than anywhere else. Well, we’re better at making whisky than most places, and worse at handling our booze than most places: but overall we’re just people.
Wikipedia says “Nationalism is a socially constructed belief, creed or political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation.” That’s not my ideology. I don’t have that strong identification with either Britain or Scotland, much as I love living here. I listen to national anthems and supposedly patriotic tunes under duress, apart from the Marseillaise, and that’s because I enjoyed Casablanca so much.
I’m a localist, in favour of smaller and more responsive areas of governance. If I lived in California I’d probably want California to be independent. If I moved to Cornwall and they had PR, MK would get my second preference after the Greens not because I’m a Cornish nationalist, but because I’m a localist. And I’m an internationalist – I feel as much of a bond (i.e. common humanity) with someone I don’t know from Bangalore as I do someone I don’t know from Buchan. I love New York more than I love York, and I know Amsterdam better than I know Aberdeen. You can’t force me into some box marked “Nationalist” because I want shot of Westminster and the pound and the Queen and NATO and First Past The Post.
But there’s a strategic point here. If you follow the No campaign’s logic and try to brand the most un-nationalist of us as nationalists too, if you try to make this just nationalists versus non-nationalists, we’ll lose. There’s nothing wrong with civic nationalism per se, but there just aren’t enough nationalists to win this, and that logic deters the pragmatic non-nationalists who might support a Yes vote. Accept a bit of diversity – I do – and we might win this together.
#6 by Peter A Bell on June 8, 2013 - 7:44 pm
I am a nationalist. Have been for more than half a century. But your notions of what it means to be a nationalist and the connotations of the word are quite alien to me.
As to the stuff about infinitely flexible borders, that is, of course, a constitutional nonsense. When not describing myself as a civic nationalist I am happy to use the term “pragmatic nationalist”. For me, it’s about the practicalities of good, democratic government. And that requires that there be clear borders to define where good governance can apply according to the standards and priorities of the people who will be affected.
Personally, I find these romantic “one-world” fantasies almost as offensive to the intellect as the kind of grindingly awful “Braveheart” nationalism that is, thankfully, quite rare nowadays – no matter how convince some may be that they see it everywhere.. At best, this happy-clappy “internationalism” is desperately naive. At worst it is a misguided rationalisation of imperialism. And it is imperialism, not nationalism, that is the real scourge.
Whether or not those who vote Yes choose to accept it or not, by voting yes they are embracing civic nationalism. It is not accepting this reality that is potentially harmful to the independence campaign. What might conceivably deter people is the efforts of those on both sides of the debate to portray civic nationalism as something unspeakable.
Nationalism is not a political ideology in its own right. It is simply one strand of a political ideology that may sit on any part of the political spectrum. To condemn and denigrate nationalism as if it told you everything you needed to know about an individual’s politics and attitudes is simplistic and fallacious.
I repeat, Scotland’s civic nationalism is something to be proud of. It is the exemplar for peaceful, democratic independence movements the world over. Don’t knock it!
#7 by James on June 8, 2013 - 9:08 pm
I’m like this weird straw man to you, some hater of nationalists, and you think you understand me better than I understand myself, even though your explanation reads as though you literally haven’t read a word I’ve written.
Oh, and thanks for the perplexing and insulting association between internationalism and imperialism: I’m either naive or an imperialist for feeling at home in Amsterdam or Boston? Really?
#8 by AFaulds on June 8, 2013 - 3:33 pm
Surely, if you are the sole authority on what nationalism means to you, James is the sole authority on what it means to him and therefore has every right to reject it as part of his identity?
#9 by Peter A Bell on June 8, 2013 - 7:20 pm
I’m perfectly content that James should define his own attitude. I merely note that the definition he offers is functionally indistinguishable from civic nationalism.
#10 by Una on June 9, 2013 - 11:00 am
I think indy will be better for the people who live in Scotland, but I don’t call myself a ‘nationalist’ either. I think it’s more foolish to ignore the problems with the term as it puts people off whose views you may dismiss but whose votes we need. Whether my political position technically defines me as a ‘civic nationalist’ or not, I simply don’t want my country – a chance of geography – placed at the centre of my ideology. You’re not going to detoxify this brand – far better to embrace different views of supporters.
#11 by James on June 9, 2013 - 11:22 am
Glad to hear I’m not alone. Although I’m not sure about “detoxify”: do you mean that right-wing racist nationalists elsewhere make centrist Scottish nationalists look bad by association?
#12 by Una on June 9, 2013 - 11:48 am
From an international perspective, and to some extent even within the UK (I live in London) I’d say yes, this remains true. I waste a lot of time explaining myself to Turkish friends who are very confused by my association with a nationalist party! Independence for Scotland is easier to understand, often seen positively, but bring in the term ‘nationalism’ and there’s wariness. This is a distraction that takes the debate away from where it should be – and one which is constantly exploited by ‘no’ campaigners.
#13 by Juteman on June 8, 2013 - 2:39 pm
I’m an international nationalist and proud of it.
I believe in self determination and local democracy for all the people of this world.
#14 by Neilyn on June 8, 2013 - 6:20 pm
As far as I can work out, Scotland is, and always has been, since it became a country and a nation, separate to England by virtue of the simple fact that it’s er, Scotland, and not, er, England. Ditto my own Wales, and of course Ireland.
So the re-establishment of a sovereign Scottish state wouldn’t change anything on the ‘separate’ front. It’s just a question of where the power of government lies, isn’t it?