THE REAL NATIONALISTS

Anyone that has read 'Clash of the Agnivores' will be familiar with the idea of looking to the past when proposing new ideas, especially political ones. This is a powerful force and one that crops up again and again throughout history, even ancient history. Folk look back to some 'Golden Age' where everything was better than it was today and cling onto traditions that somehow connect them with this past. If such traditions are not available then they are invented. A brilliant book on this subject is The Invention of Tradition, a collection of essays edited by E.J. Hobsbawm and T.O. Ranger. The essay by Hugh Trevor-Roper about the invention of ancient traditions for the Scottish Highlands is probably the most interesting, especially since much of the motivation for these inventions came from England. Clan tartans and the poet Ossian are the most famous of these.

The historian Benedict Anderson took things a step further with his work, Imagined Communities, in which he argues that nationhood and nationalism are not natural communities but invented ones. They are not based on people's day-to-day interactions or experiences but are constructed from the imaginations of people that perceive themselves as part of the greater group.

Nationalism per se is nothing sinister or evil; it is how that nationalism presents itself that causes concern. In the Nineteenth Century nationalism was a great liberal cause as people in Europe and Latin America all struggled to break free from the yoke of old, corrupt empires. These movements were inspired, and supported, by liberals and socialists everywhere. It wasn't until the Twentieth Century that twisted ideas of race, Darwinism, religion etc all started to be used in the name of nationalism.

Both the Nineteenth-Century and Twentieth-Century versions of nationalism can be found today. Irish nationalism takes its lead from the Nineteenth Century and tends to be a socialist, inclusive version, intent on breaking away from a corrupt empire. In the Balkans, on the other hand, we find the Twentieth Century equivalent, where ethnicity is the order of the day and both Serbs and Croats fight eighty-year-old crusades for pure nations.

So which variety is Scottish nationalism? Well, if you were to read Tom Brown's article in yesterday's Daily Record it's strictly of the Twentieth-Century kind. The 'legendary political commentator' (legendary in his own mind, probably) talks about xenophobia, strict borders and being cut off from his grandchildren in England. He stopped short of mentioning book burning and 'Kristallnachts' but this idea ran through his rhetoric. He calls the projected independent Scotland "a nation that refuses to live in the grown up modern multi-cultural world." He leaves no doubt, then, what he thinks of Scottish independence.

I also had somebody, calling himself Patrick Murray, on my comments page, decrying the "petty minded narrow nationalistic views of the Yes campaign which are or should be anathema to all Celtic supporters." I quite agree. Such views would be anathema to all Celtic supporters; indeed they are.

Which leads me on nicely to answering the question about which variety of nationalism the current 'YES' campaign espouses. The answer is: neither. Nobody's talking about breaking away into 'Splendid Isolation'; in fact the whole point is that those advocating a 'YES' vote are intent on remaining in the EU. Equally, there is no talk of ethnicity or racial purity or keeping Scotland 'just for the Scots.' An independent Scotland would be part of a modern Europe, where people are free to traverse borders to seek employment and there is no hatred directed toward other people in the world. It hardly sounds like the kind of nationalism outlined by the two characters quoted above; in fact, it hardly sounds like nationalism at all!

Now, let's have a look at the other side of the debate, the ones in Scotland that want to remain a part of the United Kingdom. Firstly, there's the Orange Order, whose reasons for remaining in the UK have no place in a modern society. They still teach their members that the British are all descended from the lost tribes of Israel and that the Royal Family is descended from the biblical King David. All of this is part-and-parcel of the desperate longing for the 'Last Days' that has been an integral element of the belief system of Reformed Protestantism since its inception in the latter half of the Sixteenth Century. It smacks of Zionism and the 'manifest destiny' of Nazi Germany.

Next up are the Tories and UKIPers, who are desperate for the UK to leave the EU. They want stricter border controls and to stop the easy migration of European workers into Britain. There's a nasty element of xenophobia and racism underneath their rhetoric, which shows up now and again when members are caught out expressing their true feelings. Granted, many Tories might not share the extremist views of UKIP but, by the looks of things, they are going to have to compromise with these people as they seem to be gaining support in the south of England. These folk are constantly stressing Britishness and British values and are far more nationalistic than anything coming out of Scotland!

Then there's Scottish Labour, who appear to be acting under instructions from London. The Labour Party could conceivably be finished in Westminster if Scotland becomes independent, relying as it does on the 'Celtic Fringe' to get it into power. The fact that there has been a seismic shift towards the right in England could mean that there will never be a Labour government in power at Westminster again. Labour itself has been moving to the right for years now and Milliband's recent pronouncements about benefits shows that they are trying to out-Tory the Tories. As usual, they don't care about Scotland; all they want is a 'NO' vote and then they can carry on taking our support for granted while providing us with nothing.

Lastly there are the out-and-out bigots. You can find them on any 'Rangers' website, wanting to repatriate those of Irish descent and inspired by a profound hatred of Roman Catholicism. Their fear is that an independent Scotland will cast Ulster adrift, as they know full well that England wants shot of Northern Ireland. Only by keeping Scotland in the Union can they keep the links of their fellow-travelers in Ulster to the United Kingdom.

So there we have it. On one side we have a forward-looking, internationalist agenda, while on the other we have an insular,  xenophobic, racist and bigoted nationalism. Contrary to what the media would have us believe, however, it's the Better Together campaign that's the narrow, nationalist one. The 'YES' campaign has no equivalent of the EDL or the SDL on its side. The papers might go on about 'cybernats' but forget to mention that the upholders of 'British Values' are beating up Muslims and foreign nationals in England, organising hate campaigns against Muslims in Scotland and fighting with the police in Northern Ireland. Britishness is Enoch Powell, Alf Garnett, the BNP, the EDL, UKIP and the SDL. Britishness is hating anyone with a black or brown face. Britishness is hating anyone from Europe that wants to work here. Britishness is fighting with the police and throwing petrol bombs over the flying of a flag. That is the future face of the United Kingdom. Do you really think we're 'Better Together' with that lot?

P.S. Patrick Murray, I agree with you that Celtic supporters find the views you outline 'anathema'. I think you'll find, however, that such views are the sole preserve of those lined up against Scottish independence!