Nationalism

[mummymonkey]

Why I dislike nationalism.

It's selfish - we're part of a very successful union, we should share our resources (oil, gas, football managers) with the less fortunate among us. Wales for instance. In return we get all the benefits being in the big boy's gang brings. Low interest rates, stable economy, massive subsidies, that kind of thing.

It's expensive - any decent manager will tell you that duplication is a waste of money. All those extra pen pushers and greasy pole climbers could be put to work cleaning the hospitals. I don't want my taxes wasted on stupid 'Scots language' projects or silly bilingual roadsigns that take twice as long to read. I dread to think how much the re-branding would cost.

Braveheart

It's backward looking - Europe is the way forward and a democratic, secular, federal Europe at that. More union not less, is what I want.

It's tribal - the nationalist path leads to a dark place in the human mind. The suited and booted, TV friendly, talking heads will poo poo such notions with talk of 'civic nationalism' to distinguish it from the brutal patriotism of the Balkans and such places. But there is no such distinction. It is by its very nature, tribal, divisive and destructive.

Alex (the punter's punter) Salmond

It's insulting - I just don't get the argument that politicians in Westminster don't care about Scotland. A great many of them are Scottish and/or represent Scotish constituencies. They are there to improve the lot of the United Kingdom and its people, and Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

Of course, if the Nationalists promised a secular, democratic, modern republic then I'd have to think about it. Perhaps then it would be worthwhile. But they haven't the bottle.

 

[Tony]

Isn't the rise of nationalism the mechanism that led to the overthrow of many of europes monarchs in the 19 century?

 

[Rolfe]

I think that post as a whole has answered what I think was my main question - you don't seem to feel any emotional desire for "your" country to be on an equal footing with other similar-sized countries in (or even out) of the EU. Perhaps you really do see "British" as your identity, and I'm not saying that's not valid. It's just not how I feel. I can understand that if you don't feel any emotional desire that way, then you dislike the whole idea. I just have some difficulty relating to the mind-set.

The whole "duplication" thing is a red herring. Or maybe, it would be a good idea if Denmark became part of Germany to save a bit of money? I think the argument has a lot more force in fact as it relates to the existence of the devolved parliament. I'd like to get rid of a tier of redundancy too - but the tier I'd pick would be Westminster.

I'm inclined to agree with you about the idea of promoting the Scots language beyond its natural scope. Sometimes people get silly. But because there are some silly ideas around, doesn't invalidate the basic principle per se.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that Europe is the way forward. We simply seem to disagree as to whether Scotland should participate at second hand as a region of the UK, or at first hand as a country in its own right.

And I disagree entirely about your characterisation of nationalism as unavoidably "dark". It's funny, nobody has the slightest problem defending the independence of countries which are already independent, but once a country has lost its independence for whatever reason, suddenly any desire to regain it is "dark" and "destructive"? I don't see it. Racism is dark and destructive, agreed. And your example of the Balkans was nothing if not racism. But a desire to live at peace and in friendship with one's neighbours, but merely to be self-governing in Europe - "a dark place in the human mind"? Please!

Of course, if the Nationalists promised a secular, democratic, modern republic then I'd have to think about it. Perhaps then it would be worthwhile. But they haven't the bottle.

Er, maybe you need to be a fly on the wall at an SNP conference some time. That is exactly what the vast majority of people active in the party want. Separation of church and state, an end to segregated schooling, and some form of republicanism. (A writer in the most recent Scots Independent had a very good suggestion as to how to achieve that last but still retain the tradition of past monarchy.)

Sigh. I don't know how well-founded the fears are, but electoral credibility is something that has to be thought about. There is a strong perception that coming out for republicanism would be a serious vote-loser. I'm not so sure, but there you are. I do know that it's standard Labour canvasser tactics to tell their constituents not to vote SNP because the SNP wants to close the Catholic schools (perhaps a grain of truth in actual fact, but most certainly not party policy, for just the reasons I outlined).

Maybe a bold manifesto would appeal to a wide range of sensible people on all sides of the political spectrum. But then maybe it would just lose votes from old dears with coronation tea-caddies and the dedicated Catholic contingent. Who knows?

Haven't the bottle? Well, that's one way of putting it. But parties have to consider the effect of particular policies on the vote, that's political reality. Alex Salmond does it, Tony Blair does it. And indeed there's another point.

The future shape of an independent Scotland should be a matter for its people. So, even if 95% of the membership of the SNP want a republic, they should not be able to force that opinion on the country as a whole. Same with a number of other policies. It's one thing to say, an independent Scotland could be a republic, but that should be a matter everyone should have a say on.

While wanting to present a picture of what an independent Scotland could be like, the point is really, get the independence first, then allow the new government of the new country to be shaped by the will of its citizens. It's difficult to put this over. Too prescriptive, and votes are lost not because people don't want independence, but because voters disagree with certain individual aspects of policy, which couldn't be binding on an independent government anyway. Too open-ended, and the accusation is of having no policies and being bereft of ideas. Hard to square that circle.

But back to the start. I think that unless there is an emotional desire to hold one's head up beside other European countries as one of the ancient nation-states of Europe that wants to participate fully and directly in the EU, then there will be no temptation to vote SNP.

If it were up to me, we'd be in the Euro, and signing that constitution. But we'd also be there in the Council of Ministers, not standing outside hoping that a UK minister might just choose to present our case this time.

Rolfe.

 

[Jon_in_london]

1. And I disagree entirely about your characterisation of nationalism as unavoidably "dark"......

2. But back to the start. I think that unless there is an emotional desire to hold one's head up beside other European countries as one of the ancient nation-states of Europe that wants to participate fully and directly...........

1. Likewise.

2. Likewise.

As to the nationalism question- it is only acceptable for nations that are non-white. Although the fact that you were 'oppressed' means that its not seen as quite so nazi as English nationalism for example.

 

[ingoa]

Well, well...

I consider myself "European" in the first place. But I have an unusual history. I have never lived in one place for more than a few years. (Even in my childhood, as I am an Army child). I have lived in Germany, France, Belgium, UK, USA and Italy. So what is my affiliation? My passport is German, but my mindset is European. But again, that's rather unusual.

At least in Germany, people associate at first with the family, then with the village/town, then with the state (as in Alabama), then with the country, then with Europe and at last with the Earth.
I really would like to get rid of one of these layers. Family. village and region will stay for sure, because that's your close environment. But who needs countries? It would be much more reasonable to have the regions represented in Brussels rather than the states. Regions are much more comparable in size and importance than countries. Catalonia, Hessia, Alsace, Wales, Wallonia, Flanders, Algarve and Jutland are much more similiar than Spain, Germany, France, UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. The other point is that many regions, such as the Alsace, are border regions where (in the meantime) it is quite difficult to tell which country they actually belong to.

In my opinion the countries will become obsolete. The 'trans-regional' responsibilities are more and more taken over by Europe. Europe (Brussels) also fosters cooperation between regions. That's why we start to have coorperation between neighbouring regions (cross-border) in terms of education, transport, industry and so on.

People tend to state that they are Welsh, English, Hessian, Savojarde, Corsian or Dutch. Rarely somebody states that they are "UKian".

So what you have are "familarism", "regionalism", and so on. Nationalism is somewhat obsolete. Even if you are Spanish, it seems impossible to support Real Madrid and the FC Barcelona at the same time.
Nationalism is something of the past. We don't have a own currency anymore. We have a military that has French-German Brigades, Dutch-Belgian-German brigades and so on. So what's German? In the border region to France it is difficult to say where you are. France or Germany? It is defined by the form and color of traffic signs. Not a convincing point to define national identity. Borders? They (almost) don't exist. Nationalism is just an idea that used to seperate people. But it has lost it's merit. There is much more difference between regions (ask a Baden or Schwabian or Bavarian guy in Germany) than it is between France and Germany.