NATIONALISM

Nationalism is a fantasy. Like religion it can mean whatever you want it to mean and doesn’t have to be encumbered by too much reality. Nationalism is put forward either by political types who are deluded enough to actually believe its promises or by those who use it for purposes of manipulation. As with religious doctrine, it is driven by human impulses both naive and sinister.

I dislike the nationalistic outlook because I prefer building bridges to knocking them down and staking nationalist claims is invariably destructive. It draws on the more primal, pre-intellectual aspects of the human being. Now, it may well be that groupings of smaller units held together by international agreements is a better way of organising world politics than what exists currently. Maybe we should be moving towards that. Who knows. Whichever way, it is always so much harder to build a bridge than to destroy one. It is easier to huddle together in a tribe than it is to go out and make new and constructive connections.

The European initiative was about bridge building. The currency may have hit the rocks recently but at least it was an attempt for some old communities, often historically hostile, to come together in common cause. A generation earlier Europeans were murdering each over German nationalism. The Europe of my lifetime has allowed me to go to Germany, to live, work and participate there if so inclined without having to ask some guy in a uniform for permission. That is a huge benefit. That the project is having such a tough time is a reminder of how tough such initiatives can be.

These thoughts are relevant because of the Scottish government’s current agenda of putting independence on the table. Being pretty much against that agenda I am nevertheless interested in the detail. Just recently for example the Nationalists announced they would keep sterling as the currency in an independent Scotland. It was immediately pointed out how, straight of the bat, Scotland would then be tethered to London and the Bank of England in the same way that the countries in the eurozone have recently had to look to Germany for leadership. The alternatives - adopting the beleaguered euro or creating a new currency - are less appealing and riskier. With that decision alone, immediately your independence is not so independent.

Whether you value the United Kingdom or not it is still a three-hundred year union. The notion that the Scots have the absolute right, legally, morally and any other way, to dismantle it is delusional. Others have a say too in what would amount to the ending of an institution in which they are partners. The SNP’s bellicose pronouncement that it is up to Scotland alone to make that decision is typical of the kind of arrogance associated with nationalism. It pontificates as if Scotland is an autonomous unit, already sovereign and separate, able to act from self-determining positions. It is not. It is part of an alliance with an ancient history, one that when formed in 1707 set the tone for an end to centuries of war and conflict. I don’t say that as any kind of unionist, merely as someone respectful of these old associations. Unlike many Scots I bare no animosity whatsoever towards the English. And that is another thing that fuels nationalist sentiment in Scotland: a hatred of Englishness that is positively xenophobic.

Of course, a more credible basis for an independent Scotland would be the case for economic advantage. I suspect that might be the issue that would swing the balance. True to reputation, they’re a canny lot the Scots and would go the distance for a bag of cash. If the SNP were to make a convincing argument for financial gain, if they could turn their dubious claims about oil revenues into something believable, then I suspect their fantasy could be a step closer to reality. To seal the deal they might then offer everyone a job working for the state. Scotland’s tribal roots, masking as communitarian and still vibrant under the veneer of modernity, could then achieve apotheosis. Like a latter day Gaddafi, some future Son of Salmond could officiate from the glens in full kilted regalia and the picture would be replete. Ridiculous, yes. But perfectly in keeping with the romantic nonsense of nationalism.