And another thing…

Nearly everything is driven by emotion. Even the world’s allegedly sophisticated financial markets are, to a large extent, underpinned by the price of an almost useless metal.

Given that mankind values gold so highly only because it’s shiny, why should we expect nationalistic yearnings to be based on rationality?

Why do you not act out our strugle with Nazi Germany it is far more relevant to today. I find this Scotts attitude to the English deeply racist and it needs stamping out.

As an Englishman, my problem with Scottish nationalism is not that some want it to happen, but that it’s a one-sided ratcheted affair. The Scots have a different legal and political system that the English have little effective influence over, but there are Scots passing laws over the English.

It seems that the only fair solution to the West Lothian question is either complete independence for Scotland, or complete integration to the UK. Emotional involvement in the decision is inevitable – but that doesn’t really matter. Just make a proper choice.

Then of course there is the irony that some of the Scots are calling for independence so that they can be locked more closely into Europe. Certainly a strange kind of logic there….

Brian: Gold is actually rather useful if you work in the electronics industry. Mankind also seems to value some strange pieces of printed paper rather highly.

Sorry that should of course read “humankind”!

looks like you are going through the motions Tom. Baseless attacks on the SNP are more and more common on ure blog. Ah well, at least ure pain will be alleviated next May.

what was it Gordon Brown kept repeating yesterday in the commons?? That the UK is fighting in Afghanistan not necessarily to create democracy or send girls to school but to protect the UK ‘national interest’. It sounds like your leader is a bit of a nationalist himself…determined to protect and do the best for his country (UK). What, may I ask, is the difference for someone who wants the same aspirations for Scotland instead of the UK?

Finally, why don’t you take a wee walk down O’Connell street next time ure in Dublin, a land where British brutality and murder were common place up until the few decades (never mind 1314). Have a chat with the locals and ask how many of them want to be part of your super-duper Union again? Me thinks the answer will be none, its not that great, really is it?

Nationalism has always been an area where I hold somewhat contentious views as I am simply not at all bothered by the idea of being loyal to the country I am living in.

I will accept that my upbringing, which resulted in a youth spent living in a dozen or so different (and always, very hot) countries will colour my views on this – but no more than they colour the views of someone who has never left the village they were born in.

To me, it just seems daft that we hold tribal loyalties based on nothing more substantial than a line drawn on a map – often by Victorian bureaucrats. Because I live in London, I am expected to have more loyalty to people living in, for example, York than in Paris – even though I can get to Paris far faster than I could hope to get to York.

As humans, we do need some tribal loyalties and associations and I have no problems saying I live in London because I think it is a great place to live in. However, for me to then take that to the next stage and proclaim that London is the BEST city in the world, and to defend it against all other verbal attacks from residents of other cities just seems a bit petty minded.

I live in London as I like it. If work or desire causes me to want to live elsewhere, then I will do so. They are just places to live and work in – not worth fighting over.

The concept of “them and us” is something we really should have moved past by now.

The major problem of identifying oneself more as people who fought another is this quite quickly leads to a contempt.

You still see it in the USA where some of the South actually have a hatred for the North in very loose terms.

And when someone is hated everyone goes through the same process. They listen, try to understand but eventually start to hate back. It’s inevitable – it’s human.

So what happens when England has just had enough of being treated like an enemy ?

I really think England will talk about going it alone soon – and up to Wales and NI what they wish to do.

The reason that there is no emotion for the Union is that its existence is based on a pure buisness case(It also did not have much if any support for coming into being in the first place). But now many centuries later that buisness case no longer stands and it is now the Union that is the impediement to further success.
There is emotion in nationalism it is essentially pride in ones country and the desire to see it do well. Is that a bad thing I dont think so.

“Scottish nationalism is, and will always remain, less a political philosophy than an emotional response.”

Yes, it is a petty and parochial view. Much like supporting Scotland at football, which is racist if you look at it dispassionately.

I have always hated (and been guilty of) the way Scots will go on about how great ‘our country’ is because of the great men it produced: Adam Smith, James Watt, Alexander Fleming etc. etc. But what does that have to do with you, or I? Am I a better person than my Spanish colleague because 100 years ago people who were born nearer to where I was born were doing better than people who were born nearer Spain.

However, you say there is a better case to be made for the union and then fail to make it…

There are far more independent nations now than there were at the end of the second world war.

Nationalism is here to stay. That is how INTERnationalism exists.

There was a time-probably around the time of the Scottish enlightenment- when a significant number of Scots were prepared to describe themselves as North British but the English never chose to describe themselves as South British preferring to regard Scotland as part of a greater England e.g At Trafalgar “England expects…..”

So the opportunity of a true British nation is long past.

Long live England, Scotland and Wales forget about “Britain”.

all to often nationalism is emotional response with a Bayonet on the end

Read about Nationalism before passing it off as ‘emotion’ and not ‘philosophy’ please Tom.

I recommend Benedict Andersen, Anthony D Smith and Ernest Gellner to start with.

It is an emotion? It is much more than just an emotion. It is a way of life. Of course I would not expect someone with half a brain to understand this.

Possibly the best post I have read on this blog.

Nationalism in whatever form is poisonous and highly destructive.

How one can base their political beliefs on an accident of birth is beyond me.

I find it offensive that Unionist politicians come out and attack Scots nationalists for being “parochial”, or saying the argument is purely an emotional one, then in the same breath defend the Union with vague and unsubstantiated claims…

I really don’t care much who beat who in some war 500 years ago.

I do care that the English-controlled Government in London has, by it’s own admission for the last 30 years sought to stop Scottish independence on the basis that the oil revenues would make Scotland rich but put an undue strain on the English treasury.

I do care that numerous Government’s from London have looked upon Scotland as irrelevant and sought to use her as a testing-ground for dodgy policies.

I do care that in a so-called Union, Scotland has 59 MP’s and England over 500. I know, it’s all based on population, but that should be taken overall as each country. Why should Scotland play second-fiddle to England?

I was going to go off on a long rant here about how you aren’t a Scottish Labour party MP, you’re a Labour Party MP, that you are subservient to will of you London masters, that you can’t argue policy for Scotland if it’s bad or even just not important for London, but there’s no point.

We all know this is just you switching your attack from the Tories to the SNP in recognition of the fact the Tories don’t matter here, and it’s not a Tory who will be standing on the Podium delivering a victory speech for Glasgow South next May, but the SNP…

“feudal rivalries acted out by rich noblemen who used ordinary uneducated men as arrow fodder in order to secure their personal wealth and privileges”

Lord Mandelson, Lord Paul, Lord Ahmed, Baroness Uddin, Baron Martin of Springburn for example?

Like the Jesuists said, ‘give me a child from the age of 7 and I will give you the man’. There’s nothing like brainwashing aimed at very young children to colour their instinctive feelings forever. Good for you Tom, for seeing beyond that – the poor and powerless of Scotland and England always had more in common with each other, rather than with their leaders and supposed superiors.

It reminds me a bit of a show Tony Robinson did back in the 90s called Maid Marion and Her Merry Men (it was quite a revisionist and not entirely serious view of history). In traditional stories of Robin Hood, they hate King John with a passion, but revere his brother, Richard the Lionheart, and pin their hopes on when their real king will eventually return from the Holy Land, where he’s been waging jihad on the Moslem infidels. Everything will be hunky dory once Richard’s back in his rightful place.

In Robinson’s version, when Richard does eventually come back, he’s played by the same actor who plays John. He looks more or less identical to his brother. The look is sort of medieval Hell’s Angel. ‘But – but – he’s exactly the same as the other one!’ Marion wails.

That’s always struck me as hitting on quite a profound truth.

Nationalism flourished in the 1970s not because some Scots through that they could, through North Sea Oil, finally break free from the UK. But because some Scots saw that they would be better off in the short term if they kept the oil money to themselves.

No one gave a stuff about independence before the oil and no one will give a stuff when it runs out. At which point if the SNP manage to fiddle a referendum we will not really be given the chance to rejoin.

I don’t think it would be unreasonable to suggest that you should specifically have mentioned Scottish Nationalism in the title to your blog. Nationalism, as we all know, has a far more sinister tinge when used on it’s own.

It could refer to Irish Nationalism (terrorists), British Nationalism (racists) or Social Nationalism (fascists), none of which I believe Scottish Nationalists could reasonably be accused of. Indeed, it could be argued that there is generally only one emotion associated with those other examples of nationalism referred to above and that is hatred. Again, Scottish nationalists could not be accused of hating anyone.

Scottish Nationalists believe the people of Scotland deserve the opportunity to dissolve a Union that, so far as they are concerned, is no longer fit for purpose. As was predicted at the time, the devolution settlement has actually made the situation worse and the status quo is simply unsustainable.

You would not even give the Scottish people the opportunity to voice their opinion. But it is almost inevitable that following a Tory victory in the GE next year, support for independence will rise to the point that it is quite likely a referendum will support the Holyrood administration entering negotiations to dissolve the Union. The great irony will be that the Party for whom the Union has been its sole route to power in the last 100 years, will have been the architects of its destruction.

Oh how we’ll laugh.

“misty eyed”, “maudlin folk songs”, the Scots as overly emotional saps willing to vote for the first bunch to sing Flower of Scotland. (We used to vote for the first lot to know all the words to the Red Flag).

I think that the real problem in Scotland is that no one will vote Tory (a lot of people respect and have time for Annabel Goldie, but EVERYONE remembers Thatcher), the Lib Dems are a wasted vote and Labour is seen as largely corrupt and treat the voters like sheep. Instead of “listening” they seem to be angry that we voted SNP, as if the Scots are the labour party’s voters.

@Johnny Norfolk:
>I find this Scotts attitude to the English deeply racist and it needs stamping out.

Stamp ahead.

Everything’s emotional! And personal! Your new researcher may have had the right credentials on paper, but at the end, it was your gut feeling. Am I right?

I am a nationalist, a proud Englishman who lives in Scotland. Whereas there is a bit of blatant racism here dressed up as nationalism,(as there is everywhere)my perception of Scottish Nationalism is that it has made, and is making, a difference. Politics is emotional since it is inherently arbitrary. As Tony Blair might say, every decision is 49/51. The casting vote is your gut.

It will work in your favour at the next election because even though you belong to a party whose leaders should be strung up from flag poles, my emotions, my intuition, tells me you are a good guy and I would vote for you if I resided in your constituency.

Rationalism has always been overrated, but I shall not be singing “My Heart’s in the Highlands” and crying into a Quaich. I drink, to “The Immortal Memory of Lord Nelson and those who fell with him” – Eastick, John, Private, Marine, Bellerophon,74, and Eastick, Spencer, Able Seaman,Achilles,74.

Comment overheard in a bar in Central London:

“Well, at least the Scottish are English.”

“Scottish nationalism is, and will always remain, less a political philosophy than an emotional response.”

Which is its strength and weakness.

You can always beat a nationalist in an argument, because they are less than logical in understanding and defending their beliefs, and the facts will always win out…

… but, at the same time, faith-based beliefs are impossible to defeat in argument, because how can you argue with “I beleive, even if the facts are against me”?

@wrinkled weasel
“Rationalism has always been overrated”
Well allow me to stand back and let you do whatever your emotions tell you to…
‘Don’t blame Bush, he went with his gut.’

Rationalism may not appeal to your visceral side but when trying to make decisions that impact other people it’s the best we’ve got. (Apart from millenia old fairy stories, but that’s another topic.)

Utter guff Tom – but you knew that.

Like most Scots, I was taught very little about Scottish history at school.
My nationalism (if you care to call it that) is not based on grievance but on aspiration and disgust.
Scotland, along with other parts of Ukania furth of the charmed circle of SE England, is being short-changed. We live in what is one of the most economically, culturally and socially centralised states in Western Europe. This is very much to the detriment of the non-metropolitan ‘fringe’.
If Scotland does succeed in disbanding the UK, I would be more than happy to see the North of England joining us and creating a new nation where the establishment, social and political, is borne in the harsh, penetrating light of the 21st century.
Establishments need turning over on a regular basis or they begin to stink. The stench of entrenched self interest from the ‘higher’ echelons of the UK is stomach churning.
Independence for Scotland is a good first step to undermining this revolting, anachronistic edifice.

I always enjoying Scottish Nationalists attempting to portray their opponents as British Nationalists: as if one is superior to the other and as if the majority of us who think it is irrelevant are as wild-eyed as they are.

I have no intrinsic love for the British state and if Scotland were independent I would not be calling for a new union.

Likewise I have no particular need for Scotland to be independent/divorced/be taking its rightful place among the great pantheon of nations (boak).

Nationalists fail to understand that we are not oppressed by being part of the UK, my vote counts the same whether it is in Glasgow or Oxfordshire (as present).

Nations, States and Countries, not quite the same beast and the SNP play on these differences.

The definitions below are just a small sample of all the various meanings, but do show the commonality and differences.

Nation:
1) (n.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock
2) n.) The body of inhabitants of a country, united under an independent government of their own

State:
1) (n.) A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people who are united one government, whatever may be the form of the government; a nation
2) (a.) Belonging to the state, or body politic; public

The SNP use the distinguished from the rest by common descent to emphasise difference between people and garner support. They name the English as enemy and blame all problems on those people South of the border (down England way).

By creating this enmity between the supposedly different people of the UK (how many Scots don’t have English ancestry? Damn few I warrant) they seek to achieve a country, united under an independent government of their own.

The problem is that they have fostered a society in Scotland (not all but a large part) who always blame others for their failings. James G Brown is an example of this attitude; his failures are never his yet if anything goues well he claims all the credit.

Now the feeling of belonging, the quai extended family that nationalism invokes is powerful and can be used for good or ill, the SNP wish to use it to destroy rather than using it to foster mutul respect and brotherhood between nations, especially between the nations that constitute the UK & NI.

Why is it so many Scotts have such a big chip on their shoulder about the English. To me it just shows an immature childish attitude. Times have changed Scotland is run by the EU. now not England. So its about time they grew up shut up and move on.

I think that there’s a distinction to be made between the desire for independence and nationalism in its pejorative sense which rears its head when people feel hard done by in one way or another. It’s manifesting today, for example, in England in the form of the EDL (which I think politicians will ignore at their peril).

Apparently, the desire for independence is common and why wouldn’t it be? In every union there is the weaker and the stronger. If you perceive yourself to be the weaker then, although you might accept a union for its benefits, you’ll still resent your place as the weaker. You come down on the side of union or independence depending on your strength of feeling about the trade-off.

Hmmm, yet more baseless SNP-hatred. Especially the “you’re all racists” bit, considering the SNP have several English MSP’s and I myself do not hail from this fair nation and yet strangely do not detect such overtones….
Pity really. I understand the fear some have; after all, the SNP are the largest party in Scotland now. Labour is in the descent in every possible way; finances, membership, electoral support.

To risk a sci-fi quote (not to mention associating my own Party with the Empire!), Labour’s fire has gone out of the universe, or at the very least out of Scotland. The days when a Labour candidate could stumble out of Art school, shuck on a £25 M&S suit and a red-rosette and wander down to the count to make an entirely ungracious victory speech are thankfully at an end.
To regale you with another quote, this time a senior Labour chappie after the Glasgow East by-election, “there is no such thing as a ’safe seat’ in Scotland anymore for Labour.”

The real issue here isn’t about whether Scottish Nationalism is “narrow” in some way. Of course it’s not, and Auntie Annabel’s declarations aside, no one thinks it is. Indeed, a party who not only want to govern but also have their country secede from one of the longest-standing political unions in the world, forge ahead as an independent state and re-mold an entire country’s governmental system anew can hardly be described as being “narrow”.

No, the issue here is fear. Like many in Labour, Tom spends a majority of his time attacking the Tories for stealing Labour’s manifesto, or ridiculing the Liberal-Thingies for being irrelevant, like we all do (well, actually I do it because it’s fun, but relevancy sounds more mature, doesn’t it Tom?). Now however he senses which way them “winds of change” Salmond spoke about are blowing. They’re blowing to the SNP conference, they’re blowing to Glasgow North-East and if we can swing a victory there, by extension, they’re heading towards Glasgow South…
Tom has shown his colours, is presumably readying his troops and is preparing to enter the fray.
We shall meet on the battlefield! Unless of course you don’t campaign in Glasgow North-East…

Nationalism can be used for greatness or manipulated to acheive the worst. The Scottish National Party seek to unite one of the oldest countries of Europe and strive for greatness. It comes at a cost of Great Britain, but does that matter? Great Britain was created through fear and wealth. It was forced on the people, so what if we see the end of what was the largest Empire in the world? If nationalism did not exist the people would have more reason to fight so let us strive for greatness and take that fight and become the greatest country in the world.

Math Campbell – so basically, if I attack the SNP, it can only be because Labour is losing the fight in Scotland. Well, in that case, I won’t ever attack them again… Oh, wait a minute. I see what you did there…

The thing is, Math, I have been attacking the SNP vociferously throughout the time I have been a Labour Party member (in fact since before that). I see no reason to stop now.

obangobang at 12:12 pm said “Again, Scottish nationalists could not be accused of hating anyone.”

That is completely wrong. Scottish nationalists make a big thing of not hating “The English” as they like to call them, but many I come across have no scruples in hating those of their fellow Scots who don’t go along with their ambition to break up our country.

I saw this lovely epistle in the Scotsman comments column today –

“only yesterday the Unionist Quisling in Chief ,Scotlandshire branch Spud Murphy was saying while the SNPwil be campaigning on the constitution we will be capmapaigning on jobs and living standards.

“Here today we see what another lie that is ,in another article reporting that 1 in 5 Scots households are jobless we have all the Labourite quislings on here attacking the SNp and the constitution issuue. Where is their compassion and passion for the jobless? They are on here because they can attack Scotland and the SNP. They by their absence on other thread show where their priorities lie defending Labour from wipe out. no compassion for umemployed , no policies for unemployed ,no vision for Scotland . The only vision they have is their snouts in the Westminster trough!!
Quisling low lifes the lot of them…”

This is typical of the way our nationalists express themselves, full of hate and venom for Scots who they see as quislings and traitors for daring to express a view that in fact the majority agree with.

The problem the Labour Party faces from the SNP isn’t that they appeal to emotion, their record of good governance appeals to common sense.

In the General Election, English voters can choose between the Proven Failure Party, the Potential Disaster Party, or the Totally Irrelevant Party.

In Scotland, we get to choose from all the above, plus the Competent and Thoughtful Party.

Murphy and Grey keep calling for debates with Salmond. Imagine the panic NuLab HQ if Salmond actually agreed!

OK Tom

Boring day at the office I see. Score a few political points with a soundbite ahead of the SNP conference and appease the extremists who posted on your recent Scottish banknote blog.

Wouldn’t be so bad but your points are so banal and baseless they’re not worth arguing over.

“It’s much more difficult to get similarly emotional in defence of the Union. But that doesn’t mean that the arguments are any weaker – they’re far stronger.”

And what are they??

Here’s a couple of quotes for you:

“It is impossible for one to be internationalist without being a nationalist. It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil. Each wants to profit at the expense of, and rise on the ruin of, the other.”

“”Football is a sport, people should be relaxed about this. Some will back England, some will not. I’m in the second camp.”

Mahatma Gandhi and Jack McConnell are responsible for one of these. I’m sure you can work it out.

@Math Campbell
Indeed, a party who not only want to govern but also have their country secede from one of the longest-standing political unions in the world, forge ahead as an independent state and re-mold an entire country’s governmental system anew can hardly be described as being “narrow”.

Indeed, a party who not only want to control but also destroy one of the longest-standing political unions in the world, forge ahead as an independent state and re-mold in their attempt at utopia an entire country’s governmental system to better enrich themselves anew can hardly be described as being “narrow”.

Well yes they can be described as narrow; narrow-minded, parochial, delusional (thinking that the EU will actually listen to them of fishing, oil/gas, farming, taxation, interest rates etc).

The racist jibe is well aimed as well, they party bosses may not be racicialists but their rhetoric has always been anti-English and I’ve been listening to their untruths for many a year.

Their activists are not nice people, if they think your accent is English be sure an attack (verbal normally) is soon to come along the lines of get back to England or F*** *** you English B******.

It’s happened to me in the past.

They are also woefully ignorant of the history of the land called Scotland or at least they pretend to be when speaking, again to raise passions.

labour thugs in tartan

@Math Campbell

I forgot to mention.

If you want to have Tom cast down from his seat you’ld be better off switching to libdem but I suspect you’ld rather rip your tongue out than do that, just as I’m unlikely to ever vote libdem.

I suspect that Tom will cling on, mostly because his seat has a fairly large percentage for each of the other parties.

It’ll likely depend on the turn out.

Bet the Batly Townswomen’s Guild could have done better.

National identity is based on culture not geography.

Which is why multiculturalism is antipathetic to an independent nation state.

A country which has replaces a single, significant culture with a melange of cultures, eventually has no single, significant identity left.

Some may see this as desirable. I’m not entirely sure I do, since I consider my culture superior to many others.

Actually Ross Tom spends far more time attacking the Tories than he does attacking the SNP. He also clearly spends more time thinking about the Tories because his attacks on the Tories are focused on policy whereas his attacks on the SNP are really rather vague and tend to be about why Tom thinks people support independence rather than why they actually do.

All of which is quite odd given that the Tories have nae chance in Glasgow South but the SNP do.

Chris the SNP came within 1,800 votes of beating Labour in the Glasgow South area in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election and in the euro elections this year they did beat Labour in Glasgow South.

The Lib Dems and Tories have no chance. It is a straight fight between Labour and the SNP.

Mick Anderson:”It seems that the only fair solution to the West Lothian question is either complete independence for Scotland, or complete integration to the UK.”

As an Englishman I’d opt for complete independence for the Scots. Perhaps the English could be given a referendum on English independence from Scotland? ;o)