Nationalism is Misappropriated by Separatism

That Scotland constitutes a nation in its own right is not up for dispute; the Scottish nation is a political fact. There can be no doubt that Scotland, as separate from the rest of Britain, thinks of itself as sharing a common culture, history, even spirit. Nobody who puts any value in democracy can dismiss Scottish nationalism, no matter how much it cuts against ‘objective’ history, as being of no importance. The fact of the matter is that Scottish nationalism has to be taken seriously by those interested in participatory politics. Moreover, its being a nation has implications for how Scotland ought to be run – or rather, who it ought to be run by. Nationalism is the belief that a people should be self-determining, have the opportunity to express its culture and its identity, and that the nation should have as great a role as possible in its own politics.

All of this being the case, it is no longer possible (if it was ever possible in the first place) for a nation to be self-determining. The global political and economic system is too complex and global interdependence too thoroughly embedded in the operation of the state for any simplistic conception of ‘self-determination’ to be realised.

These two truths present nationalists and those who wish to take nationalism seriously with a dilemma: how to allow (indeed, encourage and support) the expression of a nation’s desire for control over its own affairs when faced with such a powerful global market, such well-established global norms of state policy, and such complex and binding global treaty networks. Not everybody likes the European Union (EU), never mind the euro. But it is regional, multilateral policies that have successfully combatted acid rain and which are the only hope for a sustainable fishing industry (the latter of which is yet to emerge). The European single market has furthermore allowed participating countries to avoid a ‘race to the bottom’ of regulatory and employment frameworks. For example, chemical manufacturers are now obliged to prove that new products are not harmful to the environment rather than government bodies proving that they are (which, due to cost constrains on governments, means that chemicals are much better regulated than they would be without this piece of multilateral regulation). Few would deny that these are examples of the good which being part of a political union can bring. For those that don’t, it is actually an important element of the Scottish National Party’s (SNP’s) platform that an independent Scotland would remain in the EU.

Of course, this doesn’t directly deal with Scotland’s membership in the UK. The arguments for and against that affiliation have been rehearsed many times before, and it’s not worth getting into the nitty-gritty of them here. What is clear though is that there are at least some an advantages to Scotland’s being part of Britain. To name one example: a permanent seat on the UN Security Council; and if international influence doesn’t float your Trident submarine, a good instance of domestic benefit is a secure membership of the EU.

It is absolutely not obvious that a Scotland which seceded unconditionally from the UK would be able to retain the benefits it wanted to. Membership of the EU would be cast into doubt (as a number of legal reports by various agencies have suggested). Scotland’s international influence would wane (which is not just a matter of pride: trade deals, and the terms on which they are made, matter). Monetary issues could very seriously jeopardise the plausibility of Scotland’s political independence: if it keeps the pound, what control would Scotland have over its own monetary policy?

It is hard to see why Scotland would put itself through the arduous process of unambiguous political secession, given that there is no hope for total and unmitigated national sovereignty. Separatism is a misappropriation of nationalism which would be better expressed by a moderate but deadly serious renegotiation of the terms of the Union. Perhaps a strong turnout in favour of secession would provide the political impetus from Scottish leaders and the scare-factor for those in Westminster to give continued devolution the attention that it deserves. But uncompromising separatism no longer makes sense as an expression of nationalism, and there does not seem to be a categorical distinction between the EU and the UK; both are political unions, both have advantages and disadvantages. What nationalism requires of Scottish politicians with regard to both of these affiliations is careful negotiation and consideration of the pros and cons. If a referendum on total political severance is required to get these processes going (or indeed to keep them going), then so be it. But if the separatists win, the bairn will be out with the bathwater.