It’s Normal

A strength of Yes is that it is composed of different strands of opinion which all want better solutions for Scotland. I do too and put my faith in the Scots themselves to create the country we desire when we have the control to do so. We all have the right to our own nuanced version of political thought and to call it, and ourselves, whatever we choose and to be defined by that.

Each strand is interpreted according to our own education and attitudes. Therefore nationalism means different things to different folks. If you only think of it as an alien force, the chances are it means Irish Republicanism, any side you care name in the Bosnian conflict and, of course, to put the lid on it, Nazism.

If you see it as a natural state of mind, like me, you see nationalism in Mandela, Ghandi and Bolivar. In my personal experience, every time I’ve met people from other countries – usually asking them political questions in my role as reporter – their feelings for their home are painfully powerful, both in praise of, or in protest at, the state of their nation. In Russia or Finland. Czech Republic or Slovakia. The Basque Country. France. Germany. The USA. In Poland and Romania, it’s the same. It’s true people don’t tend to say I’m a Nationalist, or I’m a Patriot. They say, with feeling, I’m Russian or Finnish in the same way we say we’re Scots. But for almost all of the above they don’t differentiate between nationalism and patriotism. They don’t say: I love my country but I reject the idea of my national government. To everybody I’ve ever met, their country is the whole kit and caboodle, the land, the people, the state and, crucially the history. Or, as I think of it, the legends they have spun about their country without which no nation survives.

The Slovaks didn’t say: I love the country but I preferred the government to be in Prague. Whether it’s little Slovakia with the same size population as Scotland or giant Germany with many times more, acceptance of their country as one sovereign whole is a given. Sharing powers through the EU is one thing but surrendering their national independence to Brussels is another completely.

We have to remember that our position in Scotland as a nation without statehood is rare indeed. We have assumed the role of regional authority like a German land or krajov of Slovakia when our history shows us to be much more – a former fully independent, internationally recognised state, in so far as descriptions applied three centuries ago. It is only here in Scotland that we pirouette on the head of a pin over patriotism and nationalism. Who else have you ever met who boasted: I love my country but don’t want it to govern itself? I much prefer it to be in a minority in another parliament where it can always be outvoted and where parties we don’t support will dictate our budget and policies. I don’t think my country should have independence because it really wouldn’t be able to do the job properly (unlike Slovakia).

Most foreign listeners would reply: Then it’s not your country at all. You can’t care enough about it to call it your nation. You may call yourself Scottish but you are in fact British. Britain is your country.

The years of Union have so seduced us that we can brag about Scotland without noticing we aren’t actually a country at all. We have every trapping and trimming except the one that matters – political power. Nationalism in Scotland is the completion of the logic that applies to every country in the United Nations – self-government. I don’t say, and have never heard a Nationalist say – that we think we are better than everybody else with the dark hint of racial superiority. The demand is purely that we be the same as everybody else. It is that we think we are as good as every body else. If we suffer any national psychosis at all it is surely the opposite of triumphalism – it is self-doubt and lack of confidence. Isn’t that what the basis of Project Fear amounted to? We’ll remind them we hold the power and threaten them with withdrawal? And did it work? Well, yes.

The meaning of nationalism has moved on from the 18th century definition, even if Unionists haven’t. Modern nationalism – in countries where self-government is taken for granted – means finding ways of collective national expression. A classic example I always give is the German mittelstand, the high quality manufacturing companies with a strong community and family ethic which survive for generations through wise, usually regional, investment; tight-run management and investment in the workforce. They resist foreign takeover. It is a German speciality, a unique type of working that brings money in and makes people proud – a collective expression of the German national character. That to me is nationalism in action, taking the best a country has and nurturing it, using it as a beacon of national achievement. In its way it also does what Unionists claim to abhor – it ‘others’ Germany’s neighbours and says: Look. We do this really well and you don’t. Nationalists, eh?

Some of you may have spotted at this point a wee contradiction. Britain too likes to boast on the international stage. When a new warship was launched last February, the government and the media went bananas on how wonderful the HMS Queen Elizabeth was – ‘the engineering equivalent of the Olympics’ (itself a ‘British triumph’).

Britain is probably the world’s most vainglorious nationalist nation, cleverly building a reputation out of cardboard while pushing nationalism into the realms of imperialism by claiming the right to hold mass destruction weapons and currently bombing a country without any legal mandate. But, oddly, you’ll look a long time for the word nationalism ever to be attributed to the UK by Scottish Unionist pundits.

The world looks to the United Nations for peaceful leadership. The UN is composed entirely of nations. Every one of them is nationalistic. Try goading Russia from Ukraine. Try filming China ‘growing’ its country with islands in the South China Sea. Ask an American if he believes in the USA. What do you think is being expressed when the French spontaneously sing the Marseilles? Is it patriotism or nationalism when Paris insists on keeping the EP in Strasbourg whatever the cost?

The desperate scraping and journalistic wheedling by Scots to justify their dual stance as proud Scots and good Brits has poisoned the meaning of nationalism for many despite being the natural state of affairs for 99.9 per cent of the world’s population.

There is nothing wrong with being a Unionist. It just means you put Britain before Scotland. But please stop insulting those of us who put Scotland and the Scots at the centre of our interest by pretending we’re lesser humans. It’s Unionism that is exceptional. We are the norm.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

42 thoughts on “It’s Normal

  1. Bugger (the Panda)

    Amen.

  2. What BTP says!

  3. Scotland regaining its independence will go some way in diminishing “vainglorious” British nationalism. We’re doing the world a favour – and ourselves.

  4. I have travelled the globe as merchant seaman. Nowhere did I see many who were self hating, self loathing racists as in my native Scotland. I know, like the Anglo Indian, many colonials sooked up to the British and thought their own people were inferior. Where did all these North British cringers come from, apart from the Labour Party, machine?

    Scottish, Irish and Welsh Nationalism does claim to be superior to anyone else, nor do they wish to rule anyone else. British Nationalism – well.

  5. The succinct academic/theoretical difference between nationalism and patriotism (rather than in practice and perception) was once explained to me in Germany by a Hungarian Virologist regarding the Scottish referendum, where Nationalism was about the expressed political will of the Scottish (including every rag tag and bobtail of them or ‘civic’ in other words) as a political entity and Patriotism is about the love of your country above your own interests. So – by that simple definition, i’d say that Wallace was possibly Scotland’s only patriot (NOT Bruce) and Hitler was definitely NOT a patriot.

    Hope that doesn’t upset anyone. and Yes, it’s normal.

    • Interesting that you think that Wallace, the plucky loser, was the real pure patriot, while Bruce, one of the greatest European kings, was NOT. A very Scottish cringe there – success is not to be trusted, failure is noble. That’s what ‘British’ history has been telling us for 200 years, it is supposed to reconcile us to the Union. Bruce chased the throne, that was normal for the age, but he also led a popular revolt against an English tyranny which would have given us a tragic history of racial war like Ireland’s if he had failed.

      • Wallace, Burns and Bruce and John MacLean were the three main heroes of the Scottish Working class. They died young, were betrayed and classed a failures by the British ruling class.

      • I think you are missing his point. It’s nowt to do with the Scottish cringe or Wallace’s eventual failure. It is about the fact that Bruce fought to rule Scotland, not to free it, however much he may or may not have loved it. All your points about Bruce are true but irrelevant to the comment’s attempt to define ‘patriot’.

        • Bruce was a mighty hero King, who undoubtedly freed Scotland by successful guerrilla war tactics and who won a civil war against his rival claimants. Scots may admire and respect him as a man of the times, who came round eventually and as the Declaration of Arbroath 1320 stated, that if he should sell us oot then we would adopt another King.

          Wallace, who was the second son of an obscure Knight from Elderslie was loved and adored by the common people as someone who gave his all and for Scottish Independence and Sovereignty would never have sold out. Sir James de Menteith was of the class who sold him out at the Traitor’s Tower, still standing at the Rutherglen Kirk in Rutherglen High St, right next to the modern Traitor’s Tower, flying a huge Butcher’s Apron from the Labour bastion’s Cooncil Tower. Menteith was the Sherriff of Dumbarton who took him from The Wallacewell at Robroyston; along by the Campsies to Dumbarton Castle for four butchered being bin the London meat market. The plaque to the “Wallace Room has been removed from Dumbarton Castle in an attempt to say he never there. The Robroyston Monument was raised by subscription in 1900. When Glasgow Labour Cooncil tried to raze t his area for private housing developers they wanted no trace and claimed, wrongly, that there was “no proof” that the he was ever betrayed there. Nearby Asda and Aldi gave a few hundred pounds towards the makeover of the neglected monument. There are still no road signs to mark this obscure place. There is nothing from the Cooncil, National Trust, or National Heritage to mark the spot. If this had been Wullie Shakespeare’s hose, instead of Oor Wullie there would have been a whole heritage industry around the area. You would think that Glasgow would have had plaques or statues to cash in on the Braveheart film to benefit the City: nae chance, just the usual Labour hate and bile. For years they resisted a Statue to Wallace in Cathedral Square to mark the Battle of the Bell of the Braes where he took the Bishop’s Castle from the English and chased them back to Bothwell Castle and defeated them again there. After years of prevaricating they agreed to allow the statue to be placed in Provand’s Lordship backyard to be viewed at opening times. Now they have finally agreed to have it hidden in the neglected Necropolis graveyard, where nobody goes except down and outs, alcoholics, drug addicts and the faeries.

          The name of Wallace is still revered, just much as snitches and class traitors are still reviled to this day. The problem for Labour is that the struggle for e still goes and they still oppose Keir Hardie and John MacLean’s love of Wallace, their class country worth fighting for. Today Labour is firmly in the other camp waiting fort their come uppance and history to catch up on them.

  6. “If you see it as a natural state of mind, like me, you see nationalism in Mandela, Ghandi and Bolivar.”

    Clearly you haven’t considered the august wisdom of Kenny Farquharson:

    “The tricky thing here is to define what you mean by nationalism as opposed to, say, a patriotic love of your county or an entirely admirable desire to defend and advance the Scottish national interest. I usually define nationalism as ‘my country right or wrong’, with a world view that sees the rights of Scotland and the Scots as having primacy over the rights of other nations. To put it simply, it is a branch of political philosophy that can be summed up as ‘we arra peepul, and you urny’.”

    Either that, or Mr Farquharson thinks Mandela, Gandhi and Bolivar were motivated by “my country right or wrong,” that South Africa/India/Venezuela have primacy over the rights of other nations, and think “we arra peepul, and you urny.” To be frank, I wouldn’t be surprised.

    • Thanks for that. It was good to be reminded of the awfulness of the scrapping and journalistic wheedling and the seer smugness and intellectual laziness.

      • It was sickening to see right wing Labourites hanging on the coat tails of Nelson Mandela. Kinnickio called for him to renounce violence before he could be released, Thatcher just called for his release with no strings attached. Naming Mandela Square did not compensate for their crimes in George Square.

  7. ” I don’t say, and have never heard a Nationalist say – that we think we are better than everybody else with the dark hint of racial superiority.”

    Hohoho….

    Has Mr Bateman not heard of Siol Na Gaidhael?

    Aka ‘Settler watch’?

    Dearie me, still while he has his rose tinted spectacles on, I’m not surprised.

    http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/demog.htm

    “Anyway, should we swap our English for their Scots it would offer the exciting and interesting prospect of so many Scots returnees, qualified primarily by their nationality, having to manage and administer a thousand projects formerly run by English settlers who were themselves qualified for their jobs essentially by their ethnicity.

    Meanwhile, the displaced English, more used to being snivelled after in lofty positions in “Scotlandshire”, would return home to lesser situations albeit more realistically reflecting their true abilities and talents.”

    Seems Mr Bateman did not look very hard among the Nationalist community, for those with notions of racial superiority, for they have always been there, even if Mr Bateman and many Nationalists pretend they are not…

    • Are you out of your bed again Stuart?
      Before the nurse comes to get you, can you answer this question.
      Should Scotland EVER be an independent country?

      • Oh I’m out of my bed alright son, I’ve been too busy reading this, somehow it reminded me of you and of Derek Bateman, I can’t imagine why…

        “SNP loyalists don’t quite know how to handle RISE so have gone with their strengths and lashed out. (Upon hearing that there were other parties, GA Ponsonby wept that he had not yet denounced them.)

        Lending your second vote to one of the smaller parties, they warn darkly, will only help more Unionists escape the justice of the Scottish people.

        Crucially for a political strategy devised by and for furious middle aged men who spend their evenings in their Y-fronts typing “BIAS!!!!” under every Herald article, it has a hashtag. #BothVotesSNP is where frustrated extremism meets low-level neddery.

        It’s as if residents of The Scheme joined ISIS but stuck to handing out leaflets down the precinct on Saturday afternoons instead of flying out to Raqqa.

        # But there’s more…

        “Derek Bateman, a former BBC broadcaster turned cyber pied piper to the paranoid and the aggrieved, is commendably honest about this division in motivation.

        In response to the #BothVotesSNP schism, he writes: “For me as, I admit, an old style Nationalist, the attainment of national sovereignty is the ultimate prize. It isn’t just an ambition that would be fine to claim, it is an all-consuming passion to see our country break free from restriction and diktat by others to join the family of nations. I desire independence (almost) no matter what kind of country results.”

        You can read it all here;

        http://news.stv.tv/scotland/1339938-stephen-daisley-rise-and-fall-of-yes-alliance-a-predictable-affair/

        • “# But there’s more…

          “Derek Bateman, a former BBC broadcaster turned cyber pied piper to the paranoid and the aggrieved, is commendably honest about this division in motivation.

          In response to the #BothVotesSNP schism, he writes: “For me as, I admit, an old style Nationalist, the attainment of national sovereignty is the ultimate prize. It isn’t just an ambition that would be fine to claim, it is an all-consuming passion to see our country break free from restriction and diktat by others to join the family of nations. I desire independence (almost) no matter what kind of country results.”

          Hardly a priority of the SSP.

        • Hi Stuart, I’m sorry if your medication is making this difficult for you so I’m happy to give you a little friendly jolt as a reminder that you haven’t answered my question above.

        • You’re using Stephen Daisley as part of your “argument”?! Ha ha ha! Hilarious!

  8. One of your best yet, Derek. Thank you. Instead of referring to unionists, should we start calling them British Nationalists?

  9. Margaret Brogan

    Thanks, Derek. Beautifully crafted, with not a superfluous word.

  10. Well argued, Mr Bateman.
    I remember being accosted in Wroclaw, late at night, by a crowd of Polish skinheads who were nationalists, as they claimed.
    Having heard that I was Scottish they didn’t pursue the matter of my wallet but, instead, gave a little of their warped view of life.
    They asked me to praise Mrs Thatcher, Hitler and the IRA as being on the same track.
    That kind of ignoramus is what the Unionists recognise, use and would love to brand as being an Independence supporter. We have seen the West using that in Syria and Ukraine.
    Fortunately, we don’t have to follow the Unionist agenda with regard to our expression of our right to decide for ourselves.

  11. Irvine Manderson

    With the price of oil per barrel at a new low, and the unionists and their media lackeys claiming that Scotland’s oil is now worthless, the time is right for the Scottish Government to call Westminster’s bluff by offering to take Scotland’s oil and gas reserves off Westminster’s hands.

  12. Fantastic, Derek. Spot on!

  13. Dr F Steinberger.

    As a one time scholar of nationalism and academic I take issue with the assertions made here based on factual content and interpretation – in fact it is so far wide of the mark as to merit comment. The ethical dimension of nationalism I’ll leave to others, except to say that simply because it is prevalent among peoples and is a potent political force (mainly if not exclusively negative in historical terms) doesn’t make it necessarily right or desirable. Also, nationalism is not simply a case of cultural identity, nor the negation of it, nor of political agency, nor the negation of it – as what is being suggested here, the fusion of the two for populist ends

    But back to the facts. It is stated that Scotland is the only country without statehood and that single unitary states based on quasi separate or full historical development and a shared sense of culture are the norm and that this is somehow ‘natural’ is wrong – all political and social constructs are artificial – to imply this is not so, is worrying as it assumes a primordial dimension that characterised National Socialism that the article professes to distain.

    Not so. In reality the opposite is the case. The vast majority of states are multi-national in composition and fall along old lines of Empire (which historically has been the norm) – most states in the UN, are more like the UK in composition – even though other cultural groupings within are recognised. Almost all African states are multi national, including South Africa, the clue being in the name ‘Rainbow’ nation – based on the equal shared sovereignty of Xhosa, Zulu, Bantu, Herero, Orange Free State Afrikans etc etc. To claim that Mandela was a nationalist in the sense put forward in this article is plain insulting given his inclusive ‘non cultural or non ethnic’ multi national approach to the new South Africa.

    The same also goes for Ghandi. Being an anti imperialist is not the same as being a ‘nationalist’. I think Nehru is perhaps who you are thinking of? In fact Ghandi was implacably opposed to Indian partition and Hindu nationalism and conceived of a liberated India as a civilisation state that included many different historical nations which it remains today. Similar multi national states include Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma/ Mayanmar, Cambodia, Malaysia, the Philipines, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and many more. Even countries that are tended to be considered single entity nation states usually have a multi national/ authority dimension to their constitution – Norway is based on the parliaments of Norwegians and the Sami. Japan recognises cultural autonomy for the historic nation or Okinawa and the Ryuku Kingdom which during the Ming Dynasty was under the administration of China and only unified with greater Japan in the 19th century. And of course the mother of all civilisation states is China with 52 officially recognised nationalities in it’s constitution (Don’t confuse Han nationalism – which is similar to the nationalism put forward here – with the Chinese conception of civilazation – hence Tibet, Xinjiang, and Gansu). Similarly, Bolivar was mentioned as an example of ‘nationalism’. Again this is historically wrong as the liberation from Spain was a pan national movement including multiple historical indigenous ‘nations’ and modern nations. Bolivar was not Bolivian but Venezualan and ruled over a territory that stretched from Argentina to Central America – despite them being separate nations. The same goes for the Middle East – it was the failure of Baathist Pan Arab Nationalism and the attempted confederation of all the Arab nations/ tribes and peoples, that led to many of the sectarian problems we see today.

    Germany was also mentioned, yet the composite Lander are based on historical units that have as much claim to an historical indentity as Scotland – perhaps more so. The Kingdom Prussia, Pomerania, Bavaria, Westfalia, Bohemia, Alsace and Lorraine (now in France), was conceived of as a Reich with the northern Prussian Protestant Confederation calling the shots over the Catholic states. Bismark’s Nationalism was more like the equivalent British Nationalism of the time. The driving force for German unification in the 19th century was the destructive legacy of the 30 years war and the need to end conflict and cooperate vis a vis the surrounding Empires of France, Sweden, Hapsburg and Denmark – just like the UK act of Union. The same goes for the historical nations of Italy – Lombardy, the Veneto, Florence Medici, Genoa, The Tyrol etc etc. Turkey is similarly a multi national entity as is Russia (see the Tatars in the Ukraine) as is Morocco, as is Algeria, as is Iran (the modern state is based on the multi national Persian Empire that stretched to Afghanistan.)

    In fact contrary to the assertion that most progressive states are single entity unitary states is unfounded. It is the opposite that is the more common state of affairs.

    • On the basis of your comment, there can be no nationality as everyone is unique. I was tempted to point to Iceland as a homogeneous society, but it is not if the outcome of their constitutional consultation are to be believed. Equally New Zealand fails on multi-ethnic grounds. How can Maori and later settlers ever live together?

      We therefore see failure everywhere.

      Yet neither Iceland nor New Zealand appear to want to tear themselves apart. Perhaps they have some common interests that their populations see as superceeding and rivalry. At least to the extent that they are content withing their geographical boundaries. It equally strikes me that the Republic of Ireland, is also, largely, content.

      For all the examples that you raise, they seem to me to be exemplified by the somewhat ridiculous straight lines drawn on the map of Africa by European colonists, working out of London, Paris and the like. Empires, such as the British Raj can contain nationalism, of that there is little doubt, what they cannot do is kill it.

  14. I thought Gordon “North British” Broon represented the ultimate in the Scottish Cringe factor of “Proud Scot – BUT” syndrome. Stuart has just assumed blustering BritNat Broon’s tinsel crown.

  15. I don’t know who lit a fire under you around the new year, Derek, but long may this run of work continue. Had I two pennies to rub together, I’d buy you a fine burgundy for you troubles.

    Also, there’s a very solid theory that Settler Watch/Scotland Watch may never have actually existed. Yes, Siol na Gaidhael does seem to exist, but given that membership of such organisations (or even suspicion of membership, or being known to associate with suspected members) has long been grounds for rapid expulsion from the SNP, it’s pretty silly to claim that they’re anything other than a tiny, tiny fringe. I mean, you can bet that if any member could be found during the referendum campaign, they’d have been mentioned somewhere in the Mail or the Telegraph and doorstepped to demonstrate the “dark side of Yes.” It’s even more ridiculous than suggesting that Oswald Mosley proves that fascism is a central plank of Labour Party philosophy.

    • The S n G is still alive and also operates under the auspices of the “Society of William Wallace”, which used to be the “William Wallace Commemoration Committee”. It now claims to be “apolitical” and is registered as a “charitable” organisation.

    • Settler Watch did once exist, unfortunately. But its members quickly realised it was a mistake and it disbanded.

  16. Of course we shall not mention those men in bowler hats wearing hi-viz garments, whom I presume to be but a fringe of Britnattery. Imagine supporting a state when there is no convincing reason for doing so?

    Britain is failing. It prefers to invest where it suits the Westminster Establishment. Build warships, yes, but provide education, training, transport infrastructure…only with strings attached, leaving folk short-changed.

    Given half a chance they will turn Yookay into a base for the laundering of dodgy money, with the general population employed as shoe-shines.

    Leave EU: protect London from Euro scrutiny?

    Instead, vote SNP twice: protect working rights.

    • “Given half a chance they will turn Yookay into a base for the laundering of dodgy money, with the general population employed as shoe-shines. ”

      A wonderful quote Janet and painfully accurate.

  17. “Given half a chance they will turn Yookay into a base for the laundering of dodgy money, with the general population employed as shoe-shines.”

    Job’s already half done!

    As for the South China Sea, this is a long read, but worthwhile. Tell the Malaysians, the Filipinos and the Viets that the idea of the nation is passe (a little myth that British nationalism tells itself to deflect observation of the sorry collapse of its own power in the last century).

    http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/

    Remember the 2015 General Election: the “Labour” Party’s refusal to parlay with the Scots was the victory of English nationalism over British nationalism. A choice the party made in response to a Tory challenge.

    Sorry to repeat myself…

  18. A great article Derek.

  19. A timely reminder to all the moaners who you seem to have been attracted recently , who appear to have missed the whole point of your thoughts and opinions ,despite your many warnings on splits , divisions ,in fighting , they still don’t get it the main objective is “Independence” ,nothing else matters , a question to all the nutjobs who regularly blindly on cue attack the SNP Government , where is there an credible competent alternative out there ? please feel free to examine the record and achievements of previous administrations in our Parliament, let me give you just one example “PFI” the gift that keeps on taking , that little gem will be with us for some time to come and figures prominently in the Scottish budget , just like a leaking tap drip drip drip draining much needed resources from our health service , until an alternative is produced to take over please feel free to shut the f/k up , with all due respect of course.

  20. “Who else have you ever met who boasted: I love my country but don’t want it to govern itself? I much prefer it to be in a minority in another parliament where it can always be outvoted and where parties we don’t support will dictate our budget and policies. I don’t think my country should have independence because it really wouldn’t be able to do the job properly (unlike Slovakia).”

    Oh, only about 85% of the population of Wales and about 90% of their political ‘representatives’. But then we were conquered and annexed, not simply betrayed by our ‘native’ ruling class (that came afterwards). The national inferiority complex results in people claiming to be ‘proud to be Welsh’, but whose ‘patriotism’ consists solely of painting the national flag on their faces and sitting in an over-priced seat in an over-praised sports stadium watching two groups of management consultants playing with their balls. All other times, they vote unionist, wave someone else’s flag and condemn ‘nashies’.

    Count your blessings, people of Scotland! You haven’t forgotten that you’re a nation, with all the inalienable rights of one (as Derek says).

    • I know well what you are describing as I was brought up in a Scotland that was the same. I never ever believed that this awakening had any chance of happening. Look where we are now.

      Your time Will come. Thank you Wales for your support.

  21. I can’t really get into the heads of Proud Scots But types. The only thing I can come to is that they either have a warped idea of what Scotland is, i.e., as Scotland The Brave, proud ally and supine junior manager of the wondrous British Empire, or else they don’t really feel Scottish at all, but British. I’m OK with that – nothing wrong with feeling you’re British.

    I just wish they’d recognise that we feel the same about Scotland as they do about Britain. Why is British nationalism OK and is called patriotism, but Scottish nationalism not, and called fascism?

  22. Great article Derek and very well said !

  23. Just into where do the PFI payments drip? Surely not the baled-out banks, London laundry Plc. via their corporate customers?

  24. A great article, one of the very few clear-eyed looks at nationalism and patriotism, which is almost made impossible in the fallout from indyref. It is well worth pointing out the utter oddness of the position of those who want to be proud of Scotland as a country, but when given the vote chose to continue the rule of a foreign, inimical parliament. That’s two of my sisters and one of my brothers.

    Following the comment thread we can think up all sort of clever names for them, but let’s get back to work and persuade them of the strengths and viability of our country and it’s independent future. And we don’t need to be embarrassed by or deny the existence of the few extremists who do think porridgy DNA is superior.

    BTW, has anybody else noticed that UKIP et al are using the indyref tag for leaving the EU!

  25. Derek, a wee bit late to the party with this one but never-the-less want to post my support of your stance during these past couple of blogs.
    My view on Independence is that we get it, then refine and mould it.
    The economics is significant but for me does not determine my views on whether or not Scotland should be an Independent country.
    You want it to be Independent or not?
    That should be the fundamental question.
    It is my belief that if/when Scotland becomes Independent, the rUk will be forced into a new, less right, more caring equilibrium because the rUK will look at what Scotland will be doing with what it has and wonder, ‘how come we are bigger and are being shafted?’
    Once again, thanks for your blog and for putting into words most succinctly what many of us feel.

Leave a Reply