In 1934 two small parties merged to form what they referred to as a “national movement”.
This new party had no common policies on the serious issues of the day and was sympathetic to fascism as it existed at that time. They believed that expression of “nationhood” would release some sort of “national spirit” that would resolve all problems.
Not much has changed for the Scottish National Party in the interim.
In the 1930’s fascism wasn’t a problem for this new party. At the time they opposed conscription owing to a lack of an independent Scottish government. Today, forces of xenophobia and nationalism are on the rise again in Europe. In France, Hungary, Greece, Finland there are fiercely nationalist, anti-immigrant forces in play. Britain is starting to fall victim to these forces: the rise of BNP, EDL, SDL, UKIP. UKIP are a bit like the SNP – they believe Britain will be “golden” if we walk away from the European Union. The believe in UKIP and the SNP along with others is that “nationalism” or “nationhood” can allow people to become free from oppression and all their problems will be solved. Nationalism is usually defined as being against some enemy “other”.
The “National Movement” are a party without politics; they tacked to the right in the 1970s, to the left in 1980s and 1990s and to the centre today – any position they think that will help them get elected and win their pursuit of independence. They will promise anything to anyone. Behind all their promises is the appeal to the mystic glories of the past, Wallace, Bruce, Bannockburn etc. They have no real position on they economy. their whole basis is that national consciousness will somehow “make all well”.
They promise low-regulation, low-corporate tax to please the right and a strong welfare state to please the left. They’ve never had any interest in the practical consequences of independence, if they had they wouldn’t be scrambling about now trying to figure out how to make it work. They should have had proper, thought out proposals on how an independent Scotland would work from day one, instead its “the same as it is now, no-one will notice a difference”. Where’s the point in having independence then? They care about the ideal of a nation but not about the people who live in it. They fudge questions about the economy and the EU.
The practical problems of the real world have never been of interest to parties based on nationalism. The arguments put forward are already leading to growing national hostility on both sides of the border. That’s what nationalism does and what it feeds off. It uses a romantic past and shared (imagined) grievances to ignore real problems. The manipulation of the referendum to be held in 2014 and lowering the voting age as a one-off smacks of electoral manipulation by a party in power to serve its own ends – that’s an attack on democracy.
Nationalism led to armed world conflicts in the last century, is that what we want?
Nationalism – is that what we want?
In 1934 two small parties merged to form what they referred to as a “national movement”.
This new party had no common policies on the serious issues of the day and was sympathetic to fascism as it existed at that time. They believed that expression of “nationhood” would release some sort of “national spirit” that would resolve all problems.
Not much has changed for the Scottish National Party in the interim.
In the 1930’s fascism wasn’t a problem for this new party. At the time they opposed conscription owing to a lack of an independent Scottish government. Today, forces of xenophobia and nationalism are on the rise again in Europe. In France, Hungary, Greece, Finland there are fiercely nationalist, anti-immigrant forces in play. Britain is starting to fall victim to these forces: the rise of BNP, EDL, SDL, UKIP. UKIP are a bit like the SNP – they believe Britain will be “golden” if we walk away from the European Union. The believe in UKIP and the SNP along with others is that “nationalism” or “nationhood” can allow people to become free from oppression and all their problems will be solved. Nationalism is usually defined as being against some enemy “other”.
The “National Movement” are a party without politics; they tacked to the right in the 1970s, to the left in 1980s and 1990s and to the centre today – any position they think that will help them get elected and win their pursuit of independence. They will promise anything to anyone. Behind all their promises is the appeal to the mystic glories of the past, Wallace, Bruce, Bannockburn etc. They have no real position on they economy. their whole basis is that national consciousness will somehow “make all well”.
They promise low-regulation, low-corporate tax to please the right and a strong welfare state to please the left. They’ve never had any interest in the practical consequences of independence, if they had they wouldn’t be scrambling about now trying to figure out how to make it work. They should have had proper, thought out proposals on how an independent Scotland would work from day one, instead its “the same as it is now, no-one will notice a difference”. Where’s the point in having independence then? They care about the ideal of a nation but not about the people who live in it. They fudge questions about the economy and the EU.
The practical problems of the real world have never been of interest to parties based on nationalism. The arguments put forward are already leading to growing national hostility on both sides of the border. That’s what nationalism does and what it feeds off. It uses a romantic past and shared (imagined) grievances to ignore real problems. The manipulation of the referendum to be held in 2014 and lowering the voting age as a one-off smacks of electoral manipulation by a party in power to serve its own ends – that’s an attack on democracy.
Nationalism led to armed world conflicts in the last century, is that what we want?