DETERMINANTS OF INDEPENDENCE NATIONALISM

Paper 5 in the hugely popular ten part series from Professor Alf Baird which has kicked off an excellent debate across the country and has people examining much more closely a range of issues that are crucial in determining our prospects of winning Independence for Scotland. This week’s topic is nationalism. Enjoy.


5. Nationalism

There are different forms and definitions of nationalism depending on the specific objectives of the national entities and peoples concerned. Nationalism in its simplest sense implies that a nation’s people should be free to govern themselves, which is effectively what Self-determination nationalism is. 

Trans-national nationalism, on the other hand, is quite different given this involves one country extending its sphere of influence and control over other, usually neighbouring,countries. Trans-national nationalism is invariably undertaken aggressively and provokes conflict, which in turn leads to demands from oppressed peoples for independence and hence Self-determination nationalism.

Trans-national nationalism involves the occupation by one country of other countries and assuming control over these territories and peoples. Self-determination (or Decolonisation) nationalism, in contrast, relates primarily to the Self-determination and self-government of a single nation and its people. The latter does not involve occupation of neighbouring countries, nor does it lead to their economic exploitation, neither does it involve enforced cultural and linguistic (Imperialism) measures imposed on other peoples’, the latter a common feature of Trans-national nationalism. Within the UK ‘union’, Scotland clearly demonstrates many of the features, and therefore retains a legacy of being subjected to Trans-national nationalism. 

Ongoing cultural assimilation has resulted in some Scots developing what Professor Tom Devine termed a ‘dual identity’; this means many Scots live with ‘a complex mix of Scottish and Britishness’ in terms of their national identity. Post Indyref14 research suggests that the constitutional question on Scottish independence is really a question of these two competing identities, which is an outcome reflecting the influence of Trans-National nationalism. This is a consequence of a different (i.e. English / Anglophone) culture and language having been imposed on the Scottish people via Trans-national nationalism, a people who at the same time are deprived of learning and hence respecting and valuing their own (Scots) language. 

The policy of cultural assimilation in Trans-national nationalism is combined with economic exploitation, and occupation, the latter in large part creating and constantly reinforcing an Anglophone meritocracy and hence an Anglophone cultural hegemony in Scotland. Taken together, all of these aspects involving socio-political control and economic exploitation over a people and territory reflect key objectives of Trans-national nationalism.

Oppressed peoples, according to Frantz Fanon, must therefore ‘fight for the survival of their national culture’, the basis of which is their language, which in turn means a fight for the liberation and freedom of the nation itself. National culture lies ‘at the very heart of the struggle for freedom’ and provides the motivation for Self-determination / Decolonisation nationalism and hence independence from an oppressor that is enforcing control and exploitation via policies and practices that reflect Trans-national nationalism.

Research in Northern Ireland established that unionism there is viewed as a form of Britishnationalism (Pettigrew 2016). In this context unionism is considered to be an ideological nationalism, and with that comes what is described as a ‘culturally-intertwined political identity’. In Northern Ireland, unionists are deemed to hold an innate emotional attachment to Britain, and thus approach any constitutional question ‘through the prism of identity rather than via any monetary lens’. Given the data on voting outcomes in indyref14, it may be hypothesized that unionism and its influence on national identity is not so very much different in Scotland when it comes to important constitutional matters such as Scottish-independence.

Indigenous peoples seeking national self-determination tend to share a common identity which naturally is culturally and linguistically determined, as reflecting the criteria and definition of ‘a people’, according to the UN/ICJ, which includes factors such as their; traditions and culture, ethnicity, history and heritage, language, religion, sense of identity or kinship, the will to constitute a people, and common suffering. However, those opposed to independence may instead reflect other more dominant external cultural and linguistic influences which help determine or even alter their national identity, which is one of the objectives of Trans-national nationalism (and Colonialism).

Frantz Fanon noted that it is a peoples’ culture which best represents the expression of their national consciousness, because our national consciousness ‘is the most elaborate form of culture’. Fanon also made the point that: ‘national consciousness, which is not nationalism, is the only thing that will give us an international dimension’; a people subjected to Trans-national nationalism are, by implication, prevented from enjoying or benefitting from an ‘international dimension’ to a large extent. Here the socio-economic interests of the colonise rare furthered by diminishing and demeaning the notion or extent of national consciousness in the minds of the colonised people, which is in large part achieved through marginalising and subordinating their culture and killing off their language (i.e. linguicide), much as has occurred with a Scottish people still today subjected to domination through British/English Trans-national nationalism.

Trans-national nationalism and its oppressions therefore involve a degree of British/Englishxenophobia as applying to Scotland, the latter reflecting prejudice – by the British Anglophone ruling hegemony – against Scottish culture and with that the Scots language, Scottish identity and Scottish aspirations for self-government and Self-determination (i.e.independence), all of which Trans-national nationalism seeks to suppress. This represents the reaction of (British/English) Trans-national nationalism which depends on Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism measures to maintain an Anglophone ruling hegemony that views Scotland as ‘its’ territory (or colony) and considers Scottish independence as ‘separation ,rather than a sovereign Scottish people merely withdrawing from a dubious treaty-based alliance (i.e. the UK ‘union’).

Civic nationalism’, which is all too often stressed by the SNP Scottish Government, is defined as an association of people from different nations and identities who identify themselves as ‘belonging to a nation’Civic nationalism may sound positive in theory, however, Self-determination stands to be thwarted when those granted national voting rights do not share the same desire for a given national identity or in holding its citizenship, as the ‘people’ seeking Self-determination and independence.

Self-determination clearly stands the risk of failing for a nation and people where, for instance due to demographic change, a significant portion of the voting population has limited or no innate desire for a Scottish identity, or hold a sense of ‘belonging’ to the nation and ‘people’ seeking Self-determination. Post Indyref14 research (Bond 2015) reflects this in the finding that: ‘Many of those who contributed to the decision on Scotland’s constitutional future in 2014 would not understand themselves as subjectively Scottish at all’. Securing national independence first therefore seems an essential pre-requisite before Civic-nationalism ideals may reasonably be implemented.

The stated raison d’être of Britain’s/England’s governing Tories is to create a ‘one-nation’Britain within what is evidently now little more than the guise of a ‘union’. This objective essentially confirms the prevailing British political ideology as Trans-national nationalism which constitutes a nationalist political ideology, despite being referred to as ‘unionism’.Trans-national nationalism is by its nature an aggressive form of nationalism given it involves occupation, exploitation, coercion and control by a dominant core country together with the imposition of its culture, values and language on other nations and peoples, as well as the installation of a meritocratic elite and cultural hegemony that reflects and represents the interests of the dominant entity. Trans-national nationalism is clearly an oppressive political ideology imposed upon other nations and peoples with the intent to subjugate and exploit them. 

British Trans-national nationalism therefore involves exploitation and oppression of Scotland and its people. Conversely, Scottish independence and Self-determination nationalism have nothing whatever to do with occupation of neighbouring countries, nor does this form of nationalism involve enforcement of (Scottish) cultural and linguistic imperialism measures, or the economic exploitation and political oppression of other peoples. Trans-nationalnationalism, on the other hand, requires and demands all of these oppressive acts in varying measures – occupation, economic exploitation, cultural and linguistic imperialism, and external political control (Hochman 2015).

Trans-national nationalism is effectively Colonialism, which the UN maintains is a ‘scourge’and should be ended. The desire of Scotland’s people in seeking Self-determination and the pursuit of independence, which may also be described as Anti-colonial nationalism, is a reaction to the oppressions brought about through Trans-national nationalism. Scotland’s quest for independence is therefore Self-determination or Anti-colonial nationalism which is a valid and indeed a typical and well-understood response of any people subjected to the ‘scourge’ of Colonialism and Trans-national nationalism.

Self-determination for the Scottish people is primarily about their liberation from British/English Trans-national nationalist exploitation, oppression and subjugation and hence it is about their Decolonisation. This rightful objective must remain paramount for Scotland’s people, and should not be subject to external interference by any other peoples, as stated in the UN Charter.

MY COMMENTS

Alf’s latest paper adds to this excellent series of papers which is widening the knowledge of the challenges and issues key to winning the battle for Scottish Independence. I have had many messages from readers saying how much they feel they have benefitted from reading this series and there is no doubt it has kicked off a real debate, particularly on the need for a fairer franchise if we stick to a route that involves any referendum. Once again I am indebted to the good Professor for sharing his knowledge

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND.

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.

Professor Baird’s Book

Is called Doun Hauden and is available from Amazon UK.

Image.jpeg

34 thoughts on “DETERMINANTS OF INDEPENDENCE NATIONALISM

  1. I actually believe that ‘civic nationalism’ is the very thing that has pushed the SNP towards a neoliberal economic approach. It is an attempt to capture the middle class, which will likely include many newcomers to Scotland – a ‘home from home’, if you like, but more Blairite than Tory. It will fail for the reasons mentioned above regarding cultural identity and ‘belonging’ and of course the ‘fear’ of hard borders promised by WM. The working class will simply lose interest in a ‘mini’ Britain and quite possibly look to the prospect of a U.K. wide progressive left party that needs to oust labour.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Pmsl you are joking ? Scots hate the WM Tory mob and we will never give up on our freedom from their greed. To think we will is crazy

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m in the process of studying Alf Baird’s book DOUN HOUDEN. He opens up and shines a light on so many subjects which have been deliberately but quietly smothered over the years. I’m thoroughly enjoying grasping the information and lucid explanation for our condition in Scotland today. The book is a MUST READ for every Scot.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. I completely agree Jan that is why that as many read these articles as possible. It widens people’s knowledge about why these issues are intentionally sidelined. We all need to share so everyone is aware of the game.

      Liked by 11 people

      1. I didn’t get the email alerting me to the new article on your blog, Iain. I subscribed again to find that I’d ” Already subscribed” but still no email. Any ideas? Fortunately I was looking for your promised Sunday article so didn’t miss out. Be good if you know what’s gone wrong. (Surely Nicola hasn’t grabbed that much power!!)

        Like

  3. Lord Frost says, that a Treat isn’t binding and can be modified or broken by either partner involved in that treaty, I’ll take Lord Frost word on this as being correct. So the treaty of union can be modifed or broken or Scotland can just simply withdraw from the Act Of Union without consent. So where’s Scotland defender in protecting our interest within the act of union and why isn’t the unless SNP done anything in standing up for Scotland and seeking to either, modifiy or withdraw from the treaty if the other side (England) sees no harm in either breaking or modifiying and or even withdrawing from a Trearty’s entirely.

    We have now to wait another five years and re-elect the SNP again in 2026. I don’t mind saying 2021 was the last time the SNP will get my last vote, I will never vote for them again.

    So there is no point in waiting for the next Holyrood election and there isn’t any point in seeking a section 30 order (which will only be denied by the other partner in this Treaty, because it doesn’t suit England), if the SNP or SG can just simply end the Treaty of Union then do it. But Sturgeon and her mob don’t want Independence they just want to govern but with England holding all the Power and the resposiblity and keep blaming Westminster for the probelms.

    Sturgeon’s pulled the wool over my eyes in 2014, stating she wanted Independence, but no more, I’ve seen the light years ago, that Sturgeon and the SNP dont want Independence, they only use it as a tool to get re-elected, well am a tool no more.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. I know just how you feel as I feel much the same myself. I did not vote for SNP at the last election. If it had not been for ALBA I would not have voted at all. I have no intention of voting for the SNP ever again.

      The Tories, this lot in particular have no qualms about driving a horse and cart through any legislation or international treaty. The just don’t care, they are trying to wipe Scotland out entirely. The heartening bit for me is that we Scots are a thrawn lot, and will no let them. I just wish more folk would read Alf Baird’s pieces here and his book, it would sure open a few eyes.

      Here’s a wee quote for you, ” Every sovereign state has the right to withdraw from a treaty, if the treaty is not, anymore, compatible with it’s interests.” Who said that then. Why no other that Geoffrey Cox Attorney General 12th March 2019. A Tory working under Theresa May. So if it’s sauce for the goose as they say.

      Nae wunner they’re caud perfidious albion.

      Well done Alf, another great and thought provoking piece from you today.

      Liked by 11 people

  4. There is much to digest in this latest piece but a few initial thoughts.

    “‘through the prism of identity rather than via any monetary lens’.

    Interestingly the ones framing the independence question through an economic prism are invariably British nationalists (trans nationalists in this analysis). Maybe Nikla misunderstood what a trans-nationalist was when she embarked on her GRA reform! The narrative of too wee, too poor, too stupid, the too stupid perhaps being “look how many of our senior posts are filled with non Scots rather than look at how many of the senior posts are filled by those of the dominant culture of the islands.

    When I was reading through one thought was whether civic nationalism needed to wait until indy, only to find that thought later in the piece!

    One of the problems with Alf’s analysis is that persuading people that Scotland is a defacto, if not de jure, colony will be enormously difficult and without being able to at least view it theoretically (if not believing it in fact) might mean people will disregard the entire proposition. Or throw out the lazy tropes of “anti-English”. And to get my defence in now, it is entirely possible to be English, come here and support indeed desire independence but that is not the majority view of English (and possibly Welsh) people who move here.

    I’m not sure if any of us have the contacts to find out, even off the record, but it would be interesting to hear the UN view on Scotland’s status. Would THEY regard us as a colony? In the past I would have said no, however one of the few pluses about Johnson and his Cabal, is that perhaps the international community no longer sees the UK as a stable, trustworthy and democratic place. The fiasco over the NI protocol may act in Scotland’s favour too.

    Still it’s all academic unless and until we get a party and a leader willing and able to lead constitutional change. Which may yet come. Here is an archived version of a Times piece re the £600k with some eye raising info re a rammy between the police and the Crown Office re the announcement!

    https://archive.is/Lnl7w

    Liked by 11 people

    1. That Times article is a bit of an eye opener panda paws. I was unaware that some of the £600,000 had been spent on refurbishing SNP HQ. Now at least we know where some of it has gone, allegedly. Crown Office reaction does not surprise me in the least, given what has gone before. It would appear that it needs cleaned out from top to bottom as well. Maybe things will improve with the new Lord Advocate, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt for now, but at the same time, I’ll no haud ma breath.

      Nice to see that the polis are at least taking it seriously.

      Liked by 9 people

    2. “ Interestingly the ones framing the independence question through an economic prism are invariably British nationalists (trans nationalists in this analysis). ”
      Yes but more often than not, you find when you dig deeper that this is merely a proxy for the identity lens.

      Liked by 8 people

  5. Sorry folks, just a wee O/T bit of info. Writer, broadcaster and mountaineer Camerom McNeish has just reigned from the SNP.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. It states in Sturgeon private Newspaper TN that the SNP spent 600k meant for a referendum was instead used to furnish SNP headquarters, that show how much respect they have for Scotland its people and those of us who gave money for a referendum that they had no intention of ever having.
      If this doesn’t show people how the SNP has gone from a party for Scotland to a part against anything Scottish then what will it take for the SNP members to see the light and get rid of the top brass.

      Liked by 7 people

  6. Ian, like Jan Cowan I have also subscribed, actually quite a few times but I never get an e mail from you. It doesn’t really matter as I go into Stuart’s “Voices for independence” every day so I never miss any of your blogs. I just thought I would let you Know.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. There is irritation in the dismissive tone of those who criticise any discussion of the 2014 franchise, coming from Scottish supporters of independence. Not all are supporters of the SNP and actually like many here, some are critics of the Sturgeon government. The lofty disdain towards independence supporters often displayed by the SNP had echoes of middle class entitlement and assumed superiority (eg Alyn Smith’s scathing comments.) Surprisingly, I am picking up up from these Scottish critics the same middle class arrogance when attacking any discussion about reviewing the 2014 franchise arrangements.

    Could it be that some of the Scottish middle class, even among independence supporters, are experiencing a conflict of class and cultural identity which makes them impatient with this present discussion? Unlike the SNP leadership, who obviously looked down on many of their support, perhaps they were unaware of this, previously assuming that we were all taking direction from middle class attitudes. (I have sometimes been irked by the way the educated middle class during the indy campaign would make that lofty assumption.) Probably why we would hear the same denigration of those they thought were ‘not the right kind of supporter’ as would come from Unionists( eg Alyn Smith again.) Again we are hearing the same kind of presumption with the ‘blood and soil’ insult being flung about with lordly arrogance.

    Why the outrage? We are only talking about an adjustment in the franchise which is recognised internationally. It’s also only part of a discussion about how Scotland might seek independence in the future. Since we have quite some time to have this discussion due to our foot-dragging government, why the desire to raise the temperature of the debate causing panic among English supporters by the use of disgraceful insults like ‘blut und boden’.

    It’s yet another instance of not having to prove that you live in a colony to experience colonial attitudes when class and cultural identities become confused. Here, virtue-signalling about ‘civic nationalism’ seems to act as a mask for their own cultural ambivalence about being Scottish, mixed with class arrogance.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Class considerations have always been present in the party of independence. No matter how many streets you might’ve been able to identify in an 1980’s working class area, where you knew support for independence was sky-high, this was deemed as being of secondary importance by the party hierarchy. People, it seemed to me, who dreamed only of winning the the leafy-suburbs and so by extension (as they saw it) the electorally “legitimizing” approval of the middle classes, which they obviously craved. Little has really changed, it seems.

      Liked by 7 people

  8. I came across a reference to a book published in 1888 titled “Oceana, Or England and her colonies” by James Anthony Froude. The book is still in publication. The title and summary blurb are a real eye-opener on the supremist English colonial mindset of the time. I haven’t read it but it does sound educational. Scotland truly subsumed as part of a greater England by then.

    “It is a fascinating and insightful chronicle of the author’s travels from Cape Town to Australia and New Zealand, from 1884 to 1888. This volume will appeal to those with an interest in the history of the British Empire, and would make for a worthy addition to any bookshelf. Contents include: “The Dream of Sir James Harrington”, “The Expansion of the English Race”, “The American Colonies”, “Second Group of Colonies”, “Colonial Management”, “Policy of Separation”, “The England of Political Economists”, “Population and National Greatness”, “Popular Desire for Union”, etcetera.”

    Did the Prof come across this in his studies?

    Liked by 5 people

  9. The subject of the franchise which Alf Baird so eloquently and patiently explained is still being vehemently discussed over on WOS by a previous commenter who I call Mr Nativist and other posters , Mr Nativist didn’t like the positive responses the subject was receiving on Iain’s blog so he retired to WOS where he believes Stu shares his beliefs to continue his smearing , denigration and name calling
    One of the responses he received was from a poster called Southernbystander who admits he is English and resides in England but likes the discussion on independence , his previous comments appeared polite and respectful but this is his now contribution

    Southernbystander says:
    25 July, 2021 at 3:46 pm

    Andy Ellis I admire your perseverance here but I’d give up if I were you. It can be doing your health no good and you’ll convince no-one left here that the nativist narrowing of the franchise narrative is a dead end, let alone unjustifiable on moral or even practical grounds.

    Such is the mindset of zealots (and that includes intellectuals like Baird who have real potential power): they become fixated by an idea, an ideology and the prism they see the world through gets narrower and narrower, whilst at the same time it gets more encompassing and thus more and more distorted. If you are a true believer in the narrative of Scotland as a colony of England, of all the English living in Scotland as essentially colonialists, and Scottish Unionists and No voters as all corrupted with the coloniser’s mindset, knowingly or otherwise, like the Word of God, there is no arguing with it.

    Such a mindset could just as easily justify the franchise being changed to only those who voted Yes in 2014. That would work, probably.
    ————————————————————————————————–

    Obviously the last sentence from him was supposedly facetious or satire who knows, but I am genuinely horrified that people who are concerned with the future of Scotland can be dismissed so easily as cranks , nativists , racists, zealots or any list of derogatory names because they want the best for their country

    Liked by 6 people

    1. I agree particularly with your last sentence. It’s as if this subject has given them licence to unleash their dismissive disdain on supposedly ‘fellow’ independence supporters. It reminded me so much of the derogatory remarks made by SNP representatives post referendum which were indicative of their real feelings of rancorous dislike towards independence supporters who were not the ‘right kind of independence supporters’. For ‘right kind’ read ‘middle class’ or else ‘humble followers who know their place.’

      The sense of bullying middle class superiority is strong in these people. It’s alienating and antagonistic so I think we can guess that the aim is not to persuade – which is similar to the trans activists’ intolerance of debate and their demonising of opponents. The aim is to commandeer the debate.

      When they use disparaging remarks like ‘blood and soil’ nationalist you could be reading a unionist attacking independence supporters or trans activists shouting ‘transphobe’. When I first encountered their comments they made my hackles rise which is partly why I joined this debate. Above all, I hate bullying.

      Liked by 5 people

  10. The response to southernbystander by Mr Nativist is illuminating to his thoughts on fellow independenistas who don’t agree with the current franchise
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Andy Ellis says:
    25 July, 2021 at 4:46 pm

    @southernbystander 3.46 pm

    Trust me, I’m in rude health. Playing rhetorical whack-a-mole with regressive nativists is about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, it is a truism that you can’t educate port, and also that you can’t kill a bad idea.

    The sad part is that these zealots actually think they have right on their side (’twas ever thus I guess?) but what is worse they have somehow convinced themselves that they represent the mainstream, and believe they will convince the mainstream Yes movement to support their tawdry and regressive narrative.

    No wonder the movement is dead in the water. 🙁
    ————————————————————————————————-

    I apologise Iain if you think these comments should not be posted I just wanted the people to realise that this is what independence supporters are up against if they want a fair representative franchise

    Liked by 7 people

  11. IMO this is THE PERFECT example of why we DESPERATELY NEED the franchise to be amended

    WHY is Scottish independence the business of people who have nothing to do with it

    WHY does anyone from anywhere feel that their opinion on Scotland’s independence should be listened to or acknowledged when it is non of their business and does not relate to them

    WHERE is the irony of someone from England commenting on a Scottish independence blog calling people NATIVIST as a perceived slur

    MEANING OF NATIVIST / Supporting the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants

    AHEM Brexshit, taking back control, taking sovereignty back from furriners, we will not be dictated to by furriners , these furriners are holding bozo to ransom , we will get the easiest deal in history from these furriners

    Not only is our visitor aiming misconstrued perceived insults about willy nilly at other posters he has the gall and temerity to attempt to denigrate and demean notable and distinguished stalwarts of the independence movement for holding views that are opposite to his

    Yes Mr Nativist wants to give untrammeled power over our and our countries future to ANYONE from ANYWHERE with indigenous Scots opinions and beliefs being ignored and sidelined, i’m sure that reminds me of someone else , oh YES Nicola does the same thing with the worldwide consultation on GRA the results she REFUSES to publish , no matter it ONLY affects SCOTS women , QUESTION does that make SCOTS women NATIVIST for demanding their rights are paramount

    Liked by 6 people

      1. Absolutely Alf this is exactly why we need a fair and honest franchise where indigenous Scots wishes , dreams and hopes for their children , grandchildren and future generations cannot be SABOTAGED by fake civic nationalism designed to frustrate the result .

        Ultimately when Scotland is independent people will have the right to apply for citizenship if they so wish and will also benefit like the rest of us in our independent country but until then forcing a repeat of the previous franchise will only result in further defeat and ANYONE who doubts that doesn’t IMO have independence at the forefront of their thoughts

        Liked by 4 people

    1. A fine example of the type. The supercilious attitude on display is clearly not meant to persuade but obviously to grandstand and treat with contempt those who don’t agree with him. Which audience is it aimed for ? Well obviously the target of his scorn is independence supporters who wish to look again at civic nationalism in light of the surge of incomers, mainly from England. He appears to think his is the majority opinion among independence supporters. Well it might be, if he is talking about Sturgeon’s loyalists who are insipid towards independence and prepared to wait forever. (Many of us have strong suspicions why Sturgeon is so keen on civic nationalism; she would be very happy to stymie independence.)

      He is also targeting longstanding supporters of independence who have actually gone out and campaigned and met voters on the street and encountered, as I did, English voters who were not at all persuadable. There were, of course, English supporters who were out campaigning with us and they were very helpful in showing their fellow English that we were not ‘blood and soil’ nationalists. However, the majority were intransigent in their hostility to the very idea of independence, which is our problem.

      Your ‘friend’s’ views are supported by Stuart Campbell, by the way, which is probably why he has settled in on WOS. We can see from his remarks that he relishes flinging insults at people for whom he has little respect, yet I think he claims to support independence? Obviously his support is conditional and based on his insulting arrogance towards those who have supported independence for many years longer than he has, he is alienating those with whom he would have to campaign and for whom he has very little empathy. His is the kind of aggressive attitude which causes splits. Alba had better watch out!

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Personally speaking I find there are clear shades of unconscious “southern emigrant” snobbery from that particular poster. IMO he seems to be of the sort that thinks – with few exceptions – that all the really talented, intelligent and ambitious Scots move to the SE of England to find work (because why would they remain up in this unworthy dump?). He appears to be firmly against the concept of Scotland as being colonised but has he ever asked himself the simple question why in a land seemingly embarrassed with natural and human riches he felt the need to move south for decades to find a decent standard of living in the first place?

        Similarly he appears to have a cloth-ear to the importance of government language support for Scots and Gaelic for the independence debate. But does anyone really doubt that living in England for decades means these issues have near zero importance for him personally?

        Finally, is it any real surprise that his opinions on these matters mirror Stuart Campbell’s considering he himself is an economic emigrant to England for nearly half his life, albeit to the South West rather than South East? Of course that is going to colour his perceptions on these particular matters!

        Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: