Colin Kidd has what I think to be a very good article on what he calls The Scottish Question in the New Statesman. In it he says:
To be sure, nationalism plays a significant part in the independence cause. But in the broad miscellaneous coalition of voters that supports independence, flag-waving nationalists, though the most obviously visible cohort, rub shoulders with a range of other social types. There are the voters, often middle-aged, who think independence is the best way of preserving what remains of Britain's cherished welfare state; those who want to live in a normal northern European country — like Denmark or Norway — with a Nordic model of egalitarian social democracy; those who despair of the Brexity delusions of Britain's post-imperial nostalgia; and a radical younger generation that identifies with Rise, the alternative movement for “Respect, Independence, Socialism and Environmentalism”.
The more Boris Johnson resorts to vacuous boosterism — “world-beating” virus contact-tracing apps, and the like — the more Scots relish the idea of belonging to a modern, non-world-beating social democracy.
It's really not an unreasonable wish, is it? It's one that many in England would share.
And that is his point. What Kidd is suggesting is that Scotland has not seen a wave of nationalism. Nor, come to that, is support for Scottish independence the opposite of Unionism, which has all its own definitional problems. Rather, it is a desire for decency in government and society.
This will, of course, upset some nationalists. But equally, it suggests that the move towards independence, which Boris Johnson has, yet again, said that he will block this morning, has foundations which are now virtually unstoppable, and which are rooted in the rejection of the model for government that Johnson is, himself, putting forward. For too many people in Scotland that failed model of government appears rooted in real nationalism, which is in their view too popular for their liking in England. The result is a desire for independence, but not Scottish nationalism, per se.
If he's right, Kidd's argument suggests that Scottish independence is virtually unstoppable, but also implies the same direction of travel for Wales. The article is worth reading.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I read the Colin Kidd article. My view is that Brexit is the driving force behind the recent increase in SMP support. Scots (I am a relatively recent local) want to remain European. Indeed they voted strongly for it, and support for this strand of Scottish thought has risen rather than fallen. So, electoral success is currently driven by an independence group, a Europe fan base, and better a pot plant than Boris group. The SMP ticks all these boxes at present. What Nicola Sturgeon is also cleverly avoiding is any comment on specific policies, structures, that Scotland needs to evolve to respond to each of these three groups.
Yes, this is spot on…
“… Scotland has not seen a wave of nationalism. Nor, come to that, is support for Scottish independence the opposite of Unionism, which has all its own definitional problems. Rather, it is a desire for decency in government and society.”
I’ve just followed a link here from Facebook. I’m pretty certain most of us who’ve waved saltires on marches have been there to show support for a better way rather than simply nationalism, something much closer to internationalism, more co-operative at every level. Nationalism’s mostly other people’s catch-all label – too often people hostile to change.
They say the Scots hate the English, but that’s not (entirely) true. As an English person living in Scotland half my life it’s quite clear there is prejudice, but it’s the ruling elite the Scots really don’t like. I was quite disappointed at the 2014 referendum result, but in another way relieved. There was no real plan for, or vision of what an independent Scotland would look like, just a reactive urge to be rid of Westminster rule. Sun Tzu in The Art of War says ‘in peace plan for war, and in war plan for peace’. If you have no plan what you’re going to do when you win the war, you will ultimately fail. I wasn’t sure how the Scots would form a fair and democratic country. I knew it had a lot to do with economics, and I was extremely uncomfortable with Alex Salmond and Alastair Darling’s TV debate.
On the question of currency Darling seemed to know something and wasn’t saying it; Salmond didn’t have a positive answer to the question, and neither dealt the matter satisfactorily. After discovering MMT it became blindingly obvious that Salmond was not aware of the power of monetary sovereignty, and Darling, whether aware of it or not, wasn’t going to give anything away if Salmond didn’t have a clue. It became unavoidably clear that the next independence referendum must put this at the forefront of the campaign and get the MMT message across to everyone.
Understanding MMT allows people to hold politicians to account, reveals the ‘balanced budget’, ‘taxpayer money’ and deficit fear to be tactics of the ruling elite to delude the electorate into thinking that decent infrastructure and first class public services are unaffordable. It shows that Westminster deliberately withholds funding from Scotland (and England of course) while pretending that Holyrood (a currency user) should be held accountable to the same fiscal and monetary standard as Westminster (the currency issuer).
Let’s face it, the notion that the Tories are ‘good with money’ is a glaring falsehood, even when examined in the orthodox economic paradigm. They have doubled the national debt and increased inequality in the process. If Scotland wants to be a more democratic and fairer society it has to do more than just rebel against Westminster. It has to promote a vision and a make clear its mission, and the currency and monetary arguments must be couched in the progressive MMT frame, not the degenerate orthodox economic paradigm that has led to the corrupt and vile society we have now.
I think Alex Salmond gets it now
… and it’s obvious that there are huge numbers of English people who would like the government to sit on the naughty step until they can behave with a lot more care for, and respect of, ALL UK citizens.
There are two dictionary definitions of Nationalism. In brief a) extolling one’s nation and b) advocating self government.
Readers need to get clear that the vast bulk of the self government movement and political parties (SNP and Scottish Greens) support the latter definition and motivation.
The British Nationalist, Brexit and now the Tory Party in England espouse the first definition of nationalism, if not veiled imperialism. Attributing their strand of nationalism to the Scots is simply projection.
Scotland and England’s social, cultural and political values, aspirations and direction of travel have been diverging for at least a generation. That process will reach its logical conclusion in the dissolution of what has become a fake ‘Union’ thinly disguising the reality of Scotland as an “internal colony” of the UK (look up the term if it is new to you)
I agree
It’s a very good analysis, including his reference at the end to federalism – which has become the standard backstop to save unionism. Instead of freedom, they will offer yet another trap.
He has an earlier article where he talks about “the dire economic consequences of leaving the Union.”, so I’m not exactly a fan of Professor Kidd.
https://archive.is/SdUnX
You may already know, but for others – Professor Kidd is a member of the advisory council of “these Islands”, whose chair (initials KH) you know a little of – https://www.these-islands.co.uk/advisory_council/d3/
He may be
May not not mean to case for independence
But he does
And even if he hates the outcome, he shows he knows his enemy, and that they will defeat him now
I’ve read the Colin Kidd article in the New Statesman and his Guardian review of John Lloyd’s book ‘Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot’ referenced by George S Gordon. In the Guardian review it’s generally difficult to tell whether Kidd is referencing Lloyd’s assertions or stating his own opinion, so closely are their political and economic views aligned. It therefore amounts to a non-critique (where is the constructive criticism, have neither of them heard of MMT?) and instead is a naked piece of politicising of an issue which divides Scottish opinion, but is less well understood by the English public. By publishing this in a widely-read English newspaper it can only result in deepening English misunderstanding of the Scottish dimension. In other words, a piece of propaganda dressed up as erudite, academic analysis – Dr Goebbels would be impressed.
The English Left has a real blind spot on this question. They conflate nationalism in Britain with English nationalism – which they perceive mostly as boorishness and xenophobia – and extrapolate northwards. How they square this with the SNP’s 13-year run as the party of government isn’t clear.
Part of the problem — and it is an old one — is that Englishness and Britishness are so difficult to disentangle. As long as immigration was being actively encouraged British identity was inclusive; people settling here from India, for example, could identify as British Indian without any apparent contradiction, aided partly by the fact that these conversations had been going on in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for many years. Those who argued against these developments tended not to see a distinction between their Englishness and Britishness, both of which were threatened by the shift in demography.
English progressives now rail against Brexit as the promotion of a ‘Little Englander’ mentality, seen as racist, backward looking, small-minded. But Johnson and Farage are not English nationalists, no matter how much their rhetoric appeals to those who are. Instead, their project has been to reconfigure British identity as something much narrower, which reinstates political primacy for the privileged few, and harks back to the ‘glory days’ of empire.
There is a contradiction at the heart of this, of course. If Scotland gains independence the British state as we understand it ceases to exist. Gone is the Union Jack. Relegated to history is the ‘Britannia’ to which the song refers. It will no longer be possible to cast these as symbols either of patriotism or exceptionalism, because their meaning will be changed beyond all recognition. The legacy of the British Empire, while always worthy of critical historical analysis, will no longer attach to an existing unitary polity.
This makes Scotland much more important to the Brexit project than the government is willing to concede. Johnson knows that the people of Scotland are never going to rally behind this reconfigured British identity, despite being utterly central to it, and the stakes are too high to allow them to leave. The only alternative is to reduce devolved powers to an absolute minimum, refuse a referendum, and push back firmly against any further attempts at self-determination. We are seeing the first of these quite clearly in the Internal Market Bill; while attention has rightly been focused on the problems created in Northern Ireland, the implications for Scotland are deeply profound.
In 2014 most on the English left were instinctively Unionist. They understood British identity to be inclusive so Scottish nationalism was by definition divisive; the contrast between Cameron and Osborne’s rhetoric of scroungers, shirkers and skivers, and the communitarian optimism of the ‘Yes’ campaign was, presumably, less stark than in Scotland. With support for independence continuing to grow a pitched battle between authoritarianism and democracy looks unavoidable, and British fair play is unlikely to feature. English progressives will need to pick a side.
Colin Kidd identifies the ‘broad miscellaneous coalition of voters’ which has always been part of the Scottish independence movement, and there is every reason to believe that a similar progressive alliance could also become ascendant in England. It’s just very hard to imagine, in a post-Brexit world, that such an alliance could recapture Britishness from the right. The energy needed to redefine the idea would be better expended on articulating a civic and inclusive Englishness, allowing those who care about national identity to be represented by someone other than Johnsons and Farage.
Having lived in Scotland for 15 years now (and planning to stay!) I very much agree with the idea that it is Scotland which has held on to the social democratic politics, which used to be the norm in Britain, and England which has moved away from that. I have still not finally decided how I would vote in another independence referendum, but it is now much more likely to be Yes (I voted No last time) One thing I think would follow fairly soon if there is a Yes vote, is that the SNP would split into at least 2 factions, as independence seems to be the only policy which the whole party has in common. Indeed there seems to be an enormous range of views on social and economic policy, from socialist to conservative within the party, as far as I can tell.
You are right
And let’s be honest: the last thing Scotland needs to be is a one party state
Indeed! And I would look forward to being able to vote for an actual left wing party which has some hope of gaining power.
Richard wrote: “And let’s be honest: the last thing Scotland needs to be is a one party state”. With respect, it’s hard to see how that would happen, given that Holyrood elections use the d’Hondt system of Proportional Representation, which is specifically designed to prevent any one party from having a sizeable controlling majority. This therefore makes the politics of consensus among parties essential. There may have been an SNP government in Scotland for the last 13 years, but it has needed to do a lot of ‘horse-trading’ to implement its legislation. Compare and contrast with Westminster. I’ve actually lived in a one-party state and current governance in the UK comes much closer to that than anything I’ve seen in Scotland in the last 13 years.
In one respect Kidd’s article acknowledges the very tangible desire of most Scots to live in a more equitable society, but it misses the mark on several critical issues:
First: He clearly doesn’t ‘get’ MMT judging by his review of Lloyd’s book, yet MMT is now officially SNP policy following the passing of Dr Tim Rideout’s Amendment to the Growth Commission’s sterlingisation proposals. This will undoubtedly impact economic planning pre- and post-independence and put clear water between today’s economic conditions and those of the future. For Kidd to ignore this radical change in circumstances is astounding, but perhaps understandable, but not forgivable, given his own polarised political opinions.
Second: He makes no mention of the SNP’s policy of opposition to nuclear weapons on Scottish lands or seas. This is a hugely important issue to most Scots (in particular those in the west) as we live on a daily basis with the possibility of nuclear extinction due to attack or accident at the Faslane/Coulport bases. We were never consulted on the siting of WMDs there and have absolutely no prospect of a say in their removal/continuance other than through independence.
Third: His conclusion that federalism is the solution to the UK’s rupture is a proven non-starter. It’s regularly proposed, but usually as a diversionary tactic to prolong the UK status quo, rather than as a serious proposition. It’s been mooted/promised umpteen times, notably in the 2014 independence referendum, and immediately dropped. England rejected it in the not-too-distant past and neither the Conservatives nor Labour show the slightest interest in it, leaving only the Lib Dems to make it policy as an attempt to find relevance in current UK politics. However, given Kidd’s board position in These Islands, I’m not surprised at his championing of federalism — it’s just another kick-the-can-down-the-road delaying tactic to keep things the way they are.
Ken
I agree with all the broader points: I was seeking to bring out one key one
Richard
Odd that his conclusion, as stated before the article even started, is correct. He should have left it at that as 95% of the rest shows the usual unionist misunderstanding (or deliberate misconstruing) of what happened and what is happening in Scotland. Even going as far as making false claims about death rates. I notice another commenter pointed out the author is a professor – how standards must have slipped or is it that unionism has a blinding effect?
Professors make mistakes
Mr McAdam,
Colin Kidd is the outstanding historian of Early Modern Scotland of his generation. His work will continue to be read as an important source, by generations of future historians. You may wish to reconsider your ill-judged, facile and over-hasty observation. I should, in passing acknowledge that I know Professor Kidd.
The problem here is an inability to separate understanding and insight from allegiance. The political allegiances of individuals rarely inform us, or tell us much of interest. In the crudities of British politics this key issue is simply lost. As illustration, review the video of Richard Murphy and Peter Oborne on a recent thread: very different political allegiances, but large areas of agreement. Far more agreement between their ‘left and right’ on so many issues, than you find between Boris Johnson’s or Dominic Grieve’s idea of ‘Conservatism’. Murphy and Oborne’s views drilled down to deeper issues below blanket political allegiances (that Party allegiances deliberately blur, confuse or bury within glib, expendable rhetorical tropes), and that obliged mutual understanding. Party Political allegiance requires only allegiance, and total cynicism in execution.
Allegiance tells us nothing. Its only effect is factionalism, misunderstanding and bad outcomes. The politics of Party, if anybody bothered to think about it; simply does not work. The problem is, nobody knows how to provide a functioning parliamentary system without Party. This is not a solution, but rather provides us with a paradox; which we all ignore, in the pretence we do not pay a heavy price for the failure.
Thanks John
You can “dance on the head of a pin” debating what a word/s mean.
I know what a fair society should look like and feel like and it isn’t the current UK.
One falsehood is that pushed by the LibDems and Labour that Scotland should stay and build a better UK. Brexit demolished that myth.
The UN has a charter cornerstone – The Right to Self Determination.
Use any name you like to describe a movement seeking that fundamental Right.
While you are debating the issue Scotland will move forward.
Always follow the money if you want to understand the motivation behind the direction of travel in politics. The wealthy pour money into the Tory Party, Brexit and the NO campaign in Scotland. The YES campaign by contrast was funded by hundreds of thousands of individual Scottish citizens.
Well said, Julia. And as a coda to the rather dispeptic long post which I sent earlier, I would suggest that a more useful and insightful article on this subject was Neal Ascherson in the LRB entitled Bye Bye Britain. Find it at https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n18/neal-ascherson/bye-bye-britain
I’m sorry to see this piece of contorted special pleading being treated with such respectful attention. Just for a start, was it a witty sub in The New Statesman or the author himself who was responsible for the headline “The Scottish Question” – trailing its penumbra of imperialism and worse?
The dogs in the street know that the politically effective rise of the movement for Scottish Independence is not driven – i.e. principally, effectively motivated by a ‘nationalism’ – in the most widely accepted sense of that as a term of political discourse. To find that kind of driver one needs to plumb the depths of Hugh MacDiarmid’s most deliberately provocative and curmudgeonly statements. (Wonderful poet and rotten politician.) It is – and has long been – a demand for what it ‘says on the tin’ – the right to rule ourselves. What has made that increasingly a widely popular position is the ever growing tumulus of evidence that those who do rule us – a British nationalist poltiical class dominated by entrenched privilege and imperial fantasies (which defects also poison its abuse of England’s less favoured regions) – rule us very, very badly indeed and with evident contempt for our resources, our needs, our values, our culture and our voice. (Each of those categories could be unpacked into long and detailed lists of affronts to intelligence, equity and plain decency in human affairs.)
The so-called ‘unionist’ politicians in Scotland, whose electorally irrelevant careers Kidd mulls over, are all united by two things. They prefer rule by a Westmister system, in which Scottish interests are permanently outvoted and which has demonstrably abused their country and its peoples, to the normality of independence which means ruling ourselves – and they are electoral failures on a consistent and increasingly significant scale. Their chief standard bearers, the Conservatives, last won a Scottish election in 1955. I was 9 and the Treaty of Rome still was two years away. They are the standard bearers of a flight from the real world and for a system proved rotten by long and bitter experience. This is a system which has, for those of us who valued the reformed Britain of the Welfare Sate and the mixed economy, betrayed the post-war consensus and a system which has increasingly moved to destroy what our parents generation felt they had worked and fought to create. More electorally significant, they are the Breximaniacs who are hell-bent on destroying the European future to which Scots felt that our membership of the EU had had last brought us home – and thus they are the direct enemies of the young and any who hope for a better more intenationalist future, capable of rising to the green and economic challenges of an increasingly dangerous and environmentally endangered world.
And what has Kidd – and presumably his ‘chums’ in the mysteriously financed “These Islands” coterie – to offer? In a last paragraph, which drips with the condecension with which his entire article is laced, it amounts to the tired old fairy of “positive moves towards the federal reconstruction of the United Kingdom”. As Thackeray wrote in 1848 “let us shut up the box and the puppets, for our play is played out” – for it seems that the federalist fairy is at last ringing down the curtain on these islands’ Westminster version of Vanity Fair.
Could someone be kind enough to post a link to the original article – thanks!
I thought I had….
While I am now married to a Scot, through my involvement with the paddle steamer ‘Waverley’ from my teens, I was very aware that Scotland is different.
You cant impose English values on it, and the further England goes down the route the Brexiteers have chosen the more attractive Independence becomes