Brian Wilson
By Brian Wilson
Other people’s nationalism tends to look cuddlier from afar. Those on the left who would be horrified by association with the version on their doorsteps fall over themselves to find progressive potential in movements they do not have the inconvenience of experiencing at close range. Balladeers who have strummed righteously to songs of solidarity and working-class unity become cheerleaders for the destruction of these values. Convoluted theories are constructed about how dividing people will unite them through the mysterious process of inspiration and example.
Scotland is suffering an overdose of such enthusiasms, gratefully soaked up by the advocates of independence. George Monbiot has produced a classic of the genre. Rejecting independence would be “an astonishing act of self-harm” perpetrated by those hooked on “system justification” whose victims – poor souls – are “addicted to domination by another group”.
It is patronising rubbish. Monbiot’s treatise oozes loathing for the state in which he lives. It is “broken, corrupt, dysfunctional” and yet he can do nothing, no matter how hard he rails. Except, perhaps, help break it up and then claim that, however irrationally, as a progressive act. There are other, less gloomy, views of our imperfect society. It offers freedoms to dissent and achievements to be grateful for. We have built together a National Health Service and a welfare state. We have created educational opportunities beyond the dreams of our forebears. While inequality remains an affront, in Newcastle as much as in Glasgow, there are standards of prosperity and rights for working people, won through struggle. In Scotland, there is a parliament with powers to address outstanding injustices – if it chooses to use them.
Everything that has transformed our prospects has been achieved within the UK, fought for by people with shared interests in every part of that state, combining against the same forces of privilege and reaction that have sought to halt the incremental march of progress. Anyone who believes that Scotland has been, or would be, exempt from that dynamic knows nothing of its history.
Progressive politics in every part of our island would be weakened if we were divided into separate states. A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue. This is not because Scotland is “different” but because much of it shares the same interests and outlook as large parts of England and Wales. We need each other, as we have throughout modern history, to make a difference. Nor does the beacon theory, in which Scotland inspires progressive forces in what is left of the UK, stand up to examination. Scottish nationalism is not a progressive force. I have asked for one example of a redistributive policy which the SNP has adopted during its seven years running Holyrood, and I am waiting for an answer. Like every nationalist movement, it tries to cloak itself with the dignity of social justice – but its performance is of the centre-right, keeping the middle class happy. That is how it would continue. When the money ran out, the poor would still be waiting.
Consumers in England pay nine-tenths of the subsidy for renewable generation in Scotland. As part of one market and one state, that is sustainable. If we separated, it would be impossible to justify. Multiply that by 1,000 and you begin to appreciate the downsides of breaking up something that has worked well – and to see the cost in terms of jobs and prosperity. Whatever divides us is nothing to the needs and interests that should hold us together. The fool’s gold of separation has to win once to destroy the unity, while Monbiot would merely have a smaller, more right-wing state to denigrate.
The Guardian
By Brian Wilson
Other people’s nationalism tends to look cuddlier from afar. Those on the left who would be horrified by association with the version on their doorsteps fall over themselves to find progressive potential in movements they do not have the inconvenience of experiencing at close range. Balladeers who have strummed righteously to songs of solidarity and working-class unity become cheerleaders for the destruction of these values. Convoluted theories are constructed about how dividing people will unite them through the mysterious process of inspiration and example.
Scotland is suffering an overdose of such enthusiasms, gratefully soaked up by the advocates of independence. George Monbiot has produced a classic of the genre. Rejecting independence would be “an astonishing act of self-harm” perpetrated by those hooked on “system justification” whose victims – poor souls – are “addicted to domination by another group”.
It is patronising rubbish. Monbiot’s treatise oozes loathing for the state in which he lives. It is “broken, corrupt, dysfunctional” and yet he can do nothing, no matter how hard he rails. Except, perhaps, help break it up and then claim that, however irrationally, as a progressive act. There are other, less gloomy, views of our imperfect society. It offers freedoms to dissent and achievements to be grateful for. We have built together a National Health Service and a welfare state. We have created educational opportunities beyond the dreams of our forebears. While inequality remains an affront, in Newcastle as much as in Glasgow, there are standards of prosperity and rights for working people, won through struggle. In Scotland, there is a parliament with powers to address outstanding injustices – if it chooses to use them.
Everything that has transformed our prospects has been achieved within the UK, fought for by people with shared interests in every part of that state, combining against the same forces of privilege and reaction that have sought to halt the incremental march of progress. Anyone who believes that Scotland has been, or would be, exempt from that dynamic knows nothing of its history.
Progressive politics in every part of our island would be weakened if we were divided into separate states. A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue. This is not because Scotland is “different” but because much of it shares the same interests and outlook as large parts of England and Wales. We need each other, as we have throughout modern history, to make a difference. Nor does the beacon theory, in which Scotland inspires progressive forces in what is left of the UK, stand up to examination. Scottish nationalism is not a progressive force. I have asked for one example of a redistributive policy which the SNP has adopted during its seven years running Holyrood, and I am waiting for an answer. Like every nationalist movement, it tries to cloak itself with the dignity of social justice – but its performance is of the centre-right, keeping the middle class happy. That is how it would continue. When the money ran out, the poor would still be waiting.
Consumers in England pay nine-tenths of the subsidy for renewable generation in Scotland. As part of one market and one state, that is sustainable. If we separated, it would be impossible to justify. Multiply that by 1,000 and you begin to appreciate the downsides of breaking up something that has worked well – and to see the cost in terms of jobs and prosperity. Whatever divides us is nothing to the needs and interests that should hold us together. The fool’s gold of separation has to win once to destroy the unity, while Monbiot would merely have a smaller, more right-wing state to denigrate.
The Guardian
