Pausing indy project risks descending into England’s divisive hell

Certainly, we would be foolish to imagine racism does not exist in Scotland. And the success of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party north of the Border – a 7% poll share at the General Election with virtually no campaigning, more than the Greens – is deeply troubling. Yet the fact is that there was no fascist mobilisation here and we can’t put that down to accident.

To be clear – Scotland is different from England. A different culture, a different national sentiment, a different polity. Not better, just different. And that difference lies in our sense of who we are and the unique expiences we have been through.

People forget that Scotland went through a massive Irish immigration in the late 19th century, plus a massive internal population movement as native, Catholic Highlanders were displaced to the Central Belt.

READ MORE: Elon Musk and Humza Yousaf clash over 'race baiting' on Twitter

The last quarter of the 19th century, and much of the first half of the 20th century, saw deep sectarian divisions inside Scotland’s main urban centres – frictions exacerbated by poor housing, unemployment and poverty on a scale massively greater than today.

These divisions – ostensibly religious in character but actually the age-old conflict between locals and immigrants – led to riots, discrimination (in jobs and housing) and communal strife probably far greater and for longer than the racial frictions now seen in England.

This was due to the fact that significant sections of the Scottish Establishment – in the Kirk and in the professional middle classes who dominated Scottish society – actually defended anti-Catholic, anti-Irish discrimination on spurious religious and ethnic grounds.

In truth, the establishment was more concerned to protect its privileged status by fomenting divisions inside the working class. But the net effect was to institutionalise discrimination and racism on a grand scale for nearly a century.

Yet Scotland escaped this black hole of social division. Instead, we forged a new and more collective political identity focused on self-determination and the fight to reconstitute our national political institutions. Sectarian Unionism gave way progressively after the 1960s to a project to create a new, civic national identity enshrined in an independent Scottish state.

Even today, with the SNP vote much reduced, around a half of the nation still resolutely supports independence.

Against this background, the 7% vote for Faragism smacks more of a crisis in Unionism than any rise in local racism.

How on earth did Scotland go from being a byword in sectarian social conflict to forging a new, inclusive national identity? And what are the perils in abandoning this approach?

The rise of the modern national movement was no accident, but it took time. It emerged in the 1960s as a left-wing revolt against de-industrialisation and the disappointing vacuousness of the Labour government led by Harold Wilson. From the outset, the new Scottish nationalism was less about cultural identity and more about modernising the economy and introducing a radical experiment in more democracy.

In that sense, Scottish nationalism has always been a progressive force, not a defensive reaction. This is the defining difference between contemporary Scottish nationalism and contemporary English nationalism. We should celebrate that.

There are those who deny this comparison between Scottish and English politics. But I do not make this distinction between the two national politics as some sort of moral hierarchy, in which Scotland is superior.

SCOTLAND remains a class society deformed by economic exploitation and poverty. The last generation of SNP leaders has well-nigh abandoned the party’s traditional commitment to radical democracy by wrapping Holyrood in a web of uber-centralisation, bureaucracy and administrative secrecy.

Sections of the Scottish establishment have belatedly switched to supporting independence merely as a way of defending their privileges and ability to go on exploiting.

READ MORE: Anger as racist graffiti from far-right group appears in park

An indy Scotland would face the same massive social divisions as exist now. No, Scotland is not some global moral exemplar. What I am talking about is the direction of politics and political mobilisation. Scotland has mobilised around a progressive project. This may be more promise than outcome (yet). And our leaders remain human and flawed – we can all name names.

But the national project has never depended fundamentally on the charisma of individuals. When the movement has let itself become too dependent on political superstars, invariably the outcome has been disastrous.

But surely the Labour Party in England are a progressive crusade? Maybe in the distant past. Blairism and New Labour coat-tailed George Bush into Iraq while chancellor Gordon Brown deregulated the banks and led the way to the near collapse of the financial system.

As for the latest Labour iteration, I once had a long conversation with Rachel Reeves on immigration. She lamented that her constituents were all virulently anti-immigrant and that Labour would need to restrict migrant numbers to appease them.

I told our chancellor-to-be that on one occasion on the doorstep I told a vociferous opponent of immigration that they could stick their vote up their behind. Ms Reeves looked at me as if I was a Martian.

The best antidote to racism and the rising tide of fascism in England is to re-affirm our commitment to winning Scottish independence. Many in the movement are saying that the prospect of independence has receded for the time being, and that we need to regroup around other projects.

That is precisely the wrong direction to take. It is the independence project that embodies our concept of radical democracy, decentralisation, people’s power and social equality – the Scottish Republic of equals. Without this all-encompassing vision, piecemeal reform will end in disappointment and eventual political demobilisation. Into this vacuum will enter the Faragistes.

Inote that Mhairi Black, in her Edinburgh Fringe show, says she is not a nationalist and has trouble with the word. I understand what she means up to a point. But fascistic ethnic nationalism is not actually nationalism in the true sense. That reactionary movement begins by defining some people as outside the nation.

(Image: Steve Ullathorne)

Real nationalism understands that the nation is all-encompassing, not selective. National citizenship is a popular allegiance beyond ethnicity (a bogus concept). Nations are real things – a common cultural heritage, common institutions, a common economic project.

Scotland is a nation without a state. We want our state back so we can express ourselves, solve our multiple social and economic problems and take part in the counsels of the world. For those reasons, I call myself a nationalist.

There were no race riots in Scotland, not because we are simon-pure but because we have constructed a modern politics around national solidarity and defended it against divisive, London-focused Unionism.

For that we can be proud. Not to be proud is to risk turning our backs on everything we have achieved in the face of Unionist criticism and carping. We must not depart from the national project otherwise we risk descending into the divisive hell that English politics has become.

Neither is Scottish independence a threat to England. Rather it is the beacon of hope for English progressives.