We need to integrate or else build fences

Out of all Eastern Bloc countries the most multi-cultural was the Soviet Union. In Russia today, there are also many different linguistic, ethnic and religious groups. This has been the case for centuries. The Russian Empire, after all, expanded from its historical heartland of Kievan Rus’ and expanded gradually northward, southward, westward, but above all eastward. Eventually this empire stretched across a continent, embracing many peoples who certainly had not been Russian a thousand years ago. It can be described as a form of colonisation without having to travel overseas.

When the Soviet Union collapsed the former Russian Empire lost many of its peoples, but it kept many more. Thankfully Russia itself has been able to remain intact. If Russia were to fall apart, there would certainly be conflict. The various peoples who live in Russia are very mixed and there are frequently no clear boundaries between them. Thankfully also there is little desire for secession. The conflict in Chechnya was the exception. Who knows, perhaps there is desire for secession and independence elsewhere, but we’d all better hope it doesn’t amount to anything. If Russia became one hundred and eight-five countries, corresponding to the ethnic groups who live there, the whole region, perhaps the world would descend into chaos.

For the most part however, people in Russia get on with each other well enough, no matter whether they can also speak a language different from Russian, whether they have a religion different to Russian Orthodox Christianity and whether they are from a different ethnic group.  The Russian Empire was a melting pot. But it must be remembered it took centuries for this melting pot to melt the differences and to a great extent they are still there. Ivan the Terrible captured Kazan’ in 1552, but the Tatars are still there. They are citizens of Russia, but they are still Tatars.  They are not usually even called Russians, nor do they think of themselves anything other than Tatars.

Multi-cultural countries are certainly possible. Russia is one, so is China, so is India. There are many more. But there is always the danger of conflict. There is always the possibility that one group or another might decide to seek separation. No-one thought the Soviet Union would break up, but it did. Who is to say that there is no possibility of another multinational-nation breaking up?

While the Soviet Union was a multi-national, multi-cultural country, the rest of the Eastern bloc for the most part was mono-cultural and has since the breakup of the Soviet Union become, if anything, still more so. Most Eastern European countries are dominated by one linguistic, religious and ethnic group. The south Slavs decided that they could not bear to live together any longer even though they all spoke more or less the same language. They fought a vicious war and split up into Serbia, Croatia et al. Likewise, Czechs and Slovaks decided that they could not endure living together. Their divorce happened almost by accident, but it happened none the less even though to an outsider the Czechs and Slovaks seem more or less the same.

The point is that in recent historical memory most people in Eastern Europe have experience of multi-culturalism and this is therefore something that they now reject. The Austro-Hungarian Empire after all was a multi-national, multi-cultural country, but eventually it could not hold together due to the fact that it contained too many nations. Likewise Czechs and Poles remember the consequence of living in a country which has German minorities. After the war they made sure there were no longer any Germans living in their country. It was vicious the way the Germans were driven out at the point of a bayonet, but the issues that caused such tension in the years before 1939 have gone with them.   

This is our problem. Just as the Tatars of Kazan’ remain Tatars 500 years later, so the Germans who had lived in Poland remained Germans and the tendency was for them to wish to turn Poland into Germany. The Eastern European countries that are most diverse now are places like Latvia and Estonia, with large Russian minorities. But it is an uneasy truce. The Latvians and Estonians would prefer that there were no Russians there. The Russians, no doubt, would prefer that Latvia became part of Russia again.

It is the experience of the difficulties of multi-culturalism that makes the present day Eastern Europeans so reluctant to accept immigration. Hungary has a population that is more than 95% Hungarian. They want it to stay that way. The reason for this is two-fold. Their own history tells them of the difficulties of multi-culturalism. But furthermore they look at the experiment with multi-culturalism in Western Europe and they don’t like what they see. Who can blame them?

The only way to make mass immigration work is to have a melting pot. But the melting pot takes centuries and even then it does not always work. Ukraine and Belarus’ split from Russia though they all had the same origin and had been part of one country for centuries. We have not completely melted the difference between Scotland and England, Catalonia and Spain or else there would not be the demand among some people for independence. But if Scots and English people cannot bear to live in one country, though there is little to distinguish us, how can we all live in harmony with people who are very different indeed? If we cannot fully integrate Scots and English people so that they think of themselves as one people, how can we expect to integrate those who are in every respect different except sharing a common humanity? The reality is that it is a part of human nature to wish to live together with those who have similar beliefs and speak the same language. If that were not the case we would not have countries at all.

Hungarians want to live with Hungarians. They too once were immigrants. They migrated to the land that is now called Hungary some time over one thousand years ago. No-doubt they fought their way there and drove out those who were there before them. It may be unfair that they who are quite literally a nation of immigrants want to keep out others who are also immigrants. They probably would be willing to accept some. But above all they recognise that there is a limit. The character of Hungarian society would radically change if twenty or thirty percent of the population was not Hungarian. Who knows what problems that would store up? It is for this reason that they build fences. It is human nature that they should do so. Who am I today to tell them that they can’t?

It’s time to tell the truth. No more platitudes. The Hungarians were right. I bet today they are all very grateful for their fences. 

If we can win the emotional argument, we’ll need no other.

I keep coming across Scots from both sides who think the present dominance of the SNP is forever and that independence is inevitable. Of course the nationalists have a strategy of talking up their chances. It’s a good strategy too. But SNP optimism is no more grounded in reality than the defeatism of some Pro UK people who should be defending their country rather than helping their opponents. The truth is that we are not all caught up in a Greek play where the tragic outcome is already determined. We are free individuals and our actions determine the future. That’s why it is uncertain and impossible to predict.

There was an election in Canada last week. A couple of points are worth mentioning. Quebec separatists now poll 19%. Not very long ago they had the support of nearly 50% of the population of Quebec. They came within a whisker of winning a referendum on independence. They must have thought it was inevitable. But no. It’s people who control what happens in the future. Above all the people of Quebec have come to terms with the fact that they are going to remain a part of Canada.  Moreover they can be both Québécois and Canadians. Of course they can.

The other interesting point is that the Liberal Party in Canada did terribly in the election of 2011, but then came back to win this time. It moved from 18% to 39%. Things change and a few years is a long time in politics. So who knows who might win an election in the UK or in Scotland in a few years’ time? Who knows what unpredictable events might intervene? Labour might recover in Scotland. So too might the Lib Dems. So too might the Conservatives. We all have one seat at Westminster. But if you believe in your party, campaign for it. Perhaps few others do right now, but that doesn’t matter. Things change.

I’ve recently come out in support of the Conservatives. But that doesn’t mean I’m hostile to Pro UK people in Scotland who disagree. Moreover even when we campaign for different parties, we can still all and always campaign for the UK. But to change things around we need a bit of a rethink. We need to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the Pro UK position. We need to do the same for our opponent.

The Pro UK side is very strong on economics. The case we all made during the referendum was clear and had reason behind it. The argument that Scotland was economically better off in the UK was overwhelming. That argument has become stronger since. From the perspective of rational self-interest no-one would vote for the SNP. Why are they doing so well then? The reason is obvious. While the SNP’s argument is weak in terms of the rational, it is massively strong in terms of the emotional. Most people make decisions not by coldly calculating self-interest. Rather to be human is to be swayed by emotion. Patriotism is a very powerful emotion. It isn’t in my rational self-interest to join the army and fight in a war. But we know from history that frequently an appeal to patriotic emotion can overcome this. When my heart says one thing I frequently will ignore what my head is saying, or rather find facts that support my heart. It is for this reason above all that so many nationalists object to anything in the “Mainstream media” that contradicts what their heart is saying. It is for this reason that they seek out alternative sources of information and alternative facts.  These facts may have soared so high that they've taken wing from reality, but everyone likes to confirm their beliefs rather than contradict them. It's only when the wings get too close to the sun, that we find out what they are made of. 

It is, of course, worth making economic arguments.  But we made the case so forcefully that it actually hurt our position. The nationalist head ignored our argument, or rather preferred an alternative which confirmed what his heart was feeling. But at the same time, the relentless economic arguments offended the nationalist heart. Every time one of us wrote something about how awful Scotland would be if we became independent, it got the nationalist backs up. We’ll show them, they said. Much of what we wrote was dishonest anyway. I don’t oppose independence because I think Scotland would be poorer. I would oppose it even if I thought it would be richer. The reason for this is that I think Scotland is an integral part of the UK. So why give economic arguments when they are not the reason for my support of the UK? Economics is contingent. In the seventies Scotland may have been better off financially with independence. Who knows what the future would bring? In any event Scotland could prosper as an independent country. But that is not the point. So too could California, or Bavaria.

So cease making relentlessly negative economic arguments. They don’t help the Pro UK position, they hurt it. The same goes for all the other negativity. We should never have said you can’t keep the pound. We should never have said the EU won’t let you in. All we needed to say is that these matters are uncertain. They are. Uncertainty is our friend, like a cheap forties horror flick that can’t afford to pay for the monster’s costume, but instead shows only shadows.

Where the nationalists are strong is on patriotism. The problem we have is that patriotism trumps everything else. They have succeeded in connecting Scottish patriotism with Scottish nationalism. Scottish nationalism is the desire for independence. But huge numbers of patriotic Scots now think that in order to be patriotic they have to support the SNP. Patriotism as a force will crush nearly anything in its path. It will certainly crush the idea that we are better together, or that we might be a bit poorer for a while in the future. It was patriotism that crushed Labour in Scotland. No other force could have done so.  It is for this reason also that the SNP are covered in Teflon. If they are the patriotic party, what does a nationalist care how they run the country? The answer is they don’t. They will keep voting for them, for they think it is patriotic to vote for independence and therefore patriotic to vote for the SNP. 
  

As I’ve said before. The SNP has only got one argument for independence, but it is a very good one:

Scotland is a country,

Countries ought to be independent,

Therefore Scotland ought to be independent.

Time and again I come across nationalists who implicitly make this argument. It’s worth remembering that such arguments are inevitably rather circular. What is contained in the premise implicitly will come out in the conclusion. But the point of analysing such an argument is that it can bring clarity to the meaning of the words we use.

The Pro UK person is left with a choice. Either we deny that Scotland is a country, or we deny that countries ought to be independent. The first is not very promising because everyone in Scotland thinks Scotland is a country. I frequently argue that Scotland is only called a country. What this amounts to is that Scotland was a country, until 1707 or perhaps 1603. I think this may well be the truth, but again I will have a problem convincing a patriotic Scot who fervently believes that Scotland is a country. It is for this reason that they frequently react with such fury to my logic.

Most Pro UK Scots would, I suspect, reject challenging the first premise. After all isn’t this why Pro UK Scots continue to support the Scottish rugby or football teams? They must think that Scotland is a country, that’s why they support the team, but that we ought not to be independent, for which reason they voted no. But do they really think that countries ought not to be independent? What about France, or Japan? Is it merely that although they think countries ought to be independent, they ought not to be so if it would make me personally poorer. If that is the nature of your argument it is very thin gruel indeed.

But I don’t think this need be the nature of the argument. There are after all in the world such things as multi-nation nations. There are rather a lot of these. They include Russia, the UK and Canada. What this means is that someone can support two or more nations existing at the same time. I can then support both Scotland and the UK and can describe them both as my country. The difference between this position and the position that Scotland is only called a country is very small indeed. But perhaps this position is more persuasive. As multi-nation nations exist it is perfectly possible to argue that Scotland is not merely called a country, but is in fact a country.

Some nationalists maintain that the UK is not a country, but rather some sort of construct. This puts them into an unfortunate position for two reasons. Firstly it denies that all sorts of places like China and India are countries. You try telling that to the Chinese. Secondly if the UK is not a country, then by definition Scotland is already independent. Why then campaign for something that you already have?

The crucial point however, is that the existence of a multi-nation nation is incompatible with the independence of its parts.  If all the parts of a multi-nation nation became independent the whole would, of course, cease to exist. It is therefore logical for me to argue that not all countries ought to be independent, namely those which are parts of a whole. There is nothing inconsistent with someone from Quebec, being both patriotic about Quebec and about Canada. Far from being consistent, this way of feeling is common all over the world.

It is this that Pro UK people need to work on. We already have Scottish patriotism. There is a temptation to get into a competition with the SNP over who is most Scottish. But this is to battle on ground on which they are strong and we are weak. Rather we must change the nature of the battle. Our task over the next few years is to point out the truth that there is nothing incompatible about being patriotic about Scotland and wanting the UK to continue. On this ground the nationalists are very weak indeed. Each of us in fact is a British citizen. No matter how much a Scottish nationalist denies this fact it nevertheless is true. But it is odd indeed not to feel something that you are. If I am cold, it is strange indeed to say I don’t feel cold. Likewise if I am British it is strange indeed to say I don’t feel it.  

There is a tendency in Scotland to deny our Britishness. Which of us has not at some point or other corrected someone who has called us British? I'm Scottish we maintain, even if we voted No. Well at some point we have to hear the cockerel crowing. That point is now. We must be comfortable with our dual identity. We must live it each and every day. Don’t think of our compatriots as somehow different. Don’t think of Scotland as something separate. Think and act as a person with two identities. Sure we have our own laws in Scotland, sure we have our own bank notes and our own football teams, but that is not a reason to break up our multi-nation nation it is an expression of it.

All over the world there are countries that are able to express difference within a whole. If they were all to break up into their various linguistic and ethnic groups there would be chaos. Quebec has got over its bout of nationalism and has settled down into being a part of Canada. People there can express their difference as well as their similarity. We in Scotland are far more similar to our neighbours than a French speaking person from Montreal and an English speaking person from Vancouver. Far less separates us in terms of language and in terms of distance. The nationalists in Scotland will continue to deny that they are British. Their movement is not founded on truth therefore and so will in time topple. We can bring that day nearer by expressing both the fact that we are Scottish and that we are British. But please put a little feeling into it. That is what our campaign has lacked for too long. If we can win the emotional argument, we’ll need no other.