We must attack the SNP at its roots

Why are so many people voting for the SNP? In 2010 they got less than 20% of the vote and won 6 seats. This time according to some polls they may win all of them. My view is that they will do rather worse than they expect, but still unless the polls are hopelessly wrong, they are liable to at least double their share of the vote. What has changed in the course of 5 years? It’s only necessary to think for a second to understand what has changed. We had a referendum on independence.

When I lived in the USSR, I used to visit friends and relations in what is now the Ukraine. People on the whole got on pretty well. There were some jokes and bits of banter, but nothing unpleasant. Everybody I met thought of the USSR as one single indivisible country. Nobody dreamed that it would all fall apart so soon. I never met Ukrainian nationalism in those days. No-one I met thought of themselves as particularly different in any real way.  People from what is now Ukraine and what is now Russia were far more united during the Soviet Union than people in Scotland are today. 

People may wonder why I write so much about Scottish politics. One reason is that I am one of the few Scots with first-hand experience of seeing a country fall apart. The other is that I have seen what nationalism has done to Ukraine. Nationalism was latent in Ukraine, but it was ignited by foolish politicians and this spark led to a bonfire. People who had previously thought of themselves as the same now hated each other, now fought each other, now killed each other for a difference that two decades earlier they had barely been aware existed.  

When I was a child in Scotland, nationalism barely existed. There was no division whatsoever between Scots and precious little between Scots and people from other parts of the UK. Even five years ago less than 20% of the population were nationalists. The event that changed everything was the Scottish election of 2011. I don’t particularly remember following that election. Just another boring Holyrood election, I thought. We all sleepwalked into letting our country be run by nationalists. For the first time the SNP won a majority. Who knows, if they hadn’t won in 2011, we might still be having an ordinary election in 2015 with the SNP winning just less than 20%. But the SNP only needed to win once in order to play the nationalist card that sparked the bonfire that is now sweeping across Scotland. They claim to be civic nationalists, but the logic of civic nationalism ultimately collapses, for why separate people if there is no characteristic that distinguishes them. To be a civic nationalist logically entails that you are not a nationalist at all. But it can act as a convenient façade, which even its followers are unaware exists. Again I saw this in Ukraine in the 1990s. Everyone said they wanted to get on with each other and have friendly relations with their neighbours.  It was all very civic, even civil, but when the mask was taken off, the result was civil war.

It was the seemingly never-ending indyref campaign that brought out the hitherto latent nationalism in Scotland. Up until then Scottish nationalism was a minority pursuit, but the referendum meant it went mainstream. For the first time huge numbers of Scots were exposed to nationalism. They found it appealing. It is appealing. That’s why it is such a strong political card to play. That’s why it’s a card that should never be played.

There’s only one good argument for an independent Scotland. But it is a very good argument indeed. It can be stated in the following way:

1 Scotland is a country.

2 Countries ought to be independent.

3 Therefore Scotland ought to be independent.

Once you have accepted this argument, then all other arguments will be impotent against it. We know from history that people seeking independence have been willing to endure all sorts of privations in order to achieve it. They don’t care if their material situation will be worse, so long as they are free. It is for this reason that the campaign that we ran against the nationalists was in the end only partially effective. The slogan “Better Together” will never persuade someone who thinks Scotland ought to be independent.  Moreover, it looks from their perspective a little like the argument of a scoundrel. The nationalist doesn’t care if he will be worse off, he doesn’t care if times will be tough. He looks down on someone saying ‘watch out, you’ll be worse off’ with contempt.

While Better Together won every economic argument, while we could show that Scotland was indeed materially better off in the UK, we saw our opponents grow impervious to all our arguments. At the beginning of the campaign it was genuinely a debate about what was better for Scotland. Towards the end we were arguing against fundamentalists who couldn’t care less what was better for Scotland so long as Scotland was independent. That was the only better they were interested in. At this point rational argument ceases. It literally has no point. Since being defeated in September, nationalism has if anything grown still more fundamentalist. It matters not one little bit to them that the price of oil has crashed. It matters not one bit that the SNP’s argument for full fiscal autonomy are economically incoherent. All they care about is achieving independence for Scotland. All our arguments are brushed aside. But then if you went up to a soldier in an army fighting for independence and started talking about material wellbeing, he too would brush aside the argument.

In order to defeat an opponent it is necessary to put forward his best argument and then refute it. The only way to refute an argument is by either refuting the reasoning or the assumptions. 

How many countries in the world can you name that are not independent? Off the top of my head I can name four: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. No doubt, there are others. But the vast majority of countries I can think of are independent, sovereign nation states. It would almost appear that the defining characteristic of a country is that it is independent and sovereign. Countries fight wars to maintain their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Being independent therefore in the vast majority of cases is the defining characteristic of being a country.  For that reason the statement “countries ought to be independent” would on the surface appear to be true and reasonable.

In order to defeat the SNP we must defeat their assumptions. The initial assumption “Scotland is a country” must not be allowed, for if we do allow it, the rest of the argument follows as a matter of course. While Scotland is called a country owing to a quirk of the English language, it is not a country in the sense in which 99% of the countries of the world are countries. As I frequently say Scotland is a country in a similar way that Fife is a kingdom. Fife is called a kingdom, but it lacks the defining characteristic of being a kingdom. It lacks a king. Scotland too lacks the defining characteristic of being a country, for it is neither sovereign, nor independent.

This would all appear to be straightforward. The difficulty is that the pro-UK side of the argument is frequently unwilling to say what is obviously true for fear of upsetting or offending Scottish voters. This is our biggest mistake. We ignore the strengths of the UK. Instead of fighting on ground that is strong for us, we fight on ground which is strong for our opponent. The debate always is framed in terms of Scotland. Every sentence involves Scotland, and Britain is never mentioned. We end up in a ‘who cares most about Scotland’ contest. But in a contest about who is most nationalistic about Scotland the SNP are always going to win.  

This same mistake has been there from the beginning of creating the Scottish Parliament. I’m all in favour of devolved power. It works well in Germany and the USA. But the Scottish parliament was created in far too grandiose a way. People went on about how we were recreating the Parliament we had lost in 1707.  Well, naturally Scottish nationalists would see this as a step on the way to independence. Why be satisfied with a parliament that had some powers when you could have a parliament with all powers? The same can be said for 'the vow' just prior to the referendum and the Smith Commission just afterwards. If you are talking to a freedom fighter and you offer him some freedom, he will of course grab it, but it will only whet his appetite for more. Independence supporters are never going to be satisfied with devolution.  Moreover, from their point of view they ought not to be satisfied. No concession will make them cease to want independence.  But they are always happy to reach that goal gradually. The logic of their argument is to demand ever more power until they approach and then fall over the line that makes them independent. The logic of our argument must be different.

We must attack the SNP at their roots. I have tried to outline how to do this in the past few weeks.  First, accept that the UK is one nation, that is indivisible. Therefore, cease treating the parts of the UK as if they were really countries. By all means let us keep our identities as Scottish and English etc., but let us accept that these are not real distinctions, no more than the distinction between someone from Yorkshire and someone from Lancashire. It has turned out to be a long-term historical mistake that in a number of respects the parts of the UK have been treated as if they were independent countries. No other nation state in the world allows its parts to have separate money and separate international football teams. If France or Germany treated their parts, which likewise were formerly independent countries, as if they were still independent, perhaps they too would have problems with nationalism. Scotland has not been independent for more than 300 years. The mistake is to treat it as if it still is independent. This simply concedes the argument to the nationalists.  It’s because we act towards Scotland as if it were independent that nationalists want it to be so in reality. Their logic is impeccable, for which reason we must refute it.

Secondly, rule out any further referendums ever. No-one would allow Aberdeenshire a referendum on independence. Well, on the same basis we should say that Aberdeenshire is to Scotland as Scotland is to the UK. Because it is an indivisible part of the whole, there is no right to secede. This is perfectly legal and is indeed perfectly fair. No nation state can forever be faced with being destroyed from within.  A second referendum moreover would spark nationalism still further in Scotland, it would lead to still more division in a place that is already divided enough. Who knows where this would lead? I have a right to live without a continual threat to my country’s existence.  Why should I, a British citizen, not have the same right as a French or a German citizen?

It is because the world recognises Ukraine as a sovereign independent nation state that is indivisible that the secession of the Donbas and Crimea without the permission of the Government in Kiev is considered illegitimate. There is wrong on both sides of that conflict, but in principle it is perfectly legitimate for a sovereign independent nation state to protect its territorial integrity. If that were not the case, it would be wrong for the West to object to the people in Crimea and Donbas seeking to secede. But if a nation state that has existed since 1991 is allowed to defend its territorial integrity why cannot a nation state that has existed since 1707? The UK has existed for longer than the United States, Germany and Italy. They would not allow secessionists to infringe their sovereignty. Why on earth should we?

Thirdly, don’t make any sort of deal with those who have only the goal of destroying our country. Don’t work with them even if they pretend to be our friends. They are nothing of the sort. They are the greatest threat to the UK in over 300 years of history. Treat them as such. Under these circumstances it would be normal for the main pro-UK parties to work together for the good of our country. If necessary, they should do so again.

Fourthly, we must find a way to bring about more unity into the UK and promote a feeling of common identity. As we devolve, so must we unite. In the United States there is lots of local power, but there is also much that unites everyone no matter how far apart they live. The United States overcame historical division and reinvented itself. We can do the same. This will take time, perhaps generations. It took much of the USA over one hundred years to heal the wounds of the Civil War.  How long will it take to heal the wounds of our referendum in Scotland? I have no idea, but we have to start putting the nationalist genie back in the bottle.

Some people who voted No in Scotland will object to what I write here. My answer is as follows. If you think that Scotland is a country in the same sense as France is a country, you should join the SNP. If you don’t feel particularly British, you likewise should join the SNP. We need people throughout the UK who are willing to say we value our country and we are willing to fight for it. Too many are lukewarm about Britain. Sorry, but you only help the Nats. We need to tell a story about the UK that is more attractive than the story the SNP want to tell about Scotland. If we had run a campaign based on how much we loved the UK and how it is a great country, it would have been both positive and it would have meant that we were fighting on firm ground, our ground.

We have a battle on our hands. We can’t do it alone. We need people throughout the UK to realise that the breakup of our country would be a disaster for all of us. It would be a disaster economically, but much, much more important it would involve the loss of our country. A Frenchman or an American would see the breakup of his country as the greatest disaster imaginable. So too must we. We also have to recognise that the divisions in Scotland are becoming dangerous. We must make no further concessions to nationalists. Don’t try to be more nationalistic than the nationalists, you only help them. Don’t appease them as they attempt to destroy our country. You will only help them do it. Don’t accept the assumption on which the SNP campaign. Rather attack their assumptions. They assume there will be a hung parliament. Unhang it by letting all pro-UK parties work together. They assume that in the end, there will be another referendum. Refute their assumption. Just say No. They think they can use the Scottish Parliament to ferment division in the UK.  Some say they will use the Scottish Parliament to claim UDI. Show them that we are serious and will take all necessary steps to stop them. 

This is Britain’s most difficult fight in centuries. But we have been in tough spots before and remember, this is Britain. We always win. This time, however, a few will not be enough. We will need all those who love the UK to work together to defeat Scottish nationalism. We had another finest hour last September, but this time we will need rather longer.

If you like my writing, you can find my books Scarlet on the Horizon, An Indyref Romance and Lily of St Leonards on Amazon. Please follow the links on the side. Thanks. I appreciate your support.

“O rus!..”

I studied for a time at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire and fell in love with the United States in general, but in particular with the Granite state. I remember all the cars with their licence plates stating “Live free or die” and having a feeling that I wasn’t in Kansas anymore.

Since it first came into existence, I believe, the US has been on the right side of history. Mistakes have been made, and like every country, it is possible to find fault with the historical record, but unquestionably the world has been a better place because the US existed.

What I’m going to write is controversial. People I like and agree with on much else may disagree with this. I hesitate therefore to write it, but do so because friends sometimes disagree. It is, I hope, possible to criticise from the perspective of friendship.

Since the Second World War it has broadly been the policy of successive UK governments to support the US in foreign policy. This was and is correct. Friends support each other and the UK gains by having the US as a long term ally. For this reason I have generally supported, though sometimes with reluctance, the UK’s support of our ally in the wars of the past 20-30 years. We’ve fought side by side twice in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere. When a US president asks for help, my first reaction is that we should help, simply because we are an ally and have been asked.  However, I am beginning to become uncomfortable with this policy of unconditional support.

The United States has intervened pretty much where it has pleased and then found justification for doing so. That justification amounts to we think we ought to intervene. The US is itself the judge of the morality and legality of its actions. For a long time I have been willing to go along with this, on the basis simply that the United States historically has been a force for good. It remains one. But I begin to question the wisdom of the foreign policy choices that have been made in recent years. Many of these wars have not turned out well. Iraq is unquestionably worse off today than it would have been if we had not intervened. The same can probably be said of Libya. It is unlikely that the intervention in Afghanistan will turn out well long term.

If wars go well and lead to a better outcome for both victor and vanquished, then I’ve always been willing to be not overly concerned about the cause of the war. Wars have been fought for far worse reasons than toppling dictators. But when wars go badly and the outcomes are chaotic, then I’m forced to notice that the US has frequently had no real right to intervene. I have in the past been willing to accept the justification that the United States thinks the intervention morally justified, but this position has become ever more untenable and made me ever more uncomfortable as each intervention fails to turn out well and, moreover, does not have the support of other great powers.

In 1962 the world appeared to be on the brink of nuclear war, because the Soviet Union wished to put missiles on Cuba. The United States objected. What right did they have to object? The reason was that Cuba was nearby. They considered the whole region within their sphere of influence. Fair enough. I’m glad the crisis ended with there being no missiles on Cuba. The United States still maintains its sphere of influence. Imagine if today a foreign power sought to overthrow the government in Mexico and replace it with an ally. What would have happened if the Soviet Union had tried to do this? The United States would unquestionably have gone to war. How far does the US sphere of influence extend? They have been willing to intervene in Korea, in Vietnam, in Chile and really pretty much anywhere else they please. The justification for such action is the national interest of the United States and the West in general. In many instances it has been right to intervene. But let’s not kid ourselves the US has sought to change regimes for the simple reason that it wants to, and has frequently had no more justification for doing so than its own self-interest.

I believe, we made a long term strategic error in 1991. The West chose to treat everyone in the Eastern Block as an ally except one country, Russia. We expanded NATO and the EU right up to the border of the Soviet Union and beyond. Russia was excluded from the ever expanding club. We chose to enlarge in this way even though the condition for the possibility of the Eastern Bloc collapsing more or less peacefully was that Russia agreed not to fight the collapse. Russia did so solely on the basis of an agreement that the Warsaw Pact would not simply be turned into NATO.  History teaches us the folly of crossing strategic red lines and backing a great power into a corner.

During the Cold War the Soviet Union also had a sphere of influence. The West stood by when the Soviet Union sent tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We would have stood by, too, if the Soviets had crushed the revolts which took place between 1989 and 1991. They could easily have done so. A few shots and a couple of tanks would have stopped those chipping away at the Berlin wall. Why would the West have done nothing? Because the Eastern Bloc was within the Soviet sphere of influence and to intervene would have led to nuclear war.

Imagine if present day Russia tried to implement regime change within the US sphere of influence, let’s say in Canada or Mexico. How would the United States react? They would go to war to prevent it. But the US and the EU think it is justified to bring about regime change in Russia’s neighbour.  The sphere of influence of the United States now extends even as far as Ukraine, which until relatively recently was commonly known in Russian as ‘LittleRussia’.

Russia began in Kiev. The present day borders of Ukraine only exist because of Russian and Soviet military action and arbitrary decisions made by Lenin and Khrushchev when everyone thought the USSR would be together for ever. The population of the Ukraine is linguistically mixed, but there are nationalistic forces, particularly from Western Ukraine, that would prefer that there were not Russians and Russian speakers in that country. What has happened over the past number of years in Ukraine is a tragedy for both Russia and Ukraine. People who did not even think of themselves as particularly different during the Soviet Union now hate each other. There has been great wrong on both sides. But we in the West have also been wrong.

It was wrong of the US/EU to agitate to overthrow the elected leader of Ukraine. No doubt, he was a rogue, but it would have been possible to vote him out if only everyone had waited a few months. It was wrong of Russia to intervene in the Ukraine. But it was no more wrong than countless military actions undertaken by the United States. Russia, too, has a right not to have a hostile power seek regime change right on its border.

There is inequality here.  The United States can have wars where and when it pleases, with no more justification than that it decides such a war is in its national interest, but when Russia decides to act in its own interest, the United States brings down the Russian economy causing suffering to millions.  Russia was not justified in using force to change international borders. But at least their intervention was on behalf of people who speak Russian. How many GIs could speak Pashto? Ukraine is just one more of a growing list of countries where the West has intervened and caused disaster. If the EU/US had just left Ukraine alone, it would today have the same borders as it did in 1991, and we would not have had what amounts to a fratricidal civil war.  

The United States must cease intervening in places that it does not understand. It has more power than at any time in its history. Its control of international finance begins to look like dictatorship.  Democracy is about everyone in the world having the same rights as Americans. Let us live free, too. At the moment the US can say “Do as we tell you or we’ll ruin you.” They can say this to anyone. Far from being the land of the free, the US is beginning to resemble a Southern plantation owner, whose freedom depends on the slavery of others. It took a Civil War to erase that blot on the historical record of the United States. Let’s just hope ruining Russia doesn’t put the world back in to the Cold War. History wouldn’t look very favourably on that either.†

If you like my writing, please follow the link to my book Scarlet on the Horizon. The first five chapters can be read as a preview.

† My title is a quote from Horace’s Satires “O rus! quando ego te adspiciam?” [Oh rural home! when shall I behold you?] used as a motto at the start of Chapter 2 of Pushkin’s Onegin.  Pushkin makes a pun with “О Русь!“ [O Rus’ i.e. O Russia ]

The foundation of nationalism is division

The department where I work is probably more international than most workplaces, but still the majority of us were born in Scotland.  We tone down the Doric if it’s obvious that someone from overseas is struggling, but we also try to teach them a few words.  People get together over coffee or at the pub after work and talk flows freely. Aberdonians tend to me more reserved than Scots from places like Glasgow, but people from all over the world have found a pretty warm welcome in the department.  However, on occasion someone from elsewhere has asked me about some aspects of the Scottish character that they find a bit baffling.

There was a sweepstake back in June about the World Cup. I didn’t take part as I have no interest in nor understanding of the game, but I remember when the draw was made. Someone was pleased at getting Spain, someone else delighted to get Brazil, someone laughed when they got Iran. Finally someone drew England. I don’t want it she said. Some people commiserated with her. She continued to complain about her misfortune. She’d rather have had any team but England. When the games began to be played, people who normally have no interest in football began complaining about how the commentators kept making excuses about England’s performance. They kept saying England were unlucky. In every game not involving England they kept referring matters back to England.  They kept mentioning how England had once won the World Cup in 1966. Eventually I had a conversation with someone who had recently arrived from England who was finding all this rather upsetting and someone from Germany who thought it all rather strange. The German woman asked me, but haven’t the Scottish just celebrated a battle fought in 1314, don’t you sing a song about it at every football match. In Germany we also remember the previous times we won the World Cup. There was even a popular film about how we won in 1954. Do they hate us so much asked the English woman that they’d prefer to have Iran in the sweepstake? I said that real hatred against English people was thankfully very rare in Scotland. But that many Scots feel the need to define our Scottishness against something and that something is England. It’s rather like how if you meet a Canadian, they tend to emphasise in the first few minutes that they are not Americans.

On another social occasion people were discussing relations who lived elsewhere in the UK. Someone mentioned having a brother in Oxford, whose children had been born and brought up there. She emphasised however that the children were Scottish even though they did have English accents. Whenever they go abroad they also make it clear that they are Scottish as some continentals have a rather negative view about the English. I was asked about this later too. But that must mean that you think that Scotishness is something that can only be passed down from parents. Do you think that someone can only be a Scot if they were born and bred in Scotland? I answered that I didn’t think this to be the case, but that many Scots unthinkingly did think in this way. The odd thing is that I also have a Scottish colleague whose sister moved to France after university. Her children were born and bred there, but they are unquestionably French, feel French, talk French. And yet when someone is born and bred in England their Scottish parentage somehow trumps everything.

My colleagues from places other than Scotland sometimes ask me about the referendum.  They wonder if the person who didn’t want England in the sweepstake is a nationalist. They wonder if the person who emphasised that her nephews and nieces were not English would vote Yes. I said I hardly knew anyone in the department who would vote Yes and that these people would unquestionably vote No. They looked at me in confusion.  I tried to explain.

Nearly everyone who is from Scotland will on occasion say something unkind about the English. I remember as a child mocking a little English boy because he couldn’t speak the Doric.  Which of us can hand on heart say we have never done such a thing? This is probably something to do with human nature and is not limited to Scotland.  People in England often say unkind things about the French.  Lots of us say unkind things about Americans.  These things can of course be hurtful to the recipients. I’ve heard Scots say things about the English that they would never dream of saying about someone from Pakistan. Even however when this banter is mild it is the foundation of nationalism and the fuel that keeps it alive. It is peculiarly self-defeating for people who love Britain to think negatively about any part of it.

I remember in the Soviet Union no one thought that there was much difference between Ukrainians and Russians. Everyone spoke the same language, though Ukrainians also had their own language which was rather difficult for Russians to understand unless you had a little practice. The difference was similar to that between Doric and English. There was always a bit of banter. Russians sometimes called Ukrainians names based on the haircuts they had centuries ago, Ukrainians sometimes called Russians names based on the beards they used to wear. This banter was mild enough, though it sometimes got out of hand as it had done for centuries. The trouble with this sort of raillery is that it emphasised the differences between people who were fundamentally the same.  Go back a thousand years and you'll find no difference between a Ukrainian and a Russian, go back two thousand years and you'll find no difference between a Celt living in what's now England and a Celt living in what's now Scotland. But look what happened when Ukraine became independent. The Ukrainian language was encouraged, the Russian language discouraged, divisive interpretations of history and culture were developed always emphasising and trying to increase the difference between the neighbours.  The result as so often with nationalism is now obvious for all to see. What started as mild banter has ended in poverty, chaos, hatred and war.

Most independence supporters don’t hate the English, though some do. But they do want to emphasise the difference between Scots and those living in other parts of the UK.  They want to say we think this way. We have this culture. We are fundamentally different from those people south of the border. They would love it if we all spoke a language different from English. Perhaps after independence they would strive to make this dream come true.  Why do a significant number of Scots say I’m Scottish, not British if not because they can’t quite bear to have the Cross of St. George merged with the Cross of St. Andrew. They don’t want any red sullying the purity of the saltire; they can’t bear it if the Red arrows use red smoke.

To say I’m British is to say I’m a little bit English, a little bit Welsh, a little bit Northern Irish and a little bit Scottish. This should be the case wherever our parents came from. Britain is a welcoming place. It is hugely beneficial that people want to come and live here. Though there are challenges too. People from elsewhere tempted to vote for independence, should think twice, whatever promises may have been made to them. Nationalism at root is founded on difference.  It is not inclusive no matter what they may tell you. Many especially intellectual nationalists are indeed liberal civic nationalists. But this is not the fundament of their philosophy.

We are all equally guilty for the rise of nationalism in Scotland. I am guilty for mocking the little English boy. You are guilty for wanting anyone but England to win. Without this banter, nationalism would never have taken root in our country.  People who are British citizens, who don't think they are British, but rather only Scottish are clearly not founding their nationalism on something civic (citizenship), rather they are basing it on where they were born and who their parents are. This tragically is something only they can share.  No one else will ever be properly Scottish, no matter how long they have lived here.

There are signs that nationalism in Scotland is turning ugly. There is a win at all costs mentality that is dangerous to our democracy and much that we hold dear. I’ve seen what nationalism can do. It starts with banter and mild forms of prejudice. Don't let it go any further. If you love Britain don't think of our fellow citizens as the old enemy. Don't use unkind words about those we want to continue living with. Don't do the nationalists job for them.

If you like my writing, please follow the link to my book Scarlet on the Horizon. The first five chapters can be read as a preview.