By Rab Bruce’s Spider

One PERSON’s Freedom Fighter is another PERSON’s Terrorist, or so the saying goes. The drive for Scottish Independence has certainly seemed to polarise opinions in a similar fashion, with the mainstream media referring to Scottish Nationalists as: mad; baying at the moon; vicious; anti-English; racist; and, of course, Nazis, a term which is only one syllable away from Nats, so it must be appropriate. This comparison with Hitler’s Germany is, of course, the default standard which most Britons are trained to visualise whenever anyone mentions Nationalism but this is a very one-sided view and it might be worth taking a look at what Nationalism has meant to people over the past few centuries.

Nationalism is a natural human state of mind. Any group of people who share an ethnic or cultural heritage tend to view themselves as distinct and have a desire to govern themselves. You only need to look at the Biblical accounts of the Jewish nation to recognise that Nationalism has been around for a long time. Much as Humankind shares a vast heritage, people tend to identify with their own grouping and, unfortunately, are often hostile to people from other groupings. That’s not intended as an endorsement of this failing but merely an attempt to recognise it.

It must be admitted that, throughout the centuries, Nationalist movements have often resulted in violence and bloodshed, although we should recognise that, in most cases, there was little alternative at the time these movements took place. It is also true to say that few people would regard the ultimate outcome as a bad thing although it is also important to steer clear of any thoughts that, in modern Nationalist movements, the ends should justify the means.

The first example is the United States of America. Americans fought a war of independence which was founded on democratic rights but essentially identified America as a separate entity from its imperial masters in Great Britain. Lives were lost during the campaign but you would be hard pressed to find a modern-day American who regarded George Washington as a terrorist or who thought that the USA should have remained as a British colony.

A few decades later, Simon Bolivar led the struggle for South American freedom from Spanish rule. This was a dreadful war, with brutal acts carried out by both sides over a period of many years. The loss of life on such a scale is tragic but it must be remembered that the Spanish Empire was brutally repressive and refused to acknowledge any political movement that threatened its absolute control over its colonies which were ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of Spain itself. Bolivar and his compatriots had no alternative but to take up arms in order to achieve their aim. Despite the shocking loss of lives that resulted, it is hard to imagine that any modern citizen of Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador or Colombia would wish that Bolivar had not led the fight for freedom. For all their problems, these countries remain fiercely independent.

In Europe, Garibaldi helped unite Italy, again through military means. Was he a terrorist? The occupying French and Austrian forces certainly thought so but most Italians would probably argue against that view.

In China, the Boxer Rebellion arose in a failed attempt to throw out the occupying foreign powers who controlled much of China. The Boxers are still often portrayed as vicious terrorists but that is a Western perspective looking back at a failed revolt.

These are just a few examples of what can be termed Nationalist movements. What they have in common is that they were all directed against a military occupation which denied the local people their democratic rights. The fact that they needed to resort to violence was a symptom of the period they occupied in humankind’s political development. As time moved on, armed struggles for independence, although never entirely absent, became less necessary.

By the 20th Century, Ireland’s Nationalist movement, although still as much an armed struggle as a political one, involved far fewer deaths than Bolivar’s South American revolt and, ultimately, it was the political arm of the movement that triumphed and led to the creation of the Irish Republic. It is worth noting that the British media of the time portrayed Irish Republicans in much the same way as they are currently writing about Scottish Nationalists, a fact which suggests that disapproval and mockery from the British media should not be a deterrent to those seeking to establish a viable independent country.

This move to a political resistance rather than an armed one became more evident as the 20th Century advanced. Those who decry Nationalism as a bad thing and Nationalists as inherently violent seem never to have heard of Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, both of whom were regarded as terrorist but who advocated political change through peaceful methods.

There is an argument for saying that the level of violence engendered by a Nationalist movement is in direct proportion to the level of military repression enforced by the ruling power. Sometimes, that repression is so severe that no resistance movement arises. IN such cases, it is often seen that chaos and violence break out if the controlling power is withdrawn but we should be careful of ascribing such problems to inherent Nationalism. For example, at least one Unionist blogger has likened the potential breakup of the UK to the breakup of the Soviet Union and has cited Ukraine as an example of the evils of Nationalism which, according to this world view, were rightly kept in check by the USSR. It’s a strange way to look at a military occupation and suppression of national interests and it certainly wasn’t a view shared by many who lived under its rule, as the Hungarian revolt of 1956 amply demonstrated. There were also a great many East Germans who risked, and lost, their lives attempting to cross the Berlin Wall. That the collapse of the Soviet Union did not result in more violence is a tribute to the statesmanship of Mikhail Gorbachev and, whisper it quietly, the Nationalist pride which gripped the countries freed from Soviet domination and allowed them to become truly independent.

As for Ukrainian Nationalism, it certainly existed under Soviet rule but was kept in check by the threat of military suppression. Many Ukrainians fought on the German side during World War 2, not necessarily because they identified with the Nazis but because they detested Russia. This Nationalism has come to the forefront again but to link it to the breakup of the USSR seems a strange conclusion since the violence waited more than 20 years after the collapse of the USSR to erupt.

What comparisons, if any, does all this allow us to make with Scottish Nationalism?

The first thing to note is that the UK is not suppressing the Scots through military force. There is certainly a lack of democratic representation in that Scotland’s interests are almost always subsumed by the greater population demands of England. The same, of course, applies to Wales and Northern Ireland but, as yet, the moves for their independence are not as powerful as the clamour in Scotland. The historical situation is also slightly different in that, unlike places such as, for example, Jamaica and Australia which were first incorporated into the British Empire by conquest and colonisation, and were subsequently granted independence peacefully, Scotland engaged in a political union to voluntarily (if you can call the decision of a few elite noblemen a voluntary act on the part of the people) join with its larger neighbour. This means that the movement for Scottish independence is almost unique. There is no need for an armed struggle because there is no military occupation and suppression of the people. The political union can only be broken through political means and violence is therefore self-defeating. It serves the interests of the State and its supporters in the media to paint the proponents of Scottish Independence as violent but that is a standard tactic the British State has employed against its perceived enemies for three centuries and it finds it difficult to break the habit.

Unfortunately, this portrayal of the SNP and their supporters as violent extremists will continue to be peddled by the media because they want to play on the fears of those who were taught to equate Nationalism with Naxi Germany. As we have seen from the examples above, a Nationalist movement does not necessarily mean that the newly independent country will follow that route at all. What this view also ignores is that there are already examples of purely peaceful, political secessions. Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905 and Czechoslovakia split into its component parts in 1993 with little more than some grumbling and a few sharp exchanges of words. If those countries can manage a peaceful separation why on earth can Scotland not do the same? Nationalism was at the heart of these independence movements too but had very little in common with the view of Nationalism the British Unionists like to portray.

Of course, the most ironic thing is that those who decry Nationalism often tend to be those who embrace British Nationalism most enthusiastically. Blind patriotism being what it is, that is unlikely to change. All that supporters of Scottish independence can do is stick to the conviction that we can regain this country’s sovereignty through peaceful, democratic means. Nationalism doesn’t need to be a force for evil. It can help a country establish pride in its achievements and allow it to take its own place in the world. Nationalism, like every other human construct, can be a force for good or for evil. What is important is not how other Nationalist movements have operated in the past but how we conduct ourselves now and in the future. Let’s prove to the people who predict violence and rioting that they are completely wrong. Let’s show the world that we want a peaceful, democratic progression to independence through convincing people rather than attempting to frighten, intimidate or bully them. Those are the tactics of people who know they are losing the argument. That’s not us.