Very courteous of you. I think we may be in danger of actually having a civil and rational debate in a Mudpit thread, may God help us.
Haha! Well feel free to throw in some insults, we wouldn't want to break with tradition too much now
I use Nationalism in the sense of the SNP's nationalism, that is the championing of Scottish culture and the push for an independent Scottish nation state. It is a political ideology, but it is not to be confused with the common 20th century definition of Nationalism which is considerably different.
Ahh i see, well i apologise for my miss communication. The SNP's take on nationalism, indeed as you've argued i would agree is the best possible way to go, if we are going to pursue a Nationalist line. But you must admit my friend, that moderate Nationalism always leads through to its more extreme counterpart in some groups, any sort of state indoctrination (which inherently all Nationalism relies upon in some form or another, be it hugely like a cult of personality seen in Russia and North Korea for a particular man, or moderately as we've seen in Ireland, US, or indeed the UK where its several minor things that help create a sense of Nationalistic pride), does lead to a superiority complex down the road, i would hate for an Independant Scotland to look down upon its neighbours, but i fear that is what will happen, we must remember also the SNP's ideal of Scottish citizenship isn't broadly popular, i agree with it indeed, by other Scots do not, what will happen when another party comes to power, which it will as in all democracies, and changes the goal posts? The sparks of Nationalism that the SNP are appealing too, relating to one side of a historic event, drawing back on our history and cultural achievements to prove something in some cases, these open the flood gates to further extreme forms, pointless hatred. Surely it is better to just represent how every piece of Scottish society is important, and how we're important in the wider world of extensive alliances and trading organisations? Be proud, but humble? This i believe is arguably something the UK had 7-10 years ago, though now with the current surges of UKIP and other Nationalism it seems almost lost.
Except that the Third Century was exactly the time when the Roman Empire went into the crisis that eventually led to its splinter and downfall. The Roman empire was built on a solid Republican foundation, which defined itself more than any other previous civilisation against other peoples, and certainly did not have universal citizenship. The Imperial period only cemented the idea of a Rome run on Roman values even more, what with the moral reforms of Augustus: the pax Augusta and the 1st and 2nd centuries in general were periods of high stability, and simultaneously, a huge literary/cultural boom. Few if any of the famous Romans of the 1st century were from Rome itself, but they were to a man firm supporters of the Roman state and proud to uphold the values set down by Virgil and Cicero.
Indeed i thought you might bring up Republican and Early Imperial Rome! while this is true, i would say a good argument against Nationalism is just to look at their diplomatic protocols and affairs, Anyone who was not Roman, was treated appallingly early on, so in terms of modern society, with our code of ethics and morals its nothing something to look up to surely! I would say actually that the Eastern Roman Empire too from the 5th Century onwards really, was a very different, and better beast! It survived nigh on a thousand years by recognising the fact that foreigners are not to be ignored or simply classed as Barbarians... but its better to culture swap, to study though nations around them, get to know how they think... this is a far cry from Early Romes policy of simple submission, trade, or destruction. The Byzantines (For the sake of using a shortened word!) actively sought out other cultures, got to understand them (Almost unheard of right up until the first experiment with the precursor to the UN), and thus we have a wealth of literature that they have provided on all aspects of the many peoples about them, no nationalism is prevalent (They praised those nations around them who they found to have admirable traits, and then incorporated or used them somehow in the Imperial machine of rule) and yet the Byzantine state up until the 4th Crusade was an advanced and (mostly!) stable entity (If only they could have worked out a water-tight successional law, as rulers would later) who outshone most of its neighbours in terms of the arts, culture, political machine mins, and military organisation and logistics, with an advanced tax system (for the time), with a series of concessions and benefits to those who needed them. This is an example of when Nationalism is put to one side, instead of being prevalent among political thinking, a sense of unity is there, but no a superiority complex, or and us vs them mentality (Though one would insert itself at certain points admittedly with the Islamic invasions).
Nationality is a social construct based on the political unit of the sovereign state. It dates back to pre-human times, long before there was anything 'artificial' beyond termite mounds. It is simply the extension on the larger scale of tribal groupings: stick together with a limited number of your own people, and you have a far greater chance of thriving. It has been greatly complexified since then, but the basic idea still remains applicable: Westminster is not an effective forum for legislature that covers the entire UK in its current form, because its agendas conflict too much. Extreme nationalism leads to extreme idiocy, just like any extremist political belief, but moderate sensible nationalism leads to moderate and sensible behaviour and ideas. There are heated debates between Communists and Capitalists, which has in the past led to violence, so your claim that Nationalism is some kind of specially stultifying form of politics doesn't stand up. Economic disagreements, national disagreements, marital disagreements even: all have caused major wars and loss of life, all are perfectly harmless when kept in moderation and handled sensibly.
Firstly my friend i fully agree with your comment about Westminster being an ineffective form of centralised governance for the UK! Its why i fully support greater devolution, or even a federalised UK (The Royals can be kept if wanted, just organise things in a fairer manner, with separate political, economic and cultural capitals, to spread the wealth around a bit in simplistic terms), which i think would also benefit most of England as well, as a fair few, especially from the North, Midlands and South West feel that London just 'takes, takes, takes'. But i do not believe independance would be the answer, if anything we all stand to lose far too much, as has been gone over previously.
Now to your main point, i do agree Nationalism is the evolution of tribalism, and as you've so very well stated yourself my friend. its just in essence that the tribes got bigger...now! Follow on to the logical end of this evolutionary process, as you'll get what we have (mostly) today, a globalised world, in which you can speak to someone across the atlantic right here and now, or you could talk to someone in the very heart of China, and even see them on webcam! Where you can fly anywhere in the world, and journeys that used to take months, nigh on years (It took a Byzantine envoy to the 'capital' of the Mongols near chine, 3 years to get there and back!), into mere hours or at most days. So our current archaic view of Nationalism no longer really functions, their are no barriers between peoples anymore, imagined, real or political (with tourist visas, EU style free movement etc) and so Nationalism in terms of the late 20th Century ideal is outdated, it needs to evolve, as indeed it is doing- multiculturalism... a word that has both bad and good connotations to many, is i would argue something of a false ideal, indeed a melting pot of cultures where the lines of separation blur is something far more desirable for a state, but its one way to start, another way is the fact that now we as humans can feel empathy with people in the most distant and removed parts of the world, by use of the media, or indeed again communicating directly, this again is an evolving aspect that Nationalism as it stands now simply can't cope with- We're getting those tribal urges as it where, for a scattered and very much divided around the world people! Not contained in a single State, and continuing globalisation will just make Nationalism as it stands now even more archaic, it just doesn't fit in the modern world in its current form. The next step for Nationalism from its tribal roots would be the development, of as i would argue is happening now- inter-state nationalism, which when you look at it, isn't nationalism at all anymore!
That is exactly the point of Scottish nationalism though: choosing one ethnicity or demographic and making it superior is horrific I agree, but the SNP are not white supremacists, they are not Khmer Rouge-esque farming fanatics, they are Roman-style nationalists: anyone who works, pays their way in society according to their ability, and conforms to Scottish law and customs, is a Scot, no matter what their colour or creed. Scottishness is a state of mind, not a skin tone or an ancestral right.
I think here my friend again you've got a very good point, though applying it to too smaller a domain, as i've mentioned about increasing globalisation, this is the next form or evolution of Nationalism- yet why do many scots i know keeping citing historic examples of Scots vs someone to justify their Nationalism? In this new definition we have created, it doesn't fit anymore, as a shared (and bias) history is not a factor in uniting, more dividing now. I think the best way of putting it is the Political definitions have evolved, but the gut feeling and way of implementing Nationalism has not. And thats the problem. For instance i studied Scottish Studies here a few years ago, and now that i've expanded my horizons and gone onto the recognised academic practice of viewing information from UNI (It was bloody hard at first!) i realise that most of what i've taught, is not only Historically wrong! (Literally the facts where presented poorly, or downright made up), but also it put a huge bias on things...something which no academic subject should ever do, as then it is pointless in terms of life skills and of very little value later on (hence why i found it so hard to change at first). This is where the problems lay my friend. The SNPS definition is great, but for as long as they (and many other parties and organisations) are calling upon historic examples, stereotypes etc to stir up and create Nationalistic feelings, it means nothing my friend.
Without the Nationalistic fervor, Ireland would still be part of the UK, and it would be a tiny backwater of it at that, less populous than Scotland. Ireland went from being the poorest country in Europe to having one of Europe's highest qualities of life within a couple of generations, it has a thriving cultural scene, a distinctive cultural identity, and frankly if not for poor economic management would be a roaringly successful example for Scotland to follow in nearly every respect. Yes, culture when manipulated for political motives is going to lose a lot of its original authenticity, but that doesn't make it any less effective in galvanising a population.
I would actually argue that without Nationalistic fervor Ireland would be better off though, for instance the Home Rule Act 1914, was only delayed due to the untimely outbreak of war, yet certain Nationalists completely Jumped the gun, though admittedly the conservative government should have issued a declaration then and there, saying they would uphold home rule at the end of the war. Thus an era of bloodshed and atrocities that has left deep divisions in Irish society to this day! Imagine how well Ireland would be doing independent AND without all the divisions and violence they've suffered. Nationalism contributed towards that violence.
But the exact policy of the SNP. Scottish Nationalism is not Nationalism at all in the 20th Century sense. Frankly I agree with you totally in all your points, so that should show you how much your idea of Scottish Nationalism has been corrupted by the tiny minority of thugs who are not even slightly representative of the SNP.
I thank you my friend, i would add that its entirely mutual too, your points all have merit, and i agree with many. I especially do see that the SNP's personal brand is different and something to be held up as an example of how Nationalism might survive in a globalised society instead of holding it back, but you are right, a minority has indeed coloured perceptions, but also the fact the SNP's definition is not truly implemented or accepted yet. As long as organisational bias remains in the study of history, the use of Nationalistic rhetoric etc then we still fall short of their Ideal.
EDIT:
It really depends how it plays out. In spite of how I'd vote, I think it's possible that if a vote on independence is seen as a straight choice between the UK and the EU then it's possible Scots might go with the UK, as I can see Scots feeling more of a shared history and general affinity with the rest of the UK than they do with Europe. Of course if the vote is seen as a choice between being part of a global community or a nation run by isolationist little Englanders then people might go for the latter.
Sorry Lazzeer i have just spied your reply! I think you have a good point there, I hadn't thought about it that way, though indeed a feeling of Isolationism would very much put off most parties in wanting to remain with the UK, its why i believe that actually the current Euro Skeptics in the UK, and rise of UKIP are more to do with a disenchanted populace displaying their despair at what i think we can all perceive to be a government that just doesn't listen. HS2- a fine example here, everyone, even the government's own think-tank have said its a pointless and costly exercise for very little return, yet the conservatives carry on- citing the fact that since the victorian railway helped the economy, this will too...and thats it, unlike everyone else, no display of how exactly or why...just that it will...and so we're doing it. Regardless of the fact that the historic argument they used, worked because their was no existing fast transport system in place, and so the impact was huge...here their is and its negligible. Tangent i know, but an example i would use to support my case here.
