Scottish Nation? Yes. Scottish State? No.

Published on by D. G. Hart

Have the pollsters or pastors understood the difference? Jonathan Chaplin explains it:

. . . it is obviously true that the demand for Scottish independence is substantially animated by a widespread popular identification with and affection for the ‘nation’ of Scotland. That may be the fuel in the tank, but it is not the question on the ballot paper. Voters are not being asked to express a view on the significance or esteem or destiny of ‘the Scottish nation’. Nations are elusive cultural phenomena with blurry edges: they cannot be voted for or against. States are determinate political and legal institutions that you can either bring into existence or not.

Nations are notoriously difficult to define. While they are often marked by a dominant ethnic heritage, many are increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious. Nations are thickly-textured, evolving, porous, morally ambiguous societal amalgams. While one nation may be more or less recognisable when set against another, nations lack the crucial features of centred identity and independent agency.

Strictly, then, a nation in this sense cannot possess ‘rights’ or ‘duties’ or make ‘claims’. Thus, for example, the 1842 Scottish ‘Claim of Right’ was lodged against Westminster by the Kirk not by some amorphous body called ‘the nation’. Nations do not act themselves but function as micro-climates which condition and facilitate the acting of independent agents (persons, associations, institutions, etc.). Thus, you can, consistently, maintain a high view of the integrity and importance of ‘the Scottish nation’ yet place yourself firmly in the ‘No’ camp. Equally, you can, consistently, hold a meagre view of what ‘the Scottish nation’ amounts to, but be an enthusiastic ‘Yes’ supporter. How so? The key lies in what states are for.

In opting for a new Scottish state to come into existence, ‘Yes’ supporters will be voting for a new, independent centre of political agency which is not identical to the Scottish nation.

14 thoughts on “Scottish Nation? Yes. Scottish State? No.”

  1. Good post, bringing to the fore that the key term is “nation-state.” A European invention, really, trying to match up and settle peoples and borders.

    A look at the maps of Europe 1814 and 2014 shows the borders pretty much the same. Although it took dozens of millions of combat and civilian deaths to test them. The rest of the world’s borders were mostly drawn by Europe, and will take many more millions of deaths to settle.

    As for the Scots, they should probably become England’s friendly and relatively inert neighbor to the north, ala Canada.

    And without left-liberal Scotland, the Labour Party is toast. Britannia may die, but at least there will be a chance there might still always be an England. A nation, not just a state.

    {BTW, Erik would enjoy that when I appeared on Jeopardy!, a $1000 answer went against me when I posited that the nationality of the actor who played Illya Kuryakin was British. Alex personally rejected my protest and appeal that that was a sufficient answer, citing an Encyclopedia Britannica article that spoke of “the Scottish nation.”}

    {Bogus.}

    {Alex Trebek is Canadian. Perhaps that explains it.}

    {Wanker.}

    Like

  2. Interesting, Tom.

    It might be an advantage to living in Canada to be aware of the intricacies of the British Isles. We wouldn’t lump in a Scottish accent with arch BBC commentators.

    Soccer teams divide up into their inner nationalities for World and European tournies. A pity as England could use the Welsh, Irish, and Scots that have starred in the top flight for a century.

    Not gonna happen.

    Like

  4. That would be like asking what area of the world is noted for the following song…

    and Dixie sparks up

    and you answer the United States ?

    Like

  5. Well, the question was “nationality.” That would be American. But it is interesting that perhaps Trebek, as a Canadian, might think of nationality differently, and also your point about the UK soccer teams splitting up is totally valid.

    Certainly the upcoming secession vote is in that vein. For instance, Czechoslovakia was a legal fiction.
    Austria-Hungary. Yugoslavia. What God has sundered, let no man join together.

    Like

  6. Canada up until the 90s formed its culture off a mishmash of British and US sources.

    Not sure what we do now, don’t pay much attention to the culture now

    Hope Scotland stays,not much of a fan of the components of the leave side.

    Like

  7. kent
    Posted September 16, 2014 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
    Canada up until the 90s formed its culture off a mishmash of British and US sources.

    Not sure what we do now, don’t pay much attention to the culture now

    Hope Scotland stays,not much of a fan of the components of the leave side.

    I had an old-time satellite dish and intercepted a back-door CBC feed of the 1995 Quebec plebiscite where a bunch of British Columbians were like, we already bend over backwards for them, so what do they want? If they want any more, let them just go.

    I was up for it, esp since the richer and less civilized western provinces have so much in common with, I dunno, Texas.

    Sans Scotland, the Tories would enjoy perhaps a permanent electoral majority and straighten out the mess Labour made of immigration. And if left on its fiscal own, Scotland would have to become fiscally adult. What’s not to like.

    But like the Québécois, I’ll bet the Scots wuss out. Except for Craig Ferguson and Billy Connolly, they’re no fun anymore.

    Oh, and

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/16/if-scotland-votes-for-independence-itll-be-margaret-thatchers-fault/

    Like

  8. Two have told me that when they were a scrutineer counting the ballots in Quebec 1995 that the Yes side insisted forcefully that any No ballot that showed the pencilled X touching anywhere outside the circle was spoiled

    My colleagues protested that 195 ballots for No was fraudulently entered as only 60 on the official documents for their count

    No still carried the day

    Like

  11. Recent results in both federal and provincial elections would suggest they are finished.

    But I like dissent as long as it doesn’t come close to becoming the ruling party.

    Like

  12. What do the North Koreans see that the SNP does not (from our Philadelphia correspondent)?

    Kim Jong-un is feeling positive about a Yes vote in Scotland and is looking to trade with Scotland if it gains independence, Pyongyang representatives have reportedly said.

    Choe Kwan-il, managing editor of the Choson Sinbo newspaper told The Telegraph he believes independence “would be a very positive thing for Scotland”.

    “I believe that every person has the right to be a member of an independent nation, to have sovereignty, to live in peace and to enjoy equality,” he said. “And I believe that a majority of Scots feel the same and will vote for independence.”

    Like

  13. Noah Millman’s four cents:

    In a multi-cultural age, nationalism makes sense as a response to collective oppression, which Scotland does not suffer from, and/or some sense of profound and unbridgeable difference, which Scotland does not really manifest. Nationalism as an ideal in itself, as a way for a people to establish itself as a force in the world, romantically actualizing their ethno-historical essence, frog-marching their people into modernity and/or purifying themselves of foreign influences – all elements of nationalism when it mattered for Germany, or Italy, or China, or Japan, or Egypt, or Israel – is more than slightly alarming to contemporary cosmopolitans. But on that score Scottish nationalism doesn’t look much like nationalism at all. And, okay, maybe it’s just more practical for New Zealand not to be governed from the other side of the world. But is Scotland really “necessary” or “inevitable” in that sense? Not really. So why vote yes? Isn’t it setting the requirements for divorce rather low?

    Scotland has its own distinct history, customs, and so forth. But Scottish independence would still be more like independence for Alaska or Vermont than like independence for Kurdistan or Tibet. The “idea” of Scottish independence is the idea of smallness, along with the notion that any organized group can always plausibly pack up their marbles and leave a larger group that they don’t find congenial. It’s the idea, ultimately, that there’s nothing particularly sacred or special about the state; that the state is something any community – a more apropos word than “people” for a multi-cultural age – can choose to adopt or discard at will.

    Like

  14. It looks like only four of 32 polling regions voted Yes for independence. The pious backtracking and sentiment from certain Free Church quarters this morning is entertaining. Might have been best to shut up and let the people decide — which they did anyway and wisely so.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.