Unionism is a Form of Nationalism, Too

Nationalism. It is a term often misunderstood, mistakenly or intentionally, but thrown around anyway like mud by those who do not understand its meaning, demeaning the debate we are having. Before we continue, here are some simple definitions of nationalism:

Cultural Nationalism is where historical and cultural characteristics determine that a country is different to its neighbours. It doesn't mean it is any better - just different.

Civic Nationalism is defined by territory and those within it seek the right to self determination. An example would be European member states. 

Ethnic Nationalism is where a nation is defined by ethnicity or race. Citizenship is genetic, and ethnic nationalists seek to exclude those from different backgrounds. It has been linked to fascism and apartheid.

The first two terms are peaceful and democratic. Ethnic Nationalism? Most definitely not. It has no place in society. Ethnic Nationalists do not believe that someone from a different ethnic background should be a part of that nation. The above definitions are easy enough to understand. 

In our context, the Oxford dictionary defines nationalism as:

Advocacy of political independence for a particular country:

 - Scottish nationalism

What we are seeing more and more of is the demeaning of the word 'nationalist', by some uncomfortable with the idea of independence. It's a term which is now branded around by an increasingly agitated, shaken opposition from those within the Better Together camp. The official No campaign use it, as do politicians from unionist parties. It most certainly shouldn't be a term of abuse.

On social media, you may well be called a cybernat. Other terms include Cyberrat, or CyberNazi. Rather than offer an alternative, modern vision of what unionism can be, some unionists instead insult their opponents. 'Cybernat' is a loser's word. More often than not, you know you have won an argument when it is used. 

Unionism is a form of nationalism, though. What else could it be? Think about it.  Essentially, unionism is tied to British state nationalism. If unionists aren't nationalists, what are they? Confused? Unionists should admit to their nationalism, too, and be comfortable with it. Those who describe themselves as Scottish nationalists have, so why can't unionists? 

It isn't wrong for nations to seek self determination. In Scotland, cultural nationalism and civic nationalism are largely responsible for getting us to where we are right now. We have diverged politically from the rest of the United Kingdom for a number of years now - think how irrelevant UKIP are in Scotland. There is a democratic deficit, and unpopular decisions are often taken at Westminster, which a majority of Scottish MPs oppose. Think the privatisation of Royal Mail, and implementation of the Bedroom Tax. It is time we had a government which reflected our voting behaviour.

Independence is normal. It is the default status of nations. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.  Scottish independence will not be 'cataclysmic for the world' as Lord Robetson suggests. 

Having said all that, you don't have to be a nationalist to vote for independence. It is understandable that some people do find difficulty describing themselves in such terms. They aren't misunderstood or wrong - indeed, they often have other valid reasons for voting Yes. You can call yourself a democrat, and support independence – as Colin Fox states. Alternatively, you can describe yourself an internationalist and support independence. You can call yourself whatever you want and support independence, really. 

There are many great reasons for voting Yes. 

Better Together may worry we will turn our neighbours into foreigners overnight - their words, not ours. They will still be our neighbours, and we will work constructively with them. We seek a modern democracy, where the makeup of our Parliament is more representative of how we actually vote. We do all this in a peaceful, respectful way. We wouldn't describe ourselves as separatists, and we certainly aren't going anywhere. Our debate should be filled with facts, not abuse. This debate is much too important. 

All we argue is that we SHOULD be independent because we will have a better future if key decisions are taken by the people who care most about Scotland - that is people who live and work here. It really is that simple.