RELUGAS

Sadiq Khan’s recent intervention in Scottish political debate has caused a bit of a storm. I was challenged by his argument that “nationalism is effectively the same as trying to divide us on the basis of background, race or religion”, and it has encouraged me to consider if there is necessarily a racist-like element to my support for Scottish self-determination.

In my view, where the arguments stray into the realm of ‘Scottish exceptionalism’ – our democracy is better than yours, Holyrood is more enlightened than Westminster, we don’t vote for posh Tories, Londoners have no right to comment on Scottish affairs – then there is indeed a danger that we divide the population into those who are like us and those who are not.

Racism, like sexism, is deeply ingrained in our society and so appears on both sides of most contentious issues. This is then amplified on social media, especially Twitter, be the debate about politics, sport, celebrities or whatever. This kind of division should be challenged in whatever context it occurs. In this respect, Sadiq Khan has made a helpful contribution.

There is, however, a stark difference between a divisive expression of nationalism and the quest for national self-determination. National self-determination is essentially not exceptionalist. The whole point is that Scotland should be as other nations and that all the people who live and work here, regardless of ethnic or national origin, constitute the ‘demos’.

In addition, virtually all the debate around Scotland’s future presents a choice between two nationalisms – Scottish or British. It can be argued that British nationalism is positive because it creates a united ‘family of nations’ or that it is negative in that it retains an imperial outlook, particularly in this Brexit era. The point is that the question of Scotland’s future is not a choice between nationalism (bad) and internationalism (good) but about how democratic decisions are made in an interdependent world.

Post-Brexit, Scotland faces an array of possible constitutional futures:

• part of a unitary UK state currently in the process of leaving the EU and European single market (the Conservative/UKIP option)
• a more ‘federal’ arrangement in which its relationship with the EU and single market is different from other parts of the UK (the LibDem and possibly Labour position)
• independence as one of the 28 member states of the EU (SNP/Scottish Greens)
• independence outwith the EU and UK (the choice of some SNP-voting Leave supporters?)

Each of these options would result in different outcomes, some more subject to speculation than others. We can debate the merits of each of the options and their potential outcomes and may well conclude that one option offers ‘better’ outcomes, however we measure those.

Everyone contributing to the debate has a responsibility to frame it in a way which does not foster unnecessary division, and conversely to refrain from labeling the other side as uniquely divisive.

Ultimately, it must be possible to consider questions of national self-determination without descending to racism, exceptionalism or other divisive concepts.