Thursday 3 June 2010

For What Do We Fight?




The SNP has failed. Unionism is not a credible ideological force, and yet nationalism has not achieved the dream of an independent nation. Whereas the national cause is championed by the one party, Unionism has no clear rallying point, no field marshal on whom to rely to direct the grand campaign. Like the Napoleonic armies in the Iberian peninsula, the parties of Union are divided between many generals who are more interested in political point-scoring than any real concerted effort to eradicate the ‘nationalist menace’. Yet the Union flag still flies above Edinburgh Castle: Where is the SNP’s Vitoria?

Unlike Wellington, the party has failed to use the divisions in the enemies ranks to its advantage. The reason behind our woeful lack of success in the field is simple: the nationalist cause is as divided as that of the Union. Some in the national party support the Conservatives in all but one regard: the Scotland question. Others have ideological sympathies with the Liberals, and yet more find affinity within the trade unions or the Greens. The leadership is as divided as the rank and file, and even if this were not the case an SNP leader would never dare set clear ideological policy for the party for fear of watching Scotland’s best hope split asunder. And so the SNP continue to mount charge after futile charge against Unionist cannon, creating an Austerlitz where we could have a Waterloo.

Students of history, I ask you to think back to any and all successful independence movements or revolutionary ideologues (for what is nationalism but a revolution against the British constitutional make-up?) What do they all share? What binds them together? Clear ideological opposition to the ancient regime. The American Revolutionaries had no cultural identity with which to unite dissident, and yet they achieved the unimaginable and drove the most powerful nation on earth from one of her primary colonies. This did not happen through British bad luck alone, but instead it was combined with a clearly defined alternative to Hanoverian rule laid down in the Declaration of Independence. The Covenanting Revolutionaries defeated Anglo-royalist forces by uniting the opinionated Presbyterians behind the National Covenant. The Irish nationalists had their Catholic faith and cultural identity. Even the medieval Scots had their Declaration of Arbroath. The clear pattern is that nationalism only becomes a successful political force once it has a clear ideological alternative to Unionism.

Many of my readers will no doubt object to my proposal: surely this move can only lead to the split in the nationalist vote? Well we have two options, dear reader: carry on as we are, muddling along until the end of time; or we can risk the split in the SNP-and achieve the dream of sending Murphy to his very own Elba!

4 comments:

  1. My thinking, a bit but, we would need to set up the two sides of the split before the split happened and, ensure that the two sides did not fight each other.


    The danger:-

    Peoples' Front of Judea and The Judean Peoples' Front and the Front for the Judean People and so ad absurdium, ad infinitum?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it Marquis or Marquise?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marquis. A typo when I first set up the blog now haunts me. Lesson: always read over your work before putting it online.

    Yes a kind of SSP/Solidarity split may be the great danger with this tactic, but my feelings are that it would be better than the current uneasy peace. A break will occur at some point, may as well have a controlled burn to raging forest fire.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Scottish Factional ability to put some other self interest before the nation. Whether hundreds of years ago or Cllr McColl more recently. We are still a divided people.

    I realise from your posts you may agree with his sentiment but it is another complication that we do not need right now. The most devisive subject in diplomacy globally is not the remit of a cllr in a town like Dunbarton with all its problems.

    We need to ensure the next few years are totally vanilla on contentious issues. We can fracture to our various flavours post independence but for now we must focus on Scotland and only Scotland.

    We need to be getting support from all sides, from all angles and from all peoples.

    Now is not the time to be making grand gestures against the most powerfull nation on earth, as well as a massive pool of Scottish dispora who can be used to support the move to independence.

    A Pro Scotland USA will do more for our future potential than the support of every Arab on the planet.

    As for your particular comments on Israel. In short you are totally wrong in your understanding of the military situation, but as I said that is for the future.

    ps. I once thought as you do "poor Palestinians", I then studied the middle east history and political histories of the various Arabic states. How wrong can people be. It is the fault of the emotional media.

    It is all smoke and mirrors. We are being fooled on a national scale. Everyone has an opinion. Very few have real detaled knowledge of the issues. There is a war coming. The Arabs will not be on the same side as the Europeans, never have been. It has always been this way.

    ReplyDelete