You're hilarious John.

Steven, well said!

I've written to the Mail expressing my anger at the lack of Scottish content online. They clearly think we're too unimportant to run a special online website for. I would recommend no one buys the Mail, not that it would make any difference. Coming to think about it, I'm surprised Joe, Charles and Mark actually read this article, as that would mean they must have read the Mail. Shame on you boys, shame on you.

Ehfn brilliant Steven. Sally, thanks for the lesson, it doesn't pay to get all poetic and vulnerable - but, in my defence, Glenlivet can do that to a man. Even when you make a mistake with Glenlivet it still makes sense "that that". But you are right - ALL THE SAME. This intelectual article is a generic negative fear fabrication and I suspect it WILL be used even more than it has been historically as we become more confident and positive in our national outlook.

You would think that pro-unionist articles of this persuasion would pound us with the positive things that we all share together and benefit from. Like..eh....eh....eh....BBC England (see that Glenlivet) for example - a truly united tele-vision. Come to think of it, sometimes it dosen't pay to be inventive either!

Now Sally, you wouldn't use Glenlivet against me - would you?

Coincidence perhaps (though unlikely) - I have never met anyone who was both pro-independence and racist. Conversely, unionism - the belief that the Scots are racially inferior to the English, Somalis, Russians, Turks, Canadians etc. in that we are not smart enough to run our own country seems the very definition of racism.

Frankly, I don't ever expect balanced and rational reporting from such 'newspapers' as these. Of course, seeing as most of these rags are strongly pro-union and strongly anti-integrity, its no surprize they do anything they can to harm the image of people who support independence and, thus, those who support it.

For 300 years we have been fed the propaganda that we are inferior, and inevitably it has penetrated the national psyche. I believe that all human beings are born equal regardless of race, gender, color, or beliefs. And I believe that we CAN run our Scotland. We, the Scots, and all who choose to dwell here and sO fall in love with the land.

We WILL run our own Scotland, together

Thanks for the link - I obviously can't make out the small print, but thanks anyway. I think it speaks volumes about the Daily Mail that they don't think their Scottish edition important enough to put online.

John McCallum - "Scotland is quite simply a belief". Eh, no it's not. I think it's a bit more than merely a belief. I'm also surprised you think I shouldn't read the article. We're all of one mind on this site about the benefits of independence, but surely you would want to know what you're opponents are thinking. Only by knowing that, can we defeat them in argument. And only by knowing the other side can we properly understand our own position.

Mark,
Whereas I take your point that James Grant did say
"Infuriate some people. They will protest that I am tarring all nationalisms – the traditional, assertive, chauvinistic kind and the modern, tolerant, separatist kind – with the same brush. They would, of course, be right."
I would still say that Joe and I were entitled to draw a clearer distinction between the two uses of the word than James Grant did.

By using the adjectives 'traditional' and 'modern', whether by accident or deliberate sleight of hand, he gives the impression that one form has simply evolved from the other, that in effect, they are just time-shades of the same phenomena.

There may be some who believe this, but it surely does not bear examination.  It is obvious that throughout history, there have been 'nationalists' who have striven to free or create their own country with no ambitions beyond that modest aspiration whatsoever.

On the other hand, while we like to imagine we are living in a post-imperial age, the Nazism and fascism of the 20th C is still within the remit of modern history.  Even today we see racially based expansionism and even genocide still, in parts of the World.  If anything, imperialist forms of nationalism seems to be making a bit of a comeback.

My point is, the two things are not parts of the same phenomena and never have been.

The vast majority of Scottish 'nationalists' are in no way imperialist or racist, never would be and in fact, I believe, would be in vigorous opposition if those ideas ever were ever to arise here.

You need look no further than the BNP, to see that 'uber-mensche' nationalism is alive and kicking and is certainly more modern than the Scottish independence movement.

It is an absurdity that some people can equate the mores of the SNP with the BNP, yet such are the vagaries of the English language, that one simple word can work this magic, at least for those willing enough to believe it.

I remember reading this article at the time. I read it a couple of times and, like you, I think it is full of sh*t.

But, Charles, you do yourself a disservice when you misquote from the article. Mr Grant did not say there was "true nationalism". If you re-read the article, it actually says "True, nationalism has often been a necessary step on the road to democracy". It is a point conceded for the sake of argument. The coma is there for a reason. Part of the problem with the article is that its author attacks all forms of nationalism. He says "Scottish nationalism, like every other form of nationalism, is dangerous and has its roots in racism and xenophobia".

And Joe, while I admire your attack on the article, Mr Grant did allude to the distinction you refer to. He says that his claims might (and here is an understatement) "infuriate some people. They will protest that I am tarring all nationalisms – the traditional, assertive, chauvinistic kind and the modern, tolerant, separatist kind – with the same brush. They would, of course, be right."

For some reason (and the article is about as clear as mud, so I'm not sure what the reason is) he thinks that even the tolerant nationalism is racist.

My response to the Daily Mail although I doubt if they published it) was as follows:-

James Grant's article is sadly lacking in logical consistency, insight or clarity.  Indeed this 'essay' is so poor in those regards I would be surprised if it would gain a pass even as a school assignment.

Right from the start it lacks clarity.  For instance whether his extremely simplistic and negative definition of 'nationalism' is reserved only for SNP members or is aimed at anyone who supports the formation of a Scottish nation-state.

Even many SNP members would not describe themselves as nationalists.  It is after all the Scottish National Party NOT the Scottish Nationalist Party.

In recent years party members, in the face of a highly agendised and hostile Unionist press, have all but given up any expectation that this distinction will ever be acknowledged.  The faux deaf ears of the Unionist media will, I fear, only ever unclog when the first carnyx blast of freedom rings out in an independent Scotland.

Those of us who seek normal levels of self government for their country have simply come to accept that we will inevitably be described as nationalists whether we approve or not.

However in one of those eccentricities of the English language the word 'nationalism' has two distinct meanings which are not only different, but are in fact almost opposite in meaning.

One meaning refers to a perceived superiority of a race or culture and as a consequence is therefore expansionist and imperialist -other 'inferior'cultures must be 'corrected' and/or assimilated into the empire or their own good and of course 'developed'(read 'exploited'). This is sometimes called 'capital 'N'Nationalism'.

The other meaning is virtually the opposite because it is, at base,anti-imperialist and egalitarian in nature.  It holds that all races and cultures are intrinsically equal in value; in particular that they have the same right to self-determination and that none should suffer oppression by another, nor even benign rule if they do not want it. (This is sometimes referred to as 'small 'n' nationalism or 'civic nationalism' or 'tolerant nationalism')

One promotes inequality, privilege and imperialist exploitation and the other is egalitarian and anti-imperialist seeking to right iniquities rather than perpetuate them.

Opposite meanings - same word

The vast majority of pro-independence Scots have absolutely no desire to impose Scottish culture or interests on anyone else or to invade or control any other nation.  Scottish 'nationalism', if it must be called that at all, is very definitely of the second variety.

So lets look at this 'essay'.

The link between race-hate and Scottish nationalism made right at the start is truly disgraceful.  This hysterical (in every meaning of the word) association, he attempts to 'justify' in two entirely different ways, both completely wrong.

First he says it is 'xenophobia and racism' which creates a 'separate Scottish interest' and 'threat from outsiders'.

This is nonsense.  The existence of  'Scottish interest', like that of 'Welsh interest', 'Geordie interest', or 'Yorkshire interest' or 'London interest' is a simple matter of geography and has no genesis in xenophobia or racism whatsoever.  Again his lack of clarity (usage of the word 'separate')begs whether he is talking about now or in the case of Scottish independence.  In the case of independence, a separate Scottish interest would also continue to reflect no more xenophobia or racism than that of any other European nation.

In fact, for anyone to even suggest or claim otherwise would be the only thing here which could legitimately be described as racism.

The claimed "threat from outsiders" is also hallucinatory.  What outsiders are threatening Scotland?  Has anyone heard of any such suggestion in the media or anywhere else; that some other country threatens Scotland? - Utter nonsense!.

For his second 'justification' - he says, "the First Minister wrote: 'As a sovereign people, the people of Scotland - and we alone - have the right to decide how we are governed.' " He goes on to say, "But the 'and we alone' is what makes it xenophobic."

This displays a breathtaking ignorance.

What Alex states here, is no more than a reiteration of a basic tenet of the human right to self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in legally binding treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which the UK itself is a signatory).  It is ONLY the people who may or may not secede who can decide to do so or not, any external seat of power, regardless of what they might claim, cannot grant them that right.  As a Human Right it is universal, immutable and not transferable.  Even if so-called representatives of the people try to 'sign away' this right, they cannot. That is what the right to SELF-determination means.

I'm sure the members of the United Nations Human Rights Council, would be astonished to hear themselves described as 'xenophobic' simply by upholding the right of a potentially seceding people to decide the matter for themselves.  Xenophobia is, in fact, something the UNHRC regularly has to battle against.

Once more he reiterates that ALL nationalism is racist - "even the tolerant kind" - no argument or apology given - it just is, right!

He then says "Every serious person agrees that self-determination -
democracy, popular sovereignty, call it what you will - is a good thing".
But when he says "call it what you will", what he means is as long as you don't call it 'tolerant nationalism' or 'civic nationalism.’
This is word fascism, pure and simple.  Self-determination, democracy and sovereignty of the people is exactly what 'civic nationalism' means to those who actually coined the term.

With astonishing inconsistency, having stated several times that all nationalism is racist and therefore all nationalists are racist, he then blithely contests that, oops!, a 'true nationalism' does, after all, exist but of course, only for other people, no mention of pro-independence Scots. A quite staggering suspension of the principles of balance and by the way yet another example of word fascism.

I presume then, James Grant will therefore be quite happy if we in future utilize his dictated word preference of 'true nationalism', rather than 'civic nationalism' or 'tolerant nationalism'?

The only problem is the word 'true' in this context, is yet again rather inexact and unclear. How about' Non-racist nationalism' Mr Grant? - (Perhaps too clear I suspect).

His final comparison and definition of 'nationalism' and 'democracy' is so lacking in clarity that it is actually difficult to glean anything meaningful to take to task.

Assuming by 'recognition' he means 'international recognition' (again not made clear) he defines democracy as a seeking of 'recognition based on human dignity'. He doesn't attempt to define what he means by 'human dignity', but we have surely already established that it cannot be related to the 'human dignity' principles which underpin the corpus of United Nations Human Rights legislation; especially that pertaining to self-determination. Particularly strange that, given the virtually required role the United Nations actually plays in international recognition.
And of course that should be the United 'True' Nations, shouldn't it Mr Grant?