It’s a strange thing, I’ve been reading Tom Nairn ‘s excellent book the Break up of Britain (1977) and he makes many profound insights into the archaic nature of the British state – one being that unionists view all the supposed benefits of the state of Britain, and that some view Scottish nationalism as a backward-looking project. I’ve been told too that I should move beyond the Battle of Bannockburn (1314).
He writes, ’Nationalism is not a question of simple identity, but rather of something more – a catalyst.
What’s strange really is in my view the British state is the total opposite of unionist’s world view. I see Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence as a progressive, modern project to bring a more authentic democracy for progressive socialism and fair opportunities alongside a healthy capitalism, that encourages and protects small businesses, we need both.
And I have longed viewed the British state as archaic and as a pre-democracy – as does Nairn and many other commentators. The British state as established 1688, of the Crown in Parliament, well before universal suffrage, Nairn writes, is a political cul-de-sac, unable to reform itself under its two party system and its first past the post voting system.
Because of this Britain “is stuck in the past and not a modern state. Crucially FPTP voting means Bills at Westminster don’t get proper scrutiny. (New book, How Westminster Works and How it Doesn’t by Ian Dunt how Westminster is not effective at governing).
Nairn writes, “Although not of course an absolutist state, the Anglo-British system remains a product of the general transition from an absolutism to modern constitutionalism: it led the way out of the former, but never genuinely arrived at the latter,…..it is basically an indefensible and inadaptable relic, not a modern state form.”
Perhaps it’s now time we stop hiding behind nationalism, but view it as the positive, progressive project it is. Nairn views nationalism as both good and bad, and as a process that happened across Europe in the 1800s. Scotland is only now trying to catch up.
He also writes Scotland became bereft of a literary voice due to the false romantic myths of Walter Scott – of a Scotland gone forever – and due to emigration and the Kailyard school. Nationalism is also viewed as anti-globalization.
Nationalism, Nairn argues is always both good and bad. ’ And originated from and derived in – the impossibility of escape from the uneven development of capitalism.
The reason is that when the nation states in Europe were transitioning in the 1800s, due according to Nairn, to the uneven nature of capitalism, Scotland was the only nation state to have previously jumped across during the enlightenment and the Edinburgh new town.
But now today Scotland has been left behind, in the 20th century, There has been no revolution, and the absence of change.
By contrast in Europe 1800s, nationalism took hold with the demise of empires, and the rise of nation states. As a nation Scotland jumped, ahead in the 1700s, with increased trade, the enlightened thought, when Scotland moved very fast from a place of superstition and tribal warfare.
“Only one country stepped over before the Europe of 1800s – Scotland politics and culture was decisively and permanently altered by the great awaking of nationalist consciousness – Scotland or north Britain …due to the uneven development of capitalism. “
“After the black the unspeakable 17th century was 1688 which marked the real dawn of Scotland, after the dark bloodshed years of religious conflicts across Europe. – William Robertson, in his book History of Scotland. When the Scottish bourgeoisie exploited the results of the English revolution. Scotland progressed from fortified castles and witch burning, to Edinburgh new town and Adam Smith in only a generation:”
***Tom Nairn’s book The Break Up of Britain
“The most influential book on British politics to be published in the last half century,” writes Anthony Burnett