1One of the most striking effects of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum on the Scottish political landscape is that the very existence of an “independence movement” beyond and including the Scottish National Party (SNP) is now taken as a given, when just a few decades ago the independence cause was commonly associated with just that one political organisation. The aim of this article is to investigate the nature of the so-called “independence movement”. While the SNP has attracted quite a lot of scholarly attention, especially since the onset of devolution in 1999 and even more since it won its first election in 2007, a wider independence movement has developed since the campaign which preceded the 2014 referendum. This article ponders whether the Scottish independence movement can be described as a nationalist movement.
- 1 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.
- 2 Rogers Brubaker & Frederick Cooper, “Beyond Identity”, Theory and Society, vol. 29, n° 1, 2000, 4-6 (...)
- 3 Maurice Pinard, Nationalist Movements Explained. Comparisons from Canada, Belgium, Spain and Switze (...)
2Within nationalism studies, a major school of thought defines nationalism as a form of political mobilisation aimed at making the borders of the nation and the state coincide,1 and by that definition, all Scottish pro-independence organisations might be thought of as nationalist since they all share the common aim of independent Scottish statehood. However, if nationalism is taken as a category of practice and not just a category of analysis,2 one cannot ignore the fact that the independence movement includes many organisations and individuals who reject the “nationalist” label. Even if nationalism is taken as a category of analysis, it is questionable whether support for independence is enough to describe an organisation as nationalist however important independence is in its order of priorities. Nationalist movements have been defined as movements whose “central ethnopolitical goal” is “the pursuit, through constitutional reforms or otherwise, of degrees of political self-determination when it does not exist, or of greater degrees of it when already present”.3 This definition raises the question of whether independence can be described as the central or primary goal of all the organisations which make up the Scottish independence movement today (bearing in mind that none of them are single-issue organisations only focused on obtaining independence). It also raises the question of how to determine whether independence is given primacy over other goals.
3To answer that question, this article contends that independence is given primacy when it is presented as an end goal that is worthy in and of itself; conversely, it argues that when independence is only presented as a means to other ends, and never as a worthy goal per se, it is not seen as the central goal to be attained. This article therefore proposes that nationalist actors (be they movements, organisations or individuals) be defined as actors for whom the pursuit of self-government is an end goal to be achieved on the basis of nationalist principles, rather than purely a means to other ends. Moreover, it posits that making the normative point that support for self-government equates to nationalism hides the political reality that, first, independence does not hold the same importance for all pro-independence actors in Scotland, and second, many of these actors have chosen to put a rejection of nationalism at the heart of their case for independence.
- 4 Alberto Melucci, in John Keane and Paul Mier (eds.), Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and In (...)
4The first part of this study offers a comparative analysis of the way independence is presented and defended by some of the major pro-independence organisations in Scotland, focusing on the period since the independence referendum, which is when talk of a Scottish “independence movement” became common parlance. Such an analysis reveals an internal tension within the movement between, on the one hand, a belief in independence as an aim in and of itself, and as an aim which is desirable precisely because Scotland is a nation, and, on the other hand, an instrumental vision of independence as a necessary step to other end goals (be they democracy, equality, socialism or environmentalism) which are those that are presented as being at the heart of the organisation’s identity. The second section of the article looks into how “nationalism” itself is perceived and presented by different actors in the Scottish independence movement. Social movement literature insists on the need for movement actors to share not just a common goal, but also a common identity.4 Hence, to be a nationalist movement, the Scottish independence movement would have to share a common identification with nationalism as a belief-system. This is clearly not the case, with many pro-independence organisations and individuals being at pains to rhetorically dissociate themselves from nationalism. The article therefore suggests that, rather than a nationalist movement, the Scottish independence movement is perhaps best described as a “national” movement, i.e. a Scottish-wide coalition of actors united in their support for independence, but divided over the place they give to independence in their order of priorities, the arguments used to defend it, as well their perception of nationalism as a belief-system.
5This first section begins with a short theoretical discussion on nationalism and the way in which the debate over nationalism has been framed in Scotland, before looking into how independence has been presented and defended in the literature produced by some of the main pro-independence organisations in Scotland since the 2014 referendum. In particular, it investigates whether independence is presented as an end goal as well as a means to other ends, or whether it is exclusively presented as a means to attaining other goals which are given primacy over it, the contention being that only those actors which see independence as an end goal can be unquestionably described as nationalist.
- 5 Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging. Journeys into the New Nationalism, New York: Farrar, Straus (...)
- 6 Yael Tamir, “Not So Civic: Is there a Difference between Ethnic and Civic Nationalism?”, Annual Rev (...)
6In Scotland, the debate over nationalism has been shaped by two theoretical models. The first is the “civic” versus “ethnic” dichotomy. Much has been written about the civic and ethnic versions of nationalism, as well as about the limits of this dichotomy. As a reminder, civic nationalism maintains that, rather than be based on common ethnicity, “the nation should be composed of all those—regardless of race, color, creed, gender, language, or ethnicity—who subscribe to the nation’s political creed”, and it “envisages the nation as a community of equals, rights-bearing citizens, united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values”.5 The civic-ethnic categorisation is relevant to an analysis of the Scottish independence movement in the sense that the SNP presents itself as a civic nationalist party. However, many theorists have pointed to the theoretical and practical limits of this model, one of whose major effects has been to legitimize one specific form of nationalism over the other.6 And yet, despite the legitimising function of the concept of “civic nationalism”, what is notable in the Scottish context is that many pro-independence political actors refuse to be described as nationalist, even in its so-called “civic” variety, as the second section of this article will show.
- 7 Neil MacCormick, “Independence and Constitutional Change”, in Neil MacCormick (ed.), The Scottish D (...)
7Another categorisation which has shaped the way the SNP presents itself is the one proposed by Scottish legal philosopher and SNP member Neil MacCormick. Writing in the 1970s, MacCormick distinguished two strands of nationalism: on the one hand, “pure” nationalism, which presents independence as an end in itself according to the “pure nationalist principle that because Scotland is a nation, she ought to become a separate state”; and on the other hand, “utilitarian” nationalism, which presents independence as “the best means to the well-being of Scottish people”.7 In other words, he opposes “pure” nationalism which presents independence as an end goal and defends it in the name of a core nationalist principle (Scotland should be independent because it is a nation), and “utilitarian” nationalism which presents independence as a means to other ends. As this first section will demonstrate, an analysis of the literature produced by the modern-day Scottish pro-independence parties confirms that these conflicting ways of viewing independence pervade their arguments. However, rather than follow MacCormick's contention that these correspond to two different versions of nationalism, it is here contented that only those organisations which see independence as an end goal are nationalist.
8For the purpose of this analysis, a corpus has been put together which is made up of the election manifestos of all major pro-independence parties in Scotland issued since the 2014 independence referendum. The “major pro-independence parties” have been taken to mean those that have got candidates elected at any electoral level since their commitment to independence. They consist of the SNP, the Scottish Greens, and the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) or RISE (Respect-Independence-Socialism-Environmentalism), which was the name of the electoral coalition of which the SSP was part in 2016. The elections concerned are all those that have taken place across Scotland since September 2014, of which there have been six: by chronological order, the 2015 UK General Election, the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, the 2017 UK General Election, the 2019 European election, the 2019 UK General Election, and the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. In the case of the SSP/RISE, since there were only two election manifestos to base the analysis on (the 2015 UK General Election and the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, after which the SSP/RISE chose not to contest elections any longer), the corpus has been widened to include declarations made by the SSP’s spokespeople during the post-2016 election campaigns for which no manifestos are available.
- 8 SNP, Scottish Parliament manifesto 2021.
- 9 SNP, UK General Election manifesto 2019.
9How is independence presented, and in the name of what principles is it defended, in the pro-independence party literature issued in Scotland since 2014? Starting with the SNP literature, two of the arguments most commonly used by this party are undoubtedly nationalist. First, the SNP foregrounds that the members of the nation are by definition best able to take decisions concerning the nation: “[t]he people best able to decide how Scotland is governed are the people who live here”.8 Not only does the SNP believe that “decisions about Scotland’s future are best taken by the people who live in Scotland, wherever they come from”, but it has described this as its “core belief” and one that is “at the heart of [its] case”,9 thereby clearly indicating its status as a nationalist party which gives primacy to independence over other goals. The SNP’s insistence on defining the people of Scotland in an inclusive, civic way—as the people “who live” in Scotland, “wherever they come from”, rather than the people born in Scotland or the people of Scottish ancestry—is notable. However, it does not make the argument any less nationalistic. Rather, it is evidence of the SNP’s adherence to what has been termed a “civic” rather than an “ethnic” version of nationalism.
- 10 SNP, Scottish Parliament manifesto 2016.
- 11 Umut Özkirimli, Theories of Nationalism. A Critical Introduction, London: Red Globe Press (3rd edit (...)
10The SNP commonly points to a second nationalist argument when stating that independent statehood is a natural state of affairs for nations: “[t]o be in the driving seat of our own destiny, and to shape our own future is a natural desire. It is what we all hope for ourselves and it is what the SNP believes is right for Scotland”.10 By claiming that desiring independence is as natural for nations as it is for individuals, the SNP confirms its identity as a nationalist party both in ideology and in discourse. In this quote, the classic nationalist tenet that because Scotland is a nation, it ought to be a state, is naturalised; in other words, it is presented in a way which is typical of nationalist discourse, characterised by its tendency to “naturalize itself, making its claims and values seem self-evident and common sense”.11
- 12 SNP UK General Election manifesto 2015.
11However, the SNP’s case is not limited to nationalist arguments where independence is presented as an end goal to be attained precisely because Scotland is a nation. The SNP also puts forward instrumental arguments which present independence as a means to other end goals, as summarised in one of the headings of its 2015 UK General Election manifesto, in which it claimed to want “powers for a purpose” rather than powers for powers’ sake.12 In particular, the SNP frames independence as a political case by suggesting it will achieve the goal of (better) democracy, and as a social and economic case as the only path to economic prosperity and social justice.
- 13 SNP, Scottish Parliament election manifesto 2021.
- 14 SNP, UK General Election manifesto 2019.
12One of the SNP’s main arguments is that only with independence will Scotland be truly democratic, as summed up in the following quote: “What you get with independence: The right to decide Scotland’s future. Better democracy—empowering Scotland’s people to take the country in the direction we all want to go. Better government—governments people in Scotland vote for, not Westminster governments that we reject”.13 The point that independence is the only means to “always get the governments people vote for”14—a recurring point in SNP literature—is itself based on another argument known in Scotland as the “democratic deficit” argument, which has been at the heart of the case for both a devolved Scottish parliament and independent Scottish statehood since the Thatcher years. Due to the structural demographic imbalance within the UK, it is argued that Scots, who only make up 8% of the total British population as opposed to 84% for the English, suffer from a “democratic deficit”. This is because their vote is unlikely to have a decisive suggest, meaning that they generally end up being governed by whomever the English have chosen. The “democratic deficit” argument became a central part of the SNP’s case in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Conservative Party won four UK general elections in a row (in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992), while Scotland mainly voted Labour every time, as at every general election since the 1960s. It was given a new lease of life with the return to power of the Conservatives in 2010 (after thirteen years of Labour rule), and their continued re-election since. Once again, the SNP can now argue, Scotland finds itself in a situation where it is being governed by the Conservatives against the will of a majority of its voters; as a reminder, Scotland gave a majority to Labour in the UK general election of 2010, and to the SNP in the following elections of 2015, 2017 and 2019. For the SNP, independence is the only solution to this “democratic deficit”: only then can Scottish people be sure that they will be governed by a political party that a majority of them actually voted for. Even though this argument takes Scotland as its primary frame of reference, what is presented as the end goal here is not independence, but more and better democracy; this explains why it is an argument that has been taken up not just by the SNP, but across the board in the independence movement, including by organisations which refuse to be described as nationalist.
- 15 The latest statistics issued by the Office for National Statistics (UK) and by the National Records (...)
13In addition to its political case for independence, the SNP puts forward a social and economic case that could also be described as instrumental since independence is presented as a means to economic prosperity and social justice. The case is based on the fact that independence would allow Scotland to adapt its economic and social policies to its needs, which are specific and different from England’s in such fields as, for instance, public transport (with low population density in huge parts of the country), immigration (with an ageing population) or health (with record levels of bad health15). The SNP argues that tailoring its policies to its needs would allow for both greater economic prosperity and greater social justice and equality:
The full powers of Independence would allow Scottish Governments to tailor all economic policy to the needs of our citizens. It opens the way to a Scotland with increased prosperity, reduced inequality and greater opportunity. […] We believe that Scotland should be able to emulate the performance of the most successful small countries in the world. To do that we need the powers of independence and the right economic strategy.16
As an independent Scotland, we can build a fairer, more inclusive, society—where everyone feels valued, human rights are respected and we properly support our most vulnerable people and tackle poverty head on. […] With independence, we can tackle the deep-seated inequalities in our society and shift the curve on poverty without our efforts being undermined by another government’s policies.17
- 18 SNP, Scottish Parliament election manifesto 2021
By taking our future into our own hands, we can build a new Scotland for everyone who lives here based on fairness, equality, compassion, security, happiness and love. That’s why we believe Scotland’s future should be in Scotland’s hands.18
14To conclude on the SNP, the case it has developed is composed of a combination of arguments where independence is the end goal to be achieved on the basis of nationalist principles (the arguments that because Scotland is a nation, it ought to be a state, and that the members of the nation are the people best placed to decide for the nation) and arguments where independence is not seen as desirable per se, but as a means of attaining other end goals (democracy, economic prosperity and social justice). The SNP is therefore clearly a nationalist party, but one that does not limit its case for independence to arguments based on nationalist principles, especially in electoral contexts where the party is necessarily involved in attempting to appeal to non-SNP voters.
- 19 “We want to build a truly democratic nation state where everyone is empowered and where all elected (...)
- 20 “As an independent nation, Scotland would have the powers and potential to be a leader in the trans (...)
- 21 “Scotland’s ability to create a fair and stable economy is limited by most tax powers still being c (...)
15For their part, the Scottish Greens only put forward instrumental arguments for independence. Independence is presented as the best means to attain better democracy,19 environmental sustainability,20 and equality and social justice.21 These three aims are intricately linked to each other, as can be seen in the following quotes:
[I]ndependence in Europe would allow us to build a fair and green Scotland.22
- 23 Scottish Greens, European Parliament election manifesto 2019.
Ultimately, we believe that Scotland’s future should be as an independent nation within the EU, working with others to overcome the great challenges of our time, such as the climate emergency, and to build a democratic and inclusive Europe that is environmentally sustainable and socially just.23
- 24 Scottish Greens, Scottish Parliament election manifesto 2021.
16One of their manifestos similarly defines the “Green vision for independence” as working to build a “nation which is genuinely progressive, compassionate and built on the principles of radical democracy, equality and respect for the planet.”24 In addition to being a means to reach the aims of “radical democracy, equality and respect for the planet”, independence has also been presented in the years since the 2016 EU referendum vote as a way of escaping Brexit and of re-joining the EU:
- 25 Scottish Greens, UK General Election manifesto 2017.
The result of the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and Scotland’s 2016 vote to stay in the EU are now incompatible. We believe that people should be given the choice in a referendum of that hard-Brexit UK or—as we would propose—an independent Scotland free to rejoin the EU.25
- 26 Scottish Greens, Scottish Parliament election manifesto, 2021.
Independence is now our route back to EU membership, delivering Scotland our own seat at the European table and giving us back the right to work, travel and study across Europe.26
17In summary, the Scottish Greens’ case for independence is strictly instrumental and does not include any reference to independence as an end goal or to key nationalist tenets such as the fact that the members of the nation are best able to decide for the nation or that independence is a natural state of affairs for a nation such as Scotland. Independence is simply presented as a means to reach other (greater) ends: better democracy, environmentalism and social justice, as well as EU membership.
- 27 RISE, Scottish Parliament election manifesto 2016.
- 28 SSP, UK General election manifesto 2015.
- 29 RISE, Scottish Parliament election manifesto 2016
18Like the Scottish Greens, socialist supporters of independence (represented by the Scottish Socialist Party or by RISE) are interested in the “transformative potential of independence”.27 Thus, independence is a route to “chang[ing] things in favour of Scotland’s working class majority” and to “priz[ing] economic and political control out of the hands of an unelected, corporate elite in order to eradicate the widespread poverty, inequality and injustice so prevalent in 21st century Scotland”.28 In other words, independence is a path to social and political equality: “RISE believes that Scotland needs the full powers of an independent country in order to tackle the full extent of inequality of wealth and power”.29 Moreover, like the SNP, the SSP/RISE argue that Scotland within the UK suffers from a democratic deficit to which independence is the only solution. More than in the SNP literature, however, the idea of a democratic deficit is explicitly linked to the idea of Conservative rule. Hence, fighting the democratic deficit is not just a democratic imperative, it is also a political and ideological one, being the only way to get rid of Conservative rule and replace it with Socialist rule:
- 30 Colin Fox, SSP national co-spokesperson, on the occasion of the 2019 UK General Election campaign, (...)
[Independence is] the only route out of our profound “democratic deficit” — where we reject the Tories’ philosophy and programme and yet are once again lumbered with them […] we also urge the many socialists who backed the Corbyn project to recognise that in Scotland, independence is the key to winning such change and to back it.30
19In conclusion, like the Scottish Greens, socialist supporters turn independence into a purely instrumental case to reach the greater end goals of socialism, equality and (better) democracy.
20The analysis of the main pro-independence parties’ discourse on Scottish independence demonstrates the continuing validity of MacCormick’s aforementioned categorisation of pro-independence arguments. However, it is debatable whether those who only support independence as a means to other ends should be considered as nationalist by essence, especially as they are generally at pains to rhetorically dissociate themselves from a nationalist ideology.
21The Scottish independence movement has greatly developed and diversified since the early 2010s. First, the long independence referendum campaign saw the birth of several new organisations such as National Collective, the Radical Independence Campaign or Women for Independence. Then, the post-referendum period witnessed both a huge growth in membership of the existing pro-independence parties (the SNP, the Scottish Greens and, to a lesser extent, the SSP), and the birth of new parties (most notably Action For Independence, the Independence for Scotland Party, and Alba) as well as non-party organisations (such as All Under One Banner or Voices for Scotland). To what extent does the wider movement share the SNP’s nationalist identity? The pro-independence left (including both the environmental left and the socialist left) sees independence as an opportunity to introduce radical economic and social change, and it bases its case for independence on traditional left-wing values such as equality and social justice, rather than on nationalist tenets. Characterising all supporters of independence as nationalist by essence hides the fact that many of them do not see independence as an end goal, but purely as a means to other end goals. It also obscures another key fact, which is that the common thread between many pro-independence political actors outside of the SNP is precisely their rejection of the “nationalist” label and their insistence on making a non-nationalist case for independence.
22This was made very obvious in the Scottish Green election manifestos, where support for independence is consistently dissociated from support for nationalism. Rather than a nationalist case, the Scottish Greens insist on making a “progressive”, “Green” case for independence:
- 31 Scottish Greens, UK General Election manifesto 2015.
[T]he Green Yes campaign had little to do with identity or feelings of patriotism but a belief that power should be exercised as close to people as possible.31
- 32 Scottish Greens, Scottish Parliament election manifesto 2021.
The Scottish Greens played a key role in the 2014 referendum, making the progressive case for independence. We relaunched our Green Yes campaign on the day that Scotland was forced out of the EU without our consent. We will continue to build the Green Yes campaign, reaching and inspiring more people with the Green vision for independence.32
23Likewise, Scottish socialists similarly underline that support for independence does not make you a nationalist and insist on making a “socialist”, “democratic” case for independence:
- 33 SSP, UK General Election manifesto 2015,
Supporting Scotland’s democratic right to self-determination doesn’t make you a Scottish nationalist, it makes you a democrat.33
- 34 Colin Fox, SSP national co-spokesperson, on the occasion of the 2019 UK General Election campaign, (...)
Independence is not about flags or symbols but an essential democratic route to a Scotland ending poverty, tackling the housing shortage and introducing free public transport as part of real action to tackle the climate emergency. […] [E]fforts to put the socialist arguments for independence as part of the broader Yes case will be central to our work to win working class Scotland.34
- 35 Colin Fox and Róisín McLaren, SSP spokespeople, during the 2021 Scottish Parliament campaign, Scot (...)
24They also argue that support for, or opposition to, independence, “although not in itself a class issue, has nonetheless become a proxy for the perhaps less visible conflict between the political Left and Right in Scotland today.”35
- 36 Colin Fox, The Case for an Independent Socialist Scotland, Glasgow: SSP, 2014, 27.
- 37 SSP, independence referendum campaign flyer, “Scottish Socialist Party. Proud to be Part of Yes Sc (...)
- 38 Patrick Harvie, Scottish Green convenor, closing statement, STV debate, 2 September 2014.
- 39 Cat Boyd, “A Scottish Podemos”, Bella Caledonia, 23 September 2014, https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2 (...)
25Examples abound of such instances of non-nationalist framing of the case for independence on the part of socialist and green identifiers. The idea that support for independence does not automatically equate to nationalism which, as noted previously, was included in the SSP’s 2015 UK general election manifesto, had in fact been made into one of that party’s key slogans during the 2014 independence referendum campaign. It had for instance been taken up in a book by SSP co-spokesperson Colin Fox published in the months leading up to the referendum,36 as well as in an SSP campaign flyer which had stated that supporting independence “doesn’t make you a nationalist—it makes you a democrat”—in the exact phrasing that would be used again in the 2015 manifesto.37 As for the Scottish Green co-convenor Patrick Harvie, he similarly declared during a pre-referendum television debate: “I’m not a nationalist, I’m not driven by feelings of Britishness or Scottishness […]. Let’s look at the inequality we are left with after years of an economic model that exploits people and the natural ecological resources of our country”.38 Moreover, a few days after the referendum, Cat Boyd, a founding member of the pro-independence Radical Independence Campaign and one of RISE’s 2016 Scottish Parliament candidates, gave the following analysis of the referendum campaign: “It was not nationalism, nor Scottish identity, nor certainly the SNP that powered the momentum behind the Yes campaign. The truth is that the movement for Yes was powered by class politics.”39 More recently, Colin Fox of the SSP published an article addressed to those “Indy supporters who [we]re not nationalists” and were looking for a pro-independence “alternative to the conservative SNP and its record of managerialism on behalf of a corporate elite”. Such declarations are evidence of how anxious pro-independence left-wing organisations often are to distance themselves from what they perceive as nationalist identity politics. The Greens and leftist groups such as the SSP/RISE and the Radical Independence Campaign not only frame the independence debate in terms of class politics and left-wing radicalism, but they also do so by distancing themselves both from the SNP (as a centrist party) and from nationalism as an ideology.
- 40 James Kelman, “The SLB Interview”, Scottish Review of Books, 8, n°3, 2012, https://www.scottishrevi (...)
- 41 Voices for Scotland, “Big Indy Night In”, live event hosted on the Hopin platform, 12 December 202 (...)
26It is not just political parties (like the Scottish Greens and the SSP) and non-party organisations (like the Radical Independence Campaign) which are anxious to distance themselves from nationalism: the same can also be said of many pro-independence individuals. At the start of the 2014 independence referendum campaign, Scottish writer and Booker Prize winner James Kelman for instance pointed out: “It’s said of me that I’m a nationalist. I’m continually having to deny that I am a nationalist but at the same time I’m 100% in favour of independence”.40 More recently, on 12 December 2020, one of the common threads of the “Big Indy Night In” event organised by an organisation called Voices for Scotland was that a high proportion of participants, whether Scottish cultural figures who had been invited to take part or ordinary participants using the event’s “chat” function, stressed that although they supported independence, they did not see themselves as nationalist and did not “even like nationalism”, in the words of writer James Robertson. It was repeatedly pointed out during the event that nationalism puts many people off supporting independence, with actress and event hostess Elaine Smith noting that “the word ‘nationalist’ is a stick used to beat the indy [independence] movement with”. The movement faced being associated with the nationalist SNP, leading several participants (including the hostess) to suggest that for the movement to be seen as an independence movement rather than a nationalist one, the SNP itself needed to be renamed either the “National Party of Scotland” or the “Scottish Independence Party”.41
- 42 “Yousaf struggles with SNP name over ‘connotations of nationalism’”, The National, 16 August 2019.
- 43 As for instance in a speech made by Nicola Sturgeon at a time when she was deputy leader of the SNP (...)
27In summary, the wider independence movement does not see itself as a nationalist movement and defends independence in the name of such values as equality and democracy while distancing itself from nationalism. However, the independence movement is dominated by the SNP to such an extent that the whole movement is often externally identified with nationalism, even though, interestingly, the SNP itself can sometimes be ambivalent about its own nationalist identity. Some very senior SNP members have for instance been known to find this nationalist identity to be problematic. Current party leader and Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf admitted (at a time when he was Scottish Justice Secretary) that he struggled with the “‘national’ part of the ‘Scottish National Party’” because of what he called “the connotations” and “nefarious elements of nationalism”. His predecessor Nicola Sturgeon also declared (at a time when she was party leader and First Minister) that the word “national” could be “hugely problematic” and that “if [she] could turn the clock back, what, 90 years, to the establishment of [her] party, and choose its name all over again, [she] wouldn’t choose the name it has got just now”.42 This ambivalence—which finds its roots in the SNP’s concern not to be associated with right-wing nationalism—explains why the party insists on seeing independence as “more than an end in itself”.43
- 44 Mario Diani, “The Concept of Social Movement”, The Sociological Review, vol. 40, n° 1, 1992, 18-19.
- 45 Ibid., 18.
28“How do actors, who are broadly interested in similar issues, yet from different perspectives, come to think of themselves as part of a broader movement, while preserving their peculiarity?”, asked sociologist Mario Diani.44 The answer is that they share a collective identity, one which is, however, “always the precarious and temporary outcome of a ‘bargaining’ process between actors who embody quite different and heterogeneous beliefs”.45 Like all social movements, the Scottish independence movement shares a collective identity. However, it does not collectively think of itself as nationalist, and a significant part of the movement is generally at pains to rhetorically distance itself from nationalism, which, as an ideology, is felt to send the wrong message on the movement’s belief system. In fact, rather than a nationalist identity, the Scottish independence movement shares a common left-wing belief in the need for greater social and economic equality and a vision of independence as the best means to reach this end, as well as a common belief in a “democratic deficit”. In other words, what the Scottish independence movement shares is an instrumental vision of independence as the best means to achieving other end goals. However, only part of the movement also sees independence as an end goal in and of itself, and puts forward unquestionably nationalist arguments as part of its case for independence.
29One might therefore suggest that, rather than a nationalist movement, the Scottish independence movement is perhaps best described as a “national movement”, a phrase which is better able to convey the nature of the independence movement as a nation-wide coalition of actors who do not all give the same importance to independence and do not all see it as an end goal, and who do not all have the same perception of nationalism as a value-system.