Civic or ethnic? The argument over nationalism in the Scottish independence debate
Few words in the Scottish debate do as much work as "nationalism". For opponents of independence it can suggest the dangers of identity politics; for supporters it describes a democratic claim to self-government. A row in February 2017 brought the disagreement into the open. This article sets out what happened and what scholars mean when they distinguish civic from ethnic nationalism.
The row of February 2017
On 25 February 2017 the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, addressed the Scottish Labour Party's conference in Perth. Extracts released to the press in advance suggested that he would say there was no difference between people who divide others on the basis of whether they are English or Scottish and those who divide on the basis of background, race or religion. The comparison was widely read as equating support for independence with racism. SNP politicians, and many in other parties, objected strongly; some Labour figures also distanced themselves from it.
When he delivered the speech, the Mayor added that he was not saying that SNP supporters were racist or bigoted, and he later said his point concerned the dangers of dividing people along national lines in general. The episode is a useful illustration of how the meaning of "nationalist" depends on the speaker. It also showed the sensitivity of the subject for English-born people living in Scotland, who were among those who wrote to point out that the independence movement had campaigned on a franchise of residence rather than birth.
Civic and ethnic nationalism
The distinction goes back at least to the historian Hans Kohn, who in The Idea of Nationalism (1944) contrasted a "Western" nationalism based on citizenship and shared political institutions with an "Eastern" type based on descent, language and culture. Later writers refined the idea:
- Civic nationalism defines the nation as the community of people who live in a territory and share its institutions, whatever their origins. Membership is open: you can join by moving there.
- Ethnic nationalism defines the nation by ancestry, language or religion. Membership is inherited, and newcomers remain outsiders.
Many scholars, including Rogers Brubaker, have criticised the dichotomy as too neat. Most real nationalisms mix the two: civic movements still celebrate a particular culture and history, and ethnic movements often use the language of rights and democracy. The distinction also tends to flatter the speaker, since nearly everyone describes their own nationalism as civic.
The Scottish case
Scotland is frequently cited in the academic literature, for example in the work of Michael Keating and David McCrone, as a relatively civic example. Several features support that reading:
- the 2014 referendum franchise was based on residence, so EU and Commonwealth citizens living in Scotland could vote while Scots elsewhere in the UK could not;
- the Scottish Government's proposals for citizenship after independence would have included British citizens habitually resident in Scotland, regardless of birthplace;
- the main pro-independence parties made support for immigration and refugees part of their platforms;
- survey research has found that most people in Scotland regard residence and commitment, rather than birth or ancestry, as sufficient to be "Scottish", although many still give weight to birth.
Critics reply that civic language can coexist with a strong sense of grievance towards England and Westminster, and that online abuse and hostility from a minority of activists on all sides show the limits of the civic label. They also argue that any nationalism, by drawing a new border, creates new categories of insider and outsider.
The Claim of Right
Supporters of self-government often point to the Claim of Right of 1989, which asserted "the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs". It was signed at the first meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention by most of Scotland's Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, including Gordon Brown, as well as by councillors, churches and trade unions. The SNP did not take part in the Convention. In July 2018 the House of Commons agreed without a division a motion endorsing the principles of the Claim of Right. Supporters of the Union argue that the right to choose was exercised in 2014; supporters of independence argue that it includes the right to choose again.
What follows from the distinction
Whether one calls it nationalism, self-determination or simply constitutional preference, the Scottish debate has largely been conducted in democratic terms: who decides, by what rules, and how often. The comparison made in Perth in 2017 failed to persuade because most participants on both sides accept that support for independence and support for the Union are both legitimate positions. The more useful questions concern the substance: economics, Europe, borders and democracy, which are covered elsewhere on this site, starting with the arguments put to England in 2014.
Sources
- BBC News and The Guardian, reports on Sadiq Khan's speech to Scottish Labour, 25–26 February 2017.
- Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism, New York, Macmillan, 1944.
- Rogers Brubaker, "The Manichean myth: rethinking the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism", in Nation and National Identity, 1999.
- Michael Keating, Nations against the State, 2nd ed., Palgrave, 2001; David McCrone, Understanding Scotland, Routledge, 2001.
- A Claim of Right for Scotland, 1988–1989; House of Commons, Hansard, 4 July 2018.