Counter-Currents
“Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” In Defense of Petty Nationalism
Greg Johnson
1,703 words
French translation here
As I write, the Scottish independence referendum remains undecided, but the “No” camp is in the lead. Regardless of the outcome, though, Scotland will have more independence, either leaving the UK altogether or enjoying greater autonomy within it.
I was, frankly, surprised that many White Nationalists and Alternative Rightists oppose Scottish independence, which strikes me as a rather simple application of the ethnonationalist principle that different peoples need independent homelands to express their distinct identities and pursue their unique destinies, as free as possible from the meddling of others.
When different peoples are forced to share the same system of government, it breeds conflict, resentment, even violence. Thus to preserve peace and promote the well-being of all peoples, multicultural states should be replaced with ethnically homogeneous ethnostates.
In the case of England and Scotland, the Scots support a more generous welfare state than the English will allow. England pulls Scotland to the Right, and Scotland pulls England to the Left. Both countries will better satisfy their political preferences by peacefully going their separate ways.
If the white race is going to be saved, we must have homogeneously white homelands. That means bidding farewell to tens of millions of non-whites. The best way to persuade people of the fundamental justice and humanity of these seemingly drastic measures is to promote ethnonationalism for all peoples.
Thus when we see any instance of a distinct people splitting off from a multiethnic nation — particularly in a peaceful and humane manner — we should applaud it.
Because if peoples as similar as the Czechs and the Slovaks or the Scots and the English can’t live together, this makes it much easier for us to argue that whites should separate from non-whites, who are far more different. And examples of peaceful and humane ethnic separation allay fears of race war and violent ethnic cleansing.
Beyond that, secession upsets the existing anti-white establishment, and that is a good thing. The more mischief, the merrier.
Scottish independence would be good for Scotland, good for England, and good for the ethnonationalist cause world-wide. And that is good for white survival.
If Scotland votes “No,” it may slow down secessionism in Scotland and across Europe, but it will not stop it. Indeed, secessionists might learn valuable lessons which will make let them succeed next time around. If at first you don’t secede . . .
Some White Nationalists, like Jared Taylor, don’t support Scottish independence because they disapprove of what the Scots might do with it: they want a Scandinavian-style welfare state. I would understand this position from a Scot, but from a foreigner it surprises me, since the whole point of Scottish independence is that foreigners don’t have to like how the Scots govern themselves. Because that would be Scotland’s business — finally. (Taylor does have a Scottish wife, so Scotland is not entirely foreign to him.)
As for the complaint that the Scottish National Party wants to join the EU and import trouble from the Third World: aside from the fact that it is Scotland’s business, (1) the referendum is on Scottish independence, not the policies of the Scottish National Party, which might not get its way, and (2) the UK (and thus Scotland) already belongs to the EU and is already importing Third Worlders, so voting “No” guarantees that such policies will continue anyway, whereas voting “Yes” carries no such guarantee.
But again, if you don’t like Scottish policies, you don’t have to live there. That’s the beauty of having many different nations.
Others don’t support Scottish nationalism because they disapprove of their motives. They think the Scots are being “petty”: too influenced by bread and butter issues and negative feelings toward the English.
But there is nothing wrong with voting about bread and butter issues. No state is legitimate if it does not represent the interests of the body politic, and democratic voting is a good way to make sure the interests of the masses are heard, not ignored.
As for pursuing practical necessities: there is a hierarchy of needs. A society solely devoted to basic biological needs is what Socrates called a “city of pigs.” But every nation needs prosperity, security, and peace before it can turn its attention to higher values and remoter aims. So in a healthy society, there is no necessary conflict between material and spiritual values. High culture requires a solid material foundation.
Every nation first needs to secure its sovereignty before it can worry about other issues. Thus there is no necessary conflict between small state nationalism and broader racial and global concerns. Indeed, both England and Scotland would have more time and energy to ponder and pursue higher goals if they were not pulling in different directions while yoked to the same political system.
Many Englishmen take the idea of an independent Scotland personally. “Do these Scots think they are too good to be ruled by the English?” One surprisingly common claim is that there is nothing to Scottish nationalism but petty resentment of the superior English. The Scots, naturally, find such posturing intolerable. It is rather unseemly for a dominant people to simultaneously play the victim and act condescending.
Many comment threads on Scottish independence have descended into vicious, juvenile ethnic baiting. But the slurs and bile displayed by both sides of the debate just reinforce the desirability of separation. When my brother and I would fight, my mother would break it up by sending us to our separate rooms to simmer down. Let’s send the English and Scots to separate countries. They might even learn to better appreciate one another.
Another tendency on the Right that is dismissive of “petty” nationalism are those who dream about a new European imperium. I agree that Europeans need to develop a pan-European consciousness as well as some sort of loose political federation. These would have two aims: preventing fratricidal wars between white nations and protecting our race from other racial and civilizational blocs like Africa, the Muslim world, India, and China.
But a pan-European consciousness need not and should not conflict with distinct national groups. It certainly should not promote and depend upon the creation of a “homogeneous” European type, which is emerging in colonial societies like the United States. It should be a priority of all European peoples to maintain their cultural and subracial differences, thus ideologies and institutions that dissolve distinct European identities should be rejected.
It is worth pondering whether such a European federation need be anything more than a military alliance akin to NATO, which would include all of Europe but exclude the US and Russia, since both nations may have European roots but are multiracial continental empires with universalistic, messianic, imperial ideologies. The defense of the race in Europe requires a common military, a common emigration policy, and common environmental regulations. But does a European federation really require a central parliament and bureaucracy to define the Euro-sausage, the Euro-Santa, and the Euro-currency? Couldn’t currency, industrial policy, and trade barriers be determined by the constituent states? We should be guided here by the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions should be decentralized as much as possible.
However, before we can create forms of white political unity that do not undermine the sovereignty and identity of our various peoples, we need to break down all illegitimate, homogenizing multiethnic societies. Just because some sort of loose federation is desirable in a racially awakened and cleansed Europe, that does not imply that today’s European Union, or United Kingdom, or France, or Spain, or Russia are good things — such that we should oppose Catalan or Basque or Breton or Corsican independence as “moving in the wrong direction.” Because by breaking up multiethnic empires into ethnically distinct and homogeneous states, they are moving in the right direction.
Wherever there are distinct peoples longing to control their own destinies, I want there to be distinct homelands. Pan-secession against all empires must come before the emergence of our kind of pan-European consciousness and federation — for our approach does not undermine the distinct identities and sovereignty of European peoples. And such secessionism is a growing phenomenon, which we should applaud and encourage, for with each success, our dreams come nearer to realization, including our dream of loose federal unity.
No ethnonationalist can seriously argue that today’s United States or EU or UK or Russia should be preserved against secessionist tendencies because someday whites might need a very different kind of federation. Thus it is quite natural to suspect such individuals of simply shilling for the existing powers — all of which oppose the legitimate national self-determination of some European peoples. “In the name of European peace and security, you should submit to the rule of the Germans” is simply a non-starter. That is not the end of “brother wars” but the beginning of the next one.
When a Pole or a Czech or a Hungarian reads Guillaume Faye extolling the idea of a “Eurosiberia” stretching from Greenland to Vladivostok, he naturally wonders how it will differ from the Russian-dominated prison house of nations from which these countries recently escaped. The only way to allay such fears is to submit any federation to the veto power of the “petty nations,” which means that sovereignty would ultimately remain in the hands of distinct European peoples.
That veto power effectively exists today. For it is natural, normal, and right for every people to first secure its own sovereignty before it can worry about racial and global issues. This means that European unity will never be peacefully achieved by extending existing illegitimate imperial institutions. That is simply a dead end. Which means that a petty nationalist veto will be baked into any legitimate form of federal European unity that will emerge.
Concessions to Realpolitik or Geopolitics can only be made through the temporary or permanent renunciation of ethnonationalist principles. But nobody hears and nobody cares when White Nationalists decide to throw our lot in with one of the existing powers. Our voices are simply drowned out by the babble of the mainstream.
We lack money, numbers, power, and prestige. Our only strength is the truth of the ethnonationalist idea. Thus we need to support ethnonationalism on principle wherever it emerges: Scotland today, tomorrow the world.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
32 comments
The headline doesn’t do justice to your article, Greg: actual “petty nationalism” is in London and Madrid, not in Edinburgh or Barcelona.
I appreciate the clarity and straightforwardness in Greg´s line of argument, although I would think the vision of a loose federation should be with the end goal of a very stern federation that prevents fratricidal conflicts between europeans, prohibits alliances with non europeans against other european nations, and demands an equal share in the burden of the defense of the southern borders, as the african populations will explode in the coming decades, and middle eastern conflicts produces rogue states en masse.
But I would like you, mr. Bernard, to elaborate on your vision in the same straightforward manner, since it seems to me that yours and mr. Spencers vision for a reawakened and united Europa runs along a quite different trajectory. In his “Why we need Europe” speech given 2013 to the Traditional Britain group, he talks of the EU as something to be taken over by us, to become a vessel for our ideas instead of those that laid its foundation. Ride the tiger. He talks of creating a new vision that can bring us together and leave the petty nationalisms behind. And I read the same kind of reasoning in your articles as well. That the division between the franks and the germans in the end is artificial and should be overcome. If such a vision should find common ground among the europeans however, a very clear formulation of the degree of self determination in such a confederation must come first. If not, it will just be another catalyst for fratricide to run amok in europe again, fighting against the very construction that you installed to prevent it.
However, I do share your understanding that a strong vision of a common European destiny and identity is necessary, in order to stand strong in the coming world order, and to not fall against each other again in the future. But I feel that it is important that you put your full vision forward without mincing words, so it can be scrutinized and critiqued thoroughly.
Your short comment does not do your vision for Europe´s future justice. This essay is a good opportunity to spill the beans and tell Greg and the rest of us exactly where you see the flaws in his approach – “petty nationalism”- and exactly what yours is and why it would work better.
Best regards Kristian
Exactly, Romano! Britain is the weakest link in the European chain. Anything that weakens that link (the analogy isn’t perfect, I know) strengthens the chain.
So the Union of the Kingdoms is saved; and by a ratio of 55% to 45%.
And a very good thing to: and precisely as Greg Johnson says (above):
“Every nation needs to secure its sovereignty (independence) before it can worry about anything other issues.”
Quite so: and what sovereignty or independence could five million Scots have on their own in this very dangerous world ? In terms of Realpolitik, none what so ever. In this world of (coming) power-blocs, the very minimum necessary for the survival of Britain as an independent nation, is a close alliance with its neighbours in western Europe (but not the EU).
As for the “losing side” in this vote, the one million six hundred thousand who voted for secession , that vote is largely explained in terms of an absolute and very understandable rejection of the current political elite running (ruining) Great Britain. We are now seeing this rejection of the present anti-White power-holders right across Europe; witness the electoral success of Marine Le Pen’s Front National.
The “old” nations of Europe may yet surprise the world.
Wee helpless little Scotland, with 5.2 million people, would have been larger than 78 other countries, including Norway and New Zealand, which are racially and culturally similar and currently are ranked at #1 and #5 in terms of prosperity and quality of life.
“In this world of (coming) power-blocs, the very minimum necessary for the survival of Britain as an independent nation, is a close alliance with its neighbours in western Europe (but not the EU).”
Why is union necessary between England and Scotland, but only an alliance between Old Blighty and western Europe? Also, how exactly do you form an alliance Perfidious Albion?
An Alliance between Britain and nations of western Europe is to be formed on the basis of what we have in common:
Our nations have never recovered from the blood-letting of the First World War; and at the end of the Second World War all the nations of western Europe (including, of course) Great Britain were ruined, in every sense: economically, morally and occupied by powers who were no friends.
Today, all the nations of western Europe are subject to genocidal levels of immigration from the Third World; the white birth rate is below replacement level and the vast majority of Whites are scared: scared of the present, and scared for the future.
Question: why do the peoples of western Europe tolerate this state of affairs ? Answer: Because they are all scared; and they have very rational reasons for being so: they in live in a Marxist anti-White tyranny (with Race Laws to match). If the reader thinks that I am exaggerating; then I deduce that he is not living in Britain, France or Germany.
Question: What is the contribution which Britain, and only Britain , can make to the Alliance of the nations of Europe ?
Answer: The open, frank and candid acknowledgement by Britain that it was British politicians who bear the responsibility for launching the two World Wars: the one that commenced in 1914 and the one that ended just thirty one years later, with Britain and the continent destroyed. One way or the other this will require the removal of the present political class: the ruling establishment , which hourly, daily, monthly, yearly rams its propaganda-lies of the “Good War” (Studs Turtel) down our throats .
When the current political class, the heirs (and beneficiaries) of those who launched the two World Wars are seen as Liars, guilty of Genocide and Destroyers of our civilisation and are rejected as such, then the Alliance of the European nations will come about quite naturally.
This piece comes across like a response to articles and reader comments at another website which shall remain nameless.
“,,,greater autonomy”? Yes, Holyrood will now have more controls, as promised by that Tory turncoat, Cameron. But let’s not forget that Scotland depends on subsidies and wealth transfers from England. Independence would largely have ended that arrangement rendering the Scottish people much poorer. The Scots voted to keep the money flowing from Westminster.
Nationalism is the ideal, but the Scottish National Party, and Alex Salmond in particular, were inadequate vehicles for it. Not least of its faults are the policies on mass immigrationism and multiculturalism, as you mention.
Incidentally, I wonder if those cheering on Scottish independence also applaud the secessionist efforts of the Federal State of Novorossiya?
I am on record that Ukraine could benefit from an adjustment of borders. Scotland and England show how that could be done in a civilized manner.
But the seizure of Crimea and the troubles in Eastern Ukraine are nothing more than Kremlin special ops, and it is a shoddy insult to the intelligence of the world to pretend that they are merely the spontaneous manifestation of national sentiment.
We may never know what the people of those places really want. The Crimean plebiscite was a ludicrous fraud.
There are two ways to the ethnostate: redrawing borders and moving people. And they can be done peacefully or through bloodshed. In the Balkans and Eastern Europe, the trend is to have a long bloody bitter war which will end with boundaries that ethnonationalists would have drawn from the start.
“Incidentally, I wonder if those cheering on Scottish independence also applaud the secessionist efforts of the Federal State of Novorossiya?”
Russians who want to “secede” from Ukraine can indeed do so very easily by re-migrating to the land of their ancestors – i.e. the actual Rossiya. Scots, on the other hand, differently from Russians in Ukraine, ARE living in the land of their ancestors.
@Émile Durand
Do you apply the same logic to the Northern Ireland conflict and support the re-immigration of the Ulster-Scots back to Scotland? Or (more likely) do you merely want to see that happen only to the ethnic Russians of Ukraine? Ulster-Scots literally stole the land from the impoverished Irish.
If the former, then you should write an article defending the ethnic cleansing of the Ulster-Scots from Northern Ireland on the same grounds. If the latter, then my first assessment that you are consumed by Cold War antirrusianism appears to be accurate.
I have to admit I am not much knowledgeable about the history and social situation of Northern Ireland, therefore I cannot pass judgment on the issue raised by you, not to mention writing an article about it. If however, (1) as you say, the Ulster-Scots unjustly displaced the autochtonous population – i.e. the Irish, (2) if they are unhappy living in Ulster and complying with the rules set by the Irish, (3) if they want the territory they inhabit secede from Ulster and/or join Scotland, (4) and more importantly if it is the Scots living in Ulster, and not the Irish, that are the source of most social and political problems, then yes I would also support the re-immigration of Scots to Scotland.
I somehow don’t believe that points (3) and (4) apply to Ulster-Scots at all, unlike for Russians living in Ukraine, and in other post-Soviet territories for that matter. Please correct me if I am wrong. Points (1) and (2) may reflect the truth, but again I may be wrong.
Another important factor in such questions is who contributed to the cultural, spiritual and economic development of the land, and it takes precedence over being the autochtonous population. Therefore, in order to preempt a possible remark in this regard, in the case of North America and Australia, for example, it is the whites who are the rightful owners of those lands and not the indigenous populations whom they have displaced.
Well the Indians would say White development and enrichment were a desecration of the land and an attempt at cultural genocide. They could make some good arguments – bolstered by Howard Zinn and his Tribe and their liberal fellow travelers. The point is to ignore them. The Indians will always resent us. We won – it’s as simple as that. And the price of victory is bearing the hatred of the conquered. Of course later we tried to do right by them, very clumsily as first and now with a generosity beyond anything given to our own people. It will never be enough because it’s an existential issue and can’t be solved by money. We have to satisfy our own conscience – not theirs. They will always want us gone and/or dead as long as they exist as a separate people.
The word for world is war. As Buddha said, Struggle there must be since all of life is a struggle of some kind. Whites who can’t deal should logically go back to Europe. Instead they seek atonement by vicariously sacrificing other Whites. Political Correctness is a religion of human sacrifice.
The Ulster-Scots were planted in Ireland by the british government and in land the English kings essentially grabbed from the Irish nobility. It was part of a deliberate colonisation process without any doubt. When Ireland achieved its independence in the ’20s the British created an artificial state in the predominantly protestant north which was to remain part of the UK. The catholic minority of that state were treated as second class citizens and perhaps worse.
Ethnically,racially and even culturally the differences between the Ulster-Scots and the Irish are feeble. What breaks them apart is the role of religion and the legacy of sectarianism which exists in the land due to the protestant-catholic conflict of the previous centuries. That of course doesn’t mean that the NI issue is religious, but religion plays a serious role in the identity of the two groups.
And I doubt the differences between Ukrainians and Russians are greater.
I am under the impression that it was the Russians who during the soviet times created the whole industrial infrastructure of Ukraine. Isn’t that why the russophone Ukrainian east is industrialised while the rest of the country isn’t? So apart from the stalinist artificial famines and mass murders perhaps the Russians contributed to the Ukrainian economy. But such arguments don’t mean much, I take for granted that anyone who writes here would choose independence and national self-determination over… microwaves.
If the Nats truly want the Scots to rise they would have raised the banner at Glenfinnan and had fiery crosses converging on the homeland from around the world. I am of the blood and didn’t hear the call which never came.
STOCKHOLM SYNDROME!
I was thrilled at the prospect of Scotland ditching that multicultural disaster in London.
I was further tickled by the idea that David Cameron would go down in history as the “man who lost Scotland”. My God he sucks!
Will they even get another chance? The man who started it has now quit his party. Remember Quebec back in the late ’90’s? They never got another chance after that.
Pat Buchanan (yes, I still pay attention to Pat from time to time) wrote a good article on this in his “What would Braveheart do?” …..it all comes down to capitalist economics doesn’t it….every one seemed concerned about what Scotland would do for currency, trade, oil…how would it affect her standard of living etc…isn’t a “no” vote really a welfare vote? Weren’t the Scots worried more about the effort and work it would take to build an independent state rather than more easily continue to suck on the teat of the more powerful UK? Fear of losing their creature comforts and fear of having to go through a little uncertainty in order to work toward that independence was what probably swayed most of the people who voted “no”. They opted for the slavery of the known rather than the bravery to face the unknown. Edinburgh might pay for their cowardice by becoming the dumping ground of Third World overflow from London.
I think Roman Bernards articles on Occidentalism would be a great complement in this debate, as he states in his articles it doesnt matter if he the EU or if we are ruled by Great Britain, all nation states in Europe are independently of eachother ruled by cultural marxists whose aim is to destroy all white nations. This is like debatting if New York should be free from the rest of US, what is New York but another melting pot in the great new Babylon? Our enemies defines who we are much better then any of our ethnic pluralist like Richard McCulloch or Alain de benoist. We are white, thats all that matters to them, and that is all that should matter to us.
Wotan mit uns!
This is interesting: http://droggin.com/scottish-independence-new-right/
As for the complaint that the Scottish National Party wants to join the EU and import trouble from the Third World: aside from the fact that it is Scotland’s business…But again, if you don’t like Scottish policies, you don’t have to live there. That’s the beauty of having many different nations.
In general, I agree with this article. But one thread within it disturbs me: the idea that a nation like a putative independent Scotland can do whatever it wants and it is merely “their business.” I don’t care about their welfare state: unlike the Amren Necons I lean leftward, re: economics. But, don’t WNs have the right to critique and reject multiculturalist policies in Scotland or elsewhere? If the Scots want to boost immigration and transform Scotland into a far-north Brazil, that is not merely “their business.”
Likewise, whatever “veto power” petty nationalists may have within a confederation should not include the ability to veto immigration restriction. If a European nation within the federation suddenly decided they wanted to import a million Nigerians, it is not “their business.”
I think you are right about this.
I added this paragraph to the article above:
It is worth pondering whether such a European federation need be anything more than a military alliance akin to NATO, which would include all of Europe but exclude the US and Russia, since both nations may have European roots but are multiracial continental empires with universalistic, messianic, imperial ideologies. The defense of the race in Europe requires a common military, a common emigration policy, and common environmental regulations. But does a European federation really require a central parliament and bureaucracy to define the Euro-sausage, the Euro-Santa, and the Euro-currency? Couldn’t currency, industrial policy, and trade barriers be determined by the constituent states? We should be guided here by the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions should be decentralized as much as possible.
I think we should, wherever possible, begin to speak not of immigration policy but of emigration policy. Let’s put things in the right frame.
Och well. That’s it over. For now.
It was a bitter thing to have to choose between two sides when you know that the enemy is in charge of both camps.
All I know is that the only winners from this will be the political classes – who will no doubt make a good living from the division they have stoked up. The Scottish people will be the losers. While they are distracted by the debate about what pattern of cloth flutters over this satrapy of Brussels, they will continue to ignore the real issues upon which their continued survival depends.
To those who see the Unionist stance as inimical to ethnonationalism I ask you to consider this: isn’t it a wee bit ironic that the only political party in recent years to speak out unambiguously for the interests of indigenous Scottish people (and Welsh and English) in their homelands was in fact the pro-Union British National Party? That party was not a success, for a variety of reasons but we will be waiting for some time before similar messages are voiced within the Scottish political sphere, if ever.
The Scottish Independence movement is anything but ethnonationalist as a brief look at the Scottish National Party’s website will quickly tell you:
http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2014/may/what-yes-vote-means-immigration
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/may/scotland-must-stand-ukip-intolerant-politics
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2006/oct/salmond-diversity-our-great-strength
Scottish nationalism, in its current incarnation, is fool’s gold. There is no organised right-wing party in Scotland, and every time Nigel Farage, Britian’s only well-known “right wing” politician visits Scotland, he and his Scottish supporters are hounded by highly organised leftist agitators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ55ZJHllQ
To those who think that New Right and ethnonationalist ends can be furthered by throwing their lot in with these people, please remember the Scots proverb “It taks a gey lang spoon tae sup wi the deil”
Don’t you think that Scotland, once on its own, would end up developing a normal spectrum of political parties? As I understand it, the root that nourishes Left domination of Scotland is nationalistic resentment of England, including really rational forms of resentment against the destruction of Scottish manufacturing industries. Pull up that root, and the Scots will be thinking of politics as something more serious than cocking a snoot at Westminster. Politically, Scotland would have to grow up. And if SNP did lead to an independent, nationalist Scotland, it might not be able to control the forces it unleashed. I think Ireland might provide a good example here of how Left-wing nationalism led, in spite of itself, to the establishment of a very socially conservative society, which has been, unfortunately, terribly undermined by EU membership. The political sweet spot for Scotland would be a socially conservative, economically protectionist, populist welfare state. All the New Right could want is the addition of a sensible emigration policy. Call it social nationalism, if you want a label. That won’t scare the horses.
Well Greg,
I have just read out your articles to some of my friends (who also voted no for the same reasons as I did) and you might be interested to know that they found them very persuasive. I do now see your point and perhaps had I been able to detach myself more from the frankly ghastly political campaining and leftist banalities of the worst sort, I would have voted differently.
Two days after the result, it is too soon to say what might happen next, but I have the feeling that the “independence” genie is out of the bottle. I am reminded of the quote Oswald Spengler put at the beginning of Decline of the West – “The fates lead the willing, the unwilling they drag”.
Perhaps then, rather than resist the march of Scottish indepedence, those on the right should welcome it, rather than to postpone it.
But for now, there is much sound and fury and it is hard to see the way ahead. The next few months will be interesting…
Anyway – thank you for your interest in this country.
Thanks for your kind words. I do think that an independent Scotland would be an opportunity for a new indigenous Scottish identitarian movement to spring up.
In an ideal world, Scotland would mature politically. In the real World, in the modern World I should say, there just isn’t time. The political landscape of Scotland is dominated by multiculturalists and in an independent Scotland, they would operate unopposed. Scotland has not yet felt the brunt of their leaders policies because it has been insulated by England, many areas of which have been ethnically destroyed. With England gone, there would be no insulation and very little time to build resistance. At least now there is some level of awakening in Britain as a whole and this can protect Scotland.
One consequence of a YES vote relating to the issues with the currency and the economy would have been the transfer of businesses from Scotland to England. Many Scots, the best and brightest, would have followed those businesses. This would have been in of itself an incentive for the Scottish government to promote inward immigration from elsewhere to recoup the loss in population.
I am not in principle opposed to Scottish independence if, as Jared Taylor describes it, for the right reasons. I am concerned though and I would be interested to hear peoples comments, that the federal model now being proposed for the UK as a whole, including the English regions, is a long term strategy to weaken resistance to Britain’s Euroskepticism. A sort of divide and conquer approach.
Some interesting comments from Ted Sallis:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2014/09/scotland-ethno-nationalism-and-european.html
Irony is that a kind of ‘petty nationalism’ is the reason why 90% of WN’s are against it. i.e. the close Anglo connection.
Pan-Europists/Imperium followers though would generally support ‘Scot Independence’ since it’s at least geared to a European consciousness rather than a UK one–even though both concepts are at present, very pale imitations of their higher form.
Petty nationalism, but then down to what size unit is acceptable? Let’s look at a hypothetical. Suppose a city with a population of 500 in Scotland wants to have a referendum to be its own country, claiming it’s culture is somewhat different from mainstream culture and yet the city is full of Scots. And let’s say this city is also a disproportionate “cash cow” because a lot of rich people live there. So this raises the question of whether it is economics or culture driving the rift. Some people (some anarchists, libertarians, etc.) believe that complete self-determination should be down to the level of the individual, that is, no government whatsoever (which means no city maintained roads, cops, national defense).
Let’s say that there are 500 micro-nations in Europe. Who gets nukes? Obviously it would be crazy if every nation had nukes because with 500 leaders in 500 nations statistically there’s a strong chance a leader might be genuinely crazy.
I can understand both sides of the debate. The great thing about what happened in Scotland is that the Scots got to vote on succession. If only Americans could as well. In general decentralized local government is good. However I think if I were a Scot living in Scotland I would have voted no because the government I would end up with would be even more suicidal than the status quo.
Greg – good article I agree with all your key points.
Among UK-based white nationalists who oppose Scottish independence, the main argument I have seen is SNP SNP SNP this or that. The SNP was not in power 7 years ago so who is it to suppose they would have been 7 years into an independent Scotland’s future?
Saying “I oppose Scottish independence because SNP wants x” is very shallow as it ignores that a) the SNP may not be the government of an independent Scotland and b) Scottish independence is surely forever (I doubt they’d democratically ask to join England again) and basing opposition to it from very short-term reasons fails to grasp the whole point of independence.
As for these policies the SNP promote:
1) Joining EU. Scotland is already in EU so makes no difference.
2) Migration. Supposedly they set a goal of 25,000 migrants a year. Migration to Scotland is already about 23,000 a year (net) so again it makes little difference.
Another argument I’ve seen used against an indy Scotland is that Scots are very leftist and wouldn’t vote in a racial-nationalist government, Well, no country in Europe is looking close to that goal any time soon so criticising Scotland on these grounds is no different. But I can’t help but feel that the SNP is where many Scots who may otherwise turn to genuine nationalism turn to. If the SNP didn’t exist I’d imagine the BNP and UKIP would be much larger in Scotland. If Scotland had voted for independence, I wouldn’t be surprised if some former SNPers moved to more right-wing parties and goals after the main goal – self-government had been accomplished.
I also think Scottish independence would have been good for England. Without multicultural, multiracial “Great” Britain, the English would be forced to evaluate where our nation truly is – and few people would be happy about it.
Well, it’s all gone now. For now. There could be another referendum in say, 15 or 20 years as there was in Quebec and Montenegro. Scotland will be independent within my lifetime, I feel sure. Different ethnic groups cannot be forced together in one state forever. The union is on borrowed time.
This is an interesting discussion. I would just add that Rhodesia, South Western Africa and South Africa were also countries independent of Great Britain, before their fate overcame them. I am not sure the advantages that Greg J writes about really amount to much. The forces of multiculturalism are not too concerned about free nations. They will crush them if they become a problem.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment