The National:

THE question of national identity in the UK has been wilfully distorted as a means of besmirching Scottish independence.

In 2017, an exasperated Nicola Sturgeon reflected on the negative associations that come from the word ‘nationalism’.

The First Minister said: “The word is difficult. If I could turn the clock back, what 90 years, to the establishment of my party, and chose its name all over again, I wouldn't choose the name it has got just now. I would call it something other than the Scottish National Party.”

If we had to ditch ‘Nationalism’ then I’d be in favour of ‘Scottishism’

The essence of this quarrelsome word are being debated once more on Twitter, that most cantankerous of public forums where all attempts at nuance wither and die. The respected political scientist, Professor Ailsa Henderson declared in a tweet yesterday: “The long running problem with 'nats vs unionists' is that it ignores Brit nationalism behind much of unionism.”

The Edinburgh University academic was responding to a column by Mark Smith in The Herald in which he’d suggested that terms such as ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Unionism’ now required to be updated.

READ MORE: Political science expert says British nationalism is 'behind much of Unionism'

I’m not entirely sure either of these locutions are yet redundant. But it’s been clear for some time that ‘nationalism’ in the context of Scottish independence has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. If there was an Amnesty International standing up for the lexicological rights of words and phrases Scottish Nationalism would be near the top of its projects.

If we had to ditch ‘Nationalism’ then I’d be in favour of ‘Scottishism’, while Unionism could be called Britishism. Supporters of each could then simply be called the Scottishists and the Britishists, or Scots and Brits in their shortened forms.

Thus, the BBC in reporting the latest opinion poll on Scottish independence might begin with this.

‘Scottishists were buoyant last night as another poll indicated a majority in favour of independence.

'Britishists dismissed the results as premature. The Labour MP, Ian Murray, a leading supporter of Britishism said it was all nasty and divisive and the Russians were to blame.”

Unionists would contrive to be furious about the new name. They would cite it as an example of Nationalists seeking to annexe anything to do with Scotland. They would claim it implied that being a Unionist is somehow to be unScottish.

I’m not having this, though. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of Scottish nationalists accept that those Scots who prefer to be governed by Westminster are no less Scottish for that.

Unionist politicians and commentators who propagate such a canard know full well there are fundamental and profound differences between Scottish nationalism and those Trumpian versions currently in the ascendancy

The ties that bind many of us culturally, socially and emotionally to England and the English are strong and ought never to be dismissed. Such ties have been forged through marriage, friendship and strengthened in adversity. An authentic Scottish nationalist would seek to maintain such ties after independence has been gained.

Let’s though, address one of the most persistent falsehoods favoured by Unionists whenever they begin to feel the pillars of the Union begin to shake a little.

At such times (and they are upon us now) they conflate Scottish nationalism with English nationalism or those other nationalist movements across Europe which have poisoned the concept of national identity. In these places it has now come to mean something exclusionary and inward-looking and driven by the dark forces of racial or ethnic superiority.

READ MORE: Indy supporters who are not nationalists should back SSP instead of Labour

Unionist politicians and commentators who propagate such a canard know full well there are fundamental and profound differences between Scottish nationalism and those Trumpian versions currently in the ascendancy across much of Central Europe. But they take a perverse satisfaction in conveying the myth. They know that, whatever reasonable criticisms you can lay at the door of the Scottish independence movement, they do not include insularity or ethnic triumphalism.

Britishness now seems to demand fealty, not to the concept of Britain but to a narrow, Little England

Modern Scotland wants to enable more migrants to settle here and to provide a safe haven from those fleeing oppression in their countries of origin. It wants to remain within the European Union (with all its imperfections) rather than become a commercial branch office of an increasingly unhinged US.

South of the border, sadly, justifiable national pride in English history, culture and language has become distorted into something ugly and narcissistic. It now finds jingoistic expression in recollections of military adventures. It’s not sufficient to be equal but to be superior.

This disfigurement of English national pride has now become indivisible from British nationalism and all that this now implies. Britishness now seems to demand fealty, not to the concept of Britain but to a narrow, Little England version of it and expressed in the shrill language of fear and domination.

Scottish Nationalism may be an imperfect name for seeking the independence of this imperfect little nation. But don’t let its detractors kid you that there’s any equivalence with English nationalism or what Britishness has lately come to mean.