Nationalism: a threat to the UK?

I have decided to oblige Freedom ERP in his request for a debate about nationalism within the United Kingdom, and in particular how it is (in my mind at least) a big threat to the United Kingdom in many of its forms.

But before we begin, I think it's actually worthwhile looking at what exactly nationalism is, since the definition itself is debatable.

Is it just a synonym for patriotism? Being proud of your country?

Or is it something deeper and more 'extreme', believing your country (and perhaps its culture and race) is better than others?

I don't claim to have the answer. In fact, I suspect that many members on here will think of nationalism as a different concept to how I imagine it, and that's fair enough.

I think first of all I should outline my own personal position. I consider myself patriotic, and I consider myself British (not English - I don't view being English as very important at all, to be quite honest). I am proud of many of this country's achievements, and - considering its size and population - think that Britain has had an amazingly successful past. A relatively small island in North West Europe that used to own a quarter of the globe, that fought off Napoleon and played a crucial role in fighting off the Kaiser and Hitler. That spearheaded the Industrial Revolution which changed the world and dominated the global economy. A nation that, even in modern times, exerts considerable influence all across the world - in the United Nations, in the European Union and in other groups and international bodies. It has the ability to project hard power across the world, and despite coming up against nations with far larger populations and far greater amounts of natural resources, we still manage to have one of the world's strongest economies (fifth or sixth largest depending where you look).

There is much that British people can be proud of.

But there is a darker side to all of this. The far-right in this country have never enjoyed a great deal of popular support. They flare up occasionally, make some noise, generate some headlines, maybe even take some council seats in local elections. But it'd be wrong to dismiss them, since the potential is there for them to grow. They certainly won't be forming governments any time soon, but if the threat is headed off now then it's far easier to deal with.

You can take pretty much any far-right organisation in Britain - be in the British National Party, the National Front, Combat 18, England First, November 9th Society, National Socialist Movement... these are, quite simply, dangerous groups of people with ideologies that have twisted what Britain stands for into some hate-filled, bleak and totalitarian message. They are alien ideologies on these shores. They are a direct threat to everything we hold sacred in our everyday lives - the freedom to do what we want to do (do you really want to be forced to join the armed forces or face losing your vote?), to love who we want to love (do you really want civil partnerships and mixed marriages to be criminalised?), to mix with people from numerous different races, religions and cultures. These groups hold many ideas that brave men fought and died to protect us against during the Second World War. They are, in my eyes, traitors. There's no other way to describe them. They're just as bad as al-Qaeda, another group filled with a virulent and hateful message.

I want to be clear - I'm not calling for them to be banned or anything like that unless it can be clearly proven in a court of law that these groups pose a threat to public safety. The way to fight these hateful ideologies is not with laws or force but with ideas and debate - the things that we cherish about Britain that might otherwise be stifled.

And this is only one strand of nationalism (namely far-right extremist nationalism - perhaps off-topic a little, but the far-left also pose a threat to the UK, though they don't really have as much support as the far-right). I'm not saying that all nationalism is inherently bad, but it has the potential to cause humans to do such sick and twisted things to one another... we need to look no further than the Holocaust or Serbia for recent examples. Nationalism per se isn't necessarily dangerous, but it can bring out the absolute worst in people.

Another form of nationalism we've seen recently is that in each constituent nation of the United Kingdom - nationalism in England (numerous English nationalist parties, though some of these fall under the far-right category), Scotland (the SNP) and Wales (Plaid Cymru) in particular. These groups threaten the UK in a different way - they threaten the UK's unity.

I'm firmly of the belief that all the nations of the United Kingdom can do far more together than they ever could apart. I don't think we can deny that every one of the nations which make up the UK have benefited from being in that entity, otherwise it simply wouldn't have lasted this long (or have been created in the first place). Separatist groups seem to threaten this unity, and thus the benefits that Britain as a whole receives.

Perhaps some groups have just given nationalism a bad name that's tarnished the reputation of the word. But nevertheless, nationalism concerns me because in some cases it does directly threaten this country and in others it has the potential to.

But anyway, apologies for the long post.


What do the rest of you think? Some possible points for discussion:

How do you define nationalism? Is it a force for good or bad? Is it a threat to the UK? In what ways? Should it be encouraged or discouraged? Why?

Also, I'd like to keep this debate as civil as possible as usual

[edit on 5/5/07 by Ste2652]

I think nationalism is something to be extremely wary of.

Tbh I think it's pretty much an outdated 19th century political concept (even if it has understandable roots) we have no serious need of and which has always been a source of significant trouble and in todays environment is likely to be far more harmful than good.

We need a smart closer cooperative world not a regressive one fracturing into ever smaller and ever more feeble entities and where the largest single national blocks may dominate.

There are too many huge transnational issues (economic, environmental and political) to allow a reverse into the failed out-dated political idea that nationalism represents.

Mere accident of birth and the resultant populace one finds oneself amongst is a basis for division that we can either amplify (and as our history shows only too clearly often with disasterous results) or we can be smart and choose other more relevant issues.

The nations of the UK are far more (despite all the historic or existing problems, injustices etc etc) thanks to our union.
Ditto almost anywhere else that ever came together in chosen union.

As for Scotland today?
Well the SNP got just one more seat at the Scottish Parliament in last weeks elections and are very much in the minority even so (47 seats out of 129).
Good result as this is for them it is not a vote for independence & I do not believe if a vote ever were held that they would get a vote for independence either.

Text How do you define nationalism? Is it a force for good or bad? Is it a threat to the UK? In what ways? Should it be encouraged or discouraged? Why?

Nationalism is the desire for self determination as a direct rection against what is perceived to be outside interference.

i is often portrayed as "bad" when really to call nationalism "bad" you must perceive all change to be "bad".

Change is generally a positive thing although it may have many immediate negative short term effects.

The UK finds itself in the same situation as the Scandanavian penninsular a few hundred years back Is anyone seriously advocating that Norway and Finland should be re unified with Sweden?? Of course not. All 3 components work better seperatly along distinct cultural boundaries now that the colonial element of the larger (sweden) has been removed.

Would the same not happen in Britain? Of course it would.

We live on a tiny island we all have to work together for our mutual benefits - that does not mean we should be conjoined twins!!

It seems to me that a hell of a lot of the current 'mood' amongst some to take this path seems to be founded in large part on the delusion that 'England' would choose a different non-Labour political path than the Labour result of the rest put together if only she were free.

Of course this myth ignores the fact that England in the post war period has not voted tory in the majority since the 1950's.

I also find the idea that voluntary union = conjoined twins a total exaggeration.
Especially now that the devolved administrations exist.
If England finds that situation in some way 'unfair' then England has an obvious remedy, she should obtain one of the possible devolved tiers of Gov herself whether that be regional or nation.

The problem there is that far too few of the wider general public in England seem to be so moved by this issue as other more politically motivated individuals might be.

How far should this 'self determination' go?
If the majority of the population actually vote a particular way but thanks to the arrangements with constituencies that does not equate to sufficient seats in Parliament, what then?

For instance because we do not have a proportional element to our electoral process it been known for ages that Labour's amassing huge numbers of votes in the north of England does not do them much good - and in fairness the same is true to a degree with the tory party in parts of the SE of England.

No system is even going to be so good as to never attract complaint.

......and just so people know Norway has an associate membership of the EU and is therefore in a form of union with her neighbours, the existing EU members Finland and Sweden.

I am happy to accept that our voluntary union still has problems and even injustices that remain to be sorted out but I still say it is undeniable that the nations of the UK have benefited far far more because of their union than they ever would have done separately.

I don't actually think the 'threat' of nationalism within the UK comes from the SNP (they're all too often just game-saying the opposite of what they think 'England' says or wants to be taken too seriously IMO).
Even the BNP in England aren't the major problem either IMO.
IMO the real threat is the 'they're getting something you're not' seditious nonsense being spread about in England currently by members of the supposedly more respectable tory party and being backed by their mates in the tory press.

As far as England goes (and in particularly selfish terms) she spent vast amounts of her resources over centuries to create the union (one way or another), it was not pursued at such cost & for so long for no good reason.

IMO 'the crazies' on the British right are playing with fire here for purely short-term and utterly selfish and narrow political ends.
If the UK were to break up I can see Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all turning very much as EU-enthusiasts and perhaps eventually England the same - after a disastrous spell with the nationalist element in charge.

In short English nationalism would be a disaster to England more than anyone.
The net long term effect would be a much reduced England and the UK a lamented part of her past.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

But you're only examining one side of nationalism there, dj howls, and that's the type which is embodied by the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Is that the only definition of nationalism you accept? If so, what do you think the type that the BNP represent should be defined as?

In regards to political groups that appear to have extreme methods I believe they should be banned as soon as they are heading towards inciting hatred and violence, and i'm not only talking about the various islam groups that promote extremism either, I refer to the BNP within the same category. Personally I feel this Country is simmering at the moment, and there will be an event that will bring boiling point and the normal hard working people of this country will start to revolt against the government (I include whites, asians, blacks etc in the hardworking category) and the way we get a raw deal all the time. Main example being the influx of illegal immigrants that soon become better off that most of this countries legal inhabitants (nice 4 bed semi all paid for with our taxes). If you come here then I don't care what race or creed you are, as long as you love this country and are willing to work hard to pay your way then fine. Something surely needs to be done to enforce this though!

BTW, I consider myself to be English, not British, and from what i've seen and heard, a lot of welsh/scottish/irish feel the same about their country.

Originally posted by mrbocci
Main example being the influx of illegal immigrants that soon become better off that most of this countries legal inhabitants (nice 4 bed semi all paid for with our taxes).

- I still find it stunning that people really believe this stuff.

Once upon a time it was tales of someone I know knew someone who knows for a fact that 'they' have been kidnapping children and eating them.......by the 1960'/70's that transmogrified into 'them' catching & serving up 'our' pets in their restaurants/take aways.

Most people housed by the local authorities (whether they be immigrant or otherwise) either get temporary accomodation in B&Bs or some other cr@ppy housing or sort out some kind of private renting (which again is usually well towards the bottom end of the scale).

No-one gets given a free 4 bed semi.......it may be that in exceptional cases a council will rent one to put a large family into but that's not really quite the same thing - and it happens to British families in need too.

A periodic and extremely dodgy story in the Express or Sun does not mean it's typical for all.

This 'simmering' some seem to be so fond of imagining has been going on so long now (since the 1950's I doubt a single year has passed without at least 2 or 3 of these 'any moment now the country is going to explode' type tales).

On the note of Nationalism, I see the SNP can;t form a Government now. The Lib Dems have told them to bugger off.

So much for independence there, Alec, you obnoxious fool.

Originally posted by stumason
On the note of Nationalism, I see the SNP can;t form a Government now. The Lib Dems have told them to bugger off.

So much for independence there, Alec, you obnoxious fool.

I'm glad the Lib Dems stood firm and held their ground. I imagine it was quite tempting to drop their promises to get into power, but it was nice to see that they put country and principles (belief in a United Kingdom) before party interests. My respect for them has increased greatly.

I don't think it'll be a disaster for the SNP - a lot of their legislation may still be passed (since no party has ever said "We'll never vote for any SNP legislation no matter what it is" - you might even find Labour and the Tories voting for it if they find it reasonable), but it looks like the independence referendum is out the window for the moment. Plus, once the SNP appoint a presiding officer (who isn't allowed to vote) then they lose their one seat majority over Labour in voting terms. Wasn't quite the victory Mr. Salmond expected, I imagine.

[edit on 6/5/07 by Ste2652]

Great question Ste2652!!!

And the answer for me comes down to the defination of nationalism and for me nationalism is about expressing the nation that I feel I belong to.

As a matter of course, I am English first. Not British. I was born in England, not Wales, Scotland and North Ireland. On any form where I am asked my nationality, I always state English.

So is there an threat to the union with being English, or for that matter, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. That depends if you want to see England, Wales, Scotland and NI has seperate states and not part of the United Kingdom.

And yes, I have at times seriously considered the implications of a break up of the union. (No sure if relevent to this thread)

If wanting full blown independance is the aim of some, then that is a serious threat to the UK, as I do believe that Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would find ot very hard to survive on their own.

A side point, and I stand to be corrected, but I can not recall hearing calls for an independance Northern Ireland, yes part of a state made up of the whole of the island of Ireland.

I am proud to the English, and want to promote this as much as people promote being Welsh or Scottish.

And where does the BNP for example fit in to nationalism? And is it right to say the BNP is a nationalist party? Certainly the SNP has the aim of an independent Scotland, not sure about Plaid Cymru and an independent Wales.

Has the BNP wanted an independent England? I certainly would never support a party that wanted a break up of the union.

Nationalism for me is the ability to be proud of the country of my birth, and to be able to promote being English in the same view as people who are Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish do, and not be seen as a racist for being proud to say I am English.

I suppose you could say that the BNP and other such group are 'ultra-nationalist', putting their country before any kind of logic or reason. They certainly do fall into the nationalist category in my book (but as I said before, it's a different type of nationalism to that espoused by the SNP or Plaid Cymru)... I'm not sure how else they can be described if it isn't some form of nationalism. Any ideas?

I would class myself as English first rather than British although English/British is interchangeable in a way that Scots?British, Welsh?British or NI/British simply aren't. I'm very grateful to be a part of the Union and think it's a very bad idea to destabilise what has been one of the best moves in the history of these islands.

I think healthy nationalism IMO is the type where you have a sense of security, pride and self interest rather than an overwhelming compulsion to promote and inflict your own culture above and beyond all others. The difference between healthy and pathological nationalism is similar to a mature confident adult and a hung up teenager desperate to have his voice heard.

I do feel a slight sense of unfairness the way the left tend to attack any form of English nationalism and condemn it as veiled racism while Scots and Welsh, which both have their uglier elements too, are largely left unchallenged.

Spot on with your post ubermunche.

And I agree that healthy nationalism is a good thing. Anything that enables England to be promoted with the same passion as Scotland and Wales, can only be a good thing.

As a nation, we need to keep constant watch for unhealthy nationalism. Not just the far right

I'm unsure whether pride in being English is actually suppressed or whether it's just a perception that English people have and moan about (a national past time ).

Take St. George's Day, for instance - there's the issue about making it a bank holiday in England, yes, but that's not what it's about. It's a day off work

St. George's Day is still celebrated in a lot of places in England. There are the English sports teams (and I think this does add a bit to both the 'good' nationalist identity and the 'bad' one, since nationalism can lead to violence at sporting events sometimes as we've seen), the Cross of St. George is often flown alongside the Union Flag on town halls in England, it has its own Church and legal system, quangos like English Heritage (note that it's English, not British) seek to preserve English history and educate people.

Englishness is there even though I don't really identify with it much - but as Freedom ERP rightly says, we need to keep a close eye on unhealthy nationalists. Especially those who put 'England' or 'Scotland' or 'Wales' or 'Northern Ireland' before 'the United Kingdom'.

And why is this? Well, as I said, I don't have any objection whatsoever for people calling themselves or enjoying being English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish. But what I feel - and I think the facts clearly vindicate this view - is that we're far better off together than apart. It wasn't the English Empire but the British Empire, the English didn't defeat Napoleon/the Kaiser/Hitler but the British did. It was Victorian Britain that led the way in the Industrial Revolution. It was a blend of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish efforts that put Britain on the map and it is this same blend that keeps it there.

To put it simply, our time together as a union has been infinitely more productive than our time as separate states.

Again, I'm cautious about this since the far-right use Britishness just as much as Englishness or Scottishness or Welshness or Irishness, which is sad. But I think we're all broadly in agreement - the union is generally a good thing, and it's healthy to be proud of both the UK as a whole and also the constituent country that you were born in/reside in.

Text ......and just so people know Norway has an associate membership of the EU and is therefore in a form of union with her neighbours, the existing EU members Finland and Sweden

I know that Norway is fully paid up EU member on the quiet. People who hold Norway up as a champion of EU isolationism are quite clearly stupid

What I meant was that the Scandinavian penninsular mirrored the position of the UK at the moment

Sweden the power (England) with Norway the official union (scotland) Finland the annexed (Wales) and Lapland (n ireland)

All chose independence before coming together again as equals to form the Nordic council and then the EU (apart from Lapland )

Just an example of how nationalism is not always the divisive doomsday scenario as quoted by the nay-sayers