Change the name nationalist to independentist.

[Alba]

I would very much love to break up the union and then be good friends with our Southern neighbours but the word nationalist seems...

Change the name nationalist to independentist.

It's an old fashioned limited word and I think the word independentist (a French word) is probably a more accurate description by far of your average SNP voter.

Alba gu bràth!

[JacquesMagique]

Or just Scottish Independence Party? (rolls of the tongue a bit better). I agree, they've never really struck me as 'nationalists' per se.

[Peter Dow]

Firstly, answer the questions.

What is a "nationalist"?
Who is a TRUE nationalist?
Who is a fraud and a liar when they call themselves a "nationalist"?

(1) A nationalist is someone who acts for the nation -the nation is defined by the people themselves who constitute that nation.

(2) In order to be a true nationalist in this day and age, you need to support democracy and republicanism - because that is the state of the art in terms of politically advancing the nation. In the olden days, a nationalist might have got away with monarchism, if they could have found a good monarch - but not nowadays. Like in the olden days a doctor could have got away with leeches sucking the patient's blood but not nowadays because the state of the art of medicine has moved on.

(3) Hitler was a fraud and a liar when he called himself a "National Socialist" - (Nazi) - forget the socialism just now but he was not a nationalist because Hitler exterminated or otherwise got killed many good German nationals and generally harmed the prospects of the German people. Hitler was not a German nationalist he was a traitor to the German nation.

Nick Griffin and the BNP are frauds and liars when they call themselves "nationalists" because the British nation is not defined by race but by an association with the British Isles - we are bound by geography not by ethnic inheritance, though we are all in the human race to be sure.
Griffin is not a British nationalist - he is a traitor to the British nation because he wants to divide Britons up to put white people against black or some such nonsense.

The royalists in the SNP are frauds and liars when they claim to be "nationalists" because they oppose independence for the Scottish nation - they only want independence for the Queen's Scottish state, they oppose the nation electing a head of state, a president of a republic and instead wish the nation enslaved by the state with a head of state, the Queen, imposed and not elected.
So to sum up - Salmond and the SNP royalists are not nationalists they are traitors to the Scottish nation and they oppose Scottish national independence - that is bad - the SNP royalists are like the Nazis and the BNP in that they CLAIM to be nationalists but in fact are not.

Scottish Nationalist Failings - a page from Peter Dow's Scottish National Standard Bearer website

Join the debate in the For Freedom Forums -

The For Freedom Forums -
For Freedom Forums
Register your own username and password -
For Freedom Forums :: Register - Visual confirmation
A guide to how to register your username -
For Freedom Forums :: View topic - How to register a username and password to log in and post

[Alba]

Actually, I would prefer Scottish republican but too many unpleasant associations with the word republican I fear.

Peter, are you in favour of an independent Scotland?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Firstly, answer the questions.

What is a "nationalist"?
Who is a TRUE nationalist?
Who is a fraud and a liar when they call themselves a "nationalist"?

Hi,

since YOU asked:


(1) A nationalist is someone who acts for the nation -the nation is defined by the people themselves who constitute that nation.

(2) In order to be a true nationalist in this day and age, you need to support democracy and republicanism - because that is the state of the art in terms of politically advancing the nation. In the olden days, a nationalist might have got away with monarchism, if they could have found a good monarch - but not nowadays. Like in the olden days a doctor could have got away with leeches sucking the patient's blood but not nowadays because the state of the art of medicine has moved on.

(3) Hitler was a fraud and a liar when he called himself a "National Socialist" - (Nazi) - forget the socialism just now but he was not a nationalist because Hitler exterminated or otherwise got killed many good German nationals and generally harmed the prospects of the German people. Hitler was not a German nationalist he was a traitor to the German nation.

Nick Griffin and the BNP are frauds and liars when they call themselves "nationalists" because the British nation is not defined by race but by an association with the British Isles - we are bound by geography not by ethnic inheritance, though we are all in the human race to be sure.
Griffin is not a British nationalist - he is a traitor to the British nation because he wants to divide Britons up to put white people against black or some such nonsense.

The royalists in the SNP are frauds and liars when they claim to be "nationalists" because they oppose independence for the Scottish nation - they only want independence for the Queen's Scottish state, they oppose the nation electing a head of state, a president of a republic and instead wish the nation enslaved by the state with a head of state, the Queen, imposed and not elected.
So to sum up - Salmond and the SNP royalists are not nationalists they are traitors to the Scottish nation and they oppose Scottish national independence - that is bad - the SNP royalists are like the Nazis and the BNP in that they CLAIM to be nationalists but in fact are not.

Scottish Nationalist Failings - a page from Peter Dow's Scottish National Standard Bearer website

Join the debate in the For Freedom Forums -

The For Freedom Forums -
For Freedom Forums
Register your own username and password -
For Freedom Forums :: Register - Visual confirmation
A guide to how to register your username -
For Freedom Forums :: View topic - How to register a username and password to log in and post

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Fraxinus]

Great post Peter Dow, I don't know a whole pile about the SNP so I can't say one way or another whether I share your views on them, but everything else is spot on. Just because Fascism gave nationalism a dirty name doesn't mean it should be abandoned. It's time the term nationalism was reclaimed from the thugs that sullied its name! Nationalism should be something positive not negative.

[DougieG]

(3) Hitler was a fraud and a liar when he called himself a "National Socialist" - (Nazi) - forget the socialism just now but he was not a nationalist because Hitler exterminated or otherwise got killed many good German nationals and generally harmed the prospects of the German people. Hitler was not a German nationalist he was a traitor to the German nation.

Hitler WAS a nationalist. His failure was simply an example of nationalism's flaws as an ideology - it wasn't that Hitler was a bad nationalist, it was simply that nationalism is an inherently bad philosophy.

[Fraxinus]

Hitler WAS a nationalist. His failure was simply an example of nationalism's flaws as an ideology - it wasn't that Hitler was a bad nationalist, it was simply that nationalism is an inherently bad philosophy.

I'd disagree to be honest, Hitler was an imperialist, nationalism is anti-imperialist. The greatest threat to globalisation and neo-liberal imperialism is nationalism. Nationalism is, the nation for the people, of the nation. It doesn't have to be racist. A line from the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in Easter 1916 read, "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of the Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible". That is why nationalism, in its true form, is such a threat to the neo-liberal agenda.

[DC]

At the risk of steering this thread off topic....

Hitler was a nationalist. Nationalism is not an inherently bad philosophy. However Hitler's policies for Germany were mostly bad, however he was making them with a nationalist intent, and truly believed they would benefit the nation, so he remains a nationalist.

[DougieG]

I'd disagree to be honest, Hitler was an imperialist, nationalism is anti-imperialist. The greatest threat to globalisation and neo-liberal imperialism is nationalism. Nationalism is, the nation for the people, of the nation. It doesn't have to be racist. A line from the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in Easter 1916 read, "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of the Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible". That is why nationalism, in its true form, is such a threat to the neo-liberal agenda.

I didn't know we had some big 'agenda'.

Imperialism is not anti-nationalist - the spreading of the nation's glory and wealth at the expense of other countries is essentially the entire philosophy behind nationalism. The belief that your country is superior, or should be made so, is not contradictory with military supremacy also.

Nationalism is also racist by definition. It seeks to raise one ethnic group up above others, giving them more advantages simply due to either their race or at least place of birth. English nationalism would champion more access to the nation's wealth for English people than for Scottish people, for instance. At every level nationalism is fundamentally discriminatory.

[DC]

Nationalism is also racist by definition. It seeks to raise one ethnic group up above others, giving them more advantages simply due to either their race or at least place of birth. English nationalism would champion more access to the nation's wealth for English people than for Scottish people, for instance. At every level nationalism is fundamentally discriminatory.

No it isn't, people can be part of a national irrelevant of race. Simply because a Black person living in Britain is Black doesn't mean they're not British. Nationalism can encompass different ethnic groups.

[DougieG]

No it isn't, people can be part of a national irrelevant of race. Simply because a Black person living in Britain is Black doesn't mean they're not British. Nationalism can encompass different ethnic groups.

It's racist in the sense that Indians can be racist towards Pakistanis - I don't think that there's a separate word for that.

[DC]

It's racist in the sense that Indians can be racist towards Pakistanis - I don't think that there's a separate word for that.

You said it seeks to raise one ethnic group above another, yet different ethnic groups can work toward the same Nationalistic goal. What's more Indian nationalism does not necessarily mean racism toward Pakistanis or any other racial group. Nationalism does not have to be antagonistic.

[DougieG]

You said it seeks to raise one ethnic group above another, yet different ethnic groups can work toward the same Nationalistic goal. What's more Indian nationalism does not necessarily mean racism toward Pakistanis or any other racial group. Nationalism does not have to be antagonistic.

It doesn't have to be in theory but in practice it cannot be anything else. It involves less cooperation between nations, especially in trade. It generally rejects the idea of foreign aid. It works off the founding assumption that your countrymen are superior to others. It rejects the fact that all men are born equal. Look at the nationalism of the 1800s - the wars that were caused by nationalism were frequent and costly. It's an old ideology and it has had its day, we know now that liberal democracy works better for the health of a nation and the world in general.

[DC]

It doesn't have to be in theory but in practice it cannot be anything else. It involves less cooperation between nations, especially in trade. It generally rejects the idea of foreign aid. It works off the founding assumption that your countrymen are superior to others. It rejects the fact that all men are born equal. Look at the nationalism of the 1800s - the wars that were caused by nationalism were frequent and costly. It's an old ideology and it has had its day, we know now that liberal democracy works better for the health of a nation and the world in general.

It doesn't reject the idea of foreign aid, merely it restricts foreign aid to a point where it is useful to the giving nation (and there isn't any problem with that). For example foreign aid is used to increase prestige internationally, and in Australia's case at least, it gives us more power in the immediate region. Nor does it make the assumption that your countrymen, or your country, is superior to others, merely that everything that nation does should benefit the people and country as a whole. Nor does it necessarily lessen co-operation between nations, for example I would say joining together to combat Global Warming, if it exists, is in the interests of the nation, and therefore a nationalist idea, although it requires the co-operation between states.

[DougieG]

It doesn't reject the idea of foreign aid, merely it restricts foreign aid to a point where it is useful to the giving nation (and there isn't any problem with that). For example foreign aid is used to increase prestige internationally, and in Australia's case at least, it gives us more power in the immediate region. Nor does it make the assumption that your countrymen, or your country, is superior to others, merely that everything that nation does should benefit the people and country as a whole. Nor does it necessarily lessen co-operation between nations, for example I would say joining together to combat Global Warming, if it exists, is in the interests of the nation, and therefore a nationalist idea, although it requires the co-operation between states.

There's a gap between what you are describing and nationalism in practice. Though you are kind of correct from a theoretical perspective, it's not really the case. Intensely nationalist countries never seem to have good relations with other states - if we draw comparisons with micropolitics, individuals who appear to consider themselves the only important thing and who are always out for themselves are usually ostracised from social interaction. Your attitude to foreign aid is sickening - the object of giving ought to be the lessening of hardship for those less fortunate - but that is irrelevant in this discussion.

[Fraxinus]

I didn't know we had some big 'agenda'.

Imperialism is not anti-nationalist - the spreading of the nation's glory and wealth at the expense of other countries is essentially the entire philosophy behind nationalism. The belief that your country is superior, or should be made so, is not contradictory with military supremacy also.

Nationalism is also racist by definition. It seeks to raise one ethnic group up above others, giving them more advantages simply due to either their race or at least place of birth. English nationalism would champion more access to the nation's wealth for English people than for Scottish people, for instance. At every level nationalism is fundamentally discriminatory.

Nationalism is seperate from racial superiority, as DCFGS3 says, an Afro-Englishman can espouse English nationalism. Imperialism isn't nationalistic, it doesn't cherish the people of the nation, it seeks to benefit a few at the cost of many while flying the flag of false nationalism. Look at the former British Empire, not only did its imperial exploits wreck other countries but only a small proportion of the British population benefitted from the empire. It was a small elite, relative to the population, that drove the policy of imperialism.

[DC]

There's a gap between what you are describing and nationalism in practice. Though you are kind of correct from a theoretical perspective, it's not really the case. Intensely nationalist countries never seem to have good relations with other states - if we draw comparisons with micropolitics, individuals who appear to consider themselves the only important thing and who are always out for themselves are usually ostracised from social interaction. Your attitude to foreign aid is sickening - the object of giving ought to be the lessening of hardship for those less fortunate - but that is irrelevant in this discussion.

But Nationalism is almost always in practice. Every single law designed to benefit the nation, whether it does or not, is a nationalistic one. And intensely nationalistic countries aren't ostracised, for example the US is quite a nationalistic country, yet it dominates world politics.

[Fraxinus]

It doesn't have to be in theory but in practice it cannot be anything else. It involves less cooperation between nations, especially in trade. It generally rejects the idea of foreign aid. It works off the founding assumption that your countrymen are superior to others. It rejects the fact that all men are born equal. Look at the nationalism of the 1800s - the wars that were caused by nationalism were frequent and costly. It's an old ideology and it has had its day, we know now that liberal democracy works better for the health of a nation and the world in general.

Do you mean as in no free-trade? the free trade that has helped crush the economies of some developing nations while the US and the EU licked up the profits. Don't confuse the wars of imperial powers such as Britain, France, Germany and Russia with fights for independence.

[angelcountry]

Do you mean as in no free-trade? the free trade that has helped crush the economies of some developing nations while the US and the EU licked up the profits. Don't confuse the wars of imperial powers such as Britain, France, Germany and Russia with fights for independence.

I like that, i think now adays any civilians too can form any opinion and become an expert in name change so that they can usurp the role of the arbitar of fact, please dont depend on the press come to us for the truth stop acting the maggot, change the name no legitimate expectation mate.

We are not in dafur.

[AMGINGLES]

The English language equivilant of independantist is Libertairian and is in wide use with the American Tea party movement. People mistakenly believe that democracy is the most fair means of government , it is not. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over whats for dinner. A Republic with a solid constitution like that of the early united states is the most fair means of government , unfortunalty the Anglo-American Oligarchy have so many people in high places in the US that they can bypass the constitutuion, usually by citing national security.

[UncleVanya]

Is the Scots Nats Party's ultimate aim to declare UDI from the rest of the UK, and if so, just how is Mr Salmon going to achieve this if he is First Minister of a minority SNP government?

Is Mr Salmon a 'Nice Man', or just another politician who thinks he's 'Bubba Big Bucks'.... the 'Secret King of Scotland'.... or the 'Prime Minister Elect'.... and 'Great Poobah of Scotland'...... I have read on other Politics Forums dealing with matters Scottish that Mr Salmon is regarded as a bit of a 'Stuffed Shirt', another lawyer who believes himself to be 'Special & Different' from the other Earthlings.

When I see him on TV, he always comes across as being full of himself.... the Big I AM.....

[AMGINGLES]

The elites have encouraged nationalism in recently as it fragments the british state psyche and allows for easier transition to world government , which is their ultimate aim and is provisionally already in place.

[5K3PT1C]

Nationalism isn't just independence from foreign rule... read a goddam book.

[Janus]

Forgive me for the intrusion, sirs, but I just felt (like Elihu in the Book of Job) that I had to reply to some interesting points you have all been raising:-
1stly, the name Independentist? Sounds like my local and unvisited orthodontist to me. Couldn't you just shorten it to Independant, instead?
2ndly, if you arguing against Nationalism then why don't you as Scots come back onto the mainland politics scene and rejoin with us in London, the Parliament and the Crown. We feel that during a time of recession you could be better in the same boat for helping to strengthen what's left in UK policies. We could still use your North Sea gas and oil. A shared economy is a stronger one for Britain.
3rdly, I heard one of you saying that globalism and imperialism were similarly like nationalism. Actually, globalism is less so than Imperialism, because it seeks to bring equality and unity to its membership nations, like in the EU for example, or even the UN's dream of global peace and prosperity for all under a OneWorld dictatorship. That is, all the countries dictate peace and trade to each other instead of just some. The reason Nick Griffin failed to succeed in the European electorate was because of that very reason: he is a professed Nationalist, so what was he doing there anyway?
Lastly, it is not the power from Nationalists that we most need to fear in this our day, but from Capitalists-Plutocrats which is greater by comparison. I would rather have a racist who I can fight and overpower in the elections, than one whose mass appeal is his wealth and thus his power.

[Janus]

Forgive me for the intrusion, sirs, but after reading some of the interesting points you have made, I felt like Elihu in the Book of Job that I had to reply.
Firstly, the name Independentist? Sounds like the local orthodontist I hardly ever visit to me. Couldn't you rather just call it Independant Party or something?
Secondly, are you for or against Nationalism? If against, then why do you as Scots not rejoin the Parliament and the Crown and strengthen the backbone of the British Isles policy-machine again with united rule, shared economy-I daresay we can still use some of your North Sea Gas and oil economically to aid us in the recession, and us likewise vice versa you. I myself do not want a separatism in Britain but a truly, politically and economically United Kingdom again. The days of Catholics versus Protestants are over, and now we are in an age of interaction, integration and brotherhood.
Thirdly, one of you mentioned that globalists like imperialists are like nationalists. This is not the case, as globalism such as with the EU or even the UN seeks to unify the whole world into a modern-day Tower of Babel OneWorld rulership of peace and prosperity to all its members, with a rotary-turnover of countries' leaders governing it prior to a permanent vacancy for a European President (which is in the making). It is neither nationalist or imperialist, but confederate.
Nick Griffin did not do well in the European elections because of that very thing: he is a nationalist and disliked/disapproved of by those with a globalist/European agenda.
Lastly, we have more to fear from Capitalists-Plutocrats that Nationalists, as with their wealth and standing they are far more powerful. Even if a Nationalist government came about in Britain, they would not hold ground for long because like Nazism-and dare I say Punk Rock!-they would be a merely passing fad that wouldn't stand the test of time; their are important global issues incompatible with the BNP agenda; they would bring with them their own type of problems, such as tougher immigration laws and the advent of an ID-card system as a result of this, practical quarantine of peoples and a communistic ethos with our own iron curtain in place, etc, a police state and BB worse than the Nazis, lack of freedom of information, freeflow of tourism and trade, etc; more attempted infiltration from the skies from terrorist factions and asylum-seekers seeking more illegal inroads, etc. It is a failed enterprise from the outset. One that is not worth undertaking. It would also weaken our military, economic and globally-voiced political opportunities. We live in the 21stC., not 1939 today. We've got to move with the times, not regress to infantile secluded exclusivist thinking any more.

[morayloon]

In order to be a true nationalist in this day and age, you need to support democracy and republicanism - because that is the state of the art in terms of politically advancing the nation. In the olden days, a nationalist might have got away with monarchism, if they could have found a good monarch - but not nowadays.

I think you are presumptious in saying monarchists can't be nationalists. I have republican sympathies but I do not accept your premise.

The royalists in the SNP are frauds and liars when they claim to be "nationalists" because they oppose independence for the Scottish nation - they only want independence for the Queen's Scottish state, they oppose the nation electing a head of state, a president of a republic and instead wish the nation enslaved by the state with a head of state, the Queen, imposed and not elected.
So to sum up - Salmond and the SNP royalists are not nationalists they are traitors to the Scottish nation and they oppose Scottish national independence

frauds, liars & traitors, my you do like to use emotive language. The SNP stands for Scottish Independence. The SNP royalists are not traitors. All Scottish Nationalists, monarchist or republican, back an Independent Scotland. These are neither fraudulent claims nor lies, just plain and simple FACTS. The monarch is just a figurehead. From what you write you want a poweful president. What will that achieve? As for Salmond, he is just supporting party policy, do you know what his preference is? Thought not!

the SNP royalists are like the Nazis and the BNP in that they CLAIM to be nationalists but in fact are not

I think you are way out of order here and should apologise for making such a scurrilous comment.