Of all the moronic articles published over the last six days in relation to Scotland’s recent, unsuccessful independence referendum this American example must surely rank somewhere in the top twenty. If proof were needed that most journalists don’t have a clue about the far-away subjects they pontificate on this is it. Todd Brewster writing for Salon under the jaw-dropping headline “Rejecting diversity, and racial and religious equality: The scary message behind secession movements” (I know, I know…):
“For here we are in 2014 and while ethnic and religious identity remains a powerful force for social cohesion across the world, it is showing itself by calls for, of all things, new homogeneous states. Even with the defeat of Scottish independence this past week, there is no denying that after 300 years of union, nearly half of all Scots expressed a desire to go it alone, part of a world-wide trend towards new, ethnically- and religiously-defined nations…”
Yes that’s right, the two year campaign in Scotland that saw the coming together of dozens of parties and organisations from across the political and social spectrum under the “Yes” banner was about creating a “ethnically- and religiously-defined” nation. Okay, you might have missed all that what with several hundred anti-independence “No” supporters staging a mini-riot in Glasgow over the weekend to celebrate their defeat of the “Yes” side, complete with Nazi-salutes, flag-burning, anti-Irish, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant and anti-gay chants but it was actually the SNP, Scottish Greens, SSP, Women for Independence and others who were the real threat to modernity.
“In seeking to re-organize along ethnic and religious terms, the world is in effect rejecting pluralism, diversity and racial equality. Scot divides from Brit; Catalan from Spaniard…”
The implication of this argument seems to be that those who identify as Scottish or Catalan do so by rejecting pluralism, diversity and racial equality whereas those who identify as being British or Spanish are embracing such virtues. Because the British or Spanish nationalities are inherently superior? Because the constructed nations of Britain and Spain are greater than those historic nations who wish to become, to borrow a word used elsewhere in the piece, “rebels”?
Like I said, you really should take anything written by a journalist or columnist on a global subject with a large pinch of salt because in most cases they are simply regurgitating what they have read somewhere else. In this case the Right- and Left-leaning nationalist media of London who have propagandised on behalf of the British government and the “No” campaign throughout the independence debate. But then, of course, Todd Brewster probably doesn’t view those folk as “nationalists” ’cause like they are British an’ stuff, with their cool accents, royal births and costume dramas… Just don’t mention “No black in the Union Jack!” will you?