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.
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 another better.
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.
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.
When a Pole or a Czech or a Hungarian reads Guillaume Faye extolling the idea of a “Eurosiberia” stretching from Europe 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.