Letters to the editor

Can nationalism ever be benevolent?

Sir, - Last Friday I attended the Edinburgh Book Festival event with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Turkish writer Elif Shafak and publisher Heather McDaid where Ms Shafak carefully summarised her concerns about the divisive nature of nationalism.

In her response, Ms Sturgeon tried to distance herself and the independence movement from the negative connotations often associated with the word nationalism and said that, if feasible, she would give the Scottish National Party a different name.

But is re-branding of the SNP really necessary?

After all, the clue is in the name. The SNP is committed to achieving national sovereignty for Scotland, its policies are designed to encourage a distinct Scottish national identity and it aspires to act like the government of an independent nation state.

If it looks like nationalism and if it sounds like nationalism, it most definitely is nationalism.

Why try to hide that fact?

Maybe Ms Sturgeon’s problem is not the word nationalism as such but the fact that inevitably Scottish nationalism is on the same spectrum as any other nationalism because they are all defined by nationhood.

It matters whether you feel Scottish or British or both and this has resulted in obvious divisions.

How else can it be explained that, for example, derogatory terms like yessers, yoons, Scotnats or Britnats have entered our language only after the independence campaign?

Which leads back to the initial question: can nationalism ever be benevolent?

Picture: Press Association. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon with Heather McDaid, left, and Elif Shafak at the Edinburgh International Book Festival.