Liberal Love

Liberal societies are healthy streams. Free flowing, oft times turbulent – but with a clarity and purity of involvement and liquid cohesion.


These are though under threat from two directions – Capitalism above, and Nationalism below.

Capitalism freezes flow and movemeent; cutting communities off from the clear air and creating false inward reflections and strange refracted images from the external world (where others are walking on the icy outer surface).


And below, Nationalism – the stirring of the rotting sediment of dead fears. Racism, an appeal to the worst archetypes of the other. Muddying and reducing visibility, so that all are trapped in isolation and separation.


How do we keep the liberal stream flowing, with our eye on the common good of shared humanity?

Whatever your faith – look to wisdom from our ancestors.

“ Love your neighbour as your self” Christ

“those who worship Me with love and devotion are very close to Me, and I am also very close to them” Bhagavad-Gita

Nationalism. A poor show.

Nationalism impoverishes everyone, and in every way. Economically, politically, culturally, morally

It does this economically, by closing minds and borders. Two examples. Scotland right now. See the table. A deficit of 12% to GDP. I think as a direct result of the uncertainty around the continuing almost-religious drive for “Independence”. This results directly in loss of investment; flowing from uncertainty – with Scotland facing bankruptcy on the first day. The second example is Nazi Germany – where Hitler’s persecution led to the emigration of those Jewish scientists who’s inventiveness created an explosion of growth elsewhere, for instance in the USA.

Morally? Certainly populists create and use an “enemy” in order to keep themselves in power. Whether the enemy is the Ukraine (Russia), England (Scotland), Brussels (England), Palestine (Israel) is not the point. This is an appeal to our animal instincts and to fear. This seems to me to be morally indefensible. It’s certainly not Kantian (do good, for the sake of doing good), nor is it “do as you would be done to”, nor Christian – “love thy neighbour as thyself”. It only benefits politicians who use this to gain and remain in power.

.. and consider the political consequences of nationalism – here in my own geography. Brexit has separated us from friends in Europe. We “took back control”, but the question is – “to do what?” The SNP has replaced Labour in the UK parliament. The result has been the creation of two one-party states. Conservative rule in the United Kingdom, SNP in Scotland. The result has been division and intolerance throughout these islands. If the SNP are now in decline – hooray. Perhaps we may see a socialist government throughout the whole of this land, and a route back to sense and sensibility (fairness). I hope so.

Lastly, nationalism brings with it cultural desertification.Where is the continuity of Russian literature, music, dance in the febrile atmosphere of supposed national defence against those “aggressors” – the Ukrainians? Where is the cultural dividend from Brexit; and – for heavens sake – what would be the consequence of a bankrupt tartan-wrapped Scottish Nation? Not so much Burns and Burnt-out. And the shame of it is Scotland helped forge other British and international traditions. The Scottish Enlightenment. British Chartists meeting on Glasgow Green. Keir Hardie and International Socialism. Outward- facing toward a brotherhood of man.

Nationalism. In any form, brings with it poverty. Reject it, I beg you.

Nationalism. A Poor Show.

Scotland. Dependence and Poverty Beckon

Scotland. Dependence and Poverty Beckon

Consider this. Scotland spends 9% more than it earns (it has a 9% negative GDP). That’s before the coronavirus. 

How does we balance the books then? Right now we arebanked by the UK Treasury. Quite right. The union was a Scottish project (King James). We survive in lockdown because the UK can borrow at very low interest rates. And subsidises Scotland to the tune of £2,000 per person through the Barnet formula. 

OK then. So 58% of Scots apparently want to unhitch themselves from this onerous arrangement. We are told by our SNP government that “it’ll be all right on the night”. How?What are the options?

First – become a member of the EU. With a 9% negative GDP? We’d have to first endure the pain of getting under 3% negative GPD. A bigger shock than that to Ireland after the financial crash. And, we’d be doing this our own. We’d have to endure a period of poverty and isolation first. Without the helping hand of the RUK (rest of the UK). The people we’vejust abandoned.

Second – be completely on our own. A small country with an independent currency. Oh and the 9% negative GDP. Doesn’t this add up to a quick road to the bankruptcy? It was of course Scotland’s bankruptcy (caused by the Darien Crisis) that led the Scots to petition for union in 1707. (Incidentally fiercely resisted by much of the English parliament). I don’t see this as “independence” in any proper sense. It would more likely lead to increased dependence on England. This time without representation.

Third – retain the pound and  continue to live within the shelter of our common currency. But without representationwe would be “takers” of the rules of that currency and peoples. 

I truly don’t get it. You have to ask – independence from what? To do what?

Right now we have a Scottish national government, with local decision making on everything significant, except a shared foreign policy, treasury and defence. We combine this with over-representation within the UK parliament which determines those matters. Don’t believe that? Just wait for the next parliament when Labour and SNP together have a majority and can forge a new fairer social Britain. 

There is a religious wing of the SNP. I say religious. Independence, damn the consequences for the people. What’sthat then? It is this wing who are pressing for another referendum. They want to take advantage Coronavirus, blind the people to facts; and most of all get the thing done before Britain throws out the Tories in 2024.

Scotland – Nationalism v Economics

This is a reprint from the Spectator this week…

Scotland’s deficit is higher than the UK average — an estimated 7 per cent of GDP, as opposed to the UK’s 2 per cent. It’s not hard to work out why. In 2018-19, Scottish public spending was 13.6 per cent higher per head than the UK average and revenue collected was 2.6 per cent lower. Scotland accounts for about a tenth of the UK’s population and a tenth of its economic output — but more than half of the increase in total annual government borrowing in cash terms.

How could the Scottish government possibly sustain that level of expenditure in the absence of the UK subsidy (about £10 billion a year)? It would have to go, tam o’ shanter in hand, to the bond market, but with the size of Scotland’s deficit, as well as the share of the UK’s debt it would inherit, the interest rates would be far more onerous than those currently available to the UK.

Bankruptcy would soon follow.

Would the IMF come to Scotland’s rescue, as it came to the UK’s in 1976? Maybe, but only at the cost of a huge reduction in spending on public services such as education, already a complete basket case under the SNP’s stewardship.

But let’s suppose the Spanish government waives its objection to Scotland joining. That wouldn’t exactly save the day. For starters, there would be the small matter of the hard border with the rest of the UK, not something conducive to trade with Scotland’s largest export market.

Then there’s the fact that Scotland would have to adopt the euro and become part of Schengen, both of which are non-negotiables for any new member states. But crucially, Scotland’s annual deficit of 7 per cent of GDP puts it over the 3 per cent threshold that automatically triggers the EU’s ‘excessive deficit procedure’, i.e. the

EU would insist on an eye-watering austerity programme as a condition of joining.

And if the people of Scotland want to know what that would involve, I’m sure plenty of Greeks would be happy to tell them. (Youth unemployment of 40 per cent? Not sure that will go down well in Glasgow.) It would make the levels of austerity imposed by George Osborne and Philip Hammond — which the SNP ceaselessly complained about — look like a mosquito bite compared to full-blown malaria.

National Boundaries

We define by creating boundaries; where we place them. (That is you, this is me); what kind they are (a kissing gate or a prison wall). Most important, though. is what they are made out of. The foundations of  Nationalism are laid on enmity. Yes, there can be other building materials  – ideals, even love. How often though does aspiration end in vitriol?

A friend put to me on Saturday that it is possible for nationalism to be a force for good. He cited the British resistance to Nazis. He won me over, but to the possibility,, not the reality.

Boundaries are existential; or at least to our experience of “being”. We have to feel an “other” in order to sense our “self”, this is because all experience is relative. We live inside the uni-verse (the one thing), and so have no absolute external measure, no yardstick or objectivity. It is only by differentiating and re-integrating that we create reality.

Boundaries make things real; but they also separate. Each from each. Technically a form of  good nationalism could come about through a specific kind of boundary. If nationals could stay open and inclusive, by having semi permeable social cell-walls, then well and good. But…

The problem is that “nation” is so often a short-hand for racial grouping. Indeed why else call a community a “nation”? And race memories are there in our unconscious lurking as Archetypes. Irrational and enormously, darkly,  potent. The perfidious English to the French, the Lord Snooty English to the Scots, the chippy Scots to the English. In our collective unconscious our neighbour is the enemy who raided in the night, raped and stole our livelihood.

.. And so – enter mass manipulation by politicians and other self interested parties ( corporations for instance).  We have our psychic buttons, all they have to do is to to push them; and they can’t help it. The end (their end) soon justifies their means. Where community is defined by nation, then you have the cybernats’ outrageous vilification of the “English”, and the Daily Mail whipping up a response (which helped the Tories back to power  last month). Roll up the Bosch, the Hun and the Frogs. Come on in to the EU debate. How much pent up grievance does it then take to move us to internment camps and war. No, this really isn’t hysteria. In the early 1930’s Germany was an pluralistic and active democracy. It only took ten years…

Neighbourhood feminism

It is not heroic to feel injustice as it affects you personally. It is understandable, but not noble. A woman confronted by the pervasive but subtle continued tilt of the rules against her; a black in a white dominated society. The feeling of being apart, and made less human because of it – and the righteous anger that it provokes.

Understandable, forgivable.

But not heroic.

What then is the journey of the Hero? What is the dragon that she must slay? It is fighting for the other. Nobility is reserved for those few who feel and bleed for their neighbour. The man who is a feminist, the white who fights for justice with his black brother, for the woman who refuses to participate in the projection of society’s shadow onto another “nation”.

Best summed up as – loving your neighbour. As yourself.

Oh boy, I find it tough. Personally. Love my neighbour, as myself? For most of my life I’ve believed – with my mind – in equality. Indisputable unless you believe we are only material. BUT. That’s not the same as – loving my neighbour as myself. Loving requires empathy. You don’t love an empty ideal. You need to be with, to sense, feel and bleed for – your neighbour. Specifically – the “other”. Love flows in the language of compassion, rather than intellect..

The journey of the Heroine requires us to share feeling with our neighbour. Seeing them – as ourself. (Namaste). To love them – as ourself. To fight for them with the same passion and intensity with which we fight the injustice practiced on – ourself.

Neighbourhood feminism. One of the two great commandments given to us (men) by Christ.

Social thermodynamics

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This applies to societies. The internal construct, what holds society together, has an external resonance. This sets up a chain of reactions which in turn impact on and shape society. It matters how groups are born and what holds them together.

Nationalism is always, in the end, corrosive. This is why. Societies, like the individual, are shaped in the mirror of those outside them. The other. The internal character is a reflection of the external reference. Whatever the start point, nationalism ends up by defining itself by reference to “the enemy” – which is of course only other ordinary men and women – but externalised and dehumanised. Made other. We project out  all that is negative.  It is the politician’s cheapest trick; to set up the reviled “other”, blame them for anything that is wrong and consequently draw “us” together.

How then can just society arise?

If the impulse that draws us together as community is love, then this will lead to a projection of good on to others. This com-passion with and for others –  in all their glorious differentiation is reflected back, bonding and reinforcing a sense of our greater human community. Simple. First love your enemy.

But loving one’s enemy is HARD. It takes an overwhelming outside force. I personally struggle with it. It is possible though, but only with outside help. One definition of God might be just that. The force of love as an external agency. And the opposite is also a truth. All and any love is God, by whatever name. Only by reference to this external and eternal force can a just lasting and joyful society hope to work. All else is illusion. Strip away any preconceptions about organised religion and focus on what makes for a just society.

You arrive at something like this:

Love other as we love ourselves. Love Love above all. Keep responding with love not war even after 490 provocations. Judge what is right by results not words.

This is of course has been said before, by someone who lived the words.

Peace, Radicalisation and Progesterone

It was striking in the recent Scottish referendum that the young and male voted in a markedly different way from the old and female. The call to fight is an appeal to testosterone. It rouses people out of their beds, out of the apathy of materialism or despair. However, it comes at a cost. Division. Us – against yous. Our poor, our oil, our land, our nation.Not yours. Alongside the passion there is and has been a considerable degree of radicalisation. An awakened anger seeking outlet,  but to what purpose? Passion in pursuit of a just cause is good, necessary and admirable;  but nationalism is always wrong. The fruit of that plant is always bitter.

Whilst there is no doubting the motive power of the raw male, testosterone fuelled  radicalisation has unintended consequences. The best way to rouse the young male is to find and to caricature an enemy. One that must be fought. Winning is all. The world has witnessed that from age to age. It’s how wars start, it’s how repression is justified; and worse. We can see that in radical Islam. What has IS and their beheading culture really to do with the religion? Could these young men stay in charge unless they had the USA (great satan) as an enemy? Is the motive force amongst these radicalised young that of that great peaceful religion Islam? I suspect its more to do with  the desire of young men to fight, kill, win and control their enemies and women. To its great credit, in Scotland it wasn’t the noisy, the young and the men who carried their way. It was the old and above all it was women. Both groups with lower testosterone. That’s called democracy.  We must prize it. It was the testosterone-lite who quietly said no, at least not now and not like this. Those who have an eye to continuity and the future. It is of course particularly women who care passionately for community, compassion and an integrated society. Not exclusively thank goodness; but I wonder what a world would be like if it were run by  women, educated and empowered.  Do you really imagine that there would be noisy cars racing round Edinburgh? The turning away from the excluded parts of society in Liverpool, Manchester and rural England? The beheadings in Syria? No, of course not. On the other hand – there wouldn’t have been the degree of social injustice in the first place.

I have come and gone with feminism. A one time supporter, a some time doubter; but if we could evolve a world and society where testosterone was not the key to decision making, then put the women and the old in charge. Feminism as leadership rather than equality. Bring it on.

Is this the way to peaceful radicalisation?  Perhaps in a connected world where strutting masculinity were side-lined and channelled – then we could focus together on what really matters. I put it to you (as a mere man, but aging) – that the plight of women around the world and of the poor, oh and of our children’s environment – are somewhat more important than whether one male tribe in these British islands – covered in woad – triumphs over another.

The Psychopathology of Everyday Nationalism

Considered and thought provoking article from Jock Encombe…psychologist and psychotherapist living in Edinburgh in these interesting times..

“In his groundbreaking 1901 book ‘The Psychopathology of Everyday Life’, Freud introduced the world to the ways in which the unconscious intrudes upon our superficially rational lives.  100 years on his ideas are now embedded in how we try to understand reality.  It is curious, therefore, that there has been so little examination of the nationalistic psychology that underpins the Yes campaign.  There are perhaps two main reasons for this. Firstly the very use of the word ‘Yes’ has given it the advantage of positive unconscious bias.  A No vote really does feel more negative.  And secondly, ably served by its deniable cybernat shock troops, the Yes campaign has played a skillful and aggressive hand in accusing Better Together supporters of various thought crimes.  Not believing in Scotland or the Scottish people. Not having ‘Scottish’ left of centre values.  Not believing in social justice.  Being in effect bourgeois, fearful and selfish.  There have even been SNP posters that suggest voting for Better Together equals supporting child poverty. The result of this is a powerful combination of intimidation and sentimentality that has made many Better Together supporters nervous about putting their heads above the parapet.

Psychotherapy teaches us that when people are attracted to visions of a perfect future and then become aggressive towards people who do not buy into their fantasy, they are in denial about some aspect of themselves.  So what, therefore, might a psychological understanding of the appeal of Scottish nationalism look like?

From a broad historical perspective there are many episodes in Scottish history that have inflicted trauma on our collective psyche: The Jacobite rebellion. The Darien Venture. The Act of Union. The clearances.  The impact of rapid, massive industrialisation and de-industrialisation (much more than any other European country experienced). The sectarianism that continues to scar the West of Scotland. The humiliating collapse of our banking industry.

When a patient comes to therapy with a similar personal history, an underlying pattern of narcissism and magical thinking is often revealed as the psychological process by which they have learnt to cope with their experiences.   The process works by seeking to avoid unbearable feelings of worthlessness by either angrily projecting them onto others (‘You don’t believe in Scotland’), or by escaping into grandiose fantasies of wholeness and perfection (‘Independence will make us the wealthiest small country in the world’).   While providing temporary relief, however, magical thinking is ultimately doomed to fail.  The return to reality is always painful and often destructive.  Furthermore it is a pattern of behaviour which, if the underlying psychological hard work of acquiring self-knowledge is not undertaken, is destined to repeat itself.  It is perhaps worth noting that middle-aged men seem particularly vulnerable to these kinds of behaviour.

The cataclysmic collapse of RBS – which ensnared many of its employees and shareholders in its inflated vision of world domination – is a vivid example of the dangers of narcissism that has led to shame and economic misery for millions of people.  It is interesting to note that George Mathewson, the former Chairman of RBS who notoriously recruited Fred Goodwin as his successor, has long been a Yes supporter.  While Alex Salmond was of course also employed there as an economist in the 1980s.  Another interesting parallel is between Goodwin’s ‘Make it Happen’ slogan and Salmond’s similarly vague and aspirational ‘this is our moment’ language.

While imaginative fantasy can have a psychopathological dimension it is of course also the raw material of creative work. This explains the appeal of independence to many of Scotland’s artists.  Imagination alone, however, will not provide the economic stability or jobs without which any kind of sustainable, agreeable national life is possible. Or without which child poverty has any chance of being alleviated.  We should not forget, either, that many of the least attractive nationalistic figures in history were skilful weavers of propaganda and romance.  Or that dangerous ideologies have always found artistic support. The quasi-racist attack by Alasdair Gray on Vicky Featherstone, the English founder of the National Theatre of Scotland, is one example of this.  There is a tone of romantic totalitarianism to much of the Yes language, a kind of hectoring misty-eyed kitsch that needs challenging.  As Milan Kundera observed in ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’:

 “Kitsch is the aesthetic ideal of all politicians and all political parties and movements… In the realm of totalitarian kitsch all answers are given in advance and preclude any questions. It follows, then, that the true opponent of totalitarian kitsch is the person who asks questions.”

The great British psychotherapist Donald Winnicott believed that to live happily and well we need sufficient psychological maturity to accept the messy ‘good enough’ nature of relationships and life. The Union is by no means perfect but it is certainly good enough – and with the enhancements of further devolution is likely to get better.  Writing in the 1930s Winnicott also believed that such a realistic and mature approach to life, in time, would always overcome the seductive pull of nationalistic and totalitarian ideologies.

Being part of something that provides security and stability, for all its imperfections, is surely a wiser choice than gambling on an outcome that carries such a high risk of division and regret?

For the sake of balance it is necessary to concede that some aspects of the psychology of Better Together can also be legitimately criticised.  As can the negativity of some of its campaign tactics.  But the need for balance should not obscure the central point that, in Orwell’s words, “Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception” – or that many of the SNP’s tactics have created a climate of fear and deception in Scotland.

Beyond the macro-economic arguments there are important questions to be answered about some of the SNP Government’s other activities:  The frightening centralisation and undemocratic arming of our police force. The politicisation of our Civil Service. The harrying of business leaders and other public figures who oppose independence.  What we need now, therefore, is less sentimentality and more clear thinking.  All of us who have a vote, or the opportunity to influence people who have one, need to ensure that realism and generosity of spirit prevail over illusion and intimidation.”

Jock Encombe is a psychologist and psychotherapist based in Edinburgh. The views in this article do not represent those of any organisation with which he is associated.

When would reality dawn?

Scotland is an excitable place right now. Frenetic almost. There is a barrage of facebook and twitter activity directed particularly at the under 25 voter – all giving the impression that the majority want separation from the United Kingdom.

And if this marketing campaign were successful? What then..

The great majority of the facts – economic, social and historic firmly conclude that a separate Scotland would be poorer, more divided and alienated from many international institutions. EU, Nato, UK to name a few.

I wonder how long it would take before the Scottish electorate becom disillusioned. Before reality dawns. And what then – which part of society would get the blame I wonder?