Ruth Davidson Election 2017

You make it sound like First Dates. I think I will need Fred, the

concierge, to help us unaware. I hadn't really honoured to have been

asked to give this lecture, honoured personally but also in particular

because of the very invitation. It shows how the world has changed, and

I believe for the better. Apart from being the great novelist we know,

George Orwell was a guardian both of language and of democracy. He was a

foretell of future perils and as Tony saw rightly says a man of the

left, but he was also an old and here I stand to give a lecture in

his honour. I don't kid myself he would approve. He said that

politicians imply language to make murder respectable and give an

appearance of solidity to pure wind. Goodness knows what he would make of

the current election campaign. Strong, stable... No!

LAUGHTER I want to take a step back from the

general election, if only for an hour, to discuss one element of his

legacy, and as a subject matter I have chosen what we might now called

the politics of identity, or the question of nationalism and

patriotism. It was Orwell who wrote the two should not be confused, and

I would like to use this speech to examine the differences between the

two and how we need to combat the narrow nationalism of our times and

find a more pluralistic unpatriotic way forward. I would also like to

speak about some of my own experiences as a politician in

Scotland, and as someone who for more than five years has been

contesting a constitutional battle for identity politics has become

staples of the debate. To begin with, if we are going to discuss

this evening the difference between patriotism and nationalism I think

we should begin by defining exactly what it is we mean. What first then

of patriotism? For Orwell, patriotism was devotion to a

particular place, which he says "One believes to be the best in the world

but has no wish to force on other people." For me patriotism is the

accepted that one might as easily have come from Brazil as Britain,

but which are the same time recognises that since we are here,

in Britain, and since we all happen to be born on this particular set of

rocky islands in the north-west corner of Europe, let us all

celebrate it and feel pride in it, let us cheer Mo Farah directory, but

let's make sure we stick around and watch Usain Bolt break another

record as well. As Orwell suggests, patriotism is more unlikely. It

doesn't impose itself, doesn't take itself too seriously. It is the want

that the UK will succeed at the Eurovision but not really caring

when Bulgaria gives us nil points. LAUGHTER

It is my preparation of dogs but not mind when people prefer cats. It is

my coming out as homosexual women but not having a problem with

heterosexual men, as long as they take the bins out!

LAUGHTER So to be patriotically British does

not mean we have to oppose. Indeed patriotism celebrates difference and

messiness and we can be proudly Scottish, Welsh, Asian, Pakistani,

and at the same time enjoy our Britishness. Patriotism does not

force us to rank these identities in order as if one or other has a

higher claim. I am proud to be Scottish and British. I am proud to

be Scottish and British and have campaigned for the UK to remain

within the EU. I'm proud to be Scottish and British female in a

Christian and Conservative and from five and a fan of Hamilton the and

prepare dogs to cats, and so on. Patriotism simply says here is

great, come on in, the water is lovely. Patriotism is in this

respect are very positive thing, thing that can be sure, joined. It

doesn't set barriers but it celebrates our place in the world.

-- it can be shared and joined. If that is patriotism, how do we define

nationalism? Words are powerful beasts, and this one, nationalism,

appears at first glance to be very near synonym for patriotism, and

indeed for many the two are completely interchangeable. For

Orwell, however, they were very different. When he was writing about

nationalism in 1945, it was a time when the impact of aggressive

nationalism was of a different order of magnitude than anything we face

today, and his definition of nationalism was not only referring

to nationhood or attachment a government. Rather, National was in

his view the process of thinking one's individuality into a bigger

unit, whether a country or a political ideology or a religion. He

defined it as the assertion that this unit should be promoted above

all else as inherently virtuous, and that which was not that unit was

therefore without such virtue. By nationalism and he wrote, "I mean

first of all the habit of assuring that human beings can be classified

like insects and that whole blocks of millions are tens of millions of

people can be confidently labelled good or bad." He continued that

nationalism is the habit of identifying oneself with a single

nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising

no other duty than that which advances its interests. Orwell is

describing nationalism as a form of what today we would call identity

politics. And it is one of which he is clearly not a fan. It is a state

of mind by which definition cannot tolerate plurality. It is a state of

mind where one ideology, one method, must take precedence over all else

and which demands people support one camp or the other. And if you are

unwilling to make that decision then National 'ss will be perfectly happy

to make it for you. -- Nationalists will be perfectly happy to make it

for you. And treating people like insects to be smeared onto a display

board takes the force of a moral imperative. If we go back to Orwell

again, he said" as nearly as possible no nationalised Evra Cox,

thinks are right about anything except the superiority of his own

power unit -- no Nationalist ever talks. No nationalised can conceal

his allegiance." Patriotism can be the celebration of random geography,

but nationalism is the assertion that your place, your view, your

belief, the man's pre-eminence above all else. They are, I suggest, not

so much synonyms as mere polar opposites. I want to say something

that will I suspect getting into quite a bit of trouble, especially

this close to an election, and it is this. Unfortunately, when it comes

to nationalism, Orwell has all of us skewered, including myself. Because

very few of us, particularly those involved in politics like Tony and

myself, can really say we do not exhibit some degree and elements of

these characteristics in ourselves. Politicians by our very nature

divide into campus. Our camp, we declare, is where all the wisdom,

morality, energy and decency resides, and we assert that nothing

but perfidy lies in the other. This is the nature of party politics,

particularly three weeks out from an election, or three weeks on

Thursday, if you're counting. So George kind of got us on that one,

but it is not just politicians. Orwell has all of us. We are a

tribal species and in our effort to make sense of the world it would

simply be easier to draw the boundaries of our own identities

with our rejection of the other. And a further uncomfortable truth Orwell

hit upon 70 years ago is that for some of us the Nationalist instinct

is stronger than for others. To be specific in this instance, I will

speak of us Scots. There was an MP who said in a speech to parliament

that every Scotsman should be a Scottish nationalist. It was not

Alex Salmond but was John Buchan, the author of The 39 Steps, Unionist

MPs. He went on to add that if it could be proved a Scottish

Parliament were desirable, we should support it. He proved in the early

days Unionists to be devolutionist as well. In short, nationalism runs

deep, particularly when as often is the case your football and rugby

team is getting hammered, and indeed on such occasions I am sorry to have

to report that even the most passionate Pro-union Scots may have

questioned both the fortunate and parentage or large swathes of the

English population. In short, nationalism is part of the Scottish

psyche and it would only be hypocritical to deny it. But the

challenge laid by Orwell, the challenge, it is how we react? Do we

submit before this Nationalist instinct? And

dichotomy it demands of us? Or do we follow patriotism, where... And like

all great writers the questions posed by Orwell tamers. It seems to

me that far from fading overtime this one demands are direct

attention now, because whether it is due to the perceived failure of

globalisation or the after-shocks of the financial crash, we all know the

Nationalist impulse strengthened once again in recent years. In

America, Britain, France and all across Europe, we see it, that in

order to rise again, others must be put down. That we cannot build a

home unless there is a wall around it as well. The line between country

and party is blurred, being the vessel by which a nation is made

whole. Whether it is Journey to the Mountain of Forever-- whether it is

Trump's claim to make America a great again, the Austrian party, the

France, each chose a campaign slogan setting themselves up as the saviour

of the nation, the culture and the land. And those not of the tribal

type, they were portrayed as proponents of progress, threats to

nation or betrayers to people. Their arguments were not fully examined or

tested. The message carriers were simply othered. It is easier to

undermine than engage. But what of nationalism on these shores?

the people at the Oval foundation here made it clear to me they booked

me before Theresa May called snap general election. In discussing the

rise of political nationalism, I want to talk about the situation

that I know best, the position that we face in Scotland with regards to

this issue. This question of identity and nationalism is one that

now dominate our public discourse. It has done not just my pal in

politics but will pretty much mind Thyer adult life. -- not just my

time in politics but pretty much my entire adult life. It did not start

with the current SMP. In the 1980s and 19 90s it was Scottish Labour

who carried the flag. Another Scot who's been invited here to give the

Orwell lecture, Robin Cook, declared that under Conservative Party

government to all intents and purposes Scotland is an occupied

country. That sentiment help lead to the birth of a devolved Scottish

parliament in 1999. And then the election of the Scottish National

Party to government in 2007 put the question of full independent front

and centre. In 2014, we famously held after referendum on Scottish

independence in which 55% of the population decided to remain within

the United Kingdom. Rather than saying the matter settled, we see

the issue is pushed back to the fore, with the SNP calling for a

second independence referendum as early as next year, before the net

kingdom leaves the European Union. If you had not heard much from

Scotland these past few years, apart from the question of the

Constitution, that is because very little else has had a hearing. And

because these questions remain dominant. When I see colleagues and

commentators down here wrestle with Brexit questions of, how

post-referendum politics challenges traditional party structure and

dominates voting intentions I like to think that we in Scotland got

there before you. I guess the question is how do we apply Orwell's

lessons about nationalism and pitches and two others in Scotland.

As someone who's been closely engaged in one side of the

constitutional battle these last years, a am aware of the need to

tread carefully. It would be easy to suggest that Scotland is divided

between nationalists in one hand and patriots on the other, to say that

there were 1.6 million nationalists in 2014 who demand we reject all

else for their own ideology, and on the other hand there were 2 million

patriots who voted no to independence and choose the right

way. But, I fear that would be people into exactly the nationalist

trap that Orwell warned about 70 years ago, where we falsely separate

people, like insects, into whether you're on the truth is far more

complex. As I've already set out, the nationalist instinct described

by Orwell can be applied to all sides of the political divide in

Scotland, including Mike Boone. They also believe that most people in

Scotland on both sides of that squad -- including my own. I did not agree

with the supporters of independence in 2014 and I still do not now. But,

if you believe that the vast majority of those that supported

independence did so because they believe it was the best thing for

Scotland and I will never condemn them for doing so. I will stand up

to any member of Matthews Goodbody who does. However, caveats aside,

the truth is the nationalist politics identified by Orwell. -- I

will stand up to any member of my party who does. Has become a key

part of political practice in Scotland. It is doomed pursued quite

deliberately said that many people who do not subscribe to the

so-called good side of the Altman feel voiceless and hopeless. Once

again, Orwell was the first. Examining the nationalist mindset in

1945, Orwell hit upon three common trends. Firstly, obsession, no

nationalists, he wrote, ever thinks all talks all rights of anything

else except the superiority of his own power union, he will show great

sensitiveness about such things at the corrects display of flags, the

order in which different countries and named. Secondly, he identified

instability, the nationalist fervour remains constant when the object of

his or her obsession may change. Thirdly, indifference to reality,

the nationalist will not just of the negative matters affecting his own

side, road Orwell, he has a remarkable capacity for not even

hearing about them in the first place. I have to say that the those

of us in Scotland, many of us, at least, it all sounds remarkably

familiar. Obsession, tick. We've not had an awful lot else from the SNP

in the last few years. Sensitivity about the size of headlines, tick. I

think no further than they SNP MP who claim national industry and

claimed BBC bias about the size of Scotland on the BBC weather map.

Instability, the further remaining constable of the object changes.

When Nicola Sturgeon join the SNP 1986, she was attracted to a party

whose policy was to withdraw from the European Community, she now

claims that leaving the EU is the reason that Scotland needs to

revisit independence. As we had yesterday, she will not promise to

take an independent Scotland straight back into the youth. Then

there is the point about superiority, and it all brings the

truth. In Scotland, political nationalism has introduced the idea

that one side of the constitutional divide can be the authentic voice of

the people of Scotland and only it has the right to be heard. The other

voices are, by their very nature, illegitimate and phoney. As Billy

Connolly said, I love Scotland but I hate the way the nationalists think

they own the place. To repeat, I do not suggest it is only the Scottish

National Party that is guilty of this trend, or political parties in

Scotland are elsewhere in the UK have been at fault at time, claiming

to have a monopoly on the national mood, as if there was one political

party which can claim the collapse of the nation. But I would suggest,

that the modern SNP has made this technique its own. If I can give you

a few examples in recent weeks that may not have made it down here. Back

in March, the Prime Minister set out her opposition to the second

referendum on independence. Responding, Alex Salmond declared

that no self-respecting Scot would accept a Westminster Prime Minister

undermining Scottish nationhood. The implication being that to agree with

the prime Minster on this issue would be to somehow concede that you

were a lesser type of Scott, of pig last week talking about the local

council elections Nicola Sturgeon said the following, Labour let

Scotland down by losing so many seats to the Tories. In other words,

Labour had not just built be attracted to the Electric, they had

actually shamed the nation by allowing the hated Tories to win

seats. Or, looking at it in another way, Scottish voters couldn't vote

for one of the main political parties without it being an Scottish

and someone else's fault. Or in a similar vein at the SNP party

conference, the economy minister summoned Terry summed up a debate on

Brexit with the following comment, this debate comes down to Scotland

that is the Tories in Scotland is going to win. As a member of

government who had just seen over half a million of his fellow

countrymen and women vote Conservative at a Scottish election,

is that half million not Scotland is well? I'm Scottish, in fact I've

never lived or worked outside the nation of my birth. A seed to no man

in backing blue in any round. Apparently I had to choose between

being Scottish and being conservative is according to Mr

Brown I cannot be both. What do you think about immigrants? Can we leave

the questions because there will be a question session after this. The

implication hangs in the air, we are other, we deserve to be shouted

down. The media has often assisted in the narrative. After the council

results one tabloid declared, the back, that the Tories were now

preparing to invade Scotland once more. -- one tabloid declared, they

are back. Think about that, people putting themselves forward at an

election to gain support of their neighbours in a democratic vote

because they want the local communities in which they live are

now being referred to as some sort of invading force. This technique

has, for a long time been effective and if people feel bullied and

hectored in supporting the SNP than I do not blame them. The Juncker

Plan works. When I became leader said Wood has change the culture of

the party. -- the othering works. I wanted to make the culture, saying I

believe in X and if you believe in X you are a Tory as well. The question

that is handing over others in this coming election is whether that is

about to change. I very much hope it will. After ten years of the SNP

government, there is an undoubted sense that people have rather had

enough. They include parents have begun to notice that while these

constitutional contortions of capital hugely occupied, the

children's education has been getting steadily worse and worse,

and that perhaps that is the greatest rebuke against nationalism.

It does not actually make the changes, any good government will do

that. My hope is that in Scotland decades long obsessed with the

constitution will come to an end and that we can start using the enormous

powers of Parliament to improve the actual fabric of our country. The

lesson that I hope is also heeded right across the UK, as well, as we

the EU. To conclude, the difference between nationalism and patriotism

is not a question of degree, all well is correct about that.

Nationalism is about power and its obsessive pursuit and the

dichotomised nation of population into the authentic and the

inauthentic. Nationalism, Orwell wrote, is power hunger, temperate by

self perception. Amen to that. Yet, here in the second decade of the

21st-century, despite his efforts nationalism is still confused with

patriotism and that is because too often the political movements that

would put fully insured that that's the case. Showing that we must

remain vigilant against nationalism's seductive simplicity

is and always be ready to embrace the complex and difficult and the

other. Like Albert Camus, I love my country too much to be a

nationalist. To Orwell, it is nationalism not patriotism that is

the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like all well I say we should not

confuse the two. Thank you APPLAUSE -- like George Orwell I say we

should not confuse the two.