Firstly I'd agree that there's not a significant far left political party in Scotland (Scottish Greens, perhaps?) but it is still more left-leaning overall. But re the "nationalist" bit - that word is overloaded. So the word usually means a couple of things:

1. "far-right beliefs that centre on religious and ethnic hatred"

2. or, "a desire to become an independent nation"

In this case when people say the SNP is nationalist it's the second - their policy is that Scotland should be an independent country. For what it's worth they seem to have a strong pro-immigration stance[0] and a belief in racial equality[1], which are usually things type #1 nationalists are heavily against - so take from that what you will.

[0] - https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-is-the-snp-s-policy-on-...

[1] - https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-actions-are-the-snp-tak...

Nationalism in the context of SNP (and as a concept in general) simply refers to the desire/belief that the state and nation should be synonymous. The problem is that not everyone's interpretation of national identity is the same, so the in the end all you get is populism used to push a belief. The answer to the question "What is Scotland, anyway?" is not as clear as politicians would like it to be.

Ok but in real-world usage "nationalist = far right = nazis = bad". So I was clarifying that while that is not untrue, nobody is saying the Scottish independence movement or the SNP are that.

It might be regional or very US/UK specific. In many parts of the world nationalism is also associated with left wing separatist movements. For example, in Spain we have ETA[1], and in Turkey the PKK[2].

I've never specifically associated it with neither left nor right because in my country we have both right and left wing nationalist movements. Yes, far right nationalism is often fascism, nazism, jingoism, etc. but this isn't the only type of nationalism, and we don't use nationalism as a synonym for nazism/fascism, except when speaking specifically in the context of right wing nationalist groups.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party

Significant is your get out clause. The SSP had six or so members and in electoral terms has been significantly more successful than any English or British equivalent except perhaps sinn fein, who were at least notionally socialist and left of labour.

How far left do you want to go? Cenfuegos press was Scottish, that's a former angry brigade member.

Isn’t he dead? Hard to argue a dead person is strong!

I dunno, in my home state dead men can still win elections! /s https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-hof/dead-rep...

Jimmy Maxton is dead as well: Red Clydeside long gone. There were scots Trotskyists, the rock climber Dougal Haston's family notably (he's dead too. I don't think he was political btw)

The point being made here is Scotland has a socialist history and has had explicitly socialist candidates elected to parliament in recent history. Like.. 2003-2007. I'd hesitate to call it dead just yet.

> explicitly socialist candidates elected to parliament

I think it’s pretty unreasonable to call these people ‘far left’. I don’t think they’re planning to take up arms like the IRA for example.

Did they tried to change how institutions work to add stuff like random nominations, split/defund the police, self determination for smaller bodies (decentralization towards cities basically)?

Or did they try to subvert capitalism by forcing half+1 workers representative on every company boards?

There is not a lot of far left ideas left to implement. Societally, there is basically nothing left since women are allowed to vote and segregation ended. Socially, it is impossible to advance without political or economic far leftism. So this only leave political far left and economic far left.

I think 'far left' implies terrorism or other armed insurrection or revolution? The things you're talking about are acting peacefully within the existing establishment. That's not 'far left'.

You are right, most people on the far left (i'd say two third of them, maybe it changed in the last ten years) would say that participating in elections is supporting the institutions and the dominant class.

But right now radical left == far left for most. Worse, right now in France, a lot of people really think the reformist left is the far left, and the rest believe they are radicals. Saner, but still wrong. This is mindblowing, but i am not a professional historian or political scientist so it doesn't really matter to me, i won't loose any sleep. It just says a lot about how low our political culture fell. They aren't even anticapitalists nor they push for worker ownership. And i've read today that the overton window was pushed to the left?

One thing still that can explain this: it seems that the 19th century history lessons were erased from our western memories. And even the years between WW1 and WW2 are not that clear for western europeans.

> try to subvert capitalism by forcing half+1 workers representative on every company boards

As an economist, this is far from far left -- it's a fairly middle-of-the-road policy that is used in market economies that are more stable successful than the UK's, e.g. Germany. (And at 33% representation, it is the default across western Europe, where you would be laughed at if you tried to characterise them as far-left...)