THE arrogance of nationalism is breathtaking. First they commandeered our national flag for a narrow political cause. Now a schism has assumed the Gaelic name for our country to pursue its own divisive objectives.

If it happened anywhere else in Europe it would be called out for what it is, and well worth the watching. In Scotland, crude annexation of shared identity and symbols for sectarian political purposes comes under the heading of “joyous civic nationalism”.

Probably the most revealing comment of recent weeks came from Tricia Marwick, an SNP grandee now restored to quangoland, when she warned an unaccommodating Scottish journalist: “Scottish birth alone does not a Scotsman make”. Scrape the surface and that mentality is never far away.

As my small act of protest against the name grab, I will decline to recognise it – as should the Electoral Commission – and refer to the warring factions as the Salmondites and Sturgeonites, which is pretty much what it is about. Two sides of the same ugly coin.

Not that it doesn’t have its funny side. The denunciation of MacAskill by Blackford as an “embarrassment” must go down as one of the great cases of pot calling kettle black. Did Blackford not notice the embarrassment during MacAskill’s years as justice minister (think Megrahi, Offensive Behaviour at Football Grounds Act, named persons, etc)?

Then we had Nicola Sturgeon telling us that Salmond has always been “a gambler” – wink, wink. Well, at least she noticed one of his characteristics during their 20 years as a double act. The problem was they were gambling with other people’s jobs, pensions, children’s futures when they jointly, arm in arm, tried to sell us their bogus prospectus in 2014.

Even with the Suez Canal blocked yesterday, the price of North Sea oil stood at $61 a barrel. In 2014, the gamblers built their economic case for independence round a “likely average” of $112 a barrel – a figure not reached on a single subsequent day. With gamblers like Salmond and Sturgeon, no wonder the bookies always win.

The Salmondite Party is aiming for an “independence super-majority” by winning list seats that the Sturgeonites cannot claim because they are doing so well in the constituencies. What difference would this make? There is not going to be a referendum in the lifetime of the next Parliament unless the Tories take leave of their senses, and they both know it.

So Salmond’s realistic aim is to supplant the Greens as the Holyrood faction holding a balance of power. At a certain level, this is quite an entertaining prospect. Instead of throwing Prickly Patrick the occasional bicycle lane, Sturgeon would have the Buchan Behemoth peering over her shoulder every day of the week to see what he could approve – or perhaps, as he is already suggesting, co-write. She’d love that.

What any of this has to do with the needs and priorities of Scottish society is far from obvious and the ballot box is the place to say so. Sturgeon’s efforts to win votes on the back of Covid-19, then promptly claim them as mandates for a referendum is particularly unctuous, and long in the planning. The idea economic recovery would be aided by squabbling about a referendum for five years defies reason.

Incidentally, there is nothing new in politics. In the early years of Holyrood, there was pressure within Labour ranks to run Co-operative Party candidates to win list seats. It was rejected on two grounds. First, it went against the spirit of the system which was intended to give minorities a voice rather than create artificial majorities. Second, it was quite capable of backfiring, as I trust will now be confirmed.

I doubt if the whole spectacle is doing the reputation of “civic nationalism’ much good. If it seems the Salmondites are in with a chance of taking seats, the more credible – and alarming – the prospect of “Vote Sturgeon, Get Salmond” will become. In response, voters who lack the necessary strength of stomach might proceed with additional care. Calculations about list seats may seem premature.

Nationalists are not the only ones who should be wary of urging tactical voting as their pathway to success. There can be hardly anyone in Scotland unaware of tactical voting as an option but trying to herd anti-separatists into that collective action is both patronising and doomed. It is a matter for individual judgement in the privacy of the polling station.

In times past, as a Labour candidate in unwinnable seats, I used to be quite good at marshalling arguments in favour of “voting for what you believe in” rather than against what you liked least. A vote cast in accordance with beliefs and principles is never a wasted vote, I used to say and still maintain. Voting tactically is an option but never a duty.

The problem, greatly exacerbated in 2014, is that we now have a movement held together by the constitutional issue and with little regard for other outcomes, opposed to political parties whose differences run along social and economic lines. That is why nationalist parties tend to be in power a long time, without ever achieving their initial objective.

Until enough people recognise this as a stultifying dead-end for Scotland and all its manifest challenges, the movement will prevail. Voting for either Salmond or Sturgeon will only prolong the wasted years – and run the distinct risk of ending up with both of them.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.