ALBERT Einstein called nationalism “the measles of mankind.” He had a point. Narrow-minded. Ethnically fixated. Parochial. Divisive. Illogical. Obsessed with symbols. Nationalism has a history, especially in Einstein’s day, of suffering from all those faults. So during the independence referendum, people were right to ask challenging questions.

Was Scotland entranced by the same nationalism that has repeatedly ripped humanity apart? Some did believe this was the case, and some still do. So it’s worth reflecting on, especially during this period where independence supporters have been tasked with listening to those who disagree with them.

Dozens of times I was told, during the referendum and since, “I don’t like nationalism.” Given the history of the word, and how it’s repeatedly used, that shouldn’t come as a surprise. I saw friends argue back that independence was a form of "civic nationalism" – a call to what we have in common, a belief that "we’re all Scots" whatever our differences. But for sceptics this wasn’t always convincing.

For many, nationalism of any shade is an awkward, alienating project. Left-wingers I know say that nations do not break the shackles of economic and social injustice. They do not, in isolation, build a home, feed a family, or construct a school.

Some people – as is their right – do embrace national flags, history, and language. It’s who they are, and that should also be respected.

But there’s a false dichotomy that flows through this debate on the "n" word. In media and politics nationalism and independence are often presented as inseparable bedfellows, while Unionism avoids similar scrutiny.

Voters who oppose nationalism shouldn’t be harangued into reversing their position: they should be presented with the evidence of both nationalisms in Scotland’s public life.

What does British nationalism have to show for itself? In my view it has repeatedly been hijacked for extreme political ends – fostering xenophobia, war, and inequality.

Protecting "Britishness" for the Tories and right-wing tabloids has become a crusade against migration and our continental neighbours. Last week the official Scottish Conservative press team issued a statement saying it was “bizarre that an EU citizen has an interest in a planning application in Banchory”, in reference to French born ex-MSP Christian Allard.

This is puerile, xenophobia. It’s by no means exceptional for the Tories or British nationalist adherents. Their close alliance with the right-wing press has had a destructive impact on social cohesion in the UK. Last year, a senior United Nations official laid at their door “decades of sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse, misinformation and distortion”.

I’ve also watched in despair as British patriotism has been abused as a shield to deflect criticism of foreign policy disasters. Some of the most heroic figures I’ve seen in politics have had their reputation besmirched for opposing war on the slur that they were "anti-British" due to campaigning for peace.

That tradition, of "punching above Britain’s weight", is deeply embedded in public life. This January YouGov found that 43 per cent of the public believed the British Empire was “a good thing”. 19 per cent disagreed. The only part of the UK that returned a reverse result was Scotland, and even that was by a narrow margin.

Jingoistic British nationalism seeps into Westminster’s military decisions on Trident, the sense of nationalist disregard over the realities of Brexit, an arrogance towards other cultures and languages, and a complacency towards the need for multilateral, internationalist solutions.

Scottishness can also incubate its own parochial, monoglot arrogances. That’s something that can’t be dismissed, and can be improved upon by dedicated policymaking looking outwards to the world. Is the same true of British nationalism post-Brexit, where yesterday MPs lined up to demand tighter borders as the top priority in the years ahead? I doubt it.

In contrast, what Barton Swaim of The Washington Post found last week in Scotland was “a post-national nationalism … peaceable and beautiful in its own way” and fixated with questions of governance more than nationhood. That’s something that can be built upon.

In these months of listening and understanding, what is my message for those who still fear Scottish nationalism? The reality is your future is caught between two nationalisms – not threatened by one. British nationalism, more rarely recognised for what it is, has its own identity-driven fervour. Evidence suggests its more dangerous.

Personally, I am repelled by our nationalist government. It obsesses over immigrants. It imprisons asylum claimants. It waves flags and celebrates a repulsive imperial history. It uses national pride to grease the wheels of war. Its media portrays the vulnerable as invaders.

For those who fear nationalism, it is the nationalist government that sits at Westminster that must be overcome.