Globalization: sowing the seed of its own destruction?

From the last class, what really stayed with me the most was professor Dickovick's question "is liberal economy sowing the seed of its own destruction?". Analyzing the cycle of global economy since the late 18th century, Wolf asserts that industrialization has necessarily engendered nationalism (manifested in various forms such as universal suffrage and social security). It seems helplessly ironic that the industrialization- probably the most common product of globalization- 'inevitably' brings about the collective sentiment of anti-globalization in nations.

It is certainly fascinating to reflect on the relationship between liberalism and nationalism. Wolf seems to believe that these two ideologies are completely antithetical. In my opinion, however, nationalism can actually be quite compatible with the liberal economy. Take Scotland as an example. Although the current campaign for independence is purely driven by Scottish nationalism, it will be arduous to think that Scotland will completely cut off its tie with the rest of the world (especially with the rest of Europe) even if it does achieve its goal. Rather, they would find themselves mired in increasing number questions starting from whether to use Euro or British Pound (since England will be a foreign nation after their independence) as their new currency.

When we realize that nationalism and liberalism are not polar-opposite of each other, we can also consider the possibility that one might be in fact reinforcing another. In many nations, as Wolf argues, liberalism has resulted in rallying strong opposition against western culture (to be specific, American culture). ISIS and other terrorist organizations whose aim is to fight against Western influence and promote traditional and national culture can be the most eminent example of such phenomenon. I wonder then if can be somewhat rational to argue that global terrorism is a byproduct of globalization (so, liberalization=> terrorism?).

So did Wolf accidentally self-contradict himself in that liberal economy would necessarily beget nationalism by industrializing a nation? We will only find out as we continue reading what he has to say in the later chapters.