Left Unity’s debate on Scottish Independence
by John Tummon
“In the gap between what is possible and what is possible at Westminster lies all human hope” (Scottish actor David Hayman to the 23/11/2013 Radical Independence Conference).
Soon after the Manchester Policy Conference, my Facebook page featured a long thread, started by Chris Strafford arguing that ‘one of the positives’ of the day was the conference’s close “defeat for Scottish independence”. 18 people agreed with this, including prominent figures from both ‘wings’ of LU such as Nick Wrack and Salman Shaheen; Nick Jonz repeatedly put s counter argument to Chris Strafford, arguing that the conference had “voted for Greater British Nationalism”.
Neither version of the meaning of the conference votes on this issue is remotely accurate; in fact the votes, taken as a whole, leave Left Unity bereft of anything we could call a coherent or consistent policy on Scottish independence:
Motion 36, arguing that ‘Left Unity will not support Scottish or Welsh nationalism’ was voted through, but far from overwhelmingly so and only after its core paragraph, against a call for independence, had been removed by the Cardiff amendment, which was passed after the amendment’s mover made clear that a vote for it meant there was no sense in voting for what was left of the motion; conference duly voted for both!
Then motion 37 was put, arguing for a “Hands Off the People of Scotland” campaign to counter the propaganda of the mainstream parties and that a ‘sovereign democratic secular and social republic would not only be in the interests of the Scottish people but would encourage similar democratic movements in England, Wales and Ireland”. After supporters of the motion resisted the Chair’s ruling that the motion was clearly defeated, a careful count revealed it had lost by just 2 votes – by 70 to 68 – with 22 abstentions. Some of the West Midland comrades behind the motion had left in a minibus by the time this vote was taken.
Motion 38 argued, “Socialists do not want to see countries broken up into small nation-states” but merged; this was clearly defeated and some of its supporting contentions, such as the ‘centuries of bonding’ between peoples of these islands, were derided by speakers against; a bit too Churchillian for our tastes!
The only reasonable assessment can be that Left Unity still has no policy on Scottish independence (or on unionism, come to that), so members can take whatever position we wish; ‘Let the Hundred Flowers bloom!”
The two sides of the argument seem to boil down to this:
In one corner, the view is that maintaining and deepening the unity of the working class in Britain has to involve working within a single nation state or it will be seriously weakened, because nationalism weakens class solidarity and obscures the class relations in British society. Over 200 years of common struggles and common workers’ organisations should not be put in jeopardy by the inevitable rise in national sentiment either side of the border if Scotland splits away; those workers who need support in the UK or in Scotland will find that those who previously could be counted on to strike with them will no longer be able to. A vote for a capitalist Scotland against a capitalist UK therefore offers the working class on this island no gains. If the ‘Yes’ side wins, the SNP’s social democracy will very quickly unravel in the face of EU and IMF demands and Scottish leaders will be free to invoke patriotism to justify home grown austerity.
In the other corner, the unity of the British state is not seen as the same as or as indispensable for unity of the working class; national self-determination is seen as a progressive collective right of all peoples which has at least as many advantages as disadvantages for socialists and for the working class. Weakening the unionist state does not weaken solidarity or the working class; the fight to defend the unified state is a fight to defend the ruling class, who built the state in their own image and ensure that it runs in their interests. Supporting Scottish independence is not supporting Scottish nationalism but a stronger basis there for an independent workers’ movement. It is taking a stand against British imperialism. Scottish workers who hate austerity see independence as a surer way of avoiding it than relying on British General Elections and pacts between London parties, all of which support austerity, nuclear weapons and war. The radical independence side of the debate, which has the support of most of the Scottish Left, is the one we should be in solidarity with. We should be helping it not to get drowned out by the cross-class nature of the SNP’s campaigning.
Some, like Don Milligan, have argued a historical basis for their opposition to Scottish independence: “Scotland is not an oppressed country. Their ruling circles supported the union of the crowns on the death of Elizabeth I, and the formal union of states from 1701. They boldly and actively supported the suppression of Catholic pretenders to the English and Scottish throne following the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688-9, and actively supported the suppression of the Catholic tribes or clans in 1745-6, the leaders of which enthusiastically colluded in the Highland enclosures or clearances during the subsequent eighty or ninety years following their defeat at Culloden. There was not a movement for independence when ‘we’ had an empire, because the Scottish bourgeoisie and their attendant professional classes maintained just enough autonomy for them to profit greatly from the union with England. Consequently, the idea that the working class in Scotland has a distinct interest in supporting the tartan bourgeoisie, or that it can maintain a social democratic posture whilst constructing an independent monarchical capitalist state is truly bizarre. Support for Scottish independence on the left is evidently a product of defeat that will, if successful, immensely strengthen the Conservative Party in England”. Others on this side of the debate argue that British imperialism is, and always has been, Anglo-Scottish.
I am struck by the way in which both sides have invoked imperialism; more as rhetorical device than as analytic process, though, if truth be told. I must admit I clapped hard and long for the contribution from a comrade with a North American accent who criticised the account of imperialism in motion 38 as abstract and over-simplified and, for me, that is the nub of the problem we have in devising our policy on this issue.
This problem reflects a deeper problem with the Left going back a hundred years to Lenin’s theory of imperialism. Whereas it was Marx’s own campaigning work on Ireland from 1867 to 1870 that caused him to hammer out the relationship between national liberation and the class struggle – “Every impeachment of liberty in one country leads to its loss in another” – the overriding concern of Lenin and his generation was the effects of imperialism on the likelihood of further capitalist crises in Europe and the even more burning issue about what to do about the First World War, for which imperialism came to serve more or less as a proxy. In their understandable rush to change their part of the world, they neglected a rounded and robust study of those other regions of the world which imperialism dominated and controlled.
Consequently, much of what they wrote, little as it was, about the impact of imperialism on other continents, was speculative and, crucially, not informed by contact with opponents of imperialism from those countries. They had no real idea, as Victor Kiernan pointed out, “how the surplus-value of the colonial world was being realised” or, indeed, where it was being realised and the effect on the actual social relations in colonies.
The international Left of the twentieth century therefore inherited a hand-me-down understanding of imperialism that remains to this day largely based on imperialism as no more than a proxy term for the expansion of international capitalism and is more or less untouched by the writings of black American, black African and Asian socialists or the anti-imperialist campaigns and struggles of peoples across the globe.
This is precisely why the European Left, even more so than the North American Left, has proven incapable of sustaining an analytical, let alone an active engagement with the ongoing anti-imperialist struggles of colonised peoples, in the course of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Periods of declarations of largely uninformed solidarity have been punctuated by longer periods when our focus has wandered so that so much of what happens in the world – from the Congo and Balkan wars, to Zimbabwe, to the ‘Arab Spring’ and the War on Terror – seems so inexplicable and catches us off guard.
In the process of this on-off engagement with the wider world, a kind of sawn-off Leninist take on imperialism has served to shut the extra-parliamentary Left off from a working knowledge of aspects of the complex relationships of imperialist and imperialised forces and communities, while the Labour Left has simply coat-tailed the imperialist management of successive Labour leaders.
It is this inheritance that explains why even a good and informed comrade like Don Milligan can argue that Scotland is not an oppressed country because its ruling class was a junior partner in the creation of the unified British state and the British Empire. Anyone with a working knowledge of the history of imperialism can tell you that examples of a people oppressed by imperialism in which their leaders are not junior partners are extremely rare! Structural Adjustment, like neo-colonialism and colonialism before it, is only made possible because of the Suhartos, the Mobutos, the Marcos family, the Indian regiments in the army of the British Raj, the Mubaraks, the Shahs and the hundreds of others who have paved the way for a foreign domination of their own people and benefited from it. The complicity of the Scottish ruling class over the centuries is not a reasonable argument for regarding the Scottish people, uniquely, as not oppressed.
In Scotland, as in Ireland, the network of Orange Lodges was and remains both the means of dividing the working class and maintaining a cross-class unionism, in a similar way to how the Ba’ath party in the Middle East, the OAS in Algeria and the Communist Party in Eastern Europe provided mechanisms for populist rule and for separating off an aristocracy of workers and managers from the bulk of the people. Each of these was an imperialist device and, of these four, it is the Lodge that still survives: the Loyal Orange Institution claims 80,000 members in 1,000 lodges and can turn out 20,000 people for its big Scottish marches as well as sending around 2,000 Scots Orangemen for Ulster’s marching season.
Between the two world wars, The Church of Scotland and Scottish Unionist MPs complained that Irish Catholic immigrants were a “completely separate race of alien origin”, demanded a halt to immigration and even advocated repatriation. Scottish home rule, they argued, meant Rome rule.
English comrades who have little significant contact with Scotland have clearly not taken the Lodge and the ways in which it perpetuates division and unionism into account, maybe because they do not have to negotiate the streets of Glasgow each summer whenever the weekend features an Orange march, don’t have to keep a watch outside their normal pub on the Saturday night, because it is seen as ‘green’ by Orangemen who are the other side of several pints and feeling aggrieved because their Football team is in a lower League and their semi-skilled job is long since gone.
Then, let’s talk migrant workers in a British context: labour migration has been and remains a key aspect of imperialism, from the Irish workers who built England’s canals and railways to the Indians and African-Caribbeans who were brought in to sweep streets, work in hospitals, drive the buses and provide the night shifts in the last decade of textile mills. The story of Scottish migrant workers in England is less well known but also part of this. My father ran away from Paisley, near Glasgow, during the Great Depression – from his stepfather and grinding poverty, ending up at the age of 16 in a work camp on England’s north east coast, one of 200,000 young men from what were then called ‘the distressed areas’ who went through these Ministry of Labour camps, emerging ‘reconditioned’, with a work ethic and some basic skills to fit them for emigration, either to the colonies or to a part of England where there were still jobs. These camps, according to the government, “sought to prepare those who might emigrate to the Dominions, and thus relieve the crowded domestic labour market, as well as those who might learn a semi-skilled trade, and find work in the expanding manufacturing and service industries”. It may sound strange in the twenty first century to describe someone who ups sticks from the West of Scotland to find work in the English West Midlands as an economic migrant, but, in the context of his time, that is who my father was, and so were those who came down from Fife and elsewhere to work in the South Yorkshire and Kent coalfields. Millions of Scottish migrants filled up the British Empire as farmers, soldiers, store-keepers and chancers / adventurers, just as the poor of Iberia, Malta, France and Italy became the colons of Algeria and Cuba in the twentieth century.
The imperialist relationship does not consist in the specific circumstances of initial conquest or incorporation into an Empire; it is about the relationships – the national and class relationships – that are set in motion after the flag has been planted and the pacification completed. In the case of Scotland, it refers to the last 200 years after the pacification struggles of the 18th century and the Highland Clearances that followed, after the country had been sculpted into forms that could best serve its masters in London, with its workers divided by religion and unionism and its landless highlanders both ‘freed’ to populate the British Empire and the industrialised West of Scotland, ripe for exploitation. Finally, during the last quarter of the twentieth century its oil resources were pillaged to provide the Thatcherite state with the material insurance it required to wage class war on the NUM and the wider working class whilst keeping the economy afloat; its people were then used as the pilot study in the imposition of the Poll Tax.
The Scottish working class movement only began to become clear of religious sectarianism during the boom years of the 1960s; before then, craft unions in shipbuilding and elsewhere maintained an aristocracy of labour by questioning applicants for apprenticeships about the school they went to, their membership of the Boy Scouts and Boys Brigade, in order to weed out Catholics. It was only when a number of religion-blind foreign firms set up in Scotland that the influence of the Lodge on workplace segregation began to enter terminal decline and when traditional manufacturing industry went the same way in the 1980s, this destroyed Protestant-dominated craft unions and their grip on better-paid jobs. Again, ethnic or religious division is a historical inheritance of most imperialised countries, from Iraq to Poland, South Africa and Ukraine to Bolivia and far beyond.
In all these ways, Scotland entirely fits the profile of a country in which the people have been and remain the pawns and victims of imperialism; there can be no serious argument about this among socialists. Spurious contrasts with the enslavement of the Welsh and the planting of Ireland in the process of establishing imperial domain, advanced during the conference debates, are as nothing compared to the key structural realities which constitute the essence of the actually existing imperialist / imperialised relationship.
Then there is the matter of the principle of the self-determination of peoples – arguably, Lenin’s greatest contribution to anti-imperialist theory, although Marx more than laid the groundwork for this in his own political activity and writing. For its part, the twentieth century Left often, if inconsistently, grasped this and, even when it did not feel confortable with the actual forms of struggle used by colonised and imperialised peoples, felt able to express its ‘critical support’ for such as the PLO and IRA in the 1970s. Among sections of the British Left which were more engaged with what was usually then called ‘international solidarity work’, this sometimes involved working out positions that questioned the ‘flat internationalism’ of motion 38 in which workers interests were regarded as the same everywhere and, instead, recognised that setting up branches of metropolitan Left groups in imperialised contexts flew in the face of both reality and the principle of self-determination.
For the British Left, the unavoidable reality was the increasing marginalisation of the Labour Party’s SDLP offshoot during the height of Irish struggles from 1967 to the mid-1970s compared to the emergence of the Provisional IRA out of the need for community defence against an army of occupation. It became clear that the only way of attaining a meaningful opposition to imperialism whilst dealing with the realities of IRA paramilitary campaigns in Britain, the IRA’s political limitations and the British media’s demonisation of both the IRA and Sinn Fein was ‘critical support’ for the anti-imperialist force on the ground: support in principle for their cause but without giving up the right to question particular ways in which they took this forward. This was the basis of TOM – the Troops Out Movement.
A key aspect of anti-imperialist practice has been to establish liberated zones within colonies or broader polities: Castro’s guerrillas did this in the Sierra Maestra, Frelimo used it to great effect against the Portuguese in 1970s Mozambique and the Mexican Zapatistas are doing the same today in Chiapas, on the borders of the Yucatan. The point of this has been and remains the capacity it gives for developing alternative social relations and support for them not just within the liberated zone but as a pole of attraction which focuses the disaffection of people outside and helps them towards the hope and belief that another world is possible. The practice and theory of liberated zones breaks logjams in the wider imperialised polity; it is dynamic and moves history along quicker than waiting until everyone has reached the awareness and ability to struggle against oppression and for social justice; it recognises and deals with the wide variation in the circumstances and prospects faced by particular groupings of workers and oppressed peoples.
That provides an important part of the counter argument to those who see independence for Scotland as something that will divide and set the British class struggle back (as if that struggle was in robust health!). Anti-imperialist struggles continue to show that ideas and movements leak across borders, just as the Zapatistas go out into wider Mexico supporting struggles there. OK, the Radical Independence people are not Zapatistas, but how could the class struggle in England be set back by socialists down here being able to point across the border in years to come to policies that are not part of wall-to-wall austerity, at an NHS that is not cut off into privatised pieces and starved of public funds, to a social housing programme and a country without nuclear weapons? None of these developments are pie in the sky for an independent Scotland with an in-built Left of Centre majority among voters! A pole of attraction that shows that another way is possible, even another capitalist way, would help break the logjam of despair and demoralisation in England.
1,000 people attended the 2013 Radical Independence conference in Scotland. Among the organisations whose members are taking part in the RIC are what remains of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), the Socialist Workers Party, the International Socialist Group and the Scottish Green Party, members of the SNP and a host of smaller socialist, green, pacifist and nationalist groups. At its peak, the SSP won seats in the Scottish parliament, based on more than 6 per cent of voters, on a platform of independence as a stepping-stone to socialism. The RIC’s policies are for “a Green New Deal to harness the potential of Scotland’s renewables, an overhaul of the finance and banking industry and the decentralisation of power into communities” (RIC website).
Yet the LU conference did not consider this development – which closely parallels our own in its sudden and recent growth – as worth our serious attention, compared to the contrary views of our own Scottish and Welsh comrades, even though they number mere handfuls by comparison. This complete reversal of the process of learning that the Left went through during the Irish rebellion half a century ago happened for the reasons I have argued above – the English Left has no real confidence in its own concept or analysis of imperialism, because it does not have one worthy of the name; consequently, and further confused by the spurious identity politics of the past two decades, it can be led by the nose by a small number of unrepresentative people who tick the boxes in terms of accent, skin colour or some other identity marker. Harsh, but true! They are our SDLP and we have not yet re-learned the lessons of Northern Ireland in the 1970s.
Of course, there are no guarantees that independence will bring progressive change fro the Scottish working class, but the growing number of Left activists demanding a new politics would be closer to the seat of power than now and that seat would be an important bit further from and more isolated from Washington and its empire than is Westminster and Whitehall. But, more importantly, the very existence of a renewed Scottish Left coalescing around radical independence in an atmosphere in which a new generation of young people is being politicised by the media focus on the independence debate and the novelty of having a vote indicates that the reconfiguration of Scottish politics is an unfinished, dynamic process with real prospects for a Left wing pole of attraction.
This pole of attraction is likely to be significant in both possible scenarios – of a demoralised cross-class nationalism the other side of a ‘Yes’ vote, such that disillusion with both the SNP sets in very quickly and very deeply and, alternatively, if a ‘No’ vote brings an independent Scotland in which the SNP finds that its nationalism is no longer enough and Scottish Labour is tarred fatally and for ever with unionism. Either way, the prospects for Labour look likely to go the same way as the other mainstream English parties and the formation of a radical pro-independence Scottish Left has a bigger potential than has Left Unity south of the border. North of it, we are small and insignificant for a reason, as already explained.
Turning back to the other side of this issue, the big existential quest for ‘society’ in the British Isles is the narrative that underpins the ‘Stronger Together’ movement – that ongoing search for identity began by Blair trying (and failing) to define ‘Britishness’ in response to the War on Terror and the societal divisions it exposed after 7/7/2005. This is an ideological angst that is now plugged for the time being into the terrible twins of Euro-scepticism and unionism, the latter with its modern origins in the Curragh Mutiny of 1912, the creation of an Orange statelet around Belfast and Derry, Rangers Football Club and the network of Lodges throughout Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Scottish unionism, like its counterpart in Northern Ireland, lives on nowadays in the form of an increasingly desperate identity politics among communities cast aside as imperialism and capitalism has ‘modernised’, reducing most of its former foot soldiers to an urban poverty that no longer provides them a sense of superiority, clinging instead to the symbols of a long-faded labour aristocracy. Whereas in the 1979 referendum on Devolution, it was Catholic Scots who were worried about their security and position within a Scotland semi-detached from London, the different nature of what is now at risk for British capitalism and its politicians means that unionism is being invoked from London and in a way that is designed to resonate with the remains of the Orange movement.
This appeal to the union is what makes the ‘No’ campaign an imperialist campaign and a campaign that is being conducted against a background of imperialism. Ranged against this attempt to renew the historical divisions within Scottish workers that arose in the course of that imperialism is the growth of a home grown radical Left, pro-independence movement with support right across the Scottish Left, a movement with the clear potential to become at least as significant force north of the border as Left Unity has south of it.
Finally, the argument that the advance of socialist and working class politics and international resistance to capitalism depends upon retaining big states with ethnic, religious and other differences and fissures within them is a throwback to early twentieth century state socialism and its global context of protectionism, world wars and rival imperial blocs. Neoliberal capitalism, with its need to move investment and populations about in response to geographical variations in the profit rate, has created a world in which, in places like Europe, the free movement of labour has never been more protected. The threat being painted of workers and socialists being unable to move freely between Scotland and England, with their common language, if Scotland became independent, is just not real; neither is the claim that Scottish and English workers would no longer be able to support each other. Persuading workers to do so has been difficult for some considerable time, in any case, and mostly because so few struggles have taken off on any scale. We need a way to break that logjam.
The ‘small is beautiful’ argument has been largely ignored by a Left reared on the concept of insurrections in large capital cities in the middle of vast empires and powerful states as the motor force of revolution, of large state-run industries and public sector organisations all run through central planning and of large working class communities living cheek by jowl; perhaps it is these kind of often unspoken assumptions about what we are about that tend to guide us over subjects like Scottish independence, rather than grappling with the necessary complexity. They guide us towards not wanting the state we have got used to break up. But ‘small is beautiful’ has implications for a socialism closer to the people, in which decision-making can be more participative, in which the environment is more clearly felt to be a shared treasury for all to use, decide on and steward, in which community relations becomes more clearly something which we have to sort out ourselves and in which a greater proportion of people feel that they can make a difference and have a social responsibility. No way is a political fracturing of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to give this state its full and oh so revealing name, a backward step. This is the state that used to dominate 70% of the globe, a state ruled nominally by a Monarch and in which the people have no right to elect the Executive branch of government, a nuclear state which spends a higher % of its public funds on weaponry than any other, bar the USA. Who in their right mind would not want to see it weakened?
The drift towards a City State with a separate economy to the rest of Britain means that the rest of the country is to London what the less attractive parts of other continents are to North West European and North American investors. The City of London Corporation and its allies in the financial and arms industries captured the British state some time ago and none of the three main parties has a problem with this; they talk to each other with their backs to the rest of us. This professional political class has come to realise, though not admit, that it has no way of squaring this with any meaningful strategy for reviving the rest of the country – in other words, there is no longer any coherent set of policies, social democratic, centrist or neo-liberal – that can be applied to such a bifurcated polity as the UK, and this would still be true if, the other side of Scottish and Welsh independence, the polity was just England. Unionism in any form is rendered obsolete by the emergence of the City State. Secession is the logical step for those whose existence stands more and more outside the City State.
Unionism needs to be challenged head-on by the Left. We need to work towards the break-up of the UK, in line with the direction of historical development and to counterpose this as the only serious and radical alternative to either the drift of the three main parties and UKIP’s sublimation of it into an anti-Europeanism, the consequences of which even its own supporters are anxious about and only connect to through a vacuous nostalgia. An independent Scotland, which in all probability will be well to the left of the EU norm, could become an alternative pole of attraction to the rump of the UK as the reality of the City State becomes ever clearer.
Unless and until the Left takes this strongly emerging politico-economic configuration seriously, we cannot begin to construct a politics that corresponds to the changing shape of reality and articulate the challenges this poses for people.
57 comments
57 responses to “Left Unity’s debate on Scottish Independence”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
ongoing
Just Stop Oil – Slow Marches
Slow marches are still legal (so LOW RISK of arrest), and are extremely effective. The plan is to keep up the pressure on this ecocidal government to stop all new fossil fuel licences.
Saturday 27th April: national march for Palestine
National demonstration.
Ceasefire NOW! Stop the Genocide in Gaza: Assemble 12 noon Central London
Full details to follow
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
New book now out from Radical Independence campaigners in Scotland, explaining what they are about:
http://radicalyes.org/
I didn’t vote to “defeat Scottish independence”. In fact I voted against a motion at the conference which was explicitly opposed to Scottish independence. I also voted against a motion which called for Left Unity to support Scottish independence, which was put forward by what was at the time I believe Left Unity’s only Scottish branch. The reason for this is I believe in the self-determination of all people and that it’s not for a predominantly English party to dictate to its Scottish members what their position is on independence. Along with the majority of the conference, I voted against both pro and anti motions because I want Scottish members to be free to campaign how they wish.
Salman, I only know how you voted from you – my comment was based only on you ‘liking’ Chris Strafford’s Facebook message, which read as I have reported – that ‘one of the positives’ of the day was the conference’s close “defeat for Scottish independence”!
As the chief teller on the day, I am very sure that there was no overall majority for any of the 3 motions – 70 – 68 – 22 (and the other votes, though not counted, were very similar) means that 56% of those voting did not vote for any of the 3 motions put.
I am certainly not calling for English cdes to ‘dictate’ a position to the Scottish Left, but every branch of LU needs a clear, agreed policy to follow, not a fudge like the ‘do your own thing’ approach we are now lumped with. Self-determination is not about the rights of ‘outreach’ sections or branches of political organisations based in the imperialist heartland but about the rights of the imperialised people as a whole, and when it becomes clear, as it now is, that the Scottish Left has moved decisively towards a third position – of radical independence – then the position of anti-imperialist forces in the imepeialist heartland should be one of solidarity with this. If we have but one small branch of LU in Scotland which is out of kilter with the rest of the Scottish Left, then we have a real problem. Privileging the unrepresentative views of this branch over those of the Scottish Left as a whole is a real problem for us and a poor sunstitute for having our own policy of solidarity. Like I say above, it is just like the SDLP was 40 years ago.
John Tummon, I think you are missing the point when you say “I am certainly not calling for English cdes to ‘dictate’ a position to the Scottish Left, but every branch of LU needs a clear, agreed policy to follow, not a fudge like the ‘do your own thing’ approach we are now lumped with.” Well, that is EXACTLY what we have in Glasgow. We have been having many and regular sessions of debate, online debates, day schools, etc all about Independence and the members here are all pretty much wedded to their own choices. Both sides have clear reasons for choosing one side or the other and both choices are based on clear socialist principles. At the moment there is no clear majority one way or another. So this is what is at the heart of the matter in Glasgow, we have not taken a position to support or oppose independence, and members on both sides are free to campaign for the side of their own choice. There is no problem with this position, as socialists I see no justification in anybody dictating that we have a ‘for or against’ position. I have absolutely no problem in saying that I am in favour of a yes vote, and our secretary is equally happy to support the no campaign. I can’t understand why so many people seem to think they MUST have a position on a referendum that they have no vote in. We condemned David Cameron on the basis of his wee ‘let’s tell our friends in Scotland how much we want them to stay’ bit of nonsense, but you seem to be happy to take the opposite position and say let’s support the side of independence. Your arguement puts you in a very dangerous area when it is comparable to a statement by Cameron. During the discussions at the first policy conference in Manchester I heard 9 mentions of the Radical Independence Campaign but only one mention of Left Unity, Glasgow. This is quite telling, in that English Comrades are unable to get what they want from Left Unity Glasgow, so they are happy to support a seperate party! Indeed a party that will cease to exist after the referendum in about five months. Now we are told that we are just “but one small branch of LU in Scotland which is out of kilter with the rest of the Scottish Left”. You certainly do have a problem, try listening to what the Glasgow branch is saying and how the members feel (specially me as a supporter of the Yes! campaign) when the argument in support of independence in Scotland is prepared to stoop to bad-mouthing the Glasgow branch in favour of a different party! Don’t you hear any alarm bells ringing?
Joe Barr,
Left Unity, Glasgow.
‘Bad- mouthing’ your branch is a pretty extreme criticism to make. Forgive me but I thought I went to a lot of trouble to put both sides of the argument at the start of my piece before developing an analysis which clrified why radical independence is the correct response to imperialism. It wasn’t cheap rhetoric or anything like it. What precisley are you objecting to?
My position is not comparable to Cameron’s but a 180 degree contrast to it. Opposites have only a trivial similarity, not a meaningful one.
On what basis do you say that the Radical Independence campaign will cease to exist in about 6 months? It might change name once independence is secured, but the forces which have come together to form it seem to have gelled around what they want to build afterwards, so I am intrigued by whatever your logic is behind this prognosis?
Tell me, please, why Glasgow LU is not out of kilter with the rest of the Scottish Left, if you can: There are 23 Radical Independence branches in Scotland, including 3 in Glasgow and one in nearby Paisley – the area your branch of LU draws from. Which Left organisations have been critical of Radical Independence and refused to join it and how big are they?
Just because your branch is divided on such a key issue does not suddenly make internal division into a positive. The whole point of our policy conference was to reach as high a degree of clarity as possible on policies, wasn’t it, or am i missing something, here?
I will try listening to what the Glasgow branch is saying. My branch’s Chair has wriiten asking your branch to come to Stockport to debate with Radical Independence within a join t meeting with Manchester and WIgan LU. I think it is you who have the problem – whether to send someone who supports the ‘Yes’ or the ‘No’ case to speak to us, which kind of proves my point about the difficulties caused by having a ‘let each individual make up theri own mind’ approach. How many media interviews is your branch able to do in this position – how is it able to relate as an organisation to the pressing issue being talked about by the people you want to reach in Glasgow?
John – First of all thank you for a verr detailed and thoughtful piece which does go some way to clarifying, for me, a very complex issue for the left.
Second, it barely needs to be said that I accept the right of Scottish people to support independence without any kind of threat or intimidation from people in the other nations in the UK.
Having said that, I have a number of points and queries with your analysis.
1) I don’t feel you have made the case that Scotland is an “imperialised nation” or that there can be “no serious debate about this from socialists”. To establish your point, you would need to demonstrate that people in Scotland have faced harsher treatment that similar communities in the rest of the UK, that Scottish miners, shipyard workers, or any other kinds of workers have been subject to worse treatment BASED on their nationality. I don’t feel you have made that point. Migration from poor areas to richer ones or from cleared land into industrial cities was a feature of working class life in every part of Britain. The problems faced by Scottish workers are virtually identical to those of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, or East London. One could argue that the level of attitudes, the north of England in general had been subjected to as much disdain or been as patronised and devalued as Scotland
has.
2) Historically, I can find no fault at all with Don Milligan’s analysis that you quote. Where is the conquest, the suppression of national rights, the systematic discrimination, or the economic super-expolitation that an imperial relationship would imply. The issue of North Sea oil is a very recent one, obviously, and the issue of the poll tax experiment is a question or one vicious government rather than national oppression as such. The use of resources such as oil or fishing or farming are always dealt with on a whole nation level. The demand for “Scotland’s oil” is akin to saying that the entire tourist or financial income of London should only be spent in London itself, or that coal only belongs to the North of England or South Wales. The issue was only raised by the SNP once their bandwagon had begun to roll due to the massive, and correct disillusion with Labour in its Scotish heartlands.
3) It is not at all clear to me whether you argue for a yes vote on grounds of national liberation or of electoral advantages for the left. If the latter, that is fair enough but you should be clear. You actually state that “supporting Scottish independence is not supporting Scottish nationalism but a stronger basis there for an independent workers’ movement.” You also invoke the spirit of “small is beautiful” and decentralisation of decision making. OK, but why is this any different from any other area of Britain which has an “in-built centre-left majority”. We could argue for the North East to become independent, or Yorkshire. In every country on Earth there are parts where the left is stronger. Crucially, decentralised decision making does not imply support for complete separation. Local democratic decision-making could be a main Left Unity policy for the whole of Britain. Incidentally, the electoral success of the SSP is, of course mainly down to the electoral system for the Scottish Assembly. Who knows what the left in England andd Wales could have got under a similar system? It is good to remind ourselves that the Tory wipe-out in Scotland is only a post-Thatcher phenomenon. In the Fifties MOST Scottish MPs were Tory! The decline of the Tories in Scotland has been mirrored by their decline in all the working class cities of Britain. The Tories don’t exist in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds or Sheffield.
4) In your analysis of Scottish Unionism you overlook the fact that it is based on a Scottish COMPLICITY in the joint exploitation of Ireland, which really was an “imperialised nation”. The immigrants from Ireland and the Catholics from the highlands who were forced to migrate to Glasgow were victims of a Protestant Scottish bigotry, not simply by “the English”. Ulster Unionism is culturally closer to Scottish Protestant culture than to some kind of English “imperial” culture. This bigotry was first formed in the religious wars in Scotland (and also part of England) of the 18th Century against attempts by Catholic monarchs (so-called Bonnie Prince Charlie)to retake the throne of BRITAIN. Both Charles Stuart and his Protestant Lowland Scots opponents were interested in the British crown. It was nothing to do with Scottish independence.
5) Lastly, if the relationship between England and Scotland was an imperial one, where, then, was the national struggle. If you are going to draw parallels with the PLO then I think we need to see the resistance struggle in history. In Ireland, centuries of national oppression led to a heroic fight against oppression and for national sel-determination. In the 19th Century, Nationalists eventually took every Irish parliamentary seat. In Scotland, by contrast, the nationalists were regarded, rightly, as a joke, a quaint, tartan and shortbread eccentricity. They did not win a single seat until the 1960s. Their recent progress has simply been a result of massive disillusion with left politics, the betrayal of Labour in the 70s, 80s and 90s in the face of a catastrophic neo-liberal onslaught. In many ways they are the UKIP of Scotland, providing a protest vote against the complacent right wing Glasgow mafia of safe-seat Labour MPs. Whereas UKIP find an easy enemy in foreigners in general and particularly EU bureaucrats who are denying the national independence of British people to control their own government, in Scotland because of its sense of distinct nationhood, the enemy became perfidious Albion; the English, led by a cartoon figure of English snobbery and arrogance in Thatcher, became the root of all the troubles of Scotland and all it has to do is break free to achieve justice and equality. If the left argue against campaigning to leave the EU because that is pandering to nationalism, why should we pander to Scottish nationalism for the same reasons?
I would be genuinely interested in your response to my points, John, and thanks agian for your contribution.
Hello again John,
Your suggestion that ‘Bad- mouthing’ your branch is a pretty extreme criticism to make’ is funny. I’m afraid I just don’t like the idea that you seem to have made up your mind to support the RI Campaign and any other view is to be dismissed. There you go, I will withdraw the work ‘bad-mouthing’ and suggest that it was contemptously dismissive to suggest that we are “but one small branch of LU in Scotland which is out of kilter with the rest of the Scottish Left”. I am really looking forward to reading what information you based that decision on, or maybe you could tell me who in Left Unity Glasgow you spoke to in order to reach your opinion?
You said “Tell me, please, why Glasgow LU is not out of kilter with the rest of the Scottish Left, if you can: There are 23 Radical Independence branches in Scotland, including 3 in Glasgow and one in nearby Paisley – the area your branch of LU draws from.” Since I see no mention of any other socialist group, you appear to be suggesting that the 23 RI branches is the entire Scottish Left? I think there may be a few others who would disagree.
Your chair wrote to me and I offered a speaker from the ‘no’ side, I was about to also offer another speaker from the ‘yes’ side, but it now appears that there is no need for any speakers from up here. So again I make the point that many socialists seem to be happier to listen to an outside organisation, the RIC, than listen to their fellow members in Scotland. Maybe that just seems odd to me because I’m so far out of kilter, apparently. I did think it was quite funny that I saw us offering your chair the opportunity to have 2 speakers, one for and one against independence, but you turn that around to suggest that I have a problem? So now I do have a problem, in that you are inviting a campaign group to debate, but have excluded the Scottish members! There is no input to your debate from Left Unity, Glasgow or Left Unity, Scotland. I’m so out of kilter here I’m getting dizzy.
You asked “On what basis do you say that the Radical Independence campaign will cease to exist in about 6 months.” Maybe you are correct, I have no knowledge of the inner workings of the RIC. Neither do I have any great worries, since I broadly support much of what I have seen. Maybe I should have used the word maybe in the bit between “the Radical Independence campaign will” – insert ‘maybe’ here, and – “cease to exist in about 6 months?” Would that please you? The much more important point is that we are a political party, and they are a campaign group, so why would they want to go through all the tedious work that we have just gone through over almost a year now, to become what we already are? Is Left Unity not a much more obvious choice?
People we speak to are able to relate to the fact that we do not put a three-line-whip on our members to support everything our ‘leaders’ say. We have members who support and oppose independence, both from a strong socialist background, and they are free to campaign for whichever side they choose. That is not a fudge, it is in fact a clear example of a branch that works from the principle of decision making from the bottom up rather than from the top down. I understood that to be a central plank of many of our policies & decisions. Wow, I’m now so dizzy from being out of kilter I think I need to go lie down.
Best Wishes, Joe.
Hi Joe
1 I have not dismissed the counter argument but analysed it and argued against it.
2 I asked you to tell me who on the Scottish Left was against the RI Campaign, as you are in Scotland and I don’t know. Tell me, please, who these ‘some others’ are and how significant they are.
3 What do you mean socialists don’t want to hear your branch’s views? But the entire LU conference listened to you on 29 March, didn’t we? We do want a Glasgow LU speaker in Manchester / Stockport + an RI one, so that we can have a 2-sided debate and, as far as I know, this is what is going to happen. Tell John Pearson quickly if this is not the case, as he says it is!
4 Once the Referendum is done and dusted, I hope the Scottish left will come together and, tedious though it may be to get a new party off the ground, the inroads they seem to have made tell me they have the stomach for it. We’ll see.
5 Left Unity is aiming to get its views into the media and we are managing to do so. I don’t mind if your branch or any other has to agree to disagree among itself, but the whole organisation has to have a policy that makes sense to the wider public, via the media exposure we get. If we ever get on QT or when we campaign in the EU & loacl elections and get asked about Scottish independence, we will look pretty irrelevant if we can’t say anything.That’s what i mean by the ‘fudge’ – LU’s national postion. It seems that your branch went through a long process of debate, so hats off to you for that, but I am talking about LU as a whole.
I hope that clears some things up.
All the best
John
Scotland is *part* of the “imperialist heartland” – past and present. The Scottish bourgeoisie were enthusiastic imperialists and an essential component of British imperialism – meaning that the ‘Scottish nation’ benefited from colonial and imperialist plunder. In other words, Scotland is not an oppressed nation and it is sheer madness to think so.
Actually to be fair to the people in RIC I have not come across them arguing that scotland is an oppressed nation. Indeed they tend to state the opposite – see the recent RIC book ( J Foley and P Ramond) the radical case for Scottish independence published by Pluto. The overwhelming majority of socialists in Scotland who support a yes vote accept that scotland is not a nation oppressed by imperialism or any such rubbish. The claim that scotland is nationally oppressed by British imperialism is widely seen as daft and untenable . The claim in the lead article above by john Tummon that scotland is nationally oppressed would be seen on the Scottish left as a rather idiosyncratic view- to say the least.
sandy
Glasgow left unity member
Danny, thanks for the headlines of your view, but what’s underneath the bonnet? I have argued this in some detail with Ray G in my post today. Please come back to me on this, otherwise we are just swapping ‘yah boos’!
the central point for socialists should be- Does the call for Scottish independence promote the solidarity, cohesion and class consciousness of the working class? If it does it should be supported. If it does not it should be opposed. It seems clear to me that the campaign for Scottish independence aims to divide the working class along national lines and this weaken the solidarity and unity of the working class in Britain
We have had quite a debate on Scottish independence in Scottish left unity. I enclose an extract below to give a flavour of the discussion
sandy
One more thing – either Sandy thinks that there is some wonderful working class unity already or he thinks we have to fight for it – it does seem that he has moved somewhat to the latter, , I think is fine. There is absolutely nothing to say that we need to work within the constraints of a pre-existing bourgeois state to build unity of the working class – what kind of internationalist position would that be?
LU Glasgow member for yes vote
Iif the British working class exists as a social entity working class unity must exist in some form. You cant have a working class without some form of unity- even, if in fact the unity, is less than it was 40 years ago. The working class exists in britain in the form of consciousness and organisation. It has been created in over 200 years of common struggle against British capital and its state. In that sense we dont have a common working class organisation between workers in britain and workers in the USA or South Africaetc. The international unity of the working class is an aspiration that we fight to realize but it is only a potential and not yet a developed social reality. Working class unity in terms of Europe is a developing potential since the free movement of labour and the single market are providing the basis for the creation of a united European working class but it will only become real through the self activity of the European workng class. In marxist terms the working class establishes itself in the struggle against workers existence as abstract labour. The EU is increasing creating a European form of abstract labour, at least that is how I understand it
You dont move towards a real unity of the European working class by dividing the british working class along national lines. As socialists we should be fighting for the political independence of the working class from the forces of capital. in my opinion that means giving no support to the british state or the emerging scottish state or to the yes or no campaigns
sandy
Hi Sandy
Its not a case of denying – it’s that you use the term “anti-working class” promiscuously; it’s also a blunt instrument that is unable to discriminate, as most Scottish workers do, between a pro-capitalist party committed to a Scottish version of welfare capitalism and the London Mob committed to blood and fire wrecking of working class communities.
Glasgow LU member for a yes vote
I do not believe that the SNP are committed to welfare capitalism. They are committed to austerity and their record in government is one of cutting state expenditure. They make promises of course but that is just to fool the electorate into voting for independence. The one thing you can be sure of is that the sNP government will be business “friendly”and cut taxation on big business as per their promise on corporation tax- they will ensure it is always at least 3% less than in the rest of the UK. A race to the bottom. Their proposals on the currency union are both ridiculous and obviously pro austerity. They demand that the bank of England should, in effect, continue to control the monetary and fiscal policy of an independent Scotland. As J Sillars says “it is nonsense on stilts”. Worth reading Grasping the Thistle by Mike Russell ( Scottish government education minister) to see just how neo liberal they are. Flat taxes etc. Of course it would be madness for them to inform the voters of where they are trying to lead workers in Scotland
http://www.scotsman.com/news/grasp-the-thistle-why-tartan-taxes-should-be-cut-1-739329
sandy
I believe that, as with Labour, the SNP will side with the rich and powerful in a future crisis but for the moment they want to win the referendum and know that to achieve this they must mobilise – in a strictly limited way – the working class vote.
But in politics and music and football, timing is everything and AT THS MOMENT they are seen, and with good reason, as preferable to the Coalition + Miliband’s Labour.
Glasgow left unity member for a yes vote
BTW, Sandy, what is your evidence that a conscious aim – as opposed to what you argue will be a consequence – of the SNP is to “split the British working class”?
Can you provide a single piece of evidence? Document? Speech? Anything? I ask this not as an SNP supporter, I am not, but because I don’t believe that is one of their aims. It is not enough to assert a claim without backing the claim up with evidence.
The aim of the SNP has always been to win workers away from adherence to the British labour movement and towards Scottish nationalism. That is the only way they can win majority support for Scottish independence. The central belt of scotland has always been the arena that has been resistant to the nationalist message and the goal of the SNP has been to win workers in this socialist heartland to the nationalist cause. Of course new labour has been a big help in this regard as has the big defeats suffered by the working class in britain over the past period. As class consciousness has declined support for scottish nationalism has increased. In this sense scottish nationalism has been part of the thatcherite attack on the british working class movement. Thatchers aim was to remove the british working class ( or socialism as she put it) from the political arena and both Blair and the SNP in Scotland have continued that fight. I dont think you will find any document where the SNP leadership say we have the aim of splitting the british working class along national lines but is it not rather obvious? They want workers to identify as Scots and not as members of the working class
In Glasgow left unity we recently had a long discussion on the Scottish independence question. A Supporter of the YES side put forward 30 questions which he said he had extracted from the No side in the discussion and requested a response. I did not think that the 30 questions were an accurate summary of what the No side in GLU were saying but did provide a response which i now post below in order to inform discussion. The numbered questions are followed by my answers
sandy
Below are 30 claims put forward by supporters of ‘No’ in recent mail exchanges on Scottish independence. I believe all of them are wrong and some of them are blazingly wrong. I’d appreciate anyone on this list indicating their attitude to any or all of the points below. Knowing exactly where we are misunderstanding each other will help us to move forward.
Glasgow left unity member for a no vote
1. Socialists should not get involved in the independence campaign because the SNP is nationalist and is the strongest component of the independence campaign.
Even if the campaign was led by those who called themselves socialists i would arguing against supporting a campaign for an independent capitalist Scotland. However the campaign that exists is obviously led by the SNP government and is pro capitalist and nationalist and seeks to divide the british working class
sandy
2. There is no significant difference between the reactionaries of Better Together and the mix of nationalists and internationalists in the Yes campaign.
Yes there is but they are both campaigns that offer nothing positive to the working class. Neither deserves any support
sandy
3. The non-SNP elements in the Yes campaign are insignificant, negligible
True- the SNP and the Scottish government effectively control the YES campaign and decide who sits on the YES “board of control”. The “independents” are selected by the SNP and are in position due to the grace of the SNP
sandy
4. There is no incentive for the working class and left to vote Yes
No- plenty of promises are being made but what else would you expect from professional bourgeois politicians
sandy
5. The Scottish and Condem governments are much the same.
Who would say such a daft thing- it is like saying that there is no difference between the liberals and the Tories or indeed between them and the labour party. The SNP and the condem government are not the same but they all support austerity and capitalism and both are anti working class. That should be clear to us all
sandy
6. We should tell Scottish workers not to go for independence on September 18th but to maintain the present outlines of the UK State.
I dont support the outlines of the UK state. I am for a united Ireland. However workers in scotland should not support an independent capitalist Scotland as it is not a step forward. We should be fighting for the political independence of the working class from the forces of Capital- that means giving no support to the YES or better together campaigns and arguing for unity of the british working class in the fight against the british capitalist class and its state
sandy
7. We should campaign until September 18th against the Yes camp under the slogan of “A Workers government not a Scottish government”.
Now this is getting silly- I am for the disbanding of the British army and for a workers militia but I am not going to be campaigning among the populace for this in the present period and it is certainly not going to be a slogan I put forward on this Mayday demonstration!
sandy
8. There is a currently existing, real political unity of the UK working class that we must defend.
No wrong again – the british working class exists but not the UK working class. The british ruling class has intervened to divide abstract labour in the north of Ireland by giving privileges to protestant workers. This has created a material divide. This has not occurred in Scotland England and Wales where the working class has been historically united and has created british wide forms of organisation through its own struggles. In Britain the working class is united politically in that it is has not been divided by nationality. There is no specific national oppression of Scots workers or English workers or Welsh workers. We dont have to fight to overcome national oppression to unite the working class since it is already united
sandy
9. The maintenance of the bourgeois state structures of the UK will enhance working class solidarity by defending the “political existence of the working class”.
We want the working class to overthrow the “bourgeois state structures of the UK” not defend them. The fact that socialists in Texas dont support Texan independence does not mean we defend the existing bourgeois state structures of the USA. Same in Sardinia, Sicily, Flanders, Corsica etc. What about socialists refusing to support the independence of Cornwall? Is that defending the “bourgeois state structures” of the UK. What utter rubbish
sandy
10. The existing UK working class unity will be damaged or destroyed by Scottish independence.
Again it is british and not UK working class. Did the break up of Yugoslavia damaged the political unity of the Yugoslavian working class. You tell me. Dont you think that nationalists on both sides of the scottish/ English border will blame the other side during the negotiations on the terms of scottish independence. It is already happening. And the fact that many socialists in Scotland are refusing to build British wide socialist parties is a sign that the break up is already happening. That is a big change from the last 100 years or more. If the vote is yes that process will obviously accelerate. As we should know the highest form of working class unity is unity within a socialist party which is fighting for the working class to take power
sandy
11. The bloody, genocidal history of the modern UK State is not a significant reason to break it up it politically.
The bloody genocidal history of the USA or Belgium or Italy etc is not a reason to support Flemish or Texan or Sardinian independence. Or is it? The growth of nationalist fragmentation in Europe and beyond is not a positive sign. We should not encourage it but rather call for workers of all countries to unite in the political struggle against the forces of capital
sandy
12. Supporting independence means abandoning workers in the rest of Britain in a common struggle against austerity.
Already sections of the Tories are arguing that if there is a yes vote Scottish MPs elected in 2015 should not be allowed to sit in Westminster. Not too good for workers in England that. In effect by supporting Scottish independence we are giving up on the common struggle of the British working class against british capital and for a workers government in britain
sandy
13. The SNP is “thatcherite”
The SNP are neo liberal and support austerity. did you read the Mike Russel Scotsman article I posted. http://www.scotsman.com/news/grasp-the-thistle-why-tartan-taxes-should-be-cut-1-739329
His book grasping the thistle was toned down by salmond before it was published. Undoubtedly because it was too blatant and gave the game away. The job of a socialist party is not to back up the illusions some workers have in the false promises of the establishment.
Sandy
14 The SNP persuaded many working class voters to defect from Scottish Labour by continuing the thatcherite fight against the working class.
I think it was New labour who persuaded many working class voters to defect to the nationalists. In periods of defeat for the working class nationalism grows. Look at the growth of UKIP down south and the FN in france
sandy
15. The class polarisation in the independence referendum is not significant.
The polls show that the majority of the W.C in Scotland oppose Scottish independence. A section of the Scottish establishment support independence as do a section of the scottish bosses. More men support independence than women.
sandy
16. The parts of Scotland that previously voted Labour were a “socialist heartland”
The labour movement used to very strong in Glasgow and the central belt. The socialist movement was very strong if you compare it with what we have now. The nationalists had to undermine class consciousness in the central belt in order to gain a foothold. The growth of the SNP is the product of the defeat of the working class and its socialist traditions
sandy
17. Socialists can never align themselves as internationalists in a common fight with nationalists.
Socialists would join with nationalists in a common struggle against national oppression (since national oppression divides the working class) while always keeping their politics separate and opposed to nationalism. Scotland is not an oppressed nation so there is no national struggle for freedom to pursue
sandy
18. All those who support Scottish independence are nationalists
The majority are nationalists but not all. Some socialists see an independent capitalist scotland as the way forward for workers. In that I think they are deluded and are being used as dupes by the sector of the Scottish establishment which favours independence. Left wing support for independence arises from despair at the possibility of the british working class advancing. It is a product of defeat which tends to deepen that defeat by promoting the growth of nationalism and thus undermining class consciousness.
sandy
19. Supporters of independence are placing their hopes in the SNP delivering reforms to Scottish workers.
Why else would Scottish workers consider voting for independence if not to deliver pro working class reforms- to make things worse!- I dont think so. They are certainly not voting for independence to weaken british imperialism or any such outlandish claim. Those who are considering voting for independence are doing so because they believe that the SNP will make things better for them. Why else?
sandy
20. If you support Scottish independence then you must support all other independence struggles, e.g. Corsica, Catalonia, etc.
No- but you must explain if the reason you support independence is that you want to break up British imperialism why you dont support national struggles that would break up French imperialism or Belgian imperialism or Italian or Spanish or the USA or even the break up of the EU itself
sandy
21. The policies of the SSP and every Scottish socialist formation are “objectively anti-working class”. Only LU do not deserve the epithet “anti-working class”.
The SSP are not anti working class but they have an anti working class position on Scottish independence. Same with the SP Scotland and the ISG and RIC.
sandy
22 It is not important whether Scottish independence after September 18th would provoke a crisis in the ConDem government, weakening it greatly.
It is important but if there is a yes vote we will have at least 18 months of a bun fight between the Scottish establishment and the Westminster establishment over the terms of the separation. This is likely to stir up national antagonism on both sides of the border. Socialist politics do not thrive in an atmosphere of national dispute. Nationalist politics do. National chauvinism could grow on both sides of the border. However the capitalist elite may manage to keep a lid on the rhetoric of the populists in the interests of economic stability. The tories will be strengthened at westminster by the lack of labour MPs from scotland.(Remember scottish labour votes stopped the war with Syria last year) Cameron could face a challenge from the right if britain loses scotland. UKIP could grow even more. If UK(R) moves to the right Scotland will move to the right. The working class will be weaker on both sides of the border
sandy
23. A vote for Yes on September 18th will not be a vote against austerity.
No- the SNP have been implementing austerity and its proposals for a currency union where monetary and fiscal policy in Scotland is controlled by the bank of England shows that austerity will continue and deepen. The bank of England would veto any move away from austerity
sandy
24. A vote for Yes on September 18th will not be seen by millions as a vote against austerity.
Even if “millions” saw it as a vote against austerity that would not mean that it is. The SNP are committed to austerity and they will form the first Scottish government. Any idea that a Scottish labour party will be to the left of a british labour party is just wishful thinking
sandy
25. Scottish workers are deluded in the mass to view the SNP as more progressive than Labour, e.g. opposition to invasions of Iraq, opposition to nuclear weapons..
The SNP supported the Falkland’s war and the invasion of Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya etc. An SNP government will join NATO. They are very pro the scottish regiments of the British army. There is nothing anti imperialist about Salmond or the SNP
sandy
26. The SNP have no distinct progressive policies that put them at an advantage over Labour.
They are to the right of the labour party. They have no organic links to the trade unions and oppose the price freeze proposed by Miliband on the energy companies. They also oppose Labours plan to bring back the 50 p tax rate on high earners. And of course they plan to cut business taxes to make Scotland more competitive. They have brought in a national police force and are trying to remove the corroboration rule which provides safe guards for accused persons. They have gutted legal aid. They have frozen council tax which benefits the wealthy and they have cut local government spending savagely. Some progress
sandy
27. RIC meetings of over 1,000 are insignificant, as are the many large meetings being held across Scotland and the large numbers of socialists out canvassing for Yes in working class areas.
No mass working demonstrations for independence- no strikes for independence- no mass working class self activity for independence. Never. 80 students etc canvassing poor areas for votes for the YES campaign funded by Brian Souter et all is no breakthrough for socialist politics. Rather the opposite
sandy
28. Independence will produce a carnival of reaction north and south and national chauvinism which will suck in workers.
This is a possibility. The working class will be spectators in the negotiation process after any yes vote. Divorces are often messy and militant nationalism will raise it head if it gets the chance. I have heard of some radical nationalists raising the question of Scotland owning 22 stops on the London underground in any split. Sounds funny now but it could get nasty if the establishment on both sides dont keep a lid on it
sandy
29. Yes campaigners are deluded to think independence will allow anything to improve
Certainly for professional politicians who will now control their own state and have direct relationships with the EU UN NATO and the big international companies etc (and for certain professionals) things will improve. But for workers- no.
sandy
30. Campaigning for a ‘No’ vote in September is not unionist“ and does not align ‘No’ campaigners with other ‘No’ campaigners.
Unfortunately we dont a have socialist campaign for a no vote or an abstention. Galloway’s Just say Naw is the nearest we have to a working class campaign for a no vote to the question should scotland become an independent state. The socialist left opposed the invasion of Iraq. So did the BNP. Were they in bed together. Only an idiot or a knave would think so
sandy
One thing to note about RIC ( Radical independence campaign) is that they dont like debating with socialists who argue against Scottish independence on the basis of defending the unity of the working class in Britain. They are keen on debating Better Together types since they are easy targets and RIC can pose as rebels and radicals in such a debate. But they avoid debates with socialist critics of nationalism if they can. Possibly because their leading member spent 30 years plus opposing Scottish independence on a socialist basis and finds it difficult to explain their new found enthusiasm for Scottish “freedom”. They accepted a challenge to debate the matter issued by Left Unity Glasgow last summer and then did not send their speaker. No apologies were offered for there no show although some of their younger members did turn up to the meeting and took part in the discussion. I am told they are particularly hostile to George Galloway and his Just say Naw tour around scotland. Apparently RIC even campaigned against Galloway appearing on BBC’s Question time because of Galloways views on Scottish independence
sandy
Maybe I have been a bit hasty in arguing for a No vote. There are obvious advantages to a Yes vote for some of us.
see story below from Scottish Legal News
sandy
Lawyers predict fee ‘bonanza’ if Scotland votes for independence
Scottish independence will create an “explosion of activity” for the legal profession, a panel discussion at the Law Society of Scotland’s constitutional future conference heard.
Independence campaigners calculate that some 140 of the 230 UK Government agencies perform reserved functions, which would require to be returned north of the border in the event of a ‘yes’ vote in referendum on September 18.
Pro-independence solicitor advocate Brandon Malone said: “To my mind independence is all about opportunity and the opportunities for the legal profession are easy to see. It gives us the opportunity to truly internationalise the profession as our economy becomes internationalised.”
He dismissed the view that Scotland risks a corporate exodus and predicted that the country will attract more company headquarters and international government business when London is no longer perceived as the “gateway” to Scotland.
Independence would boost the market for legal services in three ways, he argued.
Mr Malone said: “First, there is the immediate need for legal services involving the creation of a new state, the increased demand for government office space as reserved government functions are returned to Scotland.
“Secondly there is the increased demand for legal services through foreign governments and international companies headquartering in Scotland dealing directly with Scotland and the Scottish Government instead of treating London as a gateway as many do at the moment.
“And finally there is the opportunity to create entirely new markets for legal services – markets that are currently only found in London because of its status as in international capital.
“I say it is not possible to overstate the benefit to the Scottish Legal profession and the wider economy of having a fully functioning nation state capital within the borders of our own jurisdiction. With the full return of powers to Scotland we will see an explosion of activity.”
He added: “By becoming a nation state we ensure the demand for professional services arising from our own economic activity is enjoyed by the Scottish professions for the benefit of its members and for the benefit of the businesses and wider community that support those professions – it becomes a virtuous circle.”
Mr Malone believes independence provides an opportunity for the creation of whole new markets, including international dispute resolution.
He said: “International arbitration is worth £250m to the London economy and we aren’t getting any of that. It’s unreasonable to expect the UK government to promote Scotland ahead of London. But work being done in London is being done at three times the cost (of Scotland).”
He argued that the Scottish Arbitration Centre, established in 2011 and of which he is chairman, cannot compete as a global competitor for international dispute resolution work while London remains Scotland’s “window to the world”.
Ian Smart, a past president of the Law Society who wants Scotland to vote ‘no’, pointed out that these will range from issuing driving licences, to regulating financial services, to establishing a new broadcasting sector.
“It will mean piles and piles of work for lawyers [in Scotland],” he said.
However, Mr Smart voiced fears that an independent Scotland risks reverting to a “parochial legal culture”.
He expressed concern there will not be enough business to justify a Scottish Supreme Court, and the “intellectual dilution” it might entail.
He pointed to the beneficial judgments for Scotland of the UK Supreme Court, notably Cadder in 2010.
Pro-union advocate Fred Mackintosh, of Terra Firma Chambers, also warned delegates what they had to lose.
“You can’t assume an independent Scotland will be a progressive, liberal nirvana,” he said, pointing to legal aid cuts, and police stop and search rates which are four times higher than in England.
He agreed that independence would mean a fee “bonanza” for lawyers in Scotland as contracts would have to be redrawn and renegotiated, but warned that clients would pay a hefty price in consequence.
Employment lawyer Carol Fox, a former trade union official who led a court bid last year to block the introduction of tribunal fees, believes independence could foster a more progressive way of working in the solicitors’ profession. She wants to see more law firms pursue the employee ownership model pioneered by her firm, Fox Solicitors.
“It is depressing to see merger after merger of corporate law firms. We need to address the ‘bigger is better’ argument,” she said.
Ms Fox also suggested that an overhaul of regulation could oblige law firms to meet progressive employment targets.
She said: “There should be a greater role for the Law Society, for example, intervening in a firm that has not appointed a female partner in a decade. A collective practising certificate could be granted on condition that [progressive employment policies] are in place.”
Crikey!
I hear once again the death knell of every socialist party since the dawn of time. Internal squabbling over an issue that the party cannot reasonably influence.
Why the perjorative word “squabbling”?
What on earth is wrong with having a debate on a particular issue to educate yourself, and possibly others, and clarify your ideas. I don’t understand the reluctance of some people who post here to discuss ideas and analysis.
I don’t think half a dozen people discussing Scottish independence in this thread is any evidence that LU has taken its eye off the ball somehow and is dealing in irrelevancies (and the issue is not irrelevant, by the way). Look at all the other stuff we are doing, if you just want practical stuff.
Well said, Ray G. I’ve just got back from a week’s cycling holiday in the southern Lakes and will reply to your post properly after the BH w/e and then get round to Joe’s and Sandy’s.
Debate is enlivening and essential. Of course, LU cannot influence much on this (or many other issues, as yet), but we do need to achieve some clarity on an issue that the mainstream media are prioritising, as we may well end up being quizzed publicly on this on TV or radio over the coming months. “Oh! We decided to let each member have their own opinion” would make a a new party seem unfocused and irrelevant to public debate. So long as LU remains a British party, we need to relate to an issue which has politicised a new generation in Scotland.
“Well said, Ray G. I’ve just got back from a week’s cycling holiday in the southern Lakes and will reply to your post properly after the BH w/e and then get round to Joe’s and Sandy’s. ”
John Tummon
Will be interested in seeing your reply.
In what way will an independent low tax neo liberal pro austerity Scotland aid the working class?
Answer is -it wont.
Indeed the whole process of separation is likely to stir up reactionary nationalism on both sides of the border. Already the project of a british wide socialist party is under threat. If the british working class exists, as it obviously does, why should a british wide socialist party be opposed as it now is by various left groups? The nationalist break up of the british working class can only weaken the working class and thus strengthen the bosses. We risk a carnival of reaction on both sides of the border
sandy
Sandy
The rest of what you have posted is far too spammy so I’ll stick to this post.
1 You ask “In what way will an independent low tax neo liberal pro austerity Scotland aid the working class?” Can you provide some back up for assuming that an independent Scotland would have the same policies as the curent Coaltiion? If not, its just a straw man you put up to knock down rhetorically yourself!
2 You continue “Indeed the whole process of separation is likely to stir up reactionary nationalism on both sides of the border”. Ditto – what is the logic and substantiation for this? WIthout it, it’s just an assertion.
3 And then “The nationalist break up of the british working class can only weaken the working class and thus strengthen the bosses”. I have just put up a detailed argument on this in my reply to Ray G,so can you please tell me why this argument of mine is wrong?
John – I am sorry but I think the points raised by Sandy – particularly the “30 points” post need to be answered, if not by you then by one of your pro-nationalist supporters in LU. Spread the workload!
Ray, first many thanks for suggesting back on 29 March that I kick off this debate and for responding, as you said you would. I think we both agree this issue is as important as it is difficult for LU and that an open debate is the way out of our current policy problem.
To each of your points, by number, then:
1. Scottish workers, I agree, have not received significantly harsher treatment in employment than others in the UK and yes Ireland, was subjected to an earlier, longer and far more coercive English imperialism, but imperialism is not defined or understood via a league table of suffering or by degree or rank order of exploitation or resistance, but by the relationship of overall dominance and what flows from that. The hegemon in every capitalist era has directed the role of subsidiary states and social forces within their overall imperialist project and the roles and trajectories of each of these, including Scotland, Ireland and India etc, have been constrained by that direction and by the other circumstances of each.
2. The conquest in question was no less than the conquest of capital itself – the English state liquidated the national Scottish debt incurred by the failed Darien scheme in return for the Act of Union, which was debated amidst popular riots against what much of the Scottish people saw as subjugation to the English, a sequence revolving around debt which has been familiar at the outset of a number of other colonial relationships. In the aftermath of Union came an attempted suppression of national rights: the Black Watch and the string of English forts in the Highlands, however, failed to control the rebellious clans and even though the right to wear the kilt was proscribed by the English conquerors, its writ only lasted whilst its troops were in a given glen and ended when they left it, so this attempt at discrimination failed, hence the ethnic cleansing of the Highlands in the Clearances, for reasons of social control as much as for economics. The Highland Scots were, by the 18th century, simply in a better position to resist English subjugation than the Irish; this does not, however, diminish the actuality of the imperialist relationship. The same pattern of incorporation is seen in, for instance, French treatment of the Berber tribal areas of Morocco and in other rebellious tribal regions of the colonised world where capitalism could not hope to make inroads into the local culture, traditions, geography or lifestyle – recruit the tribesmen into your armies and send them periodically against urban and other rebels & break up their chieftainship culture. The Afghan Mujahadeen was the latest group of tribesmen to be used in this way by imperialism. Scots and Irish regiments have been used in this way throughout the British Empire and it is no accident that the name given by Americans to the settlers who poured en mass into the Ohio Valley in the early 19th century was ‘the Scots-Irish’.
Because of the Clearances, the population of the Highlands halved between 1831 and 1931 and reduced over the same period from 8.5% of the total population of Scotland to 2.6%, but more interesting are the total emigration figures and what they revealed; they are both qualitatively and quantitatively different from anywhere else in the British Isles apart from Ireland. Emigration from Scotland was so heavy in the period 1871–1931 that it more than offset the increase in the population due to new births, but what changed was that between 1912 and the effective end of mass emigration in 1931, with the onset of protectionism, was that the skilled worker was the largest category of all those social groups who emigrated from Scotland: no fewer than 47% of adult male emigrants from Scotland described themselves as skilled, compared with 36% of those from England and Wales. Why was this the case if the Scottish working class existed on a par with industrialised regions of England? There is no need for ‘super-exploitation’ or any other checklist items in order to demonstrate an imperialist relationship.
In the period 1841–1931, around 749,000 Scots moved to other parts of the UK compared with over two million who emigrated abroad. It was during the economic depression of the inter-war years that there was a shift from emigration overseas to migration to other parts of the UK, mainly to England. By 1931, the number of Scots in England equalled those from Ireland. In short, the familiar argument that locates the Irish diaspora as a defining feature and consequence of the imperialised relation to England applies also to Scotland. Of the 60 million people who emigrated from Europe to North America over the nineteenth and early 20th century, the vast majority were from provincial or oppressed regions of states and empires, often defined by ethnic difference; all of them surplus to what European capitalism could use in its own industrialisation or else refugees from the onset of capitalist relations in agriculture (as well as the stagnation of pre-capitalist agriculture and its inability to compete with this capitalist agriculture). The millions of Scots among this human tide were very much of it and their emigration reflected the political decisions made by ruling groups in London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Rome and Istanbul about which peoples within their borders would receive the extra encouragement to provide the safety valve for their societies during capitalism’s painful transition. There were precious few emigration schemes aimed at their core metropolitan populations, but loads aimed at getting rid of the more disruptive and socially cohesive peoples regarded as more likely to pose a threat.
3. I am arguing for Scottish independence on both grounds – the right of self-determination and the post-independence prospects for the Left both sides of the border, but particularly north of it. Yes, parts of northern and midlands England with in-built Left of centre majorities will hopefully increasingly look towards an independent Scotland without vicious austerity, with better pensions, a free NHS and no tuition fees, plus whatever else a rejuvenating Left can win through struggle after September. People in England’s de-industrialised regions will, I argue, look north in an increasingly different and more favourable way than they look at a central London which is so very different in its economy, its wealth, its values and its ideology. In short, Scottish independence would act as an alternative pole of attraction, giving renewed momentum to the demands of provincial regions of England for autonomy. And once that autonomy is realised within the British state, yet found, like Blairite devolution, to be helpless in the face of neoliberal economic policies emanating from Westminster, the people of these provincial regions will likely become more open to other alternatives, perhaps including what we have to offer. But we won’t offer that if we are wedded to a simplistic, abstract anti-imperialism in which we foolishly equate large powerful capitalist states with the ideal conditions for international working class solidarity. The simple fact is that the stronger each G7 state is, the more able it is to gain, through its part in US-led imperialism, a surplus from the rest of the world, part of which can be made available, when necessary, to reward complicity among its own working class. Breaking up such states as the UKGBNI, US, Spain, etc, is an important way of moving history forward in the direction most likely to benefit what we want to build; their strategists have made plain on many occasions that they see self-determination and disruptions to the borders of established nation states as a geopolitical threat.
4. This is the nub of the matter, I think. Your view, or the way you have expressed it, seems to lean towards a League table approach to imperialism in which any significant complicity in the imperialist project can result in relegation from the ranks of the oppressed nations into those of the oppressor nations. This seems to be what leads you repeatedly to see the differences between Scotland and Ireland but not the more fundamental commonality. I disagree with this because I start from the concept of combined and uneven development, within which the imperialised world contains within it gradations of powerlessness and includes what some Marxist critics, such as Rajen Harshé, call ‘sub-imperialisms’ – nation states that play a role of facilitating the oppression not only of their own but of neighbouring peoples, with the support of the leading imperialist state/s, which use them in this way. States like India, the Shah’s Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Japan and Indonesia are usually cited as members of this group; their ruling and dominant classes are part of the imperialised world but share significantly in both the booty and control arising from it; they tend to be partly industrialised but without the capacity to play a dominating imperialist role in their own right. The failed Darien scheme and the takeover of Scotland and its debts by the emerging imperial hegemon of the era is a vivid illustration of why Scotland belongs within this group. The Edinburgh-centred Scottish bourgeoisie has long since used the British empire to set up its Hong Kong banking operations, just as South African diamond and gold traders, the House of Sa’ud, Japanese electronics and auto capitalists have managed to find their respective niches within the overall imperialist order.
I disagree strongly with your argument that it is Protestant Scottish prejudice and bigotry that drives unionism; this is equivalent to arguing that racism is best understood by looking at modern white working class culture. Cultural appearances are not the decisive thing to look at. The political impact and political nature of unionism can most clearly be seen in the 1912 Curragh Mutiny, orchestrated as much by unionists in the London-centred military hierarchy as by Tories embedded in Ulster or lowland Scots culture; this was an attempted military coup to frustrate self-determination. The ‘bigotry’ you refer to has grown among Protestant Scots from the circumstances of the planting of Ireland and the events of the 1680s, but its modern and more relevant story is one of its deployment, by the British ruling class and through the Lodge structure, to keep the working classes of both Ulster and Scotland divided.
5 The Scottish national struggle is very recent (as is the Palestinian one, actually, given that Zionism was working with British blessing since before the First World War). So are the Catalan and Basque struggles, for that matter, and the Irish struggle was at its height in the early 1970s, not the 1920s or 1790s. The rise of the SNP needs to be seen in the context of the 1965 fusion of the Conservative Party with the Unionist Party, which gave the Tories two decades of unprecedented political success in Scotland, during which unionism was diluted, including for reasons given in my original article. This came to an abrupt end because of Scotland’s particular experience of Thatcherism, which eroded Protestant Unionism along with the Conservatives, as the SNP became an untainted right wing alternative for both of these forces. The rise of New Labour in England is what hit Labour in Scotland and saw major defections to the SNP, resulting in the nationalists turning, in the ‘90s and ‘00s, to the left on many of their social policies. This is what has finally made them into a ‘rounded’ nationalist political force capable of uniting a majority of Scots.
The language you use to describe nationalist feeling in Scotland, Ray, is less than respectful and a large part of the problem of the English Left in dealing with Scotland. I think it comes from yours elf-evident certainty that Scots are just like the English, or maybe even worse, in oppressing the only true anti-imperialists – the Irish, so their peculiar anti-English feeling has to be some kind of perverse false consciousness. Because you do not accept the two-sided nature of Scotland’s experience of the British Empire and see the similarities between this and the experience of other imperialised peoples, you are at a loss to make real sense of Scottish national feeling. If you want to feel the difference between the kind of English nationalism UKIP is dipping into and Scottish nationalism, I suggest you go away with a group of England fans to a match in Europe and then with a group of Scotland fans to the same country. Having done both, I can tell the difference between, on the one hand, a pride and identity based on difference and gong out to the rest of the world on its terms and without arrogance and, on the other, one in which ‘No surrender to the IRA’, a general xenophobia and an expectation of dominance are the hallmarks. All nationalisms are not the same and they differ markedly, politically and culturally, depending on whether they arose in a nation that has been and remains a leading imperialist power and one that has not.
““Oh! We decided to let each member have their own opinion” would make a a new party seem unfocused and irrelevant to public debate.”
But what is more important right now and over the next six months? Growing a party that has the active involvement of the broadest church of the left or having a coherant position in the wider public sphere on every issue *straight away*? If possible the answer should be towards both, but in this particular case I’d have thought sacraficing a clear position on independance is a price worth paying if it helps the fundamentally necessary goal of building as inclusive as possible a coalition of socialist organisations around this party after the referendum – whichever way it goes.
You are right to say that working with the Scottish left in all its colours, and aiming to have them on board the LU project is going to be critical to our success. Surely, though, it will be socialist ideology – the things we genuinely have in common – that brings this about, not having to court the ‘yes’ camp.
These divisions are still going to be around after the referendum and LU will ultimately have to tackle it whichever way the poll goes – and by no means will it be the only divisive issue within the left which will have to be considered in the march towards unity. It’s going to be a long haul and I’d have thought the referendum result should be the starting point on this one.
James, we have coherent positions on almost everything else we have debated, so the issue is that Scotish Independence should be brought in line with these.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlh_2GH4eo8
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g67NzuiQAwE
Greg Philo puts a socialist anti-independence case here;
http://socialismfirst.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/socialism-and-nationalism/
John, I think you have missed my original point.
LU is but a few months old and the Scottish Referendum is in less than six months. The question is therefore what are the benefits of a brand new political party taking a side in a referendum campaign that is already fiercely under way, when that party is attempting to gain members and supporters who are realistically likely to belong to both the yes- and no camps?
John T
Well we have both had a lengthy say on our overall view so I will try now just to respond to some individual points.
a) You imply that the installation of capitalism in Scotland is an English plot, whereas there was, of course, an existing native Scottish bourgeoisie. They saw it as in their best interests, (OK – from a position weakened by huge debts) to unite with a bigger capitalism. There may have been riots but the Scottish Bourgeoisie did not support them, and suppressed them
b) The suppression of the Highlands in the 1800s is about not England versus Scotland, it is part of a pan-British battle between a largely Protestant rising bourgeoisie in the cities of England AND Scotland, and in the lowlands of Scotland in general, looking to establish its own political control, against a Jacobite rebellion (Bonnie Prince Charlie and all that) ie a mainly Catholic, monarchical movement with widespread support in the Highlands, among other places in different parts of Britain, seeking to re-establish an autocratic monarchy in Britain AS A WHOLE. Later the Celtic, Gaelic, traditions of the Highlands were co-opted by the Anglo-Saxon, Scots English speaking lowlanders like SIR Walter Scott as part of a colourful national myth.
c) The highland clearances which followed later were carried out by Scottish noble landowners, in order to achieve more productivity from “their” land, (and as a useful side-affect, to force the crofters to the big cities in Lowland Scotland and in England to fuel the industrial revolution and to boost capitalism). This process was broadly in line with the enclosures process in early-capitalist England when common land was enclosed and peasants were forced off their land and into the new cities of Manchester and Birmingham. You refer in passing to emigrants from “provincial” areas being forced to emigrate, and thus should accept that emigration is not, as such, a national question.
d) Regarding Unionism, I think we need to clarify that the political movement known as “Unionism” only has real relevance in relation to the Irish Question in the late 1900s, and the “threat” of Irish Home Rule and the struggle of the Irish Nationalists. It was a split from the old Liberal Party which joined up with the Tories over the issue, and used the anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain to get more votes for the “Conservative and Unionist Party” There was no need for a “unionism” with regard to the issue of whether Scotland became independent because there simply was no movement of any size calling for any such independence. To call those who are against Scottish independence today “unionists” is, at to say the least, rather misleading. The Labour Party, historically and for all its faults and betrayals, always opposed unionism, and identified much more with the green, catholic republican tradition. The Unionist message was strong not just in Scotland but in Liverpool, for example, with sectarian football teams and a similar tradition of returning Tory MPs. Even in Newcastle in the 1970s I was surprised as a student to find that the Labour party rosettes were green and the Tories’ were orange. So playing the unionist card is also not a question relevant only to Scotland and therefore not a defining feature of an imperialised nation. Incidentally, I absolutely DO NOT identify unionism or its causes,with working class culture, just as I do not see racism as a particularly working class problem. I find that idea quite shocking. Unionism and Protestant bigotry was a ruling class ideology which fed upon people’s fears and insecurities.
e) By the way, the resistance of the Palestinian people started at the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in 1918-19 and the British mandate and Zionist landgrabs were resisted from the beginning, peaking in the full-scale Arab Revolt of 1936, bloodily suppressed by the British Army and British-led and trained Jewish Zionist irregular forces. Your analogy with Scottish nationalism is therefore crudely misplaced.
f) As I see it John, you tend towards nationalism and this leaks out in various phrases you use. Why am I a representative of the “English” Left? A large amount of the English left support the independence project, just as sections of the Scottish Left oppose it. Why does it have to be linked to the nationality of the speaker/writer? Interestingly, my opinion was pro-independence until recently, when I began to think more systematically about the issue, and I have no desire to impose unity on Scottish people against their wishes. You express the wish that sections of the North see their interests as different from “London” – not the capitalists, or the ruling class, mind you, but the city and its,”its wealth, its values and its ideology.” Is this the same city with levels of poverty and poor housing as bad or worse than any other city in Britain, the multi-racial, cosmopolitan city I live in? The grossly unequal city that often returns a majority of Labour MPs including in some extremely safe seats? Of course, no rich people live in Scotland or the North do they? When can we draw a line under this divisiveness? Do we want socialism in one province/region/city?
g) I somehow knew it would come down to football in the end! But as you raise this entirely peripheral and trivial issue, I feel it only just to point out that “No surrender to the IRA” may have been sung once or twice at Scottish football grounds. English fascists have strong links with Rangers, as everyone knows. I have never travelled away with Scottish fans. I have, however, had the pleasure of being in central London when Scotland play at Wembley and I don’t remember those Scottish fans being quite so polite and well-behaved. I saw a lot of straight out anti-English bigotry and prejudice. I have also seen more and more of this sort of stuff on blogs attacking any Scot who happens not to support independence, together with allegations of treason. As Sandy says above, we can expect more of this in the event of a “yes” vote and also, sadly even in the event of a “No” vote as the divisive poison has already been consumed.
Our job as Left Unity is to work for maximum unity between workers in Scotland and England and Wales (and yes, even workers in London!!) regardless of the result of this referendum, and to try to heal these damaging divisions
Sorry – for 1800s read 1700s and for 1900s read 1800s.
Ray, my response to your points is:
a) Yes, of course there was a Scottish bourgeoisie, but so what? Finance capital had just begun in earnest, with the creation of the Bank of England, when a consortium of 40 London and Edinburgh merchants, already creditors to the Crown, offered William III a £1.2m loan to finance his war against France, in return for allowing them to form a corporation with a monopoly on issuing banknotes – notes for the money the King now owed them. This was a joint enterprise, but the failure of Darien nevertheless ushered in a hostile takeover from London, as is often the case between companies today, is it not? I have not argued that the riots represented a coherent, let alone a cross-class national resistance – they were a class response. I go back to my earlier point that imperialism works through the partnership between metropolitan and local power – a point that your observation does not take away from. To repeat, the hegemon in every capitalist era has directed the role of subsidiary states and social forces within their overall imperialist project and the roles and trajectories of each of these, including Scotland, Ireland and India etc, have been constrained by that direction and by the other circumstances of each. Darien was the opportunity to treat Scotland as just such a subsidiary state within emerging English imperialism and to lock it tightly into a supportive role. Tell me one example of imperialist domination in which a comprador class has not welcomed / invited the imperialist in? The existence of a native bourgeoisie is unremarkable, analytically.
b) The fact that the Jacobite cause was opposed in Scotland too does not take away from the attempt to suppress the Highlanders as a people, which was a political act directed from London. The Jacobite cause became a symbol of resistance against this attempted and largely ineffective suppression, even though that cause had other motives.
c) You ascribe purely economic motives to the Clearances and ignore my point that they were also regarded as necessary for reasons of political control, as the Black Watch garrisons had failed to pacify the Clans. The bulk of British emigration over 150 years came from Scotland and Ireland, not from provincial England, so please don’t misuse my point about provincial migration. Emigration had a pull for every emigrant, but some were pushed whereas others were not and the common factor across Europe was as I have described it – ethnic minorities identified as a threat were encouraged to leave, 2 million Scots among them.
d) You cannot convincingly talk yourself around the reality that unionism stands today as the major ‘No’ force within the Scottish working class, functioning as it always has – as a means of divide and rule. Whatever regional pockets of the Labour Party may have had to say on this issue, New Labour offered sub prime autonomy in the form of devolution because it had become a unionist party and its role in the ‘Better Together’ campaign confirms this.
e) Don’t confuse the self-interested manoevres of powerful Arab families like the Faizals with popular protest! There was no significant popular Palestinian resistance to the Mandate until the riots of 1929 – the Hebron pogrom – and not in the sense we probably both mean by anti-imperialist resistance until 1936-9. The point is that this was followed by a 30+ year period in which surrounding Arab states, rather than the Palestinian people, were the dominant anti-Zionist players. My analogy stands; in each of the cases I have itemised, active and widespread resistance came later rather than immediately or even soon after conquest; this is, in fact, the normal pattern across the history of imperialism. Scotland is not an exception to this pattern, but typical of it. The movement for Scottish self-determination has come of age in the neoliberal era of capitalism because of 3 crises – the crises of political representation (including the political use of North Sea oil revenues, the decline of the Tories and Labour), the crisis of 2007-8 and the austerity policies arising from it and the imperialist way in which the Scottish working class was used over the Poll tax. Each of these gives it its potential for expressing the consciousness of the working class as a class.
f) Ray, come off it! My objection was to the language you used to describe Scottish nationalism, which I ascribed to your “certainty that Scots are just like the English, or maybe even worse, in oppressing the only true anti-imperialists – the Irish, so their peculiar anti-English feeling has to be some kind of perverse false consciousness”. The specific problem of the English left in relation to seeing its own ruling class’s imperialism when it is so close to home goes back to Marx’s arguments with Bakunin about the need to structure the First International so as to be able to take this on. Marx was not a nationalist or an anti-English nationalist for acknowledging this problem and neither am I. Neither am I anti – the people of London or dismissive of the poverty of the London working class; I think you know full well that I specified ‘central London’ and not the whole city because I was contrasting the political economy of the north and midlands with that of the City of London. Please don’t distort my words in this way.
g) I raise this issue of Football culture simply because you don’t seem to grasp that the nationalism of the imperialised and the imperialist vary so dramatically and this illustrates it well. ‘May have been sung once or twice’ is a weak response, isn’t it? I have dealt with the Rangers phenomenon; it is a central pillar of unionism, including in this current campaign. In all my years working with the Football Supporters Federation, including at the 1990 Finals in Italy, I have heard ‘No surrender to the IRA’ consistently; it is a central symbol of what supporting England is all about in the minds of England fans. Scotland last played in London in 1996, Ray, and before that we are going back more than a decade, so your personal reminiscences are of a time before Scottish nationalism came of age. I ay again – you can taste the difference!
Finally, as Allan Armstrong has written in the new thread on this (see above), “Scotland is currently awash with political debate. There is a direct correlation between class and voting intentions. The more wealthy and privileged you are, the more likely you are to support the unionist status quo; the more exploited and oppressed, the more you support independence”. If you have changed your mind from supporting the independent campaigning organisations like Women for Independence, Asians for Independence and Africans for an Independent Scotland, let alone all the left groups and individuals now working together in the Radical Independence movement, then you are arguing against the progressive politics of national self-determination, which is sad.
Hi John – I think we have gone almost as far along the theoretical/historical road as we can and have probably lost any (if any?) audience we have on this site, although I think talking through the whole issue is very beneficial, and should have been done before the last LU conference
For the record – I believe the Yes campaign will win. Labour bear the vast bulk of the guilt regarding this “nationalist” upsurge. Their capitulation to neo-liberalism allowed the SNP to pose as a populist protest party, laced with bits of “progressive” social democracy they needed to eat into Labour’s heartlands.
I must confess that I laughed myself sick when the SNP laid waste to Labour’s comfortable, complacent central-belt safe seats, and I thought it served them right. Salmond is a formidable politician, and Labour have no-one of any charisma who can land a blow on him. As I said above, I even flirted with the idea of independence, but when I saw the tenor of the debate I realised the damage to class unity in Britain that a full split would provoke. I think Sandy is right in his estimation of that.
Moreover, Labour’s jumping into bed in the most bankrupt, hopeless, British nationalist fashion with the Tories and Liberals has managed to turn Scotland’s long-standing, historical rejection of nationalism into a into a majority for “yes”. It is the crassest and most cringe-making performance I have ever witnessed. It is possible that Scottish (new) Labour will never recover from this debacle.
I can understand why the bulk of the Scottish far left have jumped on the independence band-wagon, even those who not so long ago had a much more pricipled position. It stems from the defeat of the ideas of the left over the last 30-odd years and it must be wonderful to be campaigning for something and have a good chance of being on the winning side for a change. It would be churlish not to admit that the left has been galvanised by the independence campaign, especially coming after the fiasco of the SSP splits.
Whether we will see the Scottish socialist republic that the nationalist left recklessly suggest will flow from a “yes” vote is a very different matter. I think the sense of disappointment and betrayal among those led down this road will be crushing, once they see what the real independent Scotland will look like and compare it to the ringing declarations at rallies. As I have said before, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, Left Unity’s task (if we survive) will be to try to pick up the pieces, unite as many as possible and carry on the fight against capitalism, whichever flag it chooses to drape itself in.
Interestingly, from the sites you have sent me to, it seems that a large part, if not most, of the lefts in RIC do not have your rather extreme viewpoint regarding Scotland’s “national oppression”, which many of them dismiss as I do, and argue the case on merely ‘tactical’ grounds, for want of another phrase, from the interests of the left.
PS – I cannot address your remarks about Palestine here, that is another debate, and with respect to you as a good comrade, I find discussing Palestine in the same breath as Scottish Nationalism to be rather tasteless.
PPS – The “English Left” has pretty much thrown its lot in with Scottish Nationalism, along with the “Nationalist Left”, while some Scottish socialists are against independence, along with about half the entire Scottish population. That is why your phrase “the English Left” betrays your nationalist instincts and it not a useful distinction to make.
My reference to “no surrender being sung “once or twice” was ironic, sorry. It is of course a routine occurrence. Scotland played England at Wembley in November 1999 and most recently in August 2013.
Ray G, thanks for this and I agree that there is not much more to be said from a historical point of view. I don’t understand why comparing / contrasting two examples of foreign domination like Palestine & Scotland is ‘tasteless’. Analysis is analysis, not ethics and I find moralism in any debate a disgraceful and reactionary censor. It has no part in LU, for me, because there are no heroes or villains in history, just social actors, but it seems you take a different view, privileging some peoples such as the Irish and Palestinians – a League Table view coupled with something a bit too close to essentialism!
If you still believe the argument that independence will damage solidarity between workers and / or socialists, I must refer you to Allan Armstrong’s piece on the newere thread on this topic, which spends a lot of time critically unravelling this.
Your side of the argument seems not to grasp is that ripping up the past and starting over, which has to involve new institutions being created and familiar ones dumped, is always a pivotal historical moment that raises expectations and puts people in touch with the question of what sort of society they want in ways that nothing else does. Peoples’ sense of their own citizenship is massively enhanced. Given that part of our problem today is the mass demoralisation and disillusionment in politics as a whole in modern Britain and its deadening effects on peoples’ ability to even consider alternatives to the status quo, I really would have thought you would have seen what a good chance independence gives the Left – not for some instant improvement, but the possibility of conducting political work against a completely different and much more volatile and politicised context.
I don’t think there is any evidence for your contention that the RIC believes independence will automatically bring a socialist republic; they just believe their prospects will be improved by it and this is based on their revival in the current hyper-politicised pre-independence phase.
But no – you and Sandy both appear to believe that history is already written. You simply look at the SNP and its politics and extrapolate from that to what independence will be like.
History has never been like that. If it were, the Bolshevik programme would have straghtforwardly led to socialism in Russia, the American Declaration of Independence would have brought forward a real locally-based democracy, Cuba would have just become nominally independent and Allende would have succeeded in building a socialist Chile.
Breaking the mould is incredibly risky for capitalism’s political control and always has been. Continuity, by contrast is a deadening, depoliticisng process.
This seems to be what really divides us on this issue – without wishing to insult you, I think you are struggling with a failure of political imagination.
Ray G
Here are my responses to Sandy’s 30 points which you suggested I make. I have inserted mine under each numbered point, with both the original and Sandy’s comments retained, so that each of the 3 views on each point can be read together:
Sandy’s introduction – In Glasgow left unity we recently had a long discussion on the Scottish independence question. A Supporter of the YES side put forward 30 questions which he said he had extracted from the No side in the discussion and requested a response. I did not think that the 30 questions were an accurate summary of what the No side in GLU were saying but did provide a response which i now post below in order to inform discussion. The numbered questions are followed by my answers
sandy
Below are 30 claims put forward by supporters of ‘No’ in recent mail exchanges on Scottish independence. I believe all of them are wrong and some of them are blazingly wrong. I’d appreciate anyone on this list indicating their attitude to any or all of the points below. Knowing exactly where we are misunderstanding each other will help us to move forward.
Glasgow left unity member for a no vote
1. Socialists should not get involved in the independence campaign because the SNP is nationalist and is the strongest component of the independence campaign.
Even if the campaign was led by those who called themselves socialists i would arguing against supporting a campaign for an independent capitalist Scotland. However the campaign that exists is obviously led by the SNP government and is pro capitalist and nationalist and seeks to divide the british working class
sandy
John T1 As Allan Armstrong has argued, it was the implosion of the SSP that gave the SNP the chance to lead the ‘Yes’ campaign. The debate, though, has caught fire to such an extent that it is politicising Scots on an unprecedented scale and to miss a chance as good as this to put the case for radical independence and to win credibility for left politics by joining in the RIC’s registration work in disempowered working class districts is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The chances of challenging the SNP’s capitalist version of independence depend on building on this momentum right now, not standing to one side like some kind of postmodernist who doesn’t like dabbling in anything impure. There are conflicts in every struggle the left has ever fought but now is the time to break out of the ghetto.
2. There is no significant difference between the reactionaries of Better Together and the mix of nationalists and internationalists in the Yes campaign.
Yes there is but they are both campaigns that offer nothing positive to the working class. Neither deserves any support
sandy
John T 2 What the RIC offers to the working class is boldly stated on their website.
3. The non-SNP elements in the Yes campaign are insignificant, negligible
True- the SNP and the Scottish government effectively control the YES campaign and decide who sits on the YES “board of control”. The “independents” are selected by the SNP and are in position due to the grace of the SNP
sandy
John T 3 You make your own ‘Yes’ campaign, as the RIC is doing and build your own constituency of support independently of the SNP.
4. There is no incentive for the working class and left to vote Yes
No- plenty of promises are being made but what else would you expect from professional bourgeois politicians
sandy
John T4 The working class never got anything handed to us for free by bourgeois politicians. What do you expect from them? That is why we need independent struggle against them, which is what the RIC is about.
5. The Scottish and Condem governments are much the same.
Who would say such a daft thing- it is like saying that there is no difference between the liberals and the Tories or indeed between them and the labour party. The SNP and the condem government are not the same but they all support austerity and capitalism and both are anti working class. That should be clear to us all
sandy
John T 5 The SNP are austerity- lite but what they want is much the same as the mainstream unionist parties – the Monarchy, Pound, EU and NATO. That’s not the issue; the issue is whether independence gives a better chance of getting out of this hell hole of austerity and inequality under free market capitalism.
6. We should tell Scottish workers not to go for independence on September 18th but to maintain the present outlines of the UK State.
I dont support the outlines of the UK state. I am for a united Ireland. However workers in scotland should not support an independent capitalist Scotland as it is not a step forward. We should be fighting for the political independence of the working class from the forces of Capital- that means giving no support to the YES or better together campaigns and arguing for unity of the british working class in the fight against the british capitalist class and its state
sandy
John T 6 You are still confusing borders with division and a large, powerful state with internationalism. The working class is not united now. In what way could independence make this worse? We have the internet, free movement of labour and a common language!
7. We should campaign until September 18th against the Yes camp under the slogan of “A Workers government not a Scottish government”.
Now this is getting silly- I am for the disbanding of the British army and for a workers militia but I am not going to be campaigning among the populace for this in the present period and it is certainly not going to be a slogan I put forward on this Mayday demonstration!
sandy
John T 7 Yes, it is silly.
8. There is a currently existing, real political unity of the UK working class that we must defend.
No wrong again – the british working class exists but not the UK working class. The british ruling class has intervened to divide abstract labour in the north of Ireland by giving privileges to protestant workers. This has created a material divide. This has not occurred in Scotland England and Wales where the working class has been historically united and has created british wide forms of organisation through its own struggles. In Britain the working class is united politically in that it is has not been divided by nationality. There is no specific national oppression of Scots workers or English workers or Welsh workers. We dont have to fight to overcome national oppression to unite the working class since it is already united
sandy
John T 8 Unionism ensured that Catholics had only a token presence in many Scottish workplaces before the ‘60s brought a lot of foreign firms to Scotland, so there is a history of this. There are no examples of active working class unity currently and haven’t been on any scale since the miners’ strike in 1984/5. All-Britain trade unions will continue after independence and this needs to be fought for because there are plenty of TU leaders who prefer to have their own power base.
9. The maintenance of the bourgeois state structures of the UK will enhance working class solidarity by defending the “political existence of the working class”.
We want the working class to overthrow the “bourgeois state structures of the UK” not defend them. The fact that socialists in Texas dont support Texan independence does not mean we defend the existing bourgeois state structures of the USA. Same in Sardinia, Sicily, Flanders, Corsica etc. What about socialists refusing to support the independence of Cornwall? Is that defending the “bourgeois state structures” of the UK. What utter rubbish
sandy
John T 9 The bourgeois state works to prevent working class politics. The stronger that state/s. the harder organising the working class is. Independence will weaken the bourgeois state, which is one reason why it is progressive.
10. The existing UK working class unity will be damaged or destroyed by Scottish independence.
Again it is british and not UK working class. Did the break up of Yugoslavia damaged the political unity of the Yugoslavian working class. You tell me. Dont you think that nationalists on both sides of the scottish/ English border will blame the other side during the negotiations on the terms of scottish independence. It is already happening. And the fact that many socialists in Scotland are refusing to build British wide socialist parties is a sign that the break up is already happening. That is a big change from the last 100 years or more. If the vote is yes that process will obviously accelerate. As we should know the highest form of working class unity is unity within a socialist party which is fighting for the working class to take power
sandy
John T 10 The break-up of Yugoslavia involved a decade of war and is therefore very different but the Bosnian spring has started to re-unify workers. There is no reason why an English LU and a Scottish radical left party cannot have very close ties. The Bosnian left is stronger within a small state than it would have been in a larger entity.
11. The bloody, genocidal history of the modern UK State is not a significant reason to break it up it politically.
The bloody genocidal history of the USA or Belgium or Italy etc is not a reason to support Flemish or Texan or Sardinian independence. Or is it? The growth of nationalist fragmentation in Europe and beyond is not a positive sign. We should not encourage it but rather call for workers of all countries to unite in the political struggle against the forces of capital
sandy
John T 11 Fragmentation of bourgeois states is not the same as fragmentation of the working class, particularly in the neoliberal era with its huge migrant and capital flows.
12. Supporting independence means abandoning workers in the rest of Britain in a common struggle against austerity.
Already sections of the Tories are arguing that if there is a yes vote Scottish MPs elected in 2015 should not be allowed to sit in Westminster. Not too good for workers in England that. In effect by supporting Scottish independence we are giving up on the common struggle of the British working class against british capital and for a workers government in britain
sandy
John T 12 A British workers’ government indeed! How close to that are we? Independence for Scotland would break up the party system in England like nothing else – Labour, without Scottish Labour MPs, would have to re-invent itself or die.
13. The SNP is “thatcherite”
The SNP are neo liberal and support austerity. did you read the Mike Russel Scotsman article I posted. http://www.scotsman.com/news/grasp-the-thistle-why-tartan-taxes-should-be-cut-1-739329
His book grasping the thistle was toned down by salmond before it was published. Undoubtedly because it was too blatant and gave the game away. The job of a socialist party is not to back up the illusions some workers have in the false promises of the establishment.
Sandy
John T 13 The RIC message is to counter these illusions and point to the need for self-organisation of the working class; this it is doing.
14 The SNP persuaded many working class voters to defect from Scottish Labour by continuing the thatcherite fight against the working class.
I think it was New labour who persuaded many working class voters to defect to the nationalists. In periods of defeat for the working class nationalism grows. Look at the growth of UKIP down south and the FN in france
sandy
John T 14 I agree with you there, Sandy
15. The class polarisation in the independence referendum is not significant.
The polls show that the majority of the W.C in Scotland oppose Scottish independence. A section of the Scottish establishment support independence as do a section of the scottish bosses. More men support independence than women.
sandy
John T 15 The latest poll shows strong working class support for independence in the areas RIC has been doing its local voter registration work = parts of the working class who don’t normally vote.
16. The parts of Scotland that previously voted Labour were a “socialist heartland”
The labour movement used to very strong in Glasgow and the central belt. The socialist movement was very strong if you compare it with what we have now. The nationalists had to undermine class consciousness in the central belt in order to gain a foothold. The growth of the SNP is the product of the defeat of the working class and its socialist traditions
sandy
John T 16 New Labour + old corrupt Labour is what undermined the Scottish socialist heartland.
17. Socialists can never align themselves as internationalists in a common fight with nationalists.
Socialists would join with nationalists in a common struggle against national oppression (since national oppression divides the working class) while always keeping their politics separate and opposed to nationalism. Scotland is not an oppressed nation so there is no national struggle for freedom to pursue
sandy
John T 17 You are right that anti-imperialist struggle typically involves both forces. Where do the 40% + of Scots who feel the need for self-determination get this feeling from, then?
18. All those who support Scottish independence are nationalists
The majority are nationalists but not all. Some socialists see an independent capitalist scotland as the way forward for workers. In that I think they are deluded and are being used as dupes by the sector of the Scottish establishment which favours independence. Left wing support for independence arises from despair at the possibility of the british working class advancing. It is a product of defeat which tends to deepen that defeat by promoting the growth of nationalism and thus undermining class consciousness.
sandy
John T 18 Where on its website does the RIC declare for an independent capitalist Scotland? You seem to see nationalism, in the form of self-determination, as the polar opposite of working class strength – what is your basis for this assumption? Sarah Collins, a RIC activist based in Glasgow and Chair of the STUC Youth Committee said, ‘it is encouraging that the arguments for Yes are gaining traction at this year’s STUC conference”; that doesn’t sound like despair.
19. Supporters of independence are placing their hopes in the SNP delivering reforms to Scottish workers.
Why else would Scottish workers consider voting for independence if not to deliver pro working class reforms- to make things worse!- I dont think so. They are certainly not voting for independence to weaken british imperialism or any such outlandish claim. Those who are considering voting for independence are doing so because they believe that the SNP will make things better for them. Why else?
sandy
John T 19 No, but because it has dawned on them that a weaker, more accessible enemy is easier to fight than a stronger one in far away London.
20. If you support Scottish independence then you must support all other independence struggles, e.g. Corsica, Catalonia, etc.
No- but you must explain if the reason you support independence is that you want to break up British imperialism why you dont support national struggles that would break up French imperialism or Belgian imperialism or Italian or Spanish or the USA or even the break up of the EU itself
sandy
John T 20 Break them all up! Weaker states mean weaker capitalism.
21. The policies of the SSP and every Scottish socialist formation are “objectively anti-working class”.
Only LU do not deserve the epithet “anti-working class”.
The SSP are not anti working class but they have an anti working class position on Scottish independence. Same with the SP Scotland and the ISG and RIC.
sandy
John T 21 See my answer to point 11.
22 It is not important whether Scottish independence after September 18th would provoke a crisis in the ConDem government, weakening it greatly.
It is important but if there is a yes vote we will have at least 18 months of a bun fight between the Scottish establishment and the Westminster establishment over the terms of the separation. This is likely to stir up national antagonism on both sides of the border. Socialist politics do not thrive in an atmosphere of national dispute. Nationalist politics do. National chauvinism could grow on both sides of the border. However the capitalist elite may manage to keep a lid on the rhetoric of the populists in the interests of economic stability. The tories will be strengthened at westminster by the lack of labour MPs from scotland.(Remember scottish labour votes stopped the war with Syria last year) Cameron could face a challenge from the right if britain loses scotland. UKIP could grow even more. If UK(R) moves to the right Scotland will move to the right. The working class will be weaker on both sides of the border
sandy
John T 22 No – Project Fear will be wound down, as it is there to influence the vote. Capitalism’s wider strategic interests will win the day & Washington will make sure that happens. Declarations of continuing relationship will be plentiful. See my answer to point 12 on the effect on Labour.
23. A vote for Yes on September 18th will not be a vote against austerity.
No- the SNP have been implementing austerity and its proposals for a currency union where monetary and fiscal policy in Scotland is controlled by the bank of England shows that austerity will continue and deepen. The bank of England would veto any move away from austerity
sandy
John T 23 RIC is making fighting austerity the issue. Unless this fight is strengthened now, the right of the SNP will have its way.
24. A vote for Yes on September 18th will not be seen by millions as a vote against austerity.
Even if “millions” saw it as a vote against austerity that would not mean that it is. The SNP are committed to austerity and they will form the first Scottish government. Any idea that a Scottish labour party will be to the left of a british labour party is just wishful thinking
Sandy
John T 24 Scottish Labour will be discredited if independence is won and the chance will be thre to combine left of centre forces in a new party.
25. Scottish workers are deluded in the mass to view the SNP as more progressive than Labour, e.g. opposition to invasions of Iraq, opposition to nuclear weapons..
The SNP supported the Falkland’s war and the invasion of Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya etc. An SNP government will join NATO. They are very pro the scottish regiments of the British army. There is nothing anti imperialist about Salmond or the SNP
sandy
John T 25 Of course, but the SNP is able to do so for lack of a left opposition. Scottish Labour is New Labour so it cannot be an opposition, now or in the future.
26. The SNP have no distinct progressive policies that put them at an advantage over Labour.
They are to the right of the labour party. They have no organic links to the trade unions and oppose the price freeze proposed by Miliband on the energy companies. They also oppose Labours plan to bring back the 50 p tax rate on high earners. And of course they plan to cut business taxes to make Scotland more competitive. They have brought in a national police force and are trying to remove the corroboration rule which provides safe guards for accused persons. They have gutted legal aid. They have frozen council tax which benefits the wealthy and they have cut local government spending savagely. Some progress
sandy
John T 26 The SNP has grown during a long period of defeat for the left and for the workers and of accommodation by Labour, so what do you expect? The point is what are the prospects for change in the balance of forces and how will independence effect that.
27. RIC meetings of over 1,000 are insignificant, as are the many large meetings being held across Scotland and the large numbers of socialists out canvassing for Yes in working class areas.
No mass working demonstrations for independence- no strikes for independence- no mass working class self activity for independence. Never. 80 students etc canvassing poor areas for votes for the YES campaign funded by Brian Souter et all is no breakthrough for socialist politics. Rather the opposite
sandy
John T 27 Multiply 1,100 by 10 to get the English equivalent, by population and it’s a conference of 11,000! Insignificant, eh?
28. Independence will produce a carnival of reaction north and south and national chauvinism which will suck in workers.
This is a possibility. The working class will be spectators in the negotiation process after any yes vote. Divorces are often messy and militant nationalism will raise it head if it gets the chance. I have heard of some radical nationalists raising the question of Scotland owning 22 stops on the London underground in any split. Sounds funny now but it could get nasty if the establishment on both sides dont keep a lid on it
sandy
John T 28 The working class are meant to be spectators in any bourgeois political process; the point is to fight against this being the case and building the radical case for independence right now is the best way of fighting from a better position than would otherwise be the case.
29. Yes campaigners are deluded to think independence will allow anything to improve
Certainly for professional politicians who will now control their own state and have direct relationships with the EU UN NATO and the big international companies etc (and for certain professionals) things will improve. But for workers- no.
sandy
John T 29 The future is there to be made. New starts encourage people to think like this and act like this.
30. Campaigning for a ‘No’ vote in September is not unionist“ and does not align ‘No’ campaigners with other ‘No’ campaigners.
Unfortunately we dont a have socialist campaign for a no vote or an abstention. Galloway’s Just say Naw is the nearest we have to a working class campaign for a no vote to the question should scotland become an independent state. The socialist left opposed the invasion of Iraq. So did the BNP. Were they in bed together. Only an idiot or a knave would think so
John T 30 Good luck with Galloway. There are good reasons why there is no socialist campaign for ‘No’, the main one being not many people in the Scottish working class agree with you, Sandy!
John T 30 Good luck with Galloway. There are good reasons why there is no socialist campaign for ‘No’, the main one being not many people in the Scottish working class agree with you, Sandy!
No- the majority of the working class are opposed to Scottish independence. The Yes side and Better together are both funded by big business. Unfortunately socialists who argue for the unity of the working class of Britain have no substantial funds to back a socialist campaign for a No vote
sandy
And your evidence that the majority of the Scottish working class is opposed to inependence is?
The polls show the No vote leading.At least 80% of the Scottish population are working class. Until recently the yes vote was around 35% It is now around 42% The only trade union to support Scottish independence is the prison officers association. Quite apt really. The SNP and their leftist hangers on are attempting to build a new national prison for the working class and thus they “big up” scottish nationalism and claim that Scottish independence will be a “new beginning for workers.
Are you still claiming that scotland is an oppressed nation? You state that you wish to see the nationalist break up of all big states because small states are weaker. So you want to see the nationalist break up of France , Belgium, Spain , Italy , USA etc. I must say that from a socialist perspective your position is outlandish and light minded. Small states are certainly weaker if they are trying to confront international capital since they can easily be brought to heal. The nationalist break up of large states would not be a step forward for socialism but a sign that the working class had been marginalized and defeated.
Do you really think there would be demand for Scottish independence if there was not oil of the coast of scotland?
As to the RIC it’s conferences dont decide policy and the attendees dont vote on any matters. Are there leadership elections? It seems that they are just rallies where the great and the good treat the audience to hot air about the wonders of independence.
Ray
You say
“PPS – The “English Left” has pretty much thrown its lot in with Scottish Nationalism, along with the “Nationalist Left”, while some Scottish socialists are against independence, along with about half the entire Scottish population. That is why your phrase “the English Left” betrays your nationalist instincts and it not a useful distinction to make”.
I have asked Sandy, without reply, and now I ask you, in the hope of one, to itemise the parts of the Scottish Left (and please don’t tell me the Labour Party is Left) against independence, apart from 2 members of Glasgow LU AND their strength vis-a-vis the RIC.
I have anti-imperialist instincts, not nationalist ones. Would arguing that Greenland has been oppressed by Denmark make me a Greenland nationalist? Marx sussed the English Left’s problem with seeing imperialism when it was close to home – was he an Irish nationalist as a consequence?
You then continue:
“My reference to “no surrender being sung “once or twice” was ironic, sorry. It is of course a routine occurrence. Scotland played England at Wembley in November 1999 and most recently in August 2013”.
OK – I had forgotten last year’s meaningless skirmish. My apologies. Which matches are you referring to, though, as the time Scots fans were outrageously anti-English and was this to an extent at all beyond how England fans behave to ANY foreign country playing them? I’ve said that Scottish fans behaviour has changed since the independence issue gained traction. Is this not the case?
The incident was around the 2013 match, though as I said – i do not consider football to be a central issue, it was just an aside after you raised it.
“I have asked Sandy, without reply, and now I ask you, in the hope of one, to itemise the parts of the Scottish Left (and please don’t tell me the Labour Party is Left) against independence, apart from 2 members of Glasgow LU AND their strength vis-a-vis the RIC.”
John T
Sorry did not see that you had asked me this
I believe that those left groups opposed to scottish independence include- The campaign for socialism. the communist party of Britain, socialist appeal, workers Liberty, red paper collective, socialist equality party, Just say Naw fronted by galloway which has held large meeting throughout scotland- 500 in Glasgow. And who told you that only two LU members supported the workers unity position against independence? we had 5 delegates at the Manchester conference
As to RIC it has no democratic conferences- no votes taken- no debates on policies. it has rallies. The leadership of RIC come from the old SWP around C Bamberry. For 30 years or more they argued against Scottish independence. They split from the SWP without any discussion or debate and not long after started to push the Scottish Independence line without any explanation of why they had been wrong in the past or alternatively what had changed to justify the new position. If I was being cynical i would say that what had changed was that bambery’s group in the SWP were out of favour following the respect fiasco and his coat was on a “shuggly nail” within the SWP and thus they were looking for an alternative project to latch on to. They jumped onto the nationalist bandwagon led by the Scottish government. Thus RIC. Some background reading re the RIC. Dont agree with it all but some useful information
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/12/14/scot-d14.html
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/01/28/rads-j28.html
RIC dont like to debate socialist critics of Scottish independence. Indeed they dont like the fact that such critics exists. They even campaigned to have George Galloway excluded from the BBC question time panel
RIC dont want LU to exist in Scotland. They have a control or destroy strategy. In Glasgow we can see it in action
sandy
Sandy
I want to know how much support the 6 organisations you cite as against Scottish independence have in Scotland. The Campaign for Socialism is part of the Labour Party. The CPB and Socialist Appeal membership and number of branches in Scotland? I thought Workers Liberty were part of the SSP? We know what Philo of Red Paper thinks, via you, but how much support do they have in Scotland? The SEP is divisely standing candidates in the EU elections in NW England, which will split the anti-UKIP and anti-BNP vote, as resulted last time round in a victory for Griffin, but how many members does this dodgy bynch have in Scotland?
RIC have praised LU!
So, Sandy, you have no evidence about working class voting patterns in the Referendum; you are just extrapolating from national polls and assuming the same proportion shold for all social classes. Hmm!
As for these polls, http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country-1#line shows 39% Yes vs 42% No. This lead of just 3 points is the lowest since polling on this became significant.
I have asked you several times to tell me what Left wing forces support ‘No’ and how important these groups are. You have repeatedly ignored this, so I think we all know the answer. Instead, you now offer me one Trade Union which supports the ‘Yes’ campaign but don’t give an equivalent figure for the ‘No’ campaign. That’s called being economical with the truth!
You persist in equating large powerful states with working class strength and solidarity and have ignored everything written to the contray by Allan Armstrong and me. That’s called dogmatism!
The first states to be brought to heel by international capital were Chile and then the UK (the IMF bailout terms of 1976). Most of the other states that have been subjected to structural adjustment inthe last 30 years have been either G7 or else emerging economies like Japan, South Africa and Argentina, so yur argument that large states provide some kind of protection from international capital is in defiance of the track record. Panitch & Gindin’s “The Making of Global Capitalism sets all this out.
Of course the RIC is a campaigning alliance, but it has basic policies on what radical indpendence means which I don’t hear any of its member organisations challenging. Do you know of any?
So, your explanation for the strenghening of the movement for Scottish self-determination is that it wouldn’t be there at all if there was no oil. So, the Poll Tax experiment has not contributed to this and neither has the 18 years of rule by Tories (now 22) when Scotland consistently voted for Labour, the decline of the Labour Party as something distinguishable from the other bourgeois parties – none of these has been important?
i look forward to your end of the debate in Manchester on 31st May and assure you I will be putting these points to you again.
John – yes, all of the things you mention in your last but one paragraph are true. These are indeed the reasons why nationalist ideology has been allowed to take hold. We agree on this.
It is when you try to construct an analysis based on a spurious “national Oppression” that you depart from me, and more importantly, most of the leading left nationalists in the RIC, whose reasons for supporting independence are entirely based on the recent, or purely tactical considerations that you mention.
“I have asked you several times to tell me what Left wing forces support ‘No’ and how important these groups are. You have repeatedly ignored this, so I think we all know the answer.2
I have already given you a detailed answer re this
please see above
sandy
“Of course the RIC is a campaigning alliance, but it has basic policies on what radical indpendence means which I don’t hear any of its member organisations challenging”
John T
Could you provide a list of these basic policies and how they were arrived at. was there open debate? any record of the discussion?
sandy
worth reading this article
http://irishmarxism.net/2014/04/26/is-scotland-an-oppressed-nation/
John T
do you still maintain that scotland is an oppressed nation?
sandy
You persist in equating large powerful states with working class strength and solidarity and have ignored everything written to the contray by Allan Armstrong and me. That’s called dogmatism!
John T
Of course a large working class is in a stronger position than a small working class in any battle with Capital. That is called obvious
ever heard the saying- Unity is Strength
sandy
The independence bandwagon, if successful, will provide many lucrative opportunities for the well connected. lots of well paid jobs to be allocated to the professions. To the workers- well they will just have to put up with austerity in the interests of “nation building”
sandy
Independence would be ‘a gold mine’ for oil and gas lawyers
Scottish independence would be “a gold mine” for lawyers working in Aberdeen’s oil and gas industry, a Holyrood committee has heard.
The Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee travelled to the University of Aberdeen to hear from a panel of north-east oil experts on the issue of Scotland’s economic future post-2014.
CMS Cameron McKenna’s head of energy, Penelope Warne, said the legal implications of a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum on September 18 would require large teams of lawyers to negotiate treaty changes in order to meet the Scottish Government’s 18-month target for Scotland to become an independence state in March 2016.
She said: “There are 13,000 treaties an independent Scotland would have to renegotiate – many small issues, but many will be big issues.
“We could meet the 18-month deadline if we had a large number of people helping to do that but you would have to prioritise major treaties and have a lot of people negotiating those treaties.
“I think you would need an enormous army of private consultants helping to achieve that 18-month timetable.”
Ms Warne (pictured) also warned that negotiations concerning boundaries could take up to a decade in the event of disputes between the Scottish and UK Government over how to divide assets and liabilities.
She explained: “There are many examples of settling boundary issues in similar situations and, if these are agreed by the two parties that can be done quite quickly.
“However, if they’re not agreed they typically find themselves in the European Court of Justice and that can take ten years to resolve.”
Committee convener Murdo Fraser said the transition could be fee bonanza for the Scottish legal profession.
“That would be a gold mine for lawyers,” he said.
So you want to maintain London control over the oil, then, so that the legal firms in and around the English capital keep these jobs & contracts? Any lawyer who does not live off unearned income is not a capitalist, by definition, and many of them are community-minded individuals who we need on our side.
No- I want the working class to take control of the oil, and the rest of the economy, and run things for the benefit of the people. That is why i am a socialist. I dont support any nationalist struggle to divide assets between nations. I dont support the nationalist slogan “It is Scotland’s oil” I think the resources of the planet should belong to the people of the planet
sandy
John T
would you support independence for Shetland? It would seem logical from what you have said about smaller states being better. There is a movement for Shetlands independence. An even smaller state than scotland and a lot more oil revenue to go round.
sandy
Potential tax haven, unfortunately!
Potential tax haven, unfortunately!
john T
every small state is a potential tax haven and I see no reason to view an independent Shetland as particularly prone to becoming a tax haven.
Indeed with all the oil wealth they would have if independent there would be no reason for them to attempt to become a tax haven. It would be a very rich place indeed
sandy
I want to know how much support the 6 organisations you cite as against Scottish independence have in Scotland.
John T
I will provide some more info re this once my previous emails responding to you are allowed through. Who is moderating this debate?
sandy
emails? Que?
All these organizations are small. But then again the socialist left throughout Britain is small at present. The left nationalist groups are also very small. The SSP used to be a major group in Scotland with thousands of members. Now it is tiny- with perhaps about 50 people. The pro independence SWP is a shadow of its former self. Same for the pro independence SPS ( ex militant). The campaign RIC has grown but it is still very small with little social weight but it is the biggest of the left nationalist campaigns for a yes vote. It does not seem to have membership and its exact policies are unclear. The strings seemed to be pulled by the ISG group- C Bamberry’s split from the SWP. It does not hold conferences to decide its policy or have open debates. Its most prominent slogan is “Britain is for the rich- Scotland can be Ours”
The growth of RIC is not being accompanied by a growth in socialist consciousness in the working class. Mayday in Glasgow was smaller this year than last and dominated by the saltire
However support for nationalism has been growing. This is reflected on social media and by increased attendance at pro independence public meetings particularly in the smaller towns and country areas of Scotland
sandy
john T
is the debate over in this section? I did pose a few questions to you which you never came back to
anyway here is an interesting article
Yes- a non nationalist argument for Scottish independence by Neil Davidson
http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/yes
A more accurate title would be “leftist excuses for supporting the Scottish nationalist project”
as is normal with RIC supporters the socialist case for a no vote is not really engaged with. Given that Neil spent most of his political life arguing against the call for scottish independence the failure to deal with the marxist case against Scottish independence cant be based on simple ignorance- it can only be based on a desire not to explain his own political history and the history of the marxist movement in Britain on the question of scottish independence.
Those Marxists calling for a no vote are presented as defenders of the integrity of the british state and thus a variant of british nationalism. However the marxist case is not to defend the british state but the opposite- to defnd the unity of the working class in its fight against that state. As all leninists know the highest form of workers unity is expressed in a socialist party. Neils opposition to a british wide socialist party ( not explicitly stated but implied in this article) is the clearest expression of his break from marxism towards nationalism.
Lastly his claim that non nationalists can support the movement for scottish independence is true but only in the sense that you can go on an orange walk and think of yourself as an open minded friend of the catholic church. The truth is that if you are on an orange walk you are supporting the bigots even if you are quietly humming the internationale while the drums beat out the sash
sandy