Scottish Republic Yes Tendency
A letter introducing a new tendency being formed within Left Unity – more of the tendency’s materials will be posted soon
On June 6th the national secretary was formally notified that a new tendency was set up in Left Unity. We have also requested a place is created within the “Discussion and Debate” section of the website where members can easily find any materials or information
To: Kate Hudson National Secretary Left Unity
6 June 2014
Dear Kate,
At the last LU conference the Republican Socialist Tendency sponsored a resolution calling for a pro-democracy and republican Yes vote in the Scottish referendum in solidarity with the Radical Independence Campaign is Scotland. The resolution was narrowly defeated by 68 to 70 with 20 abstentions.
Following from this some members have begun setting up the Scottish Republic Yes Tendency. We are informing you as national secretary so that this can be announced at this National Council on June 7th 2014. We currently have 35 supporters and aim for 100. We intend to develop a perspective for local campaigning activity between now and the referendum which we hope Left Unity can or will support.
The Tendency statement states the following aims:
a) Winning a majority of Left Unity members to support a Yes vote.
b) Campaigning to support for a Yes vote in the socialist and labour movements in England, Wales and Ireland and counter the case made by the Unionist parties (Tory, Labour, Liberal Democratic and UKIP).
c) Inviting where appropriate speakers from the Radical Independence Campaign.
d) To make a case that the referendum offers the Scottish people the right and opportunity to extend democracy and create a Scottish republic. This would serve the wider democratic interest of people in the rest of the UK.
e) To reject the ‘abstract internationalism’ of the Unionist campaign (Better Together) and substitute active practical solidarity and support by working people in England, Wales and Ireland for the democratic and socialist movement in Scotland.
In comradeship
Steve Freeman (LU Southwark), Mick Napier (LU Glasgow and Scottish Committee)
Acting Joint Convenors
Scottish Republic Yes Tendency
36 comments
36 responses to “Scottish Republic Yes Tendency”
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.
This is worth looking at as a Socialist position for a NO vote which is supported by many in Left Unity.
“For a No Vote without Illusions: On the Scottish Independence Referendum” by Sandy McBurney. See the full article at:
http://www.socialistproject.org/the-left/should-socialists-support-the-call-for-an-independent-scottish-state/
Thanks for the tip – great article.
If, as Sandy McBurney argues, Scottish Independence will weaken the working class, why are the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour Leadership, etc, not in favour of it? The idea, that Scottish Independence, which would be the most significant constitutional change in Britain since Irish Independence, will not stimulate an intense ‘What Next?” discussion within the Labour and Trade Union Movement across the UK is ludicrous. To abstain, or worse, to advocate a ‘No’ vote (and line up with the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour Bureaucrats and Unionists in general – with No Illusions in what or who exactly?), is to sideline LU from the most intense political discussion in Scotland since the Poll Tax and Miners’ Strike. I just can’t see the validity of either the abstention or ‘No’ position.
“The idea, that Scottish Independence, which would be the most significant constitutional change in Britain since Irish Independence, will not stimulate an intense ‘What Next?” discussion within the Labour and Trade Union Movement across the UK is ludicrous.”
But who claims that scottish independence would not stimulate an intense debate within the labour movement across Britain? I would go further and state that it would stimulate an intense debate throughout British society but this debate would be a reactionary debate about how the assets and the liabilities of the UK are to be split between Edinburgh and London. The Scottish establishment and the Westminster establishment would be involved in a struggle about who gets what and they would be trying to get the voters on both sides of the border to line up against the “other” Even if the divorce could be kept relatively free of acrimony due to a common interest to keep the populists in check you would still have forces on both sides of the border pushing chauvinist politics re the “other”. Given the lack of any serious socialist force in Britain and given the dire economic conditions many workers face is it not likely that national antagonism would be stirred up over the exact terms of the divorce and that workers on both sides of the border would be dragooned into supporting “their” bosses? This would severely curtail the possibility of a united working class fightback against austerity and move politics even further to the right since the working class will have been split along national lines
Don’t think no is supported by “many” . It is mainly supported by the Labour and trade union bureaucracy who are not in LU.
The majority position in LU is neutral – sitting on the fence – and seeing what happens – not taking sides. The leader of this position is the Communist Tendency. The next position is Yes. Our resolution was defeated by 2 votes. No have Workers Power and Sandy and or two more.
Bit late, eh? Is your propaganda coming out in October?
Yes that is a good point. The case for a Scottish Republic Yes will still be valid in October no matter who wins. Thinking ahead to October as you say is excellent. But we’ve got that covered.
what is wrong with a british republic or indeed a European socialist republic?
the september 18th vote is for independence only – Yes or No
If YES there will be a couple of years for sorting things out and then a general election in Scotland for a new independent parliament.
Scottish people will be able to vote for left, right and centre Scottish parties and that parliament will be able to consider setting up a Republic and the type of republic it wants – if it has a mandate to do so.
Unless there is a YES vote this will not happen
So the first step for republicans is to vote YES and convince other Scots to do likewise.
Campaigning for a republic will come later
http://www.irishforyes.org/what-big-business-has-really-said-about-independence/
“If, as Sandy McBurney argues, Scottish Independence will weaken the working class, why are the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour Leadership, etc, not in favour of it”
The british establishment oppose Scottish independence because it will weaken the prestige and social weight of the british state and thus tend to benefit its international rivals. Also as you would expect the british establishment favours constitutional stability in Britain.
For the British establishment whither Scottish independence strengthens or weakens the working class is not, at present, a concern or a matter of debate. The traditional organizations of the working class have been heavily defeated and are led by anti socialist forces who have no intention of launching any serious struggle against austerity. At present they pose no immanent threat to british capitalism.
Only idiots would advocate that socialists should support everything the establishment opposes
For socialists the nationalist break up of the working class in Britain should be of concern since only the labour movement offers the possibility of transcending capitalist decline and social disintegration. Scottish independence is not an escape route but a dead end.
Well we don’t support yes simply because the British ruling class is for no. But we don’t ignore this fact or say it is irrelevant either. That would be idiotic. As democrats we oppose the British constitution because it is undemocratic and anti-working class interests. The ruling class support it because it helps them get rich, whilst the lack of democracy and extensive secrecy keeps the working class in ignorance and servitude.
We want the whole British constitution abolished immediately. Now there is a torpedo heading straight for Her Majesty ‘s Ship ‘Great Britain’. If the torpedo hits the target it will make a big hole. Will it sink or break in two? Not sure yet. But at least Captain Cameron will court marshalled for taking the ship into dangerous waters.
Steve
Countries have split up before (Norway/Sweden, Czech Rep/Slovakia, Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia/Slovenia/Macedonia/Kosovo) in what way has any of these developments helped the working class to achieve a better constitution or a socialist country. Or is Britain, in your opinion, a uniquely appalling state that has a special need to be broken up? Are Scottish people somehow better, in some way, than English people??
Ray,
The countries you site broke up peacefully or violently. The peaceful and democratic way is far better from a working class perspective than armed struggle. Armed struggle tends to arise when there is no self determination. The right to self determination is the right to divorce by peaceful means.
Does the creation of a new state guarantee democracy or socialism? Does the European Union guarantee anything? Does revolution guarantee that working class will achieve socialism? It is true that the break up of Norway from Sweden did not bring socialism. Neither did the Paris Commune or the German revolution or the Spanish revolution which only achieved Francoism. It all depends on the class struggle and the kind of parties leading the struggle. Did going on strike achieve socialism? Did universal suffrage bring socialism?
So you can’t make a special test for one democratic demand. In the UK there is no legal constitutional right to self determination. So we need to abolish the act of union and have a voluntary relationship democratically agreed. The matter will be resolved in September or it will continue and be dragged out for the next ten or thirty years. How long would you like the abolition of the Union to go on for. Reforming the House of Lords has taken over a hundred years and it is still no solved.
Sandy, the flaw in your central argument that independence will usher in a reactionary & nationalist debate either side of the new border on the division of the deficit, the £ and related fiscal issues is that these are all the other side of a firewall within capitalism that protects them from democratic accountability – they belong to the economic realm that oligarchies decide on behind our backs. Yes, we will get sound bites from English and Scottish politicians trying to convince us that they are doing their best to get us (the English) or us (the Scottish) the best fiscal deal, but neither of us will be voting on this, as you state, so this will be neither prolonged nor a huge media show dominating the TV News for weeks on end. A lot of the arguments around the fiscal implications are part of the referendum campaigning; once the future is settled by the result, decision-making will be practical and future-orientated, with the business interests of capitalism predominating, i.e. trade between the 2 countires will not be sacrificed.
Your argument about the future division of the working class after independence depends on this, so I think you should tell me why you think I am wrong about the likelihood of the immediate post-independence scenario you have painted throughout the LU debate.
John
the division in the working class on national lines is already happening but a Yes vote would obviously accelerate the process.
Many of the left groups in Scotland have rejected the idea of a british wide socialist party or even a common political project for workers living on this island. The idea of the working class coming to power in britain is rejected in favour of a fight for a Scandinavian style of capitalism in scotland. National unity is counterpoised to workers unity. The red flag comes down and the saltire is raised aloft. The success of the nationalists in scotland has already weakened working class unity in Britain. The July the 10th action here in scotland was weaker than in the rest of Britain. Interesting article here http://www.socialist.net/industrial-action-and-national-divisions.htm
Also the TUC organized “Britain needs a pay rise” demo is only receiving look-warm response from the union leadership up here in Scotland since many on the left are now against the very idea of Britain. For instance the FBU in scotland seem to be going their own way from the FBU in Britain and are they are led by an SNP member (with an OBE it would seem)who seems to have friends in the SNP administration. http://fbuscotlandwatch.wordpress.com/page/3/
Your point re the negotiations on independence after a Yes vote being conducted behind a firewall has truth to it- in so far as the establishment on both sides of the border have an interest in reaching a deal in the negotiations which will not be too disruptive to either party. But remember bourgeois politics are far less stable than they were. Look to the rise of UKIP for example or the rise of the far right in mainland Europe. The negotiations on the terms of independence will be conducted in the run up to the British general election in 2015 and the first independent election in scotland in March 2016. The populists on both sides will denouncing the establishments on both sides for selling out the national interest in the negotiations. After all you have to blame someone for never ending austerity! In Scotland the major culprit in this regard is unlikely to be Salmond or the SNP leadership but the left nationalist groups who will be keen to denounce the Westminster establishment as bullying Scotland etc in the hope that this will give them a profile and help them win parliamentary careers at Holyrood in an independent scotland. So while I agree that the establishments have a common need to minimize disruption during the separation process they do not have absolute control over a crisis ridden system and populists with a reactionary self serving nationalist agenda may have a field day on both sides of the border. There is nothing progressive in Scottish or English or British nationalism. They are used to divide and control
sandy
Just to say, Sandy that clearly the principled left is very small just now and Scottish nationalism is “this year’s black” for the opportunist left,but well done for continuing to make the consistent internationalist case.
It is also a historical case that Scottish nationalism grows when the class struggle is at a low ebb. It means workers look to nationalism as some kind of short cut solution, tying themselves to the SNPs little Scotland approach instead of looking for a class wider resistance to the British capitalist class and their government.
Sandy,
The 1707 Act of union is finished, like the monarchy and the House of Lords. It is just a matter of time before we get rid of all of this crap. The British ruling class support all parts. But now Anti-Unionists have a chance to finish off the stuff about abolishing the Scottish parliament and the Hanoverian succession and keeping out the Catholics and expanding your slave plantations. The forced marriage with no right of divorce has got to go.
The Act of Union has nothing to do with the unity of the working class. The working class will have the chance to be more united once we destroy Queen Anne’s left overs. The Scottish Parliamnet knocked a great big hole in it. Now to finish the job hopefully.
Sandy you still havent apologised to the Scottish working class for opposing the setting up the parliament. You have nt yet admitted you were wrong to oppose it in 1998.
As for the dog fight between the capitalists over dividing up the loot after Indy. Bring it on. It will be a great education to see them fighting. You think the working class is too stupid to learn from this and all they will do is follow one faction or another. I think it will only encourage workers to demand more of the pie for themselves.
Steve,
I asked whether the separation has achieved a better CONSTITUTION not just whether it had achieved socialism. I see no evidence either way that Sweden and Norway splitting was any kind of gain or progress. The point i am making is that i do not think the Act of Union of 1707 is relevant in terms of fighting for any progressive demand. The Anti-Catholic measures of the Act of Succession have an impact on the royal family’s marriage rights, but really who cares. Of course, the established church is ridiculous and needs to be ended, but it would be hard to argue that there is serious discrimination against Catholics in Britain (except in Glasgow, of course).
The main point is not that any of these democratic reforms are bad in themselves. You would be hard pressed to find any LU members who do not want to end the established church or abolish the House of Lords, or introduce PR or any other basic democratic demand. However, I feel that to focus obsessively on these esoteric constitutional twiddlings is in danger of allowing the LU programme to become unbalanced.
If the mass of people rise up to end capitalism it hardly matters whether they overthrow a monarchy or a so-called “democratic” republic. The USA is the most democratic country in the world on paper, but in reality it a vicious capitalist country and is one of the most unequal places on earth. Equally, Sweden, Norway Denmark etc are monarchies but in capitalist terms are the most equal and liberal. We are in danger of mistaking form for substance, for the sake of making a historical point about Queen Anne!
Finally on the Act of Union, I do not see why separation is necessarily progressive, unless you think that Scotland is the victim of some kind of national oppression, which even most of the leaders of the RIC have not got the nerve to argue, or that the British state is uniquely or specially deserving of being smashed – more than the US, Germany, Russia, France, Japan, Spain or Belgium for example. Are you for the dismembering of every capitalist country, or just Britain, and on what grounds do you come to your decision? Is it the interests of working people or the purely nationalist disdain for Britain (or the English?) as such?
The referendum will be over soon and whatever the result, the left will somehow have to pick up the pieces remaining after this opportunist, nationalist adventure and fight for workers unity and socialism.
Ray,
End the Act of Union will bring forth a new constitution. How much better will it be depends on the class struggle. It is not automatic. But new means people are getting involved in it. The SNP has produce a draft constitution and that would be a good starting point for anybody who seriously wanted to look into it.
The Act of Union is like the monarchy and House of Lords historical junk. Abolish it all. Only conservatives want to preserve it. If there is junk in your attic what would you do? Keep for old times sake or chuck it out?
Left Unity has no or very few democratic demands. People just assume it has. The Labour Party tradition is for social reform not political democratic reform. LU follows the Labour Party on this.
This is a response to Ray G, which starts off at a massive tangent on the lack of democracy in the US, but I came to dramatic conclusions about Scotland that could potentially swing a lot of voters behind a “YES” vote.
Ray G,
How on earth can you seriously believe that “The USA is the most democratic country in the world on paper”?!!!
It’s bad enough that we have to put up with the misnamed and highly undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system in the UK, but they have a combination of that – for both Houses of Congress – and for each state within the ridiculous electoral college to elect the President. A few people voting Republican rather than Democrat, or vice versa, could mean 25 votes in the electoral college (as in Florida) used to determine who becomes President.
This is not hypothetical. In 2000, George W Bush “beat” Al Gore, relying on a difference of 537 votes in Florida – compared to over 54,000 citizens from that state’s voting rolls identified as felons (54% of these were African-Americans) and ineligible to vote, but the majority of these were not felons and should have been eligible to vote under Florida law. Disqualifying those with a criminal record is hardly democratic either, Ray G!!! Those who followed BBC coverage of that election like me would have been particularly aware of the “hanging chads” controversy, whereby many votes may not have been counted because the machines to punch voting cards had malfunctioned and it was usually less well educated people (more likely to vote Democrat) whose votes wouldn’t have counted. It was decided by a court not to allow time for a full recount – oh, who cares, if it’s in the interests of big business (and Governor Jeb Bush, George W’s brother, may have had contributed to the decision), we’ll dispense with the minor matter of “democracy” in choosing “the leader of the free world”!!!
Four years later, Bush “beat” Kerry through another “stolen election” due to electronic voting machines being used for voting, and the three main companies used to manufacture and program them having links to the Republicans, without allowing Democrats to examine the software. See http://nomorestolenelections.org/ – it’s not just me saying it, but I’ve kept a close eye on developments in the USA (figures I’ve used about the two US presidential elections above are from Wikipedia – points are based on my memory).
And on top of that, there is a built-in system designed to stop either party from gaining proper power giving them an ideal opportunity to blame the other (never mind a third party from seriously challenging of course), with both Houses of Congress (the Senate and House of Representatives) as well as the President, sharing power with each other. No wonder it has proved virtually impossible to get any sort of legislation providing healthcare for all, with also the factor of big business lobbyists including health insurance companies, and that Obamacare is such a kludge. DEMOCRATIC – NO WAY!!!
Furthermore, Ray G, are you oblivious to the revelations made by Edward Snowden about the massive amount of surveillance carried out by the National Security Agency (NSA) with its PRISM programme, capturing and analysing a huge amount of information about people in the USA and across the world, in league with GCHQ (with a Tempora surveillance programme similar to PRISM), MI5, Special Branch etc.? Do you believe the spin put out by politicians and most of the media that they are just targeting terrorists rather than “domestic extremists” like (some but not all) members of Left Unity? And yes, the legislation passed in the UK (and US no doubt) does include our kind of “extremist” as well as religious ones – to do otherwise, even if they wanted to which of course capitalist politicians don’t, would be to fall foul of equalities legislation!
Can’t you contemplate that at some point in the future, the left may actually be a serious force capable of changing society? Have you forgotten that the Scottish Socialist Party got over 15% of the vote in Glasgow at the 2003 Scottish parliamentary elections (winning 2 seats in that city and 6 across Scotland)? Just because the SSP is a shadow of its former self after the Tommy Sheridan defamation trial débâcle (which led to the split-off party Solidarity), that doesn’t mean that the citizens of Glasgow have ceased to be radical to various degrees (and many would identify themselves as “socialists”). The mainstream media has commented quite a bit about the audience for the second debate, held in Glasgow, being “biased” towards the SNP. In my opinion, many of the undecideds were socialists, and even quite a number who would previously vote “NO” changed their minds when Salmond destroyed most of Darling’s arguments in that debate, as well as highlighting the fact that Darling was defending Tory policies to a large extent.
If Scottish residents vote “YES”, the raison d’être of the SNP will cease and there will inevitably be a big realignment in Scottish politics. Social democrats in Labour and the SNP will probably merge and there could be sizeable numbers, either as a split-off organisation or individuals from Labour and/or the SNP interested in getting involved in socialist parties, including Left Unity. The fragmentation of the left after the Sheridan débâcle is a problem, but LU would be well placed to reap dividends in not being tainted by that débâcle.
There is a dramatic advantage of Scottish independence that I only realised while typing these words in response to Ray G, which is perhaps the main reason why virtually the entire British establishment (Tory, Lib Dem, Labour, UKIP and most of big business) is opposed to Scottish independence – British secret services, in particular GCHQ and MI5, are based in England, so THE POWER OF THE AGENTS OF CAPITALISM TO MONITOR AND TRY TO SUBVERT THE LEFT WILL BE RADICALLY DIMINISHED IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND!
As far as targeting the other kind of “terrorists” (religious fundamentalists) is concerned, the need would be radically diminished due to Scotland not getting involved in illegal wars like Iraq, and much smaller scale surveillance (e.g. by Special Branch in the police force) should cope. [It’d be extremely naïve to think that Special Branch wouldn’t infiltrate the left too in an independent Scotland, as it was revealed to have done last year – see my review of the book “Undercover” including my take on it based on my experiences at http://thatcheroftheleft.me.uk/2014/03/10/public-inquiry-to-investigate-undercover-policing-in-left-wing-groups-to-smear-stephen-lawrences-familyfriends/.%5D
Steve Wallis – i think you missed the bit where I said that the USA is democratic ON PAPER, ie in its oh so rrrreplblican constitution.
Of course it is not really democratic in practice. That was exactly my point. The real issue, of course, is the class nature of the USA. Again, prcisely my point.
Steve
As you like history – one last point with regard to the use of the term “Unionist” (note the capital U) to describe those on the left (or those in the Labour Party) who are against the separation of Scotland from the rest of Britain.
“Unionism” historically refers to the question of Ireland. The Conservative and Unionist Party were not thinking of Scotland at all when they formed their amalgamated party at the turn of the 19th/20th century, because the question of Scottish independence was nowhere to be seen in serious circles.
Glasgow and Liverpool, (and to a lesser extent Newcastle, Manchester) working class people were won over to vote Tory right up to the 1950s on the basis or anti-IRISH bigotry. The Labour and Trade Union movement stood out against this and tended to attract more Irish and/or Catholic votes in those areas.
To deliberately confuse the issue now and call the the opponents of Scottish independence “Unionist” is mischievous, to say the very least. One could argue that it is an attempt to lay claim to a supposed national oppression by taking possession of language related to a nation that really WAS a victim of national oppression – Ireland.
Of course, the overt BRITISH nationalism of Darling and the rest, their failure to make a class appeal for unity and their shameless and disgraceful use of pro capitalist arguments for opposing independence is to be condemned, but is is not Unionism.
Ray,
I don’t go with your narrow Irish view of Unionism. Unionists support the Acts of Union and want to keep them including Queen Anne’s Act of 1707. Anti-unionists want to abolish or repeal all the Acts of Union. We don’t want to isolate Ireland from Scotland and Wales. Only England has an interest in divide and rule.
If you support the act of Union then you are a unionist. It’s as simple as that. If you support the monarchy we can call you a monarchist or a loyalist meaning loyal to the crown.
Call it mischievous if you like but I don’t go with any divide and rule stuff.
Ha !!
Scottish nationalism is the very DEFINITION of divide and rule, just like unionism was before it. Both aim to make nationality more important than class. The only justification for nationalism is when a nation is actually oppressed, which Scotland obviously is not. Why do you insist that nationalism is progressive in the Scottish context? And why is breaking up Britain so central for you?
Just to be clear, as I have argued elsewhere (the John Tummon thread on democracy) I am in favour of a wide ranging number of democratic reforms that LU should adopt, such as PR, the end of the executive power of prime minister (in the name of the crown) and control by the legislature, regular elections at shorter intervals, the abolition of the House of Lords, the right of recall decentralisation and more power for local government.
I am in favour of these things and think that LU should actively campaign on them but I do not make a central obsessive fetish of them and recognise that even an ostensibly “democratic” constitution can still enshrine vicious class rule. Piketty in his recent book (Capital in the 21st century) make it clear that in the end of the 19th century and the early 1900s Britain with all its monarchical structures was no more unequal that “republican” France and today you can’t argue that the US is a progressive country simply because of its “revolutionary republican” constitution.
By the way is it “England” that has an interest in “divide and rule” or the British/English ruling class? Are the Scottish/Welsh/Irish bourgeoisie morally superior? I am afraid your confusion regarding class and nation has gone so far that it is affecting your judgement
The British state doesn’t want Scottish independence as Salmond wants to undercut UK revenues by cutting corporation tax and the upper income tax bracket, hoping that the ultra-rich will decamp from London to Edinburgh.
This is the reality of Scottish independence.
If we go along with a ‘Yes’ vote, the Scottish (and wider British) left will pull their out muttering that “this isn’t what we voted for”. We’re deluding ourselves if we think independence can bring Scandinavian social democracy. The SNP is positioning itself to be the post-independence home of big business.
Another excellent article making the Socialist case for a No vote that I would recommend you read – its by John Wight.
What’s the evidence that an independent Scotland will bring change?
http://rt.com/op-edge/178120-thoughts-on-scottish-independence/
It is starting to dawn on the left nationalists that they are going to lose the referendum. Unfortunately they will still be pushing their anti working class nationalist politics after 18 September. I doubt that they will succeed in creating the united pro independence left party the the forces leading RIC are calling for. However In Scotland they will continue to try and put a kilt on every potential fightback against austerity in the hope that it gets them some seats at Holyrood etc. They will also try to suppress and marginalize those socialists calling for working class unity against the bosses and will do all they can to stop a British wide socialist challenge to austerity
Good article here giving an idea of just how politically degenerate the erstwhile socialists of the SWP etc are becoming.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/16/sher-a16.html
Tommy Sheridan’s nationalist diatribe in service of Scottish big business
By Jordan Shilton
16 August 2014
At a public meeting on the Scottish independence referendum held in the town of Cumbernauld near Glasgow on Monday, former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan beat the nationalist drum with a speech full of right wing demagogy.
The event was part of his “Hope over fear” tour in favour of a “yes” vote for the separation of Scotland from the UK, backed by the pseudo-left Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
On this occasion, Sheridan was joined on the platform by Michelle Thomson, a spokeswoman for Business for Scotland, a coalition of businesses in favour of independence, along with a member of the pro-independence campaign who works in the health service.
Ray,
Everybody claims to be in favour of more democracy. Your programme is for an improved constitutional monarchy. You are not for a republic. Ok. Most of the British left would not make a fetish out of improving democracy? They have left that to the Liberal Democrats. The left have made a fetish out of doing nothing on the political laws of the country. The Labour Party has not made a fetish out of democratic change and certainly are not for a republic. As Clement Attlee famously said “I would not lift a finger to change a capitalist monarchy into a capitalist republic”. Of course he never did. This is the essence of Labourism – they have never made a “fetish” out of a republic and prefer a constitutional monarchist road to socialism. So many Labour Lords a leaping.
Left Unity has never made fetish out of republicanism and in fact has never lifted a finger even to reform the constitutional monarchy along the lines you suggest. This is why I say Left Unity has not broken from the conservative constitutional politics of the Labour Party. It is all about returning to 1945 when King George VI was the throne and Britain became a social monarchy.
Just to say that I have never said that I am in favour of the monarchy, but i do think that the main issue is the powers of the Prime Minister that derive from those of the monarch.
Noted that my questions on why nationalism is progressive or why the break up of he British state is especially progressive remain unanswered.
The lack of policy on constitutional reform is a result of lack of time to prioritise those issues. We have no policy on education either!! Hope many of these gaps can be filled in November.
Well Ray,
I wouldn’t want to leave this unanswered. Some nationalisms are national democratic movements seeking to mobilise people for advancing democracy. Other nationalism are conservative about defending the existing ruling class state such as British nationalism – an ideology which is loyalist and unionist
So there is a national democratic movement in Scotland – one wing is nationalist focusing on national independence and is not republican and the other wing raises democratic slogans – such as abolish the Act of Union and the monarchy.
Economists or reformists and ultra left sectarians don’t get this. They are uninterested in democratic slogans, democratic demands, democratic movements and democratic struggles. The working class is interested in democracy and will be voting in record numbers. Hope that helps.
http://irishmarxism.net/2014/08/18/yes-a-non-nationalist-argument-for-scottish-independence-part-1/
A very useful article
I fear the problem is that the English confuse the ‘nationalism’ they see in Scotland and perhaps less so Wales, with British imperialism.
Yet the anti-colonialist struggle against the British Empire depended on Indians seeing themselves as a nation, Kenyans seeing themselves as a nation and so on. There is no single ‘nationalism’ anymore than there is one form of socialism. It is perfectly possible for small countries to exist without their peoples taking on narrow-minded, right-wing perspectives that belonged to and were justified by, the process of imperialist expansion and exploitation.
These are the perspectives that infuse the English (whether they are aware of it or not….e.g. Cameron’s claim only today regarding ”Britain’s military prowess” to once again intervene in Iraq) who are finding it so difficult to throw off their imperialist trappings. And it is these which then spill over, whether they are aware of them or not, and colour their attitudes towards the other ‘nations’ currently in the UK.
But as with the imperialist model, political and economic centralism is a key component of English attitudes in this debate. And not only one with England at its core (and hence Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland as its ‘periphery…..beyond even the patronising use of the term ‘the sticks’) but within that, the South East and further London, as its ‘inner core’. Hence, for example, UK newspapers who think a theatre review of a performance on the London stage is a ‘national event’ the Scots/Welsh/N. Irish should be fascinated by. And endless articles about London property prices.
It is this super-centralised state, economy and social structure that the English fear losing. Amid much talk of ‘cosmopolitan London’ they fear a de-centralised, cosmopolitan pattern of nations within the British Isles. What exactly are they afraid of? Seriously, talk of weakening the British working class is just part of this English obsession with centralism. Even within the strict limits of devolution other nations have already led on progressive policies the English then reluctantly, occasionally, take on board, all the way through to charging for plastic carriers bags (a policy which has reduced the numbers of those floating round the Welsh landscape by 70%!).
So, let a thousand flowers bloom and fear not English cousins…….there is a world beyond Westminster and we want a democratic say in it?….you will not fall off the edge of the world……it might even broaden your perspectives beyond your imperialist past…..
Steve F
I have repeatedly outlined my support for democratic struggles, so I assume your epithets about ecomomists, reformists or ultra-leftists were not intended for me, (I could not be all of them, surely!)
My point is that Scotland, as a capitalist nation whose bourgeoisie were complicit in imperialism, but a section of which now seems to want to separate from its imperialist partners, is not necessarily any more or less progressive than England or Wales. The Act of Union about which you are very animated, was one between two class-ridden, undemocratic monarchies, one no better than the other, united under a Scottish royal dynasty, your old friend Queen Anne Stuart.
The forces of democracy and progress on the other hand (such as the lowland Scots protestants) were against the Stuarts’ attempt to re-establish catholic absolute monarchy in favour of a more limited monarchy under the House of Hanover, during which time the Scottish enlightenment became a shining light for the whole of Europe.
Just saying.