Scottish Republican Articles
Are Things Starting To Move in Scotland? by Gerry Cairns
John MacLean: Scotland's Favourite Socialist "Saint"
by Donald Anderson
Time to Rediscover Scotland's Radical Legacy
by Davie Logan
No one ever celebrated
Devolution Day by David Hewitt
A Nation Once
Again? by David Hewitt
SNP conference
backs a Scottish republic by David Hewitt
SNP to debate
next step forward by Jim Slaven
The Dilemma for the
SNP Left
by Gerry Cairns
The SSP and the National Liberation Struggle
Connolly: National Liberation, Socialism, Partition
Entrenching
Support for Independence by Gerry Cairns
|
Are Things Starting To Move In Scotland?
by Gerard Cairns (Oct '97) |
|
Contrary to the perceived Brit orthodoxy, Scotland has not been quiet for
the last 300 years. There have been at least 6 rebellions against the
British state for Scottish independence. In their turn: Jacobites, United
Scotsmen, Chartists, nationalists and republican socialists have ensured
that the national question has not gone away.
I do confess, however, that since 1979 this country has seemed docile. That
year saw a referendum on a proposed Scottish assembly. The omens were not
good. The year before had witnessed national humiliation at the World Cup
finals in Argentina. For those who appreciate the link between football and
culture in Scotland will agree that this was a national disaster. A
combination of national arrogance (we thought we were going to win it) and
overweight footballers with bad perms was our undoing. The Scots turned in
on themselves. They became a "crap nation".
This is no exaggeration. Support for even limited home rule waned. A
newspaper cartoonist lampooned the Scottish lion cowering under a table
saying, "I'm fear't [frightened]." The Brit Labour government imposed a 40%
clause which wrecked their own referendum. A small majority voted for
devolution but not the required 40% of the electorate. In the ensuing
general election the S.N.P. slumped from 11 seats to two.
The results are history now that Scotland has voted in 1997 for limited home
rule. But the lesson is in the aftermath of 1979. For 18 years the Scottish
people tolerated the intolerable. The British State denied us the Assembly
we had voted for; and we had 18 years of a British Tory government we hadn't
voted for. This was not the same oppression, by degree, which the Irish have
courageously stood against. We did not have to fight Brit soldiers, guns and
tanks. Yet it was the denial of our democratic rights - and we accepted it!
Scottish republicans remember well the aftermath of 1979. The slump in the
constitutional nationalist vote; the mood of national pessimism; and the
strengthening of ties between the Scottish working class and the Labour crew
after all that had happened. (As an aside I should say the Brit Labour
government, as well as reneging on home rule, were responsible for a vicious
incomes policy and for using to British troops to break the Glasgow
dustmen's strike in 1975. To this day I still cannot believe that that Scots
workers have not seen through the Labour Party - but I live in hope!)
This aftermath preyed upon our minds during the latest referendum. To any
supporter of Scottish self-determination Labour's proposals were an insult.
They offered a two-question referendum: did we want a parliament and did we
want that parliament to have tax-varying powers? The parliament's powers
were really only a transfer of the minimalist powers of the Scottish office,
namely in education, health, the police and so on. Guess who controlled the
rest? The tax-varying powers translate into an ability to alter the U.K.
rate of taxation by 3% either way. Make no mistake this was very limited
home rule.
For Labourites this was a no-lose situation. Labour activists have never
been ardent home-rulers. With a few exceptions the majority have always
worked for the return of a Labour government at Westminster. A Scottish
Parliament was a useful stick to throw at the Tories but with Labour now in
power one or two doubted the necessity. It was Scottish popular opinion
which forced the issue. Therefore a Yes-Yes vote would hail Labour as the
deliverers of Scottish home rule while a No-No vote would not cause many
Labour activists to lose any sleep. The beauty would lie in the fact that it
would be the people themselves who had rejected the idea. Labour would
exonerate themselves as having done all that they could have by providing
referenda.
Meanwhile Scottish republicans faced a catch-22. The S.N.P. argued that a
Yes-Yes vote would be a stepping-stone to independence. Perhaps. And, of
course, hopefully. But not necessarily. We republicans were aware of the
Catalan precedent. After home rule the Catalan nationalists seemed to get
cosy in their new parliament. Independence isn't on the agenda and the
Spanish union seems strengthened. The danger is that Scottish devolution may
strengthen the British union. On the other hand a No-No vote would unleash
the reactionary spirit of the aftermath of 1979 and could have set us back
for years. It was the choice between the devil and a deep blue sea that
surrounded the island we wanted to get to.
The Scottish Republican Socialist Party argued that the Scottish people vote
Yes-Yes but should demand much more. In this respect we were influenced by
our comrades in Cymru Goch who stated that they could offer a thousand
arguments against the Welsh Assembly proposals but Wales could not afford a
No vote. We also argued that the ballot on 11 September was the beginning,
not the end of the process of genuine self-determination. It is worth noting
that this would appear to be the popular perception: people on the street
seem to be adjusting to 'when' Scotland goes independent as opposed to 'if'
she goes independent. Time will tell.
I would argue that the double Yes vote on 11 September was a step forward
for Scotland. Things are starting to move. The high turnout (60%) coupled
with the strength of the Yes vote shows that there is real popular demand
for self-determination. Labour's devolutionary scheme will not satisfy that
demand.
We should not lose sight of the fact that our national liberation will not
be achieved in the chamber of the devolved parliament. Extra-parliamentary
activity will need to galvanise popular opinion towards independence. In
December 1992 25,000 Scots took to the streets and the British Labour
establishment took fright. They did not want such a demonstration to ever
happen again. The Scots were also the odd ones out on the recent TV debate
on the British Monarchy. 52% of Scots were against. This was backed up by a
Daily Record poll which showed that 56% wanted an independent Scottish
Republic. We look to build on this dormant opinion. Such pressure outside a
devolved parliament will also keep the pressure on the S.N.P. The Quebecois
nationalists have used their federal parliament to keep the pressure on for
independence. Scottish nationalists must do the same.
What is heartening is that the S.N.P. at their recent conference voted to
have a referendum on the Monarchy after independence. At least this is a
start. Scottish nationalists should not be at Westminster; should take no
oaths to the British Crown; and should be ashamed of their silence at the
continued use of Scottish soldiers doing Imperial England's dirty work in
the Six Counties. Perhaps the Scottish National Party realise that the
British State does not look as formidable as it once did. It is our duty as
Scottish republican socialists to keep hammering nails into that state's
coffin.
|
|
John MacLean: Scotland's Favourite Socialist "Saint"
by Donald Anderson (2000)
John MacLean,
Scotland’s
favourite Socialist ‘Saint’, died, aged 44, on St. Andrew’s Day November 30
1923, broken in health but not in spirit. He died of pneumonia after
suffering hard labour in Peterhead Prison, force feeding and poverty through
loss of his teaching job. It was typical of the man that he gave his only
overcoat to a black Jamaican comrade in his final winter days.
|
|
Born on August 24 1879, in Pollokshaws, then a busy industrial town in
Renfrewshire near Glasgow, he was the sixth child of working class parents
who were themselves victims of the Highland Clearances. His father, Daniel,
was born in Mull and his mother, Anne MacPhee, in Corpach, a small village
in the shadow of Ben Nevis. His daughter and biographer, Nan Milton, who
died in 1996, told how ‘Wee Johnnie’ was told from his mother’s knee of the
depredations of the Highland land to the Industrial Lowlands and be
scattered round the globe.
His background coupled with his zeal for social justice led him to study
Marx and struggle for world revolution. Marx’s harrowing description of the
Highland Clearances may have been ignored by the very English left, then and
now, but was not lost on MacLean and his followers.
“But what the ‘clearing of estates’ really and properly signifies, we learn
only in the promised land of modern romance, the Highlands of Scotland.
There the process is distinguished by its systematic character, by the
magnitude of the scale on which it is carried out at one blow (in Ireland
landlords have gone to the length of sweeping away several villages at once;
in Scotland areas as large as German Principalities are dealt with), finally
by the peculiar form of property, under which the embezzled lands were held.
The Highland Celts were organised in clans, each of which was the owner of
the land on which it was settled. The representative of the clan, its chief
or ‘great man’, was only the titular owner of this property.”
‘Capital’ Chapter XXVII ‘Expropriation Agricultural Population from the
Land’.
His disillusionment with the London based, and orientated, English left, led
to his clash with the leadership namely the Social Democratic Federation led
by the aristocratic HM Hyndman. Hyndman supported a larger navy and armed
forces leading to the First World War. MacLean argued that this would lead
to the break up of International workers solidarity as German, Russian etc,
socialists were opposed to workers taking part in the Imperialist war
between the German Kaiser and his cousin the English King. He told workers
at his mass socialist, anti- war rallies that if they wanted to fight a Hun
to go and fight the English King. He also commented to Ulster Unionists that
England went to war to defend Catholic Belgium against Protestant Germany
and sent the Ulster Volunteer Force to their deaths by using them as canon
fodder, as they did with Scots troops.
He supported his friend, Edinburgh born James Connolly, in his struggle for
an Irish Workers Republic. English/British socialists then, as now, did not
understand Connolly’s stand in the 1916 Irish Rebellion. Labour MPs cheered
in the House at the news of the wounded James Connolly’s execution while he
was strapped to a chair. Lenin described James Connolly’s Irish Citizen Army
as the first Red Army in Europe.
In recognition of his principled stand against the mass slaughter of
ordinary people in the First World War the Bolsheviks elected MacLean an
Honorary President of the First All Russian Congress of Soviets, along with
Lenin, Trotsky, Liebknecht, Adler, and Spiridonova, which was ecstatically
received on his beloved Clyde. Early in January, Maxim Litvinov, Russian
Bolshevik Ambassador in Britain sent these instructions to MacLean: “ I am
writing to their Russian Consul in Glasgow informing him of your appointment
and ordering him to hand over to you the Consulate. He may refuse to do so,
in which case you will open up a new Consulate and make it public through
the press. Your position may be difficult somehow, but you will have my
support ... It is most important to keep me informed ( and through me the
Russian Soviets) of the Labour Movement in North Britain.” MacLean opened
the new Consulate at 12 South Portland Street, Gorbals, Glasgow, which, of
course was not recognised by the British Government. The Post Office refused
to deliver mail to that address or title. MacLean was refused a visa to
visit Russia under this auspice. He could have travelled illegally but made
a principled stand. Willie Gallagher a syndicalist shop steward took the
opportunity to meet Lenin: a mistake for MacLean.
Gallagher was instrumental in setting up the Communist Party of Great
Britain with Moscow Gold, a move opposed by MacLean on several counts. He
knew Lenin did not understand Scotland, calling him “MacLean of
England”
and objected to many of the characters calling themselves “communists” on
the new Central Committee. Newly released records show that at least two
were British Intelligence agents and one a double Soviet agent for Britain.
MacLean stood for a separate
Scottish
Communist Party, earning him the everlasting vilification of the British
Nationalist left. All the British biographies, articles and pamphlets on him
acknowledge his internationalism but from this point on declare him
“insane”. Their reasoning is not hard to understand. To this day they will
declare that any Scot who does not wish to be ruled from London must be
insane, fascist, racist etc. Any slander will do. For evidence of MacLean’s
“paranoia” they cite the word of prison warders and intelligence agents paid
to watch him round the clock. Also the word of two prison doctors are good
enough for these revolutionaries to prove his “insanity”. Prison doctors
today, let alone in these heady days, are not noted for their liberalism or
ineffectiveness. MacLean’s wife and other visitors believed he was drugged
and were shocked by his physical condition. He had refused to take prison
food in that belief and was forcefully fed. There is nothing new in using
drugs to control prisoners, patients etc and even experimenting with mind
drugs, both here and abroad.
According to recently released records the head of military intelligence,
Basil Thompson, knew MacLean was not insane, but believed him to be the most
dangerous man in Britain and said two years earlier that he would smear him,
and Sylvia Pankhurst, by spreading rumours about their sanity. Sylvia
Pankhurst supported MacLean in his Gorbals election campaign when he stood
as a Scottish Workers Republican candidate. They both kicked the doors of
the Glasgow City Chambers in protest during his campaign. Later Stalin was
to declare countless political “deviants” insane for disagreeing with his
party line. Today Great British Stalinists and English Trot Nats unite in
persisting with this rumour in defence of their United Kingdom. Today
MacLean is proven correct in that the CPGB collapsed without their Moscow
gold.
The Labour Party first founded in Scotland on a ‘Home Rule All Round
Programme’ reneged upon winning each election. Ramsay MacDonald was London
Treasurer of the ‘Scottish Home Rule Association”, founded in 1888. Atlee
supported Scottish Home Rule till his election, then declared it
impracticable, as did Churchill and many others. Labour voted down their own
Scottish Devolution Bill in 1979, led by Brian Wilson, now a Scottish Office
Minister, whose ‘Scotland is British Campaign’ had the support of the CBI,
Chamber of Commerce, Economic League, Aims of Industry, Adam Smith Institute
and Billy Connolly, the Royalist comedian. The Labour Party in Scotland
changed its name to the Scottish Labour Party, though it does not own any
property and still must take its orders from the British Labour Party in
London.
Donald Dewar, as “First Minister”, of the so called Scottish “Parliament”,
propped up by Jim Wallace, Lib-Dems was hailed by the Unionist media as the
“Father of the Nation”. Devolution was a delaying tactic to prevent the
inevitable - Independence and to dish the SNP. Dewar’s remit, as a lawyer,
was to make sure that the so called Parliament was to have as little power
as possible. Half of the Great man’s City of Glasgow is on Welfare benefits.
Goodness knows what the figures are in the run down housing schemes of
Drumchapel, Temple, Kightswood and the rust belt of the Yoker parts of his
former constituency of Anniesland.
That was his Party’s legacy. The founding Labour policy, of Scottish Home
Rule, at the beginning of the last century may come full circle at the
beginning of this century with demands within the Labour Party for complete
autonomy from the London Party. Or is that being completely naive? If they
don’t, then another party will surely rise to fill the gap. Will the
Scottish Socialist Party be up for it?
|
|
Time to Rediscover Scotland's Radical Legacy
by Davie Logan (2000)
The past few years have seen Blair’s new Tories launch a sustained attack on
Scotland’s working class through cuts in benefits to lone parents and the
disabled, the destruction of the right to a free education, and savage cuts
to local services, not to mention the savage treatment of our Old Age
Pensioners being diddled out of their Insurance Contributions by them all
their working life.
|
|
For 18 years Scotland suffered under the Tories onslaught. Soon after New
Labour took office the notice on the door of 10 Downing street read, “Under
New Management, Business as Usual”. So, in the words of Lenin, the question
for socialists is, “What is to be done?”
As New Labour moves further and further to the right, they are leaving a
vacuum in Scottish politics. As increasing numbers of their traditional
voters feel betrayed, they are looking for somewhere to turn. At the moment
the opinion polls are showing that the SNP are the beneficiaries of this
disillusionment. Does this therefore indicate that these former Labour
voters who are now expressing their preference for the SNP have now been
persuaded that the SNP’s policies are the ones which will best represent the
interests of working class people? Have they been persuaded by a concerted
campaign by the SNP attacking Labour’s right wing policies? The answer to
both these questions must be no.
New Labour swept to power on the back of the biggest protest vote in
history, this was despite their election manifesto, not as a result of it.
All of the right wing policies they are now implementing were there for all
to see before the election. Equally the SNP are benefiting from a protest
vote. This is borne out by the fact that as the undisputed second party in
Scotland they are currently the only viable alternative for any backlash
against New Labour. |
|
Since the 1997election there has been a crying need for a sustained and high
profile assault on New Labour’s right wing policies. That lead would have
been expected to come from the SNP. Instead their arguments have centred
around: the siting of the new Parliament building, the title of the head of
the Parliament, whether Scotland should have a new National Anthem, outrage
at not having control over what language TV broadcasts are made in, and
indignation at the fact that a millionaire Scottish actor didn’t get a
Knighthood. All of this while Labour slash benefits to the most needy, build
up the hopes of our young people with training schemes, which will deliver
no jobs, and implement Local Government cuts in services which are ripping
the hearts out of working class communities throughout Scotland.
Talk of a radical alternative agenda if unaccompanied by decisive action
will be exposed as empty rhetoric which will quickly be seen through by the
electorate. If the SNP strategy is to sit back and let New Labour continue
with the implementation of their Tory policies and reap the benefit of the
backlash in terms of increased support in the opinion polls, this creates a
fundamental problem.
It will of course be argued that nothing can be done in opposition, so wait
until the next election and you can take your revenge on Labour at the
Ballot Box. For Socialists to argue this is quite simply unacceptable. This
failure to fight tooth and nail to defend the rights of those who have
suffered from Blair’s attacks in the here and now is tantamount to the
military strategy of the First World War generals who talked of “acceptable
levels of casualties”.
For the SNP to make the permanent breakthrough in Scottish politics it has
to adopt an unashamedly socialist agenda. This is the true “mainstream”
tradition of Scotland. As a country we have a radical history which dates
back many hundreds of years. From Wallace, who was an inspiration to the
ordinary people of Scotland for centuries, to the Friends of the People, the
United Scotsmen, the Calton Weavers, the Radicals of 1820 and the Crofters
who fought against landlord tyranny in the 1880’s. From the women who led
the Rent Strikes during the First World War, to John MacLean and his fellow
Red Clydesiders, from the Miner’s strikes to the battle against the hated
Poll Tax, we in Scotland have a tradition of fighting against injustice
which rivals that of any country on earth.
It is this history which has been distorted, suppressed and hidden by
countless academics and politicians, who have recognised the danger such
knowledge could give to the present generation of Scots. It is for this very
reason that our proud tradition has to be reclaimed in the name of
socialism, and proclaimed from the rooftops as our true people’s history.
The choice for the SNP is straightforward. If they genuinely claim to
represent “mainstream” Scotland, they should proclaim themselves as a
socialist party with openly socialist policies, filling the void being left
by New Labour. If they do not and continue to sit on the dyke attempting to
court both the disgruntled Tory vote as well as the disgruntled Labour vote
they may wake up one day to find that someone else has begun to fill the
void for them
David Logan is a Scottish Republican and a Socialist. He was a member of the
National Executive of the short lived ‘Scottish Socialist Party’ in the late
80’s. He joined the SNP in 1990, was an SNP councillor in Dumbarton and
contested Glasgow Pollok as the SNP’s Parliamentary candidate at last May’s
election. He has now joined the current Scottish Socialist Party, formed in
1998. David is also a Partick Thistle fan.
|
No one ever celebrated
Devolution Day
Next week the people of Scotland decide
whether to have a devolved parliament. David Hewitt looks at why they aren't
terribly excited about it all
Thursday 11 September will, arguably,
be the most momentous day in Scottish politics since 1979 - the date of the
last referendum on Scottish `Home Rule'. Then the Scots voted narrowly in favour
of a devolved Assembly, but were denied it due to the infamous 40% rule, which
determined that an acceptable majority must include a minimum of 40% of the
electorate - the vote was narrowly short of that mark.
The bill and the government fell,
the rest is history. But throughout 18 years of Tory government the embers of
home rule sentiment burned dimly. Perhaps as a reaction to seemingly interminable
Thatcherite rule, the Labour Party and most of civic society in the form of
the Constitutional Convention worked diligently to resurrect the `project'.
It is, therefore, a little surprising
that just a few days away from what is widely predicted to be an endorsement
of the government's white paper on a Scottish Parliament, the campaign to secure
a Yes-Yes vote in the referendum that will deliver home rule is lacklustre and
flat. What has been called the `settled will of the Scottish people' - that
is, a devolved parliament within the Union - seems incapable of gripping the
imagination of the people.
The reasons for this may lie
in the nature of the forces that produced this initiative, and more importantly,
the underlying reasons for it.
Historically, Labour have advanced
nationalist policies in order to outflank the perceived threat from the Scottish
National Party. Many in the Labour Party believe a Scottish Parliament will
inevitably lead to the demise of nationalism and will therefore strengthen the
Union. The makeup of the Constitutional Convention, on whose blueprint the current
proposals are based, lends weight to that view. The Labour Party, Trades Unions,
the churches, Local Authorities and the political parties (with the exception
of the SNP and the Tories) - comprise the Scottish establishment, whose interests
have been well served by the Union throughout the 300 years of its existence
and who would be reluctant, therefore, to see it go.
The SNP, who shunned the Constitutional
Convention, only recently joined Scotland Forward, the cross party campaign
for a double yes vote in the referendum. This decision - to accept a constitutional
set-up that falls well short of their declared aim of Independence - was made
inevitable by the scale of Labour's General Election win and the failure of
the SNP to make substantial advances. For the pragmatic SNP there was no other
game in town and Labour's Parliament would be better than the status quo.
In addition, an imperfect Parliament
will not answer the West Lothian question - why should Scottish MPs be able
to make decisions on issues that affect England, such as education, while English
MPs will have no influence over Scottish education because it will be controlled
by the Scottish Parliament? Nor will it meet the aspirations of the Scottish
people for a sovereign Parliament that has the power to tackle fundamental issues,
such as poverty, homelessness or removing nuclear weapons from Scottish soil.
Therefore, the nationalists say, the scene is set for conflict between such
a Parliament and Westminster, which they hope will make independence an evermore
attractive option.
This is precisely the scenario
predicted by the Tories and other assorted Unionists in Think Twice - the No
No campaign in the referendum.
This campaign has been even more
ineffectual than the Yes Yes campaign. This is not surprising given that it
is a poorly concealed front for the Tories, who were annihilated at the General
Election. To handicap them further, their main spokesperson is Glasgow Rangers
FC director and eccentric Advocate Donald Findlay. Their main tactic has been
to talk up the dangers of the proposed tax raising powers of a new parliament,
weak through they are. They have been aided in this by some of Scotland's most
prominent businessmen, which may possibly lead to the electorate voting Yes
No and rejecting tax raising powers. However, senior Tories privately have conceded
defeat in the referendum and at least one has gone public and declared his interest
in standing for election to the Parliament. They see it as a saviour for the
decimated Tories, as the proportional voting system that will be employed for
elections will guarantee Tory representation in the first sitting of the Parliament.
If Scotland Forward has had any
successes they have been in bringing together the normally ferociously opposed
activists from SNP and Labour, in limited campaign working. This, for the electorate,
is a welcome departure from the normal political situation. But the campaign
will struggle to deliver a convincing result unless the final few days sees
the injection of some energy and unless the campaigners can convince people,
particularly the working class, that this Scottish parliament can make a real
difference to their lives.
The campaign has been thrown
into some confusion with the recent royal accident. All campaigning, with the
exception of leafletting, has been postponed until after the funeral. This will
leave a five day, and somewhat toned-down, campaign. In the unprecedented media
onslaught - which is almost an act of atonement - over the death of the Princess
of Wales the strength of the lingering feelings of `Britishness' amongst Scots
will truly be tested. If the electorate votes to change the nature of the Union
at this time, then this Parliament may well be the `slippery road' to independence
and British Unionism will have seen its day.
David Hewitt, is a member
of the editorial collective of Liberation, a Scottish left-nationalist magazine.
(04/09/1997) from
An Phoblacht/Republican News
Index
A Nation Once
Again?
Does the Scottish referendum result
herald independence? David Hewitt writes.
Amid a subdued atmosphere, the
Scottish people voted on 11 September, quietly and convincingly, for the return
of a Scottish Parliament.
On the two questions posed by
the Referendum - `I agree that there should be a Scottish parliament' and `I
agree that a Scottish parliament should have tax-varying powers' - the results
were 74.3% and 63.5% respectively, on a turnout of 60.4%. The emphatic result
surprised many commentators, and delighted politicians on the YES-YES side,
particularly the government ministers who took the decision, for which they
were widely condemned, to rely on a two-question referendum.
The NO-NO campaign concentrated
solely on knocking the aspirational case put by their opponents. In particular,
tax-raising powers became the focus of their campaigning, to such an extent
that there were real fears that the second question could fail. The orthodoxy
that says people won't vote for taxes was, therefore, destroyed as the electors
demonstrated that they understood that a parliament without tax-raising powers
would be a nonsense or, as Alex Salmond (leader of the SNP) put it, ``the people
of Scotland gave a very intelligent answer to a very stupid question''.
So what have the Scots voted
for, exactly? Was the groundswell of support for a `Parish Council' or `Home
Rule'? The truth is somewhere in between. The proposals return to Edinburgh
control over a wide range of, essentially domestic, issues, including Education,
Health, Housing and the Judicial system. Westminster retains control over such
issues as Social Security, Defence, International Relations. The Parliament
will, therefore, be able to legislate on internal matters and will be funded
by block grant from Westminster. It will also have the power to vary tax up
to 3%. Significantly, there is consensus amongst the parties, with the exception
of the Tories, that there should be gender equality amongst the members of the
parliament, which should considerably improve the political culture in Scotland.
Thus we have, according to Labour
and the Liberal Democrats, an extension of democracy - an elected legislature
to match our institutions and aspirations - that will not threaten the Union.
The Tories say the scene is set
for continual bickering, bad government and self-seeking politicians - some
will say no change there then! - which will be the `slippery slope' to independence.
The SNP argue that their role will not be to act as `spoilers', but to make
the parliament as effective as possible which, they believe, will increase the
demand for greater powers for the parliament, and ultimately will lead to independence.
The reaction to the result, given
the slow build-up and the less than full-blooded nature of the proposals, was
a little surprising. There was widespread delight, a sense of satisfaction that
grew into a palpable mood of optimism and excitement. In a typically Scottish
way, perhaps, a dour, workmanlike `90-minutes' led to unrestrained celebrations
when the game was won on penalties, as people realised exactly what it was they
had done. This mood of Scottish national self-confidence stood in stark contrast
to the `grieveathon' of the previous weeks, which highlights the diverging paths
the Scots will have to choose from.
Which path they will eventually
choose is unclear. Those Unionists who have advocated a parliament have done
so on the basis that it is part of Britain adapting to the modern world, rather
than experiencing fundamental change. They recognise that the three pillars
of Britishness - Monarchy, Empire and the Protestant religion that bound much
of the UK in a common culture - have each in their own way diminished. Therefore,
Britain must redefine or reinvent itself as a modern multi-national democracy,
which involved a renegotiation of the Union between England and Scotland.
However, nationalists would argue
that there has been a `paradigm shift' in the way Scots see and understand Britain.
Scotland has always had a different view of sovereignty and the nature of the
Union than the English, which underlies dissatisfaction with the Union. Thus,
from the end of the empire through the slow disintegration of the monarchy,
to the growing importance of Europe, Scots have been looking for alternatives
to an outmoded and ineffective institution. Therefore, for nationalists the
massive endorsement of the Parliament is merely the latest evidence that Britain
is dying, and that the resurgence in Scottish culture and national feeling paves
the way for fundamental change.
So the key question is; will
a devolved parliament strengthen or weaken the union? Scottish academic, Tom
Nairn, argues that Britain is unlikely to be reformed due to the unitary and
absolute conception of the state. Therefore, for him `In an epoch of the provisional,
the sole solution remains the actually attainable one: that which looks back
as well as forward - sovereign statehood, also known as independence, and prescribed
by the general rules still prevalent in Europe and the United Nations world.'
The future for Scottish politics
therefore, looks interesting. The first elections will taken place in April
1999, the first Scottish Parliament in over 300 years, will convene in January
2000. Watch this space.
David Hewitt, is a member of the
editorial collective of Liberation, a Scottish, left-nationalist magazine.
From
An Phoblacht/Republican News
· Thursday 18 September
1997
Index
SNP conference
backs a Scottish republic
By David Hewitt
The 63rd annual conference of
the Scottish National Party, which ended on Saturday, went some way towards
disproving the words of American writer John Steinbeck who wrote in a letter
to Mrs John F. Kennedy: "You talked of Scotland as a lost cause and that is
not true. Scotland is an unwon cause". If Labour stick to their commitments,
the SNP will begin what they believe is the contest that will lead to the reestablishment
of a Scottish Parliament, and inevitably, to the end of Britain in only 18 months
time.
The conference was seen as significant
in the light of the momentous endorsement of Home Rule in the recent referendum
campaign. The scene was set, therefore, for an exercise in back-slapping and
lionising of the party leadership, for the role they played in achieving that
victory.
However, with an eye to future
electoral pacts with the other parties, they decided on a more subdued approach.
As so often is the case in the SNP, the activists had a different view.
The issue of the future of the
monarchy in an independent Scotland was put on the agenda. SNP policy has been
to retain the present monarchy with a drastically reduced role, on the Scandinavian
model 'until such time as the people of Scotland decide otherwise'. That was
the leadership's attempt to assauge, or thwart, the latent republicanism amongst
activists.
It, however, does not answer
the constitutional issues as put by Scotsman columnist Ina Bell, a descendent
of James Connolly. "Sovereignty, we are told repeatedly, resides with the Scottish
people. That claim has guided the entire home-rule movement, and is the basis
for the Nationalist argument. Yet it directly contradicts the Westminster doctrine
of a sovereign parliament within a constitutional monarchy. If the people really
are sovereign there is simply no place, within the political structure, for
royalty."
The resolution, which stayed
on the agenda despite efforts to 'persuade' the movers to withdraw it, argued
that in the first term of office after independence the SNP would hold a referendum
on the monarchy. An amendment committed the SNP to campaign for an Elected Head
of State. The amendment fell by 208-153 votes, the narrowest margin ever, despite
the leadership throwing in its top names including Alex Salmond. Delegates then
voted substantially in favour of the resolution.
Predictably, the Press made much
of this decision, describing it variously as the first such decision by a mainstream
UK Party, or evidence that SNP activists will have to learn the 'new political
virtues of compromise and subtlety'. New Labour said that SNP activists were
'uncontrollable', SNP activists were jubilant. Party democracy was enhanced.
The result revealed, on the one
hand, a Party driven more by pragmatism than principle, and on the other, one
that has a deep vein of radicalism at its core. It also, incidentally, revealed
a gender and generational split, with women and younger delegates voting against
the monarchy, and the grey men in the leadership seeing that as a diversion
and damaging to the cause of independence.
After that debate the rest of
the Conference was something of a let down. Although, in his main address to
the Conference, Alex Salmond made an impressive speech despite his bloody nose
from the rank and file over the monarchy. He invoked Parnell in an attack on
Tony Blair: 'No man has a right to say to his country, "Thus far shalt thou
go and no further", highlighting the differing views of the Parties on the Scottish
Parliament.
Delegates left Rothesay, on the
Isle of Bute, filled with optimism, returning to their constituencies to prepare
for the challenges ahead, having asserted their primacy, if only briefly, in
the Party.
From
An Phoblacht/Republican News
02/10/1997
Index
The centre cannot
hold - Labour lose ground in Welsh and Scottish elections
By Robbie MacGabhann
Isn't it amazing what a difference
two years makes. Most republicans stayed up in May 1997 to watch with relish
the end of 18 years of Tory rule. Last weekend, many people watched again, though
perhaps not with the same intensity, as the Labour Party lost ground to the
Scottish National Party (SNP), the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru in the
Scottish and Welsh assembly elections. It seems that watching the establishment
squirm in an election is a sport that provides pleasure no matter what the election
is.
Though New Labour attempted to
gloss up the election result, there is no doubt that they were ever so slightly
worried. After all, there is no point in delivering devolution if the electorate
does not reward you with an overall majority.
In Scotland, Labour won 56 out
of 129 seats, the SNP won 35 seats, 18 for the Tories, barely pipping the Liberal
Democrats' 17. The Greens won one seat and independents, including one deselected
Labour Party MP, won the last two seats.
In Wales, Labour took 28 out
of 60 seats, with Plaid Cymru taking 17. The Tories took nine and the Liberal
Democrats won the last six seats. In English council elections held the same
day the Labour Party won 36% of the vote compared to 33% for the Tories and
27% for the Liberal Democrats.
These elections mark a historic
departure for voters in Britain. The Welsh and Scottish elections included a
PR element in the distribution of seats, leaving both assemblies with a more
equitable distribution of votes to parties.
In Scotland, the top-up seats
were distributed through eight regions. Wales had five top-up regions alongside
the 60 seats.
The election results have raised
serious questions about the state of the union in Britain. Labour has become
a unique party in that it is the largest party in Scotland, Wales and England.
They will in Scotland probably form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
That would be a first for British politics. In Wales, Labour are determined
to forge ahead as a minority government.
The Conservatives, a self-proclaimed
one nation party, are now in actuality the party of one nation - England. The
next logical step for Tony Blair, having conceded devolution and proportional
representation for Wales and Scotland, is to push ahead with the same project
in Westminster. However, speaking in Westminster, Blair said this week that
the status quo will continue and the Union will go on unchanged.
It was interesting to hear Donald
Dewar being sworn in this week. He pledged allegiance to the not only the Queen
but also to her successors. No such oath is asked of Six-County assembly members.
What Tony Blair really has set
in process is a renegotiation of the Union, albeit in an à la carte fashion.
There are now three different electoral systems at work in Britain and the Six
Counties. There are four different types of government and one state, England,
has no regional government at all.
For republicans throughout Ireland
and Britain, this can only be good news. The Union has been weakened by Blair's
devolution despite his claims to the contrary. Labour may well form governments
in Wales and Scotland. They will face competitive opposition from the SNP and
Plaid Cymru, who can benefit from not being in government for now.
Plaid Cyrmu won seats from Labour
in Llanelli, Rhonda and Islwyn. These were seats where previously Labour had
relentlessly piled up substantial majority after majority. The SNP came from
behind to give Labour a scare in this election and can only grow as an electoral
force.
One of the downsides of the elections
was the low turnout. In Scotland, turnout was just under 59%. In Wales it just
hit 40%, while in the English council elections turnout was a miserable 29%.
There is, it seems, little interest in electoral democracy the further south
you go in Britain today. However, in the long run the message must be that the
union is cracking and the centre cannot hold. This can only be for the good.
An Phoblacht/Republican News
(13/05/1999)
Index
SNP to debate
next step forward
By Jim Slaven
Last week, Alex Salmond announced
his resignation as National Convenor of the Scottish National Party. Salmond
has been the party's most successful leader. When he took over in 1990, the
party had three MPs and 14% of the vote. Now they have six MPs, 35 MSPs and
over 30% of the vote. He has taken the SNP from the political fringes to official
opposition in the new Scottish parliament. At 45, his decision to resign has
surprised many. Salmond himself says only that it is time for someone else to
take the SNP to ``the next stage''.
While they agree on the final
destination, not everyone in the SNP agrees on where that next stage is. Since
last year's first ever Scottish parliament elections. Salmond, who is political
and personally close to some of the most reactionary elements in the SDLP, has
been under pressure form a section of the party unhappy at the direction in
which the Salmond leadership was taking the party. Salmond, an economist in
his previous life, wanted to show that Scotland could afford independence. He
steered the SNP towards joining the Yes campaign during the referendum for a
Scottish parliament. Having historically opposed devolution, it was a move with
which many in the party were uncomfortable.
Many were disappointed with the
tactics and showing in the election to the Scottish parliament and felt the
decision to list independence as only tenth of their ten pre-election pledges
was indicative of the priority the leadership was giving the party's historic
mission. The more Salmond restated his mantra that independence was `a process',
the less convinced they became of the leadership's commitment to `the divorce',
as Labour continues to call independence. Salmond argued that the way to get
independence was to show that the nationalists could run the parliament successfully
and could do even better if it had more powers, in fact all powers. In short,
make devolution work.
This internal criticism should
not be overestimated, as Salmond still had the support of the vast majority
of the party. In truth, the SNP is, as Salmond claims, in a strong position.
Critics point out that with all the SNP MPs standing down to concentrate on
their Edinburgh seats, the SNP will struggle to hold on to their Westminster
quota. But why should that matter? The party already believes it is more likely
to gain independence by getting a majority of seats in the Scottish parliament.
While this may be unlikely in 2003, the next Scottish parliament elections,
it is likely they will improve their vote and representation, securing their
place in the public's mind as a potential government of Scotland - something
that would have been laughable ten years ago.
Whatever the reasoning behind
his decision, Salmond is gone. The scene is now set for the debate on strategy
some have longed for. John Swinney, currently Deputy Leader and favourite for
the post, is a support of the Salmond strategy, known as `gradualist'. Swinney,
who represents a previously Tory seat at both Westminster and Edinburgh, is
so uncontroversial as to make Salmond appear revolutionary.
He will face Alex Neil, currently
SNP Social Security spokesperson, who is a known `fundamentalist'. Neil believes
that too much emphasis is being placed on devolution (which he describes as
``a unionist invention'') and wants the party to concentrate on the demand for
independence. Formerly a member of the Labour Party, he believes his arguments
for a battle for the hearts and minds of the Scottish working class appeal to
the grassroots of the party. Great care should be taken with these labels, as
they hint at a greater divide between the two factions than actually exists.
Most of the criticism of the leadership has more to do with personal animosities
and ambitions than political differences.
The SNP conference which will
decide the matter will not be held until September. In the short term, the SNP
will be weakened by the episode. They will go into the next set of elections
divided, whatever the outcome, and led by a less respected figure than had been
anticipated. Scotland's unionists, primarily Labour, have been given a surprising
boost. The Scottish parliament on the other hand, having already been snubbed
by Labour's most prominent Scots, has now lost its most prominent and articulate
nationalist. The next SNP leader will have to grow into the job and quickly
if they are going to make the breakthrough in Labour's central belt heartlands
that independence requires.
From
An Phoblacht/Republican News
04/02/2000
Index
|
The Dilemma for the
SNP Left
|
|
John Swinney
has come out fighting. He has been re-elected leader of the Scottish
National Party and is out to prove his anti-Labour credentials with
powerful criticism of the current occupation of Iraq and the Executive’s
policy on asylum. The SNP leader has been under an immense amount of
pressure from within his own party after the very poor performance in
the May elections and the bid to oust him by Bill Wilson.
|
|
His response, though creditable,
has been part opportunism, part desperation and part instinct. Opinion
polls have shown that most Scots have been anti-War and for the closure
of the Dungavel detention centre. John has tapped into that feeling.
Swinney also knows that he has to try to win over the activists as an
ovation at Conference can be quickly forgotten. I also believe that
when the veiled curse of parliamentary respectability (which the SNP
suffers from) falls, these views are the instinctive views of the SNP
leader.
The obvious question is: how did the SNP get into this mess in the first
place? It is not an easy question to answer.
The SNP are still, just, a progressive political party. For years they
were the left-leaning, radical opposition to the main Unionist parties
in Scotland. Many SNP activists fought the good fight against the main
bastion of capitalism and unionism in Scotland: Labour. Many are republicans
and socialists. The nationalists have also had to endure years of media
hostility and downright Labour lies against them. They have been labelled
“tartan tories”, Orange (in Catholic, working class areas) and Green
( you can guess where), separatists and so on. No major newspaper has
ever backed the SNP. Despite all these obstacles the Party built a credible
oppositon to the Labour electoral machine.
This may be hard for many Scottish Socialists to swallow. The SSP like
to portray the 4 main pro-capitalist parties in distinction to ourselves.
I would not lump the SNP,en masse, in with the other 3 big parties.
I would, however, offer a rigorous critique of the SNP leadership.
For many years the passion has been drained from the SNP. The blurb
proclaims,”a left-of-centre party committed to Scottish independence.”
And, yes, many activists will fit the bill. The political reality, though,
has been a populist one. Many SNP policies are left-leaning (for example,
the re-nationalisation of the railways.) This has went hand-in-hand
with a wooing of big business. This is an old third way trick. Unfortunately,
you can’t keep big business and the workers happy simultaneously. Like
Labour before them, the SNP leadership have hid behind all the guff
about ‘wealth creation’ and ‘innovation’ to take sides in this age old,
class conflict. Unlike Labour, the Nationalist leadership are being
criticised by some of their own activists. Recent correspondence in
the Herald between Jim Mather, Economy Spokesperson, and Bill Ramsay
shows that there is disquiet.
|
|
The real
answer to my earlier question can be found in a political version
of a Connections game: SNP BLAIR CATALONIA.
|
|
Did you
get it?
Over the last 5 years or so there has been a creeping Blarism
in the SNP. The Leadership decided that the SNP had to be made
electable. Just like Tony the Tory, principles and dogma were
replaced by platitudes. This was the SNP’s own third way. SNP
branches adopted the motto, “Compassion, enterprise, democracy.”
Meaningless Logos and the Party colour were toyed with. Image
became more important. Independence, by the way, became no longer
a demand on winning a majoriy but the subject of a referendum
after the winning of that same Nationalist majority. John Swinney
seemed to embody this change though many manifestations began
under Alex Salmond’s leadership. I do not want to personalise.
Suffice to say that some of the old SNP Left embraced this third
way and joined the Leadership project.
It has long been suspected within the SNP that the Party was
being re-modelled on Catalan lines. The main nationalist party,
Covergencia Democratica de Catalunya, has held power in the
Home Rule parliament in Barcelona for years without pushing
for independence. The same has happened in the Basque Country.
Is this the SNP’s intention? Would independence become irrelevant
if the SNP controlled a successful Executive, managing a booming
capitalist economy? Of course, there is no evidence of this
just a strong suspicion within and without the SNP.
John Swinney has rebutted such talk. There is no ‘Blairisation’
in the SNP. Then again, adulterers deny their adultery; guilty
schoolweans say, “it wisnae me!” John’s denials fly in the face
of recent developments - and he knows it! Hence his excellent
speech at Dungavel in September. Likewise his fiery speech at
his leadership hustings when he denounced the ‘Brit Establishment’
and fought for the heart and soul of his party. That instinct
again.
That fire against the Brits and their imperialism is needed
outside of closed meetings. Constitutional nationalism doesn’t
have that fire in its belly. It has played the electoral game
for too long. The SNP have acted like any other Brit party -
in Westminster and in Holyrood - for too long. The SNP has denied
their own members’ republicanism out of fear. Their independent
Scotland would have the Queen as Head of State. The SNP have
sent their elected members to an Imperial Parliament that they
don’t believe in. They have been sucked into that establishment.
The SNP have been dishonest with themselves. They have been
the architects of their own downfall.
Compare this with the SSP. Politics is out on the street first,
parliament second. Politics has been taken back to first principles.
Independence and socialism going forward together, inscribed
on the same banner. To be fair, Left nationalists and republican
socialists were advocating an independent, socialist Scotland
long before the SSP came into existence. The difference between
left nationalism and republican socialism is this: tactical
- no single party can win Scotland’s independence. The Scottish
working class hold the key to truly freeing Scotland - from
Westminster and British imperialism, aye, but also from poverty
and exploitation; secondly, republican socialists support independence
100% but will not put socialism on the back burner.
There is a stark choice for the SNP Left. They can stand by
their party, trying to reform from within. Or they can join
a pro-independence socialist party that will revolutionise Scotland
from top to bottom. It’s that instinct again being proclaimed
rather than buried.
The proposed Independence Convention has been agreed in principle
by the SSP. The SRSM have worked tirelessly to push this within
the SSP. The Greens and the SNP leadership prevaricate. Over
100 activists attended a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference
to hear Tommy Sheridan speak in favour of such a Convention
with Alex Neil and Billy Wolfe. If the SNP leadership do fear
such a grassroots move to push forward the cause of independence,
then the stark choice for the SNP Left should become even easier.
Index
|
|
Connolly: National Liberation, Socialism, Partition
|
|
Over 87 years after his execution by the British state Edinburgh born James
Connolly remains a figure of major influence for republican socialists in
Scotland. As an organiser of the working-class in Scotland, Ireland and
America we still have much to learn from his achievements, particularly in
the relationship betwen the working class and the struggle for national
liberation. In this article
Liam O’Ruairc
of the IRSP explores Connolly’s legacy for the struggle today.
(Issue 3, An Damhair 2003)
Connolly’s major achievement is to have grasped the relation between
nationalism and socialism, between the national struggle and the class
struggle. A lot of socialists saw (and still see) the national struggle as a
diversion from class struggle and as being incompatible with socialism. Many
Republicans struggled against British imperialism, but with no references to
the struggle for a Socialist Ireland. For them the class struggle had no
relevance or was a diversion from the national struggle.
Connolly set out to explain to Republicans and Socialists the intrinsic
links between the two issues. “I
have spent a great portion of my life altering between interpreting
Socialism to the Irish and interpreting the Irish to the Socialists”
wrote Connolly.(1)
In the American edition of Erin’s Hope, he stated that “the
two currents of revolutionary thought in Ireland -the socialist and the
national- were not antagonistic but complementary”.
To Republicans, he explained that they would only realise their aims through
a socialist revolution. Imperialism is not about flags and emblems, it is
about a certain socio-economic organisation, and without a radical social
reorganisation of Irish society, the national struggle would end up being
mere national recreancy.
To Socialists who ignored the national question, he pointed that it would be
impossible to build a socialist society in Ireland so long as the country
was entangled in relations of economic and political subordination to the
British Empire. Breaking the chains of imperialism and national liberation
are a “first
requisite”
of socialism.(2)
Connolly’s fundamental teaching is that the struggle for national liberation
is not opposed to the struggle for socialism, but an integral and necessary
part of it. This is why “The
cause of labour is the cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause
of labour. They cannot be dissevered.”(3)
Socialism is impossible in Ireland without national liberation, and national
liberation would be meaningless for the working class without socialism.
Connolly correctly grasped the relation between the national democratic
revolution and the socialist revolution. It has been argued that Connolly
viewed national liberation and socialism as being two rigidly separated
stages: first the national liberation stage, where socialism is not on the
agenda until British withdrawal; and once Ireland is free - and not until
then, arrives the second stage where the struggle for socialism can begin.
It is wrong to attribute such a view to Connolly. He viewed the national
democratic revolution and the socialist revolution not as two separate
stages, but as two distinct aspects of the same process. The national
liberation struggle has to be fought on an explicitly socialist basis.
It is important to stress that Connolly was not some “left-wing nationalist”
who tried to do some eclectic synthesis between nationalism and socialism.
For Connolly, nationalism and socialism were not identical, but only
complementary. He clearly knew that there was nothing intrinsically
progressive about Irish nationalism, and was aware that there were areas of
tension between the two; he only supported it in so far as it had a
democratic content. Connolly addressed himself not the broad “nationalist”
constituency, but the most advanced and progressive section of the Irish
independence movement - the Republican tradition. National “freedom” is not
above classes and their struggles, Connolly gave a class content to Irish
Republicanism.
Each social class has its own definition of “freedom” and its own view about
the nature of “the Republic”. National freedom and the Republic would only
have a concrete content if it was for the freedom of the working class and
the Workers Republic.
”We
are out for Ireland for the Irish. But who are the Irish ? Not the
rack-renting slum-owning landlord; not the sweating profit-grinding
capitalist; not the sleek and oily lawyers; not the prostitute pressman -
the hired liars of the enemy. Not these are the Irish upon whom the future
depends. Not these, but the Irish working class, the only secure foundation
upon which a free nation can be reared.”
(4)
Connolly rejected bourgeois nationalism, and rejects any subordination of
the working class to bourgeois nationalism. “As
a socialist I am prepared to do all one man can do to achieve our motherland
her rightful heritage - independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot or
title of the claims of social justice in order to conciliate the privileged
classes, then I must decline.”
(5)
On the basis of a concrete analysis of social forces in Ireland, Connolly
concluded that “only
the Irish working class remain as the incorruptible inheritors of the fight
for freedom in Ireland.”
(6)
The working class, because it has “nothing to lose but its chains” is the
only class who will be able to lead the national liberation struggle to a
successful conclusion. All the other social classes will capitulate and sell
out at some stage because they are not prepared to risk their wealth and
power. The genuine motor of the national liberation struggle is the working
class. “Ireland
cannot rise to freedom except upon the shoulders of the working class
knowing its rights and daring to take them.”
(7)
However, it is also true that Connolly argued for a strategic alliance with
other classes. A successful revolution could in the specific conditions of
Ireland only come about through an alliance of all anti imperialist forces:
“We
are prepared to co-operate with all, even should the aim they set for such
organisation be far less ambitious than our own. We invite the co-operation
of all who will work with us toward that end.”
(8)
But such an alliance had to be under the leadership of the working class.
The place of any other class in the alliance would have to be subordinated
to the working class (this is very clearly stated in his articles on Sinn
Fein).
So it is incorrect to argue that in 1916 Connolly had capitulated to
Bourgeois nationalism. On the evening of 16 April 1916, Connolly informed
members of the Irish Citizens Army: “In
the event of victory, hold onto your rifles, as those with whom we are
fighting may stop before our goal is reached. We are for economic as well as
political liberty.”
(9)
How relevant are Connolly’s teachings in this early 21st century? Connolly’s
views on the relation between national liberation and socialism have been
subsequently validated by the revolutionary struggles in China, Vietnam,
Cuba, Angola and so many other countries in the world. Socialist revolutions
there were the outcome of national liberation struggles.
However, there have been a number of Marxist critics like Eric Hobsbawm or
Tom Nairn who dismiss on different grounds the idea that national liberation
is still a relevant issue. But the “internationalism” of those critics
remains purely abstract, as their national chauvinism renders them blind to
national oppression.
With the war in the North over the last thirty years, a current of the left
in Ireland - represented by the Workers Party or critics like Paul Bew and
Henry Patterson- has argued that socialists have to chose between nation and
class. For them, “national liberation” is just a species of territorial
irredentism with no democratic content; what is at stake is workers unity
versus Irish unity. The priority is to unite the Protestant and Catholic
working class, not to solve the divisive national question. But they are
wrong to see national liberation as territorial irredentism. Connolly had
warned that partition “would
mean a carnival of reaction both North and South and would set back the
wheels of progress.”
(10)
The struggle against partition is not opposed to the struggle for socialism,
but an integral part of it. It has a democratic content because, far from
being a question of territorial irredentism, it is about opposing the
“carnival of reaction”.
Connolly also understood the futility of sloganising around “workers unity”
in the North given the reactionary nature of Loyalism. Protestant workers “are
slaves in spirit because they have been reared up among a people whose
conditions of servitude were more slavish than their own”
. By contrast, Catholic workers “are
rebels in spirit and democratic in feeling because for hundred of years they
have found no class as lowly paid or as hardly treated as themselves.”
(11)
Sloganising abstractly around “working class unity” in the Six Counties is
not progressive because it fails to confront the reactionary nature of
Loyalism, and practically condemns the most oppressed sections of the
working class to subordinate their democratic revolt and interests to the
backwardness of the Loyalist labour aristocracy.
Republican Socialists today are the most consistent followers of James
Connolly’s teachings on national liberation and socialism, the national
democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. But our challenge is to
take up the analysis where Connolly left. Circumstances have changed since
Connolly’s times and our task is to develop Connolly’s teachings into the
21st century.
References
1) James Connolly Collected Works Vol.1, p.349 (Dublin 1988)
2) Collected Works Vol.2, p.175)
3) CW2, p.175
4) CW 2, p.175
5) CW1, p.307-308
6) CW1, p.25
7) CW 1, p.455
8) CW2, p.248
9) C. Desmond Greaves, ‘The
Life & Times of James Connolly’
p.403
10) CW1, p.393
11) CW1, p.386
This article was first published in ‘The
Starry Plough’, newspaper of the
Irish Republican Socialist Party.
Index |
The SSP and the National Liberation Struggle
(Issue 3, An Damhair 2003)
For Republican Socialists the struggles for National
Liberation and Socialism are inextricably linked. One
is not possible without the other and neither can be
achieved without the active participation of the Scottish
working class.
The National Liberation struggle will not be completed
until the workers of Scotland exercise complete control
over the material resources, economy and political administration
of Scotland. Nor will Scotland be liberated until all
remnants of British economic, political and cultural
imperialism are removed. How can we be ‘free’ if big
business still rules Scotland? This raises class questions
over the ownership of the resources and means of production
of Scottish society. Until these are firmly under democratic
political and industrial control we will still be fighting
a national liberation struggle against the vested interests
of Anglo-American Capitalism and Imperialism. It is
for these reasons that the national liberation struggle
will not be complete until the establishment of a Workers’
Republic in Scotland and the sweeping aside of the socio-economic
structures of the imperialist past and building a new
society based upon the democratic workers control of
the means of production, distribution and exchange.
These are the building blocks of the republican socialist
struggle because national liberation and the liberation
of the working class in Scotland are inseparable.
The vast majority of the SSP have moved on from the
failed ‘British Road to Socialism’ but there remain
sections which view the ‘national question’ as merely
tactical or even detrimental to the struggle for socialism.
This position prevents the SSP from realising its full
potential and is too often based on abstract polemicising
around the ‘unity of the British working class’. Such
an analysis rests upon the two-fold failure of these
socialists to recognise and account for the historical
differences in the nature and tactics of the class struggle
between Scotland and England since industrialisation.
Not least of all on the failure to recognise the often
colonial nature of the relationship with London which
shows clear signs of exclusion from the British imperialist
centre, poor development of infrastructure, inequitable
distribution of the proceeds which were derived from
British imperialism and most importantly, the working
class of Scotland has not gained the same advantages
as the English working class in social benefits and
wage levels. These are inbuilt factors that will always
tend to inhibit the strength of the working class in
England proportionately more than in Scotland.
Moreover it is usually accompanied by a complete lack
of understanding (or revisionist rewriting) of the historical
forces involved with the creation and maintenance of
the imperialist construct that is the British State
and the reality and nature of British imperialism in
Scotland.
|
The British state is, and always has been, rotten
to its very core. A state based on national oppression,
hereditary principle and the exploitation of the
world’s workers. Those social-imperialists who oppose
the national liberation struggle must be under no
illusions that the alternative that they offer amounts
to little more than defence of this class-ridden
corruption.
|
|
The central feature of the national liberation
struggle is to weaken the powers of British capitalism
and Imperialism. John MacLean analysed this process
thus in 1920; “the
British Empire is the greatest menace to the human
race. The best interest of humanity can therefore
be served by the break-up of the British Empire…
A Scottish break-away at this juncture would bring
the empire crashing to the ground and free the
waiting workers of the world.”
In the 21st century the Empire may be largely
gone but the break-up of the British state would
still represent a defeat of global importance
for the main ally of US Imperialism & would
be seen as such by the anti-imperialist forces
of the world.
Furthermore it would settle once and for all the
divisiveness of ‘the national question’ in a way
that no other solution could ever hope to. And
as Socialists we must recognise the absolute necessity
of advocating a constitutional solution to allow
the Scottish working class the freedom to pursue
our interests as a class in the development of
normal class politics. The Devolution settlement
offers no such solution and represents nothing
less than the British ruling class imposing a
political solution to guarantee the continued
protection of British economic and strategic interests
in Scotland.
The national liberation struggle is not antagonistic
to the struggle for socialism in Scotland but
an integral part of it and breaking the chains
of Imperialism should be the first priority of
socialists everywhere. It calls for the maximum
unity possible of the national struggle and the
class struggle where the democratic right of national
self-determination complements that of the struggle
for the independence of the working class.
However even amongst the most pro-independence
forces in the SSP there exists a degree of unwillingness
to take the lead in the struggle. There is still
a failure to tie all our demands in with the struggle
against British Imperialism. There even exists
a tendency to let the SNP take the forefront of
the struggle when we should be raising at all
times our radical alternative to their increasingly
miserable capitalist and monarchist agenda. Moreover
there are tendencies which concern themselves
at one end with ‘bread and butter’ issues, or
at the other end ‘international’ issues to the
exclusion of the national struggle. There remains
many in the SSP who cannot bring themselves to
make the link between every single one of these
demands and the wider struggle for a Socialist
Republic.
This is the challenge that faces the SSP today.
Not just to participate in the struggle for ‘independence’
but to seek leadership of the national liberation
movement and to guide the most advanced sections
of that movement firmly towards Socialism. The
SSP must tie the struggle for each and every demand
in with the struggle for a Socialist Republic,
and take that message out onto the streets and
into the workplaces. And it must not shirk from
this duty in order to pander to those who will
never accept the legitimacy of the national liberation
struggle. We must stand true and firm in the battle
against Imperialism and Capitalism.
The SSP gathers for its annual Socialism event
under the heading ‘Another Scotland Is Possible’.
Well we agree. But to get there there must be
no backtracking, no trying to accomodate diametrically
opposed shades of opinion on the national question.
The SSP must advocate the revolutionary solution
to the national question – a Workers’ Republic
- and then indeed not just another Scotland will
be possible but another world.
Index
|
Entrenching Support for Independence
|
|
http://srsm.port5.com/redduster/index.html
Main Political Page