By Tommy Kane
Reflecting on the referendum campaign it’s clear that it’s degenerated into the most polarising, divisive and diversionary political event of our times. Countering this view, some socialists in the Yes camp suggest that the campaign has engendered hope, inspired a revitalisation of left politics and saw record levels of political engagement. These supporters pronounce independence will bring freedom from subjugation and a renewal of democracy, others proclaim it will allows us escape from the supposedly different Scottish and English political cultures, while others assert firmly that a Yes vote can go some way to ‘smashing the British state’ (incidentally not at the top of people’s concerns on the doorsteps). Amongst some there also resides a belief that, at the very least, independence will bring social democracy and a fairer and more just Scotland, because, whisper it, ‘we are more progressive up here’. In order to sustain a clean and seamless Yes campaign these left proponents of this missive appear to have suspended their critical faculties, especially in relation to the SNP’s White Paper, and whether they like it or not, have encouraged a discourse that has appears to have focused predominately on the liberation of ‘Scottish nationhood’.
Coming from a diverse range of views they all have one thing in common; a coalescing of grievance and anger at every recent failed policy or foreign adventure, a belief that solutions can only be found through the construction of a border and a seemingly faith based conviction that everything bad will, in time, become good but only if we vote for independence. If we don’t then, so the story goes, we are all doomed.
These assertions really need some interrogation. This message of hope is actually wrapped in real despair and pessimism that says nothing good can ever come from Britain. This is despite the fact that all material gains won over the past 70 or so years have come from a united Labour and Trade Union movement forcing them through. This fight back and material advancement for working people through the Labour and Trade Union movement is a force that has, incredibly, been written off by far too many sections of the left during this debate as they focus on the bad and ignore the good. All too easily they forget where the NHS, welfare, public services, social housing, and even the Scottish Parliament, emerged from
What about the Wallace style cry of freedom? Scotland has not been a victim of British subjugation. Rather it has been an integral part of the oppression of others during the days of colonialism and empire. I have recently returned from British Colombia where contemporary Canada reflects relentlessly over the collective oppression of the first nation’s communities there. These national musings confirm how there are Scots fingerprints all over that process since way back at the beginnings of the Hudson Bay Company. Capitalist exploitation of the working class has of course occurred but that’s a class issue, the central resistance to which came from organised labour from across these isles.
Democratic advance and getting the Government we vote for is another refrain. But, didn’t the 890,000 people (that’s right nearly a million), just under 36% of the vote, who voted either Tory or Liberal in the last election get the government they voted for and the rest didn’t? What about the last Scottish election when those who voted SNP got the Government they voted for but the rest of us didn’t? Is that not democracy in action, that the party with most votes forms a Government and the party with the least doesn’t? Aside from this arithmetical exercise its also worth pondering how the current SNP Government has, ironically, been the most centralising Scottish Government on record and has diminished local government with no apparent desire to expand democracy to local government in the event of a Yes vote.
Nationalism is at the core of this debate. Yet many of the left have campaigned zealously for independence despite knowing full well they have provided cover for this exclusionary ideology. Nationalism both creates and implies difference. We see it here with explicit and implicit suggestions that we Scots are inclined to be more progressive and social democratic (the nationalist vote and the last General Election results show how this is an extremely problematic assertion). This Scottish strain of nationalism, like most others, also abandons notions of workers solidarity (at first hand through political trade union unity and common struggles) and seeks an outcome that necessitates the dividing of workers.
My interpretation of socialism is not based on excluding or abandoning my comrades; rather it’s built around core principles like solidarity, support and struggle (understanding that there are no shortcuts). I’m not about to change that view now and take a lifeboat, particularly with the fight we have on our hands to defeat the Tories. As Lenin states my foremost starting point “assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle”. This ‘national liberation movement’ has paid little attention to the consequences for working class struggle elsewhere in Britain, apart from reckless, complacent and blasé assertions about Scotland being a good example to our brothers and sisters in England.
Let us also be clear. This Scottish brand of nationalism has no intention of dealing with the rising structural inequality that has happened across the whole of the neo-liberal globalised world; including Britain. Indeed, they never mention wider global, economic forces, come to it neither do many of their left fellow travellers. Political self-determination is all that matters in their view with no strategy at all to deal with promoting, let alone achieving, any semblance of economic self-determination.
The only strategy to deal with those forces is made clear in the only programme for independence published and available. The SNP White Paper is unequivocal. They intend to capitulate to those global pressures that have resulted in the huge and growing inequality in the wider world, Europe and UK today. The White Paper outlines a vision of a Scotland that will be slavishly obedient to the free market and do whatever is necessary to reassure market nerves. That’s what the proposed corporation tax cut is all about (how can that result in anything other than a catastrophic race to the bottom and more damage to working people in Scotland and the rest of Britain). That’s why they didn’t support the Labour amendment to introduce a living wage in the Procurement Bill earlier this year and that’s why they don’t support a 50p tax rate and a mansion tax. Of course whenever anyone dare raise such points the response is that it’s nothing to do with the SNP; If only that were so. They are the Scottish Government; they will control negotiations and the writing of the constitution and it is they that will be at the heart of everything in the event of a Yes. Conversely, I accept that the likes of the Common Weal have published some interesting papers, but their promotion of corporatism which ignores class conflict represents another lurch into the rhetoric of nationalism; while they and their colleagues in the Radical Independence movement and others such as the SSP and Solidarity have very little prospect of electoral success any time soon. Indeed in the last General Election the Greens and SSP could not even muster 1% between them.
Left supporters for Yes have instead offered tacit support to many of the White Paper promises. Indeed many have shared platforms with representatives of Business for Scotland to promote an independent Scotland. A key signal of how for many class has been trumped by the politics of nation. If it’s a Yes we better get used to this. When faced with turbo charged austerity, required to find favour with and gain the confidence of the markets, the Scottish people will be urged to take the hit and suffer the pain for your country, how we are at a new dawn and early the beginnings of a new state and we need to do it for our children and grandchildren etc. It will be a political landscape dominated, just like Ireland for decades after the formation of the Free State, by a consciousness of nationhood and not class.
It’s unsurprising that the biggest issue worrying ordinary Scot’s is the potential for economic carnage. Many people get that there is a huge uncertainty attached to pensions, welfare, public spending, wages etc. Perhaps the biggest and most obvious issue is the currency. Yet despite that uncertainty and the real potential for hugely negative consequences from the SNP plans, or lack of them, many people on the left have suspended their critical faculties on this potential for even further negative material outcomes for working people. Only nihilists, fundamentalists and true believers and others who think they have nothing to lose may suggest that this is a mere technical point. It’s not. If we enter a currency union then we will have to agree to the ceding on monetary policy (already acknowledged in the white paper) and more than likely fiscal policy too. After all why would a (what would then be) foreign bank, underwrite our economy and become lender of last resort to a foreign country whose banking system is 12 times its GDP (IE its highly risky) without ensuring a huge say over taxation and spending.
This does beg the following questions. Where is the independence in that and how can you build the better and just society under such conditions? If it is a yes people on the left must argue for Scotland to have its own currency, only then could we have sufficient control of the economic levers to have a chance to do things differently and progressively, but this would take a long time to achieve stability and sustainability and would create huge pain for ordinary working people in the meantime. Unlike those advocating independence from a comfortable vantage point and who will be able to ride that wave of pain ordinary people will be faced with even more challenging economic times. That might be ok for the nihilists in our midst. For the likes of myself on the other hand, who actually live and socialise amongst the great working class (who many on the left cite but don’t normally go near) this is just not good enough. Particularly when working people are spun the line that everything bad will become good with no mention of the likely impending and increased pain.
Polarising as it has been it would be wrong not to acknowledge that the Yes/No debate has got people engaged and thinking about the type of country they want to live in. Whatever happens on the 18th it is now apparent that the political landscape has changed forever and that political change has to occur. For those on the left taking a No position we have argued from the outset that we are not Better Together under the present conditions. There has to be a change from the hugely damaging austerity and neo-liberalism. But, the view taken has been that independence and mere constitutional change has never been the answer to dealing with these huge enemies to working people.
So no matter the actual result it’s now clear that a huge swathe of Scot’s are, on the 18th September, going to express massive dissatisfaction at the status quo; the capitulation to neo-liberalism; and the normalisation of its outcomes of huge poverty on one hand, and eye-watering, record levels of obscene wealth enjoyed by those at the top, on the other. This expression by the Scottish people must be listened to. We must pay attention and understand how we found ourselves fighting this unnecessary fight, and then push for a new paradigm of politics that addresses the concerns raised by so many of the Scottish people. Not just on bringing new powers to Holyrood but also in the type of policies devised and developed at Holyrood and indeed at Westminster.
This has to mean the Labour Party once and for all rejecting the politics of New Labour and once again returning to a programme and discourse that talks of inequality and poverty as obscenities, that proudly advocates redistribution and progressive taxation, proposes the repeal of Thatcher’s anti-trade union laws (which allows us to far more easily provide workplace solidarity where and when necessary) and which promotes renationalisation and public ownership. In short, it has to demonstrate that a vote for No was not for the status quo but for progressive change for all working people across these isles.
by Martyn Cook, Labour Party member
The leaflet in this post appeared on Twitter recently, and is being distributed by the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) this week. It lists a series of “guarantees” that a Yes vote will bring. What I have failed to establish so far is where these “guarantees” come from. RIC make a song and dance of the fact that a Yes vote isn’t necessarily for the SNP or their White Paper, but this leaflet – and the wider conduct of the SNP – clearly undermine this position.
In terms of the leaflet, there is clearly a contradiction at the heart of the “guarantees”. On the one hand, RIC need to be able to establish some ground upon which these policies will be passed in an independent Scotland. On the other hand, they are desperate to dissociate themselves from the SNP/White Paper. As such, the RIC leaflet makes a series of claims that are seemingly based on very liberal interpretations of the White Paper or just plucked out of the air altogether.
For example, RIC claim that a Yes vote will “guarantee” an end to benefit sanctions. In terms of benefit sanctions the White Paper doesn’t claim to end them, it only wants to “launch an urgent review of the conditionality and sanctions regime.” (pg159) It then goes on to “guarantee” that there will be an end to foodbanks in Scotland, which, while obviously desirable, is a goal that even the much lauded Scandinavian countries are struggling to prevent the growth of.
RIC then claim that a Yes vote “guarantees” and end to ATOS and the Work Capability Assessment of the benefit assessment process. With ATOS, they are already giving up the welfare assessment contracts due to campaigns across the whole of the UK. The White Paper doesn’t call for an end to Work Capability Assessments and in fact will continue most of the system for some unspecified time. (pg 164)
There will also be, allegedly, 30,000 new civil service jobs, but this seemingly is fabricated from other unnamed sources as the White Paper doesn’t put a figure on civil servants (pg 575) and, funnily enough, doesn’t mention the jobs that will inevitably go as a result of independence.
A Yes vote then “guarantees” that the minimum wage will be set at the living wage. Except, of course, in the White Paper, the minimum wage will not be made equal to the living wage; the living wage will simply get “support and promote[d]” after a Yes vote. (pg 396)
The childcare one is a dead give-away though, as that’s just an SNP policy, who almost every “radical” Yes campaigner claims we aren’t voting for. Clearly, that only holds true until it’s convenient or sounds good to say we’ll have those policies after a Yes vote.
With regards to the rest of the “guarantees”, Labour have already adopted it as policy or go beyond what is here (ie, the Bedroom Tax will be scrapped across the UK, and not just in Scotland); has alternatives that are costed (will tax banker’s bonuses for a job creation scheme); will increase the minimum wage and encourage the Living Wage as well, and also increase child care. So to imply that Westminster is an unchangeable institution that doesn’t have the potential for bringing about transformation doesn’t stack up.
The contortions and stick-bending that the Yes Left are having to incorporate to try and justify a Yes vote being class-based or socialist is clearly at breaking point. RIC are desperate to claim that a Yes vote will allow for radical change, but at the same time are simply providing a fig leaf to cover the fact that it is the SNP’s White Paper model of deregulated trickle-down economics that will be delivered with a Yes vote.
This has been apparent for some time. Yes Scotland is supposedly a cross-party organisation, but a cursory glance at each of their positions on currency is revealing. The Greens would like a new currency. The SSP would also like a new currency. The SNP, however, would much prefer a currency union. And low and behold, what is the cross-party Yes Campaign’s position? A currency union….
Salmond has already positioned himself as framing the referendum as vote for the SNP’s White Paper. He is on record in Parliament as stating the following: “I say to Ruth Davidson that, on September 18, if people in Scotland vote for what is in the white paper and the proposals to keep the pound, that is exactly what will happen and any Scottish politician who does not recognise the sovereign choice of the Scottish people will pay a heavy price.”
This was underlined again in his second debate with Alasdair Darling of the Better Together Campaign last night. Salmond repeatedly made reference to a Yes Vote reflecting the “sovereign will” of the people and a Yes vote providing a “mandate” for a currency union. Again, this is the SNP/White Paper position he is stating. The SNP have a majority government and will still have that influence and power if there is a Yes vote when they undertake negotiations with the UK government. It is clear that they will be proposing the White Paper position throughout – a Yes vote has provided a “mandate” for this.
RIC are happy to pose with the SNP and the likes of Business for Scotland as an example of how apparently broad the Yes Campaign is. However, no matter how small or inconspicuous they try and make the SNP’s sign in a group photo, it is clear they dominate the Yes campaign’s policy and vision.
This is not to say that a No vote in itself is progressive or will provide answers but if, for socialists at least, the challenge is to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families, then we must be able to challenge the dominant forces of capital. For Scotland, these forces are by and large organised and operate at a British level, and will continue to impact on us even after a Yes vote.
What we need to argue for is not a breaking away from the UK, but increased democratic controls over the British economy. The urgent need for economic democracy is the only “guarantee” that this referendum can provide.
by Vince Mills
One of the interesting, though perhaps more bizarre aspects of the current independence debate in Scotland is how some sections of the Scottish Left have been shifting to the right and even slipping into the nationalist camp, apparently without noticing it; others have adopted a strategy which hints at radical change but in their effort to achieve this, promote its ideological antithesis.
This latter position is most clearly articulated by the SWP and a range of other groups and individuals in the Radical Independence Campaign. Their argument that they support independence and not nationalism is premised on the belief that there will be a disintegration of the British state following a Yes vote.
The former is most closely associated with the remnants of the Scottish Socialist Party and others, like the Labour for Independence group (origins and purpose contested) who previously might have voted for, or even have been members of the Labour Party; it is a straightforward recognition that fundamental change is not on the agenda and some form of limited social democracy is the best we can hope for. Of the two it is position that carries more weight.
It may be difficult to believe that socialists in Scotland, many of whom were loud in their condemnation, and correctly so, of Labour’s seduction by right wing ideas under Blair, can support a nationalist agenda, but here is how Colin Fox, the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, received the launch of the SNP’s economically right wing White Paper:
“The white paper sets out a vision of independence that represents a significant advance for Scotland in my view – affording us the right to self-determination and the chance to build the type of nation we want.”
To be fair to Colin he highlights its weaknesses as well as what he sees as its strengths, but it is the political shift of a Party that once presented itself as an advocate of radical socialism that is important here. As spokesperson of the SSP, Colin is acknowledging that in itself the White Paper marks an advance (despite its neo-liberal economic assumptions) but that, more importantly it offers the ‘chance’ to build the kind of nation we want thereby signalling that the SSP will accept independence even if it does not lead in a left direction. In other words, by accepting independence as an objective in itself, he is thereby re-defining the SSP as a nationalist party. And if that is not enough, despite attacking the limitations of the White Paper, Colin signs up the left to work for independence among working class voters despite any guarantees of a better Scotland:
“Left-wing organisations that support independence such as the Scottish Socialist Party have a crucial role to play in persuading working-class voters who are justly sceptical of the sort of change Alex Salmond and the SNP have in mind that they would still be better off with independence.”
Why they would be any better off if the SNP’s pro NATO, pro EU Pro monarchy, pro low business tax Scotland, as it almost certainly would be, is based on two unstated assumptions. The first is that a vote for independence is not a vote for the SNP and the second is that the politics of an independent Scotland will indeed be more progressive.
These are both unfounded. It is indeed the SNP’s white paper we are voting on, a party which had the highest share of the popular vote in the recent European election and the last Scottish Parliament elections and has the greatest number of councillors. It is by any measure the dominant political force in Scotland and is not about to disappear any time soon.
Meanwhile the myths bubbling up around Scottish ‘exceptionalism’ are surely bursting. In May in the run up to the European elections, where UKIP managed to win a seat in Scotland the Glasgow Herald had already reported: “UKIP policies to curb immigration, cut overseas aid and crack down on benefits claimants are backed by a majority of Scots, a surprise new poll suggests…”
This poses a significant political and largely ignored challenge (by the SNP) to its desire to increase productivity by growing Scotland’s population through increased immigration.
To the left of the SSP’s analysis we have the SWP and other Radical Independence supporters who argue that a Scottish secession will somehow or another lead to the break-up of the British state. This assumes of course that the British state can neither be reformed or transformed though existing democratic institutions but, as the old light bulb joke would have it, can only be smashed. Leaving aside the debate on the nature of the British state and whether in Keir Hardie’s view it is a ‘useful donkey’ or in Marx’s that ‘it is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie’, the question that needs to be answered by its Left advocates is how a Scottish secession fundamentally weakens it, in either an independent Scotland or in rUK.
Bear in mind that the state that will most likely emerge in Scotland will be deeply tied to that of the rUK through our integrated economy, (perhaps through a currency pact). In rUK, the power of finance capital, umbilically linked to the brokers of political power, will remain untouched in the City of Westminster where it will still control the flows of capital in and out of Scotland.
A real challenge to the power of capital in an independent Scotland would require in the words of James Stafford in Renewal a “chaviste economic strategy of nationalisation, investment and redistribution …” it would also mean “…capital and exchange controls, as well as the swift abandonment of EU membership. This is a recipe unlikely to meet with either success or popularity in a small, open, wealthy and European economy like Scotland’s; even less so during the brief initial period when the framing conditions for Scottish independence would be decided …”
As Stafford suggets above, such a strategy would at the very least require an honest dialogue with and compelling narrative offered to Scottish working people and their institutions about the difficult and dangerous political terrain they were about to move onto. Not only has such dialogue not been entered into, while sections of the ultra-left massage each other’s delusions about the possibility of radical change following the referendum, the main Yes campaign of which they are part sets out quite a different future.
In the Yes Campaign’s ‘Your Choice’ pamphlet, in a section headed “WELCOME TO SCOTLAND 2020” it cites the example of Barbara “Today: Up to her eyes in paperwork, Barbara wishes she had more time to focus on what she does best – running the most popular pub in town. 2020 A hardworking businesswoman, Barbara has always had what it takes. Now freed up from high business taxes and red tape, she has a thriving pub on her hands and her employees are happy and productive thanks to the new guarantee to raise the minimum wage at least in line with inflation.”
So, on the one hand a section of the Scottish Left espouses national independence for its own sake in the hope that it provides a chance for a better future, while another pretends to promote revolutionary change through support for independence, while in effect supporting a campaign for a Scotland of entrepreneurial aspiration.
Whatever the result of the referendum, both these left factions will be marginalised, but all the more marginalised if it is a No vote. This is not because they have not tried to have strategic engagement with the working class. They have tried very hard to engage, to the extent of abandoning their own objectives in favour some quite toxic to the left. The problem is that they do not have a credible strategy for serious social change. That is not an area where the Labour Left can feel an excess of confidence either which is why, as soon as the vote in September is over, the Scottish Labour left needs to meet and discuss our strategy and programme for fundamental change. A No vote must also mean another country.
by Stephen Low, a Labour Party member and part of the Red Paper Collective
Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all based on a concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’
Scottish nationalism, we are always told, is civic, tolerant and open, different to other nationalisms. So welcoming in fact that many signed up to independence will argue that it isn’t really nationalism at all.
From Billy Bragg’s distanceit all looks very cuddly. Up close though, finding safety in numbers through a process of division, it looks a lot less pleasant.
Taking just a few examples: demonstrators gather outside the BBC and unfurl banners denouncing people as ‘anti–Scottish’, claiming that only the ‘corrupt media’ stops people supporting Independence.
A writer, Alan Bissett, prominent enough to be invited to perform to the conference of the governing nationalist party, describes current constitutional arrangements as ‘Subjugation; cultural, political and economic’. The acme of liberal independence supporting commentators, Gerry Hassan, expresses satisfaction that the Scots ‘are becoming a people’ and ‘developing voice in its deepest sense’.
It’s easy to recognise tropes here familiar from other, less favourably looked on nationalisms. Principally that only by asserting ourselves as a nation can we throw off alien influences and truly be ourselves. Perhaps then, Scotish nationalism isn’t all that exceptional after all.
Responding to JK Rowling’s endorsement of a No vote, a writer from the ‘National Collective’ declares Scotland is ‘a State of Mind’. Independence is all about ‘the story we choose to believe in’.
How very open, how very welcoming; anyone can be Scottish, provided they share our state of mind.
Except this, naturally, involves embracing independence. The status of those of us unwilling to do this isn’t quite spelled out. Neither is the corollary; if anyone can be Scottish by sharing ‘our’ state of mind. Also, what if, like myself, you don’t? If the ‘story you choose to believe in’ is a multi- or even non-national one, are you somehow less Scottish?
This is as much about exclusion as it is inclusion. And it is this process, more than independence that is developing momentum. Robin McAlpine, director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation and one of the gurus of the Radical Independence Campaign, used to describe non Indyfan lefties as ‘fellow travellers‘ for whom they should ‘keep a seat at the table’. He now issues dire warnings that ‘We are not afraid of you, we are going to win and history will remember you for how you behaved’.
Of course, all of the above matter much less than the SNP and the Scottish government.Recently, Nicola Sturgeon drew a distinction between ‘essentialist’ and ‘utilitarian’ nationalists. This isn’t anything to do with fundamental outlook, just a tactical difference about the timing of state formation. The deputy first minister went on to explain, in a phrase redolent of Michael Gove on steroids, that she wanted a new Scottish constitution to ‘embody the values of the nation’.
What those values might be were (thankfully) left undefined. Add to this the vaguely sinister sounding intentions of education secretary Mike Russell that the views of scientists on research bodies ‘might be aligned’ with those of the Scottish government.
A more serious indicator of what might be in store was given when Ed Balls and George Osborne, invoking the national interest of the rest of the UK, said they didn’t support a currency union with an independent Scotland. They were immediately decried by the First Minister and his supporters as ‘bullies’ ganging up on Scotland.
In the howls of anguish that followed, it was taken as read that assertions by the UK couldn’t be valid in themselves, they were merely attacks on Scotland. The ‘Scottish’ interest wasn’t just deemed to be the most important or priority viewpoint, but the only legitimately held opinion.
The economics or even politics of the situation (eg If Balls or Osborne were interested in having a supranational banking arrangement deciding governmental borrowing limits, they would have joined the Euro) were abandoned in favour of the financially illiterate spasm of ‘It’s our pound too’.
Stripped to its essence, it was a case of the leader of a nationalist party building support for a policy by saying foreigners were attacking the country. If that looks like it has worked then don’t think it will stop on September 19. Nationalist ends won’t be willed in the referendum without embedding nationalist means to sustain them afterwards.
Clearly the SNP aren’t some sort of Jobbik style proto fascists. But suggesting that ‘Technocratic Administrative Boundary Adjustment’ or ‘Blood and Soil’ are the only two possible settings on the nationalist dial isn’t right either.
Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all predicated on defining and separating, with concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’. Real progressive politics does the opposite. People at home or in the places that will shortly be abroad if there is a yes vote in September would do well to remember that.
By Vince Mills, Campaign for Socialism and Red Paper Collective
An English visitor to the back to back Scottish labour Party conference in Inverness, or the STUC congress in Perth in April earlier might have been forgiven for being confused. Was Scotland exempt from the politics of austerity? Had the bedroom tax passed us by? A wee bit of an exaggeration perhaps but for sure the press and the fringe meetings and the late night arguments quickly passed over the consensus on the iniquities of the ConDem assault on benefits and quickly fixed on what divides us. The Independence Referendum.
To be fair, most of the Left outside the Labour Party and the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) have taken the position that the best way to address austerity and the other horrors visited on us by the ConDems is to vote for independence. This is predicated on one assumption that has no evidence to support it and one theoretical premise that is badly flawed.
The first assumption is that people who live in Scotland are more ‘progressive’ than our Southern neighbours and consequently . The Social attitudes survey says not. The Scots and the English more or less share the same views, for better or worse, with the exception Scottish attitudes on tolerance of foreigners, which is slightly better than the English.
The theoretical premise requires more consideration. It is argued by a range of Left groups that if Scotland were to secede from Britain it would mean the end of the British state and all that flows from it. It is put articulately here by my friend the ex Labour MSP John McAllion, who is now a member of the SSP, writing in Red Pepper:
“The choice is really very simple. Go on as before inside an antiquated and reactionary state that legally shackles trade unions and has no political space for socialism. Or begin to break that state apart in the name of progress and social advance and in doing so release the energy and the potential of a left across Britain that has for far too long been in retreat.”
John is very clear on two things. The first is that freed from the shackles of the British state the Scottish state will embrace a radical, left politics. There may be some possibility of that, if the move to independence were being driven by a class conscious Left intent on creating a socialist project in the teeth of severe capitalist opposition. But it is not. It is being led by what John would happily agree is a class alliance supported by wealthy bankers, global capitalist entrepreneurs and a significant section of Scotland’s petit bourgeoisie. Yes I know Better Together would fit the same bill, but nobody is arguing they will clear the way for socialist advance.
The SNP has made it clear there will be a constitution for the new Scotland and the basis of that constitution is also fairly clear. It will be located comfortably within the limits of neo-liberal economic and political orthodoxies. Likely inclusions are the monarchy, membership of the EU, sterling as the national currency and membership of the EU. How’s that for shackles.
But actually it is not the main problem with John’s utopian nationalism. He is confusing the geographical entity that is Britain with the state power of capitalism. It is here more than anywhere that we need ask our comrades how they believe introducing a challenge to capitalism is possible when the ownership of Scotland’s economy, including its banks and trade will be controlled from the City of London. The effect of independence will be, in addition to the possible rupturing of the united British working class movement at trade union level, to remove Scottish voters from any influence on the politics of Westminster parliament which has the potential to challenge the power of capital as part of a wider progressive movement for change.
So perhaps the emphasis at the STUC and the Scottish labour Party was right. Not that resistance to the politics of austerity must not be a priority, but that defending of a British wide trade union and Labour movement capable of taking on the power of British capital focused in the City of London is essential to that fight.
by Vince Mills, Campaign for Socialism and Red Paper Collective
There is a constituency, which if recent opinion polls are to be believed, is more likely to vote for independence than other demographics. The most recent Ipsos MORI poll reveals a significant surge in support for independence among young people – 58% of 18-24 year olds say they will vote ‘Yes’, more than double the 27% recorded in October 2012.
It is not clear whether this has influenced what I will call the Radical Independence Movement, or indeed whether the Radical Independence Movement has had some influence on younger people, although I doubt it. Nevertheless it is surely a timely reminder that those of us who want class and not nation to be the central appeal of constitutional change need to understand what young people in general want constitutional change to achieve and, more specifically, what those young people committed to a left position, however vague, hope that independence will bring.
And I have to say it is indeed vague. The successful Radical Independence Conference held last November had five guiding principles for their vision:
A Scotland that is
- Green and environmentally sustainable
- Internationalist and opposed to Trident and war
- For a social alternative to austerity and privatisation
- A modern republic for real democracy
- Committed to equality and opposition to discrimination on grounds of gender, race or sexuality
There is, you will have noted, no specific reference to anything that might form the basis of a strategy for transition to a more radical Scotland, like public ownership, or a positive legal framework for trade unions. Indeed I have seen mission statements for large corporate companies that could cope with most of these principles, but to be fair that is not the point.
It is the very vagueness of the platform that is being set out by this perspective that allows it to have such wide appeal. Our job has surely got to be to raise with Radical Independence supporters the formidable barriers to social change that we all face and argue that an independent Scotland, on the terms that it will be offered, will make it more, not less difficult, to achieve the goals they seek.
It is here that we need to insist that the reality of an independent Scotland is dealt with. According to the SNP that will be based on a written constitution. The SNP has already made it clear what the basis of that constitution will be and should Scotland vote for independence, their constitution, located comfortably within the limits of neo-liberal economic and political orthodoxies, is unlikely to be challenged by any other of the mainstream parties in Scotland.
What would that mean for the five principles suggested by the Radical Independence Movement?
Let us begin with a Scotland that is Green and environmentally sustainable
The SNP of course missed its first legally binding climate change target on Green house Gas emissions and blamed the cold weather. The reality is that neo-liberalism which would be an essential aspect of the Scottish constitution, by dint of EU membership if nothing else, is a major obstacle to tackling capitalism’s cannibalism of renewable resources. A point not missed by Green MSP Alison Johnstone a supporter of Radical Independence who said “Passing the Climate Act didn’t make the problem go away. That requires really bold action on housing and transport that we’re just not seeing from the Scottish Government, despite the potential to provide a great deal of employment in construction.” But such actions would be inimical to neo-liberal thinking, actions that would remain inimical in a Scotland under such a constitution, made more so by the difficulty of small European nation seeking to look to alternatives to the EU’s neo-liberalism within or outside the EU.
What about an Internationalist Scotland that is opposed to Trident and war. Again a Scotland that is part of the nuclear NATO alliance, almost certainly another element in our constitution, will find it difficult to escape the obligations placed on it by the US leadership in support of NATO’s nuclear capacity, whether or not an independent Scotland is ever actually able to rid itself of Trident.
But perhaps the social and economic core to the Radical Independence Movement’s claims is the call for a social alternative to austerity and privatisation. It is here more than anywhere that we need ask our comrades how they believe introducing what I assume to be a challenge to capitalism is possible when the ownership of Scotland’s economy, including its banks and trade will be controlled from the City of London, as will its currency, under SNP plans. The effect of independence will be, in addition to the possible rupturing of the united British working class movement at trade union level, to remove Scottish voters from any influence on the politics of Westminster parliament which has the potential to challenge the power of capital as part of a wider progressive movement for change.
As for a modern republic for real democracy, the SNP insistence on the monarchy, no doubt also enshrined in the constitution will make that one a long term aspiration. At least as long as it is for the UK as a whole.
Which leaves us with the commitment to equality and opposition to discrimination on grounds of gender, race or sexuality. Leaving aside attitudinal issues like prejudice although even here class and poverty play a part with those will the lowest educational attainment most likely to think discrimination is acceptable, the biggest problem Scotland faces remains the unequal distribution of wealth in relation to women. According to the Equal Opportunities Committee at Holyrood women in Scotland are being driven into low-paid and low-status work – cleaning, care jobs and administration and are also suffering most by rising unemployment. This is not just an issue of gender, though it is, it is also an issue of class and an issue of class that is exacerbated by the current politics of austerity, endorsed by the EU to which we may be committed by our constitution.
We have to make it clear to our comrades in the radical independence movement that they have not advanced any strategy to show how we would reverse the power of Capital. The neo-liberal clamp on political development would if anything be tightened in a Scotland with less political and economic power than it currently has by dint of surrendering its influence on the British state while the British state would continue to control its economy and currency.
I am not fond of quoting Gordon Brown but it is difficult to find a better summary of where the Radical Independence movement in its naive acceptance of the consequences of an SNP independence project would lead us. Brown claimed it would be “a form of self-imposed colonialism more reminiscent of the old empire than of the modern world”.
That future comrades, is a future which is neither radical nor independent.