Andy Yorke<\/i><\/p>\n
Andy Yorke reviews four left books on Scottish independence:<\/p>\n
The Case for an Independent Socialist Scotland, Colin Fox, SSP<\/p>\n
Yes: The Radical Case for Scottish Independence, James Foley and Pete Ramand (ISG)<\/p>\n
Scotland\u2019s Road to Socialism: Time to choose, edited by Gregor Gal1<\/p>\n
Scotland: Yes to independence \u2013 No to nationalism, Keir McKechnie, SWP<\/p>\n
Each stage in the growth of Scottish nationalism over the last decade has seen more of the British far left falling in behind it. The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), convinced of the possibility of electoral success via the more democratic electoral system for the Scottish Assembly, has been pro-independence since its foundation in 1999. Now, they are joined in calling for a Yes vote \u201cfrom a \u2018Socialist\u2019 perspective\u201d in this September\u2019s independence referendum by the Socialist Party Scotland (CWI), Socialist Resistance (Fourth International), the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and its splits, the International Socialist Group (ISG) in Scotland, Counterfire and now RS21\u2019s Neil Davidson (previously the SWP\u2019s chief commentator on Scottish history and politics).<\/p>\n
Socialism and nationalism<\/p>\n
Although there are differences of argumentation, all of these groups have turned their backs on the analysis of nationalism, and the tactics towards nationalist movements, developed by the revolutionary Marxist tradition to which they all claim to belong. That analysis was first developed in response to the growth of nationalist movements in the 19th Century, particularly in the multinational Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, but was given its most precise formulation in the light of Lenin\u2019s analysis of imperialism.<\/p>\n
Its essential features included the recognition that nationalism is inherently a bourgeois political doctrine, whilst the socialist movement must remain internationalist. Nonetheless, socialists recognise that, in the bourgeois epoch, all nations have the right to self-determination. Where a nationalist movement is a response to oppression, socialists should support it, while campaigning for working class methods of struggle and organisation in order to challenge bourgeois leadership.<\/p>\n
On the question of independence and separation, the socialist preference would always be to maintain the largest unit because that provides the biggest arena for the class struggle by all nationalities. Lenin explained why this was:<\/p>\n
\u201cCapitalism requires for its development the largest and most centralised possible states. Other conditions being equal, the class-conscious proletariat will always stand for the larger state. It will always \u2026welcome the closest possible economic amalgamation of large territories in which the proletariat\u2019s struggle against the bourgeoisie can develop on a broad basis.\u201d2<\/p>\n
However, where it was clear that a majority of the oppressed nation wanted separation, independence should be suppported in order to allow the class struggle within the oppressed nation to develop without the interference of a \u201cforeign oppressor\u201d.<\/p>\n
Moreover, campaigning for the right to separate would combat chauvinism or racism in the working class of the \u201coppressor\u201d nation as in Marx\u2019s famous dictum, \u201cA nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations\u201d.3<\/p>\n
In the case of Scotland, it is immediately clear that this tradition would oppose independence. While Scotland is undoubtedly a nation, it is not an oppressed nation \u2013 in the modern, capitalist epoch, there has been no sustained struggle for independence and opinion polls taken over several decades have never indicated anything approaching a majority in favour of independence.<\/p>\n
Equally, the negative consequences of independence, in terms of limiting the scale of the class struggle and dividing a working class movement that has been united since its origins, speaks against support for separation.<\/p>\n
The same political method, however, would recognise that any attempt to prevent separation, should there be a majority in favour in September\u2019s referendum, would be a denial of the right of self-determination. In that situation, socialists should demand immediate recognnition of full Scottish independence.<\/p>\n
We should expose reformist arguments that independence will better the lives of workers and the poor and take an implacably hostile stance toward the SNP, using every opportunity to expose its cynical triangulating strategy and argue that it will increasingly abandon the tactical reforms to win workers\u2019 votes once they are no longer needed to achieve the goal of independence.<\/p>\n
Unlike left republicans, most of the pro-yes socialist groups do not argue that Scotland is oppressed; it has a GDP per capita that puts it on a par with the UK average, while historically it has participated in and profited from the Empire as an equal partner.<\/p>\n
The SSP\u2019s \u201cCase for an Independent Socialist Scotland\u201d by Colin Fox seems to be the exception. It argues that independence offers the chance to \u201cfree five million Scots from the yoke of British imperialism\u2026Socialists didn\u2019t argue that Ireland should not have its independence, or India in 1947, or all those other countries shackled to the British Empire did they\u201d.4 The implication is clearly that Scotland\u2019s relationship to the British state is comparable to that of India, which is simply untrue; the Scottish ruling class decided to ally itself with the English in 1707 and, as a nation, Scotland has been an integral part of the same imperialist state ever since.<\/p>\n
While all the \u201cpro-indy\u201d socialist left argue that \u201cyou don\u2019t have to be a nationalist to vote Yes\u201d, there are differences in their argumentation; the more right wing (the SSP, ISG, CWI, SR) present an openly reformist alternative to the Scottish National Party (SNP) after independence,5 while the SWP distances itself from all this, asserting an \u201canti-imperialist\u201d Yes vote is an opportunity to \u201cbreak the British state\u201d. All the Yes camp soft-pedal Scottish nationalism and the damage independence will do to working class unity.<\/p>\n
\u201cIndependence\u2019s transformational potential?\u201d6<\/p>\n
In the \u201cTime to Choose\u201d compilation, RS21\u2019s Neil Davidson develops a theme which is common on the pro-independence left, explaining that independence \u201copens up a space for struggle, a space that can be filled by either the continuation of neoliberalism or by the beginning of an alternative\u201d.7 So, are the possibilities of struggle or reform really better in Scotland than in the UK as whole? Fox sees this space as one in which \u201cthe struggle for socialism can be significantly advanced\u201d, the ISG\u2019s James Foley and Pete Ramand, in \u201cYes\u201d, point to its \u201csubversive prospects\u201d for a \u201cradical agenda\u201d.8<\/p>\n
The SSP and ISG are based completely in Scotland, and Fox and Foley\/Ramand show little if any interest in the question of how English and Welsh workers will defeat austerity, other than the offhand hope they will be roused by the successful example of an independent Scotland. As a result it is breathtakingly easy for them to write off any possibility of change in the rest of Britain; indeed, they need to do so, in order to exaggerate the stakes in the Scottish referendum. Like the other groups, they do not take up the obvious question for a socialist: what\u2019s stopping us from mounting a UK-wide working class resistance to austerity right now?<\/p>\n
Despite the (correct) observation that voting Yes does not mean supporting the SNP, the SSP pamphlet is not above arguing that calling for a No vote means, in effect, arguing \u201cthe working class should instead enter and reclaim the Labour Party\u201d, as the only way to return to \u201ca social democratic Britain\u201d,9 as if that was either the only possibility or even a desirable option.<\/p>\n
Foley\/Ramand take a more complicated, indirect route to essentially the same conclusion, painting a negative image of Britain (England, in reality) as a sort of political dead zone, impervious to change or struggle. This flows from their strategy: \u201cTo win the referendum\u2026 there must be a clear equation between the No campaign and the status quo of Westminster-style government\u201d.10 So they overegg the pudding considerably:<\/p>\n
\u201cWestminster cannot shift leftwards by its own momentum. It would need a transformative shock, either a miraculous revolt of citizens from below or a cataclysmic world event, to turn Labour against austerity and American power.\u201d This, of course, reveals their assumption that a leftward turn must mean transforming Labour.<\/p>\n
They repeatedly present a one-sided, schematic \u201cend of history\u201d scenario that writes off the English and Welsh working class and class struggle in general: \u201cIf we vote No, we all but guarantee more decades of austerity, privatisation and warfare. We will miss our chance\u2026No Westminster election\u2026.will ever allow us the right to reject nuclear alliances, the arms trade, an elitist state and voodoo economics. These are the true stakes.\u201d11 Ex-SSPer Bill Kidd, now SNP MSP for Glasgow Anniesland, puts it more bluntly: \u201cIf there isn\u2019t a Scottish road to socialism, there isn\u2019t one at all\u201d.12 Foley and Ramand would probably not say that, but it is the implication of their arguments.<\/p>\n
Scotland\u2019s social democratic values<\/p>\n
According to the SSP, \u201cBreaking free of the malevolent influence of the British state means that Scotland\u2019s social democratic values will be unchained. That then is what the independence debate is essentially all about.\u201d13 This is the other main element in the left\u2019s pro-independence argument, that the \u201csocial democratic\u201d or \u201cmore left-wing\u201d Scottish people, if freed from Westminster, will push Scotland ever more left. It is certainly a common idea, is it true?<\/p>\n
A 2011 ScotCen study found that Scotland was \u201cmoderately more Social Democratic\u201d than England by a margin of 2-10 per cent on most questions, although in both countries these opinions are declining in parallel (often faster in Scotland) so that the gap is not widening.14 In other words, the \u201csocial democratic\u201d consciousness of Scots has declined to, or below, the levels of England ten years ago \u2013 so it is not a question of a unique consciousness, but of political and economic factors and changing class relations.<\/p>\n
Rather than look to some \u201csocial-democratic\u201d national essence, which is an extremely dangerous line of argument, Marxists have to explain the different material factors operating in Scotland and England. Neoliberal Westminster governments have driven the growth of nationalism not only in the Scottish working class, which is channelled by the SNP, but also in English areas that largely vote Labour, where the same despair and disillusionment has led to illusions in withdrawing from Europe and the growth of UKIP.<\/p>\n
Both forms of nationalism are reactionary, the overt anti-immigrant racism and anti-gay marriage homophobia stoked by UKIP just makes it doubly so. The SNP\u2019s strategy, most fundamentally, is allowed by Osborne\u2019s austerity, which has protected the UK and, therefore, Holyrood, from bond market attack. That\u2019s why Salmond can balance between business and workers, but concessions to the latter are done by balancing the books, robbing one section to fund another. The ultimate cause of the growth of both nationalist parties is the same, too: the failure of the left in the UK to build a new, socialist, working class party in the last 15 years, despite numerous opportunities.<\/p>\n
Foley\/Ramand assert that \u201cScottish identity has a weak correlation with voting patterns\u201d. Neil Davidson is more specific: \u201cIt is quite possible to assert a Scottish national consciousness without feeling that this necessarily implies any association with Scottish nationalism or a desire for independence.\u201d15 While that is certainly \u201cquite possible\u201d, the fact is that the proportion of the Scottish population who see themselves as Scottish, not British, has risen substantially since the 1970s and those who do are much more likely to vote Yes than those seeing themselves as equally both or predominantly British.16<\/p>\n
It is true that a vote for the SNP in the Scottish Assembly election was not an automatic endorsement of the SNP\u2019s nationalist politics; until recently barely a third of Scots supported independence, less than the 45 per cent who voted SNP in 2011.<\/p>\n
Nor was that \u201cjust a protest vote\u201d \u2013 workers rejected neoliberal Labour and voted for the SNP because the SNP took up many of the policies that Labour dropped. Of course, such shifts are reversible if a new working class party (or an extremely unlikely left turn by Labour) were launched and campaigned against nationalism and separation. But the point is, what does all this mean for class consciousness? While it is a step forward to reject Labour for its anti-working class policies, it is at least another backwards to vote for a liberal bourgeois party, and many more to embrace illusions that independence will solve these problems.<\/p>\n
Despite the \u201cYes\u201d socialists\u2019 preference for the more neutral sounding word \u201cidentity\u201d, and its slogan \u201cYes to independence, no to nationalism\u201d, they are in denial. The empirical evidence; increased SNP vote in working class areas, polls showing an increasingly Scottish \u201cidentity\u201d and its concentration in the working class17, and the growth in illusions in an independent Scotland, are all features of a growing Scottish nationalism. Back in 2007, Davidson quoted a study showing how working class Scots\u2019 identification with English workers had dropped (by half, from 44 per cent to 24 per cent), while those identifying with other Scottish classes had risen (from 38 per cent to 43 per cent), and rightly acknowledged that the fact \u201cnationalism may be weakening class identity\u201d was \u201cpotentially disastrous\u201d.18 Where did that analysis go?<\/p>\n
Rising support for nationalism means Scottish workers are turning 180 degrees away from class unity and joint struggle with their brothers and sisters south of the border, and strengthening reformist illusions that hope lies in a new constitutional unity and a sovereign Holyrood parliament, one with \u201ctheir own\u201d SNP politicians and \u201ctheir own\u201d bosses. Of course, it must be reiterated, a majority of workers still aren\u2019t convinced of independence, which is why it is nothing short of \u201cdisastrous\u201d that the left has made the pro-independence turn.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes to independence, no to nationalism\u201d?<\/p>\n
The SWP, RS21 and the SSP deny that voting Yes has anything to do with nationalism. Instead they reverse the charge: calling for a No vote either means sowing illusions in Labour, as the SSP claim, or supporting the British state and nationalism: \u201cHowever it is packaged, the No camp inevitably rallies forces to the Union Jack and the reactionary and backward ideas it stands for.\u201d19<\/p>\n
Those advocating a No vote in the referendum are no more lining up alongside Cameron, Clegg and Miliband than those advocating a Yes vote are supporting the SNP. Nonetheless, the socialist \u201cYes\u201d camp uses such arguments against those that point out its accommodation to nationalism.<\/p>\n
This is crystal clear in \u201cYes\u201d, where Foley\/Ramand push a confused argument that can only be interpreted as saying Scottish nationalism is not necessarily a bad thing once it has lost its racist British component. They start by saying that counterposing \u201c(good) Scottish patriotism and (bad) British nationalism is unhelpful\u201d before doing just that: \u201cScottish patriotism \u2013 \u2018harmless\u2019 pride in belonging to the land and its people \u2013 sometimes regurgitates, by unconscious processes, the violence of British nationalism. Scottish patriotism becomes (bad) nationalism, as Orwell meant it, when it involves a heritage of conquest and aspirations to power. Precisely because Scotland is part of Britain, our patriotism is complicated, and freeing it from its Empire heritage requires negotiation.\u201d20 Scottish racism towards Asians and Irish derives from the same roots, \u201ca privileged aristocracy of Protestant Empire. The sense of withdrawn privilege causes racism at the bottom of society\u201d.21<\/p>\n
It is true that in Scotland, as in the UK as a whole, traditions of racism derive from empire and, in both countries, from before the 1707 Union. However, Foley\/Ramand underestimate the extent to which racism in Scottish society also has contemporary native roots, just as in English society. These will not just wither away in an independent Scotland. As well as historical roots and links to the British state (for example, the large number of Scots in the military), racism is more immediately underpinned by benefits and privileges in the competition for jobs, housing and resources that are constantly renewed in current Scottish society, as in England. There is already a danger that this will increase in step with migration, but this could be exacerbated by a rising Scottish nationalism, particularly since Scotland is one of the most ethnically homogenous parts of the UK.22<\/p>\n
By posing Scottish nationalism in the more neutral terms of \u201cemotion, tradition, and identity\u201d the \u201cYes\u201d camp can disingenuously argue that \u201cthe key battle for 2014 is about Britain, not Scotland\u201d, that is, it isn\u2019t an assertion of Scottish nationalism but a rejection of Britishness and all that incorporates: racism, privilege and empire.23 By trying to carve out the \u201cbad\u201d aspects of Scottish identity as British, Foley and Ramand come dangerously close to endorsing Scottish patriotism which (like English nationalism) incorporates pride in Scotland\u2019s regiments and historical traditions for the great majority beyond the left nationalism of the Radical Independence Movement activists and academics.<\/p>\n
Neil Davidson elsewhere provides an antidote to the Foley\/Ramand argument: \u201cNo support under any circumstances for the British state, but no pretence either that constitutional reordering of its component parts equals \u2018destruction\u2019 of the state; not the slightest concession to the myth of \u2018British values\u2019, but no pretence that \u2018Scottish values\u2019 are not equally infected with the poisons of race and empire.\u201d That\u2019s spot on, but then he does his own bit of reconfiguring nationalism:<\/p>\n
\u201cSupport for separation should always depend on the concrete circumstances in which the issue is posed and its impact on the wider struggle against capitalism. Separatist sentiment which reflects class feeling against capitalism, neoliberalism, oppression and imperialist war is very different from that based on nationalist antagonism and an attempt to gain benefits at the expense of other workers.\u201d24<\/p>\n
The opportunist Yes camp tries to neutralise the poison of nationalism by using a more opaque wording (the SSP\u2019s \u201coppression\u201d, Davidson\u2019s \u201cclass feeling\u201d) or by purging it of reactionary ideas (ISG). By seemingly removing the question of nationalism from the argument, the way is cleared for tailing it, with \u201ca democratic space for class advance\u201d or \u201canti-imperialist\u201d arguments.<\/p>\n
The sting in the tail is that despite page after page trying to sell independence to the working class, arguing that it is the only way to \u201cdodge the bullet\u201d of austerity and recession,25 all three tracts \u2013 SSP, ISG and Davidson \u2013 are forced to admit, to use the words of Foley and Ramand, that \u201cby itself, voting Yes offers no guarantees of a better, more progressive future, never mind a radical redistribution of wealth and power\u201d if \u201cScotland\u2019s people do not resist\u201d their new SNP government or the ruling class attempts to cling to the status quo.26 So, instead of future wishful thinking, why can\u2019t we just begin to \u201cresist\u201d now, with a powerful UK-wide movement with the social depth of the antiwar and anti-poll tax movements allied to the class power of mass strike action? The whole argument collapses, only the anti-imperialist argument remains to justify support for independence.<\/p>\n
Breaking up the British state<\/p>\n
For the SSP and Foley\/Ramand anti-imperialism is an important but secondary, supplementary argument attached to the reformist possibilities of independence. For the SWP\u2019s McKechnie, however, it is the only \u201csocialist case for independence\u201d:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe SWP is campaigning for a Yes vote in the referendum to break up the British state. Even a brief glance at Britain\u2019s bloody and destructive role in the world shows how positive that would be, not just for people in Scotland but the whole world… Independence for Scotland would diminish Britain\u2019s role as junior partner to US imperialism, weakening both sides of the \u2018special relationship\u2019\u201d, and their driving role in the last decade of invasion, occupation and the war on terror, as key states in the aggressive NATO military alliance.27 A successful referendum in Scotland would create a dynamic and pressure for similar initiatives in Wales and particularly Northern Ireland, it is claimed.<\/p>\n
Elsewhere, the SSP\u2019s Alan McCombe chips in with even greater gusto (and exaggeration): \u201cScotland is a vital cog in the Western military machine, with vital submarine and air bases\u2026.The tearing of the blue out of the Union Jack and the dismantling of the 300 year old British state would also be a traumatic psychological blow for the forces of capitalism and conservatism in Britain, Europe and the USA\u2026 The break up of the UK might not mean instant socialism, but it would mean a decisive shift in the balance of ideological and class forces.\u201d28<\/p>\n
We share the determination to damage UK imperialism, despite McCombe\u2019s aim of pumping up the anti-imperialist Yes vote. But the only \u201cdecisive shift\u201d in class forces that is guaranteed will be a weakening of working class unity and consciousness, and a triumph for the bourgeois SNP and nationalism.<\/p>\n
It is wrong to exaggerate the extent of damage to imperialism from Scottish separation and again shows a lack of genuine internationalism. Imperialism is a global system and the relationship of Scotland to the UK is not of fundamental importance. Certainly, the British capitalists, including many of Scottish origin, do not want to see a break up and will use all of their resources to minimise any damage but, to the extent that they lose out, other imperialists will gain.<\/p>\n
Economically, the remaining UK will only be 10 per cent smaller than it is now. No doubt fracking will be pushed even harder to replace North Sea energy and revenues. While separation might, initially, increase pressure for secession in Wales, it might equally deepen the siege mentality of Loyalism in Northern Ireland. The future of the nuclear submarine base at Faslane poses an unwanted problem for the British state but it is far from insoluble, at an estimated cost of \u00a335 billion, spread over many years, and, in any case, recent leaks show the SNP prepared to bargain over the issue, should it win the referendum.29<\/p>\n
While socialists share the goal of unilaterally disarming, leaving NATO, and wherever possible defeating UK imperialism, the latter will only come about by overthrowing capitalism. Any vacuum that might be created by a reduction in the UK\u2019s role as an imperialist power or any weakening of the Anglo-American alliance, would quickly be filled by the other contenders \u2013 France, Germany, China and Russia \u2013 but not without struggle and sharpening rivalries, accelerating the trend towards increased conflict, militarism and war. Imperialism, overall, will not be weaker, its composition will simply be changed, to include a small, new imperialist NATO state, Scotland.<\/p>\n
The merit of the SWP\u2019s position is its principled argument against reformist illusions in independence, nationalism and the SNP\u2019s \u201chollow\u201d anti-austerity record. The other side of that coin, however, is that its entire rationale for a Yes vote rests on anti-imperialism, and ends up with an even weaker, artificial argument. Even Neil Davidson once denied independence would be a \u201ccrushing blow\u201d to British capitalists.30<\/p>\n
More to the point, the actual Yes vote, whatever its size, will not be \u201canti-imperialist\u201d. For most workers voting for independence, it will be overwhelmingly about economic issues, benefits, jobs, the NHS, education. The fact that the SWP can convince its members and small periphery to cast their Yes vote as conscious anti-imperialists is irrelevant to this. The SWP refuses to relate to the actual class consciousness of workers, their central concerns are those of an exploited, impoverished class, they have growing illusions in national independence; that\u2019s the elephant in the room that the SWP avoids. Anti-imperialism becomes a cover to justify voting Yes and ensuring the SWP does not remain outside, shut out of the radical independence movement. The price is conceding to Scottish nationalism, whatever the SWP\u2019s formal opposition to it.<\/p>\n
Independence and the unity of the working class<\/p>\n
The whole of the Yes camp is indignant at any claim that voting Yes is an attack on working class unity:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe unity of the working class and the unity of the British state are not the same thing. Unity of workers in Scotland, England and Wales does not rest on the maintenance of the British state or the capitalist interests it represents. It is by supporting each other against the bosses that real, active workers\u2019 unity is achieved\u2026The necessity for workers in Scotland to unite with their brothers and sisters in England or Wales will not evaporate just because Scotland votes for independence.\u201d31<\/p>\n
This argument, that \u201cwe are internationalists, and for us class unity and solidarity never stopped at Britain\u2019s borders anyway\u201d, is completely abstract. When was the last time that British workers struck in solidarity with workers in another country? Even in countries with a more strongly organised working class and left, coordinated strikes across borders are the extreme exception rather than the rule. For comparison, look at the last few years of struggle: in 2007, the national postal strike saw a wildcat movement develop in Scotland that spread to England, involving thousands of workers and forcing the company into negotiations. The campaign by Lindsey oil workers, in 2009, spread across Britain and into Scotland, as did the action by the sparks in 2011.<\/p>\n
McKechnie points to the N30 coordinated pension strike by 2.5 million public sector workers across the UK when actually it undermines his argument, like all national strikes it took place \u201cautomatically\u201d both sides of the border because workers were in the same unions and faced the same attack.32<\/p>\n
Scottish workers and English workers in these examples did not respond to an appeal for \u201csolidarity\u201d, they didn\u2019t need one, they acted out their existing unity. The fact that they are in a single state, with a single economy and national companies (or multinational subsidiaries) and national trade unions, has created an organic unity with identical interests, unions and opponents, and a consciousness of both. To state this is not to support British nationalism or constitutional niceties, it is recognising an objective fact, as Lenin put it: \u201cFor a Marxist, of course, all other conditions being equal, big states are always preferable to small ones.\u201d33<\/p>\n
A negative example is the firefighters\u2019 pension dispute last autumn, when the FBU secretary, John Duffy, a long time SNP member and part of its trade union group, negotiated with the SNP government and convinced his members to accept an inadequate offer and pull out of the strike. This was a big blow to the morale of firefighters south of the border and to the strike itself, which limped ahead with token action. The SNP minister welcomed this and \u201ca sustained period of constructive partnership with FBU\u201d. The first fruits of that partnership are now being seen, with five out of eight fire control rooms in Scotland slated to close. Duffy asks rhetorically, \u201cIs it better for the members that we represent to deliver on our agenda in an independent Scotland, or to continue to fail to deliver that agenda in a UK?\u201d34 The more important questions are surely, \u201cWhy are you continuing to fail to deliver the agenda in the UK?\u201d and \u201cHow about the FBU members outside of Scotland?\u201d It is precisely the treachery and failure of all the UK union leaders to fight for workers\u2019 interests that has led some Scottish workers to see better possibilities in independence.<\/p>\n
Independence will see the workers and employers in different countries orient to their different states and economies, with different rhythms and issues, tearing the fabric of unity apart. It\u2019s already happening by degrees as devolution is rolled out, independence would see a qualitative leap in the speed and strength of those separatist dynamics, and cement them in place.<\/p>\n
Yes to the right of self-determination \u2013 vote no to separation<\/p>\n
Neil Davidson argues that Scottish independence is not a question of principle but \u201cessentially a tactical one\u201d. He is wrong. There are two principles to take into account: Marxists stand for the right to self-determination, and for the biggest state, working class and widest struggle possible, qualified by questions of oppression and like all questions, judged from what advances the class struggle.<\/p>\n
Actively supporting separation doesn\u2019t advance it. It means national consciousness coming before class consciousness; it means giving up in despair the fight for determined UK-wide class action. That\u2019s why the centrist groups have to dispel the question of nationalism from the argument \u2013 ignore (SWP), redefine (ISG), or conceal (SSP) it in order to tail it.<\/p>\n
There are additional problems. Fox and Foley\/Ramand reject Westminster\u2019s neoliberal TINA \u2013 there is no alternative \u2013 but then endorse the Scandinavian model as a possible progressive goal, while advocating a \u201crealistic\u201d reform programme that displays their own left version: TINRA \u2013 there is no revolutionary alternative possible.<\/p>\n
Colin Fox quotes the great Scottish revolutionary John Maclean, who said in 1922 that \u201cThe Social Revolution is possible sooner in Scotland than in England.\u201d35 MacLean didn\u2019t live to see the 1926 historic General Strike prove him wrong, but the SSP has no excuse for missing the lesson. Their analysis of a Britain wrapped in immovable chains of neoliberalism and empire projected forward for decades by Foley\/Ramand means they particularly hide the real possibilities of the class struggle alongside their UK brothers and sisters from Scottish workers.<\/p>\n
There is no mention of the mass strike waves in the 1970s, the 1984-5 great miners\u2019 strike, the poll tax movement that began in Scotland and culminated with the London riot, the mass anti-war movement, the 2010 student revolt that elsewhere Foley admits \u201ctook its momentum from England\u201d.36 To suggest that such UK-wide struggles would now be nothing short of miraculous, is a disservice to the working class in all parts of Britain, and dead wrong.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the 2008 crisis and 2010 Tory austerity did not \u201cautomatically\u201d see a class-wide revolt, and neither will a post-independence SNP government even if returns to its true \u201cTartan Tory\u201d form. Without the left uniting to organise a mass anticuts movement, protests were held back and strikes aborted by the trade union leaders and Labour, in Scotland as well as the UK. Workers in an independent Scotland will face the exact same issues and obstacles to their struggles. It begs the question, if they could overcome these then, surely they can do so now and hand-in-hand with their English and Welsh brothers and sisters. That is the unfinished job that we all have to start together, whether independence comes or not.<\/p>\n
The Case for an Independent Socialist Scotland, Colin Fox, Scottish Socialist Party, 2013<\/p>\n
Yes: The Radical Case for Scottish Independence, James Foley and Pete Ramand (International Socialist Group), Pluto Press, 2014<\/p>\n
Scotland\u2019s Road to Socialism: Time to choose, edited by Gregor Gall, 2013<\/p>\n
Scotland: Yes to Independence \u2013 No to nationalism, Keir McKechnie, Socialist Workers Party, 2012<\/p>\n
REFERENCES<\/p>\n
1 Gregor Gall\u2019s compilation includes writers for, against and neutral on independence, with pro-independence writers from the SSP, ISG, new RS21 group, Greens and others.<\/p>\n
2 Lenin, \u201cCritical Remarks on the National Question\u201d Chapter 6, \u201cCentralisation and Autonomy\u201d<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/lenin\/works\/1913\/crnq\/6.htm<\/p>\n
3 On Poland, Marx: http:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/marx\/works\/1847\/12\/09.htm<\/p>\n
4 p 5, 28, SSP<\/p>\n
5 These programmes will be dealt with in Workers Powers\u2019 upcoming pamphlet on Scottish independence<\/p>\n
6 \u201cYes there is a Scottish road to Socialism\u201d, Colin Fox (SSP), p 89 in Time to Choose<\/p>\n
7 \u201cWhat is Scottish Independence for?\u201d, Neil Davidson (now RS21), p 48 in Time to Choose<\/p>\n
8 p 13, SSP<\/p>\n
9 p 29, 28 SSP<\/p>\n
10http:\/\/internationalsocialist.org.uk\/index.php\/2012\/05\/a-winning-strategy-for-independence\/#sthash.WbMAu3Pr.dpuf<\/p>\n
11 pp 123 and 9, 77, 123, 67, Yes<\/p>\n
12 p ix in Time to Choose, Gall<\/p>\n
13 SSP p 19<\/p>\n
14http:\/\/www.nuffieldfoundation.org\/sites\/default\/files\/files\/scotcen-ssa-report.pdf<\/p>\n
15http:\/\/www.isj.org.uk\/?id=302#114davidson40<\/p>\n
16 http:\/\/www.bsa-30.natcen.ac.uk\/read-the-report\/devolution\/trends-in-nati…<\/p>\n
http:\/\/blog.whatscotlandthinks.org\/2013\/08\/scottish-or-british-does-nati…<\/p>\n
17http:\/\/www.crest.ox.ac.uk\/papers\/p86.pdf<\/p>\n
18http:\/\/www.isj.org.uk\/?id=302#114davidson40<\/p>\n
19 p 15, SWP<\/p>\n
20 pp 43, 41, Yes<\/p>\n
21 p 46 Yes<\/p>\n
22 p 18, New Wealth for Old Nations<\/p>\n
23 p 13, Yes<\/p>\n
24http:\/\/www.isj.org.uk\/?id=302#114davidson_17<\/p>\n
25 p 15, SSP<\/p>\n
26 p 3, \u201cYes\u201d<\/p>\n
27 p 17 SWP<\/p>\n
28 \u201cScotland: Why the left should back independence\u201d, Alan McCombes SSP, http:\/\/links.org.au\/node\/2323<\/p>\n
29 http:\/\/www.express.co.uk\/news\/uk\/467665\/Trident-on-the-Clyde-will-be-pri…<\/p>\n
30 Not surprisingly this claim was dropped from the edited ISJ version of an original after Davidson was talked out of his \u201cwilder\u201d ideas: http:\/\/democraticgreensocialist.wordpress.com\/socialist-arguments-for-sc… ISJ: http:\/\/www.isj.org.uk\/?id=302 (see the first note at the end explaining its origin)<\/p>\n
31 p 15, SWP<\/p>\n
32 With the exception of the EIS Scottish teachers union which is separate from the English unions, and didn\u2019t strike with the NUT on 26 March this year.<\/p>\n
33 Lenin, The National Programme of the RSDLP,http:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/lenin\/works\/1913\/dec\/15.htm#fwV19P539F01<\/p>\n
34 http:\/\/www.scottishindependenceconvention.org\/supporters.aspx<\/p>\n
35 p 33, SSP<\/p>\n
36 p 18, \u201cOut of the Ghetto \u2013 why detoxifying the left is the first step to revival\u201d, Cat Boyd and James Foley (both of the ISG), in Gall 2013<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andy Yorke Andy Yorke reviews four left books on Scottish independence: The Case for an Independent Socialist Scotland, Colin Fox, SSP Yes: The Radical Case for Scottish Independence, James Foley and Pete Ramand (ISG) Scotland\u2019s Road to Socialism: Time to choose, edited by Gregor Gal1 Scotland: Yes to independence \u2013 No to nationalism, Keir McKechnie, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7724,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[104],"class_list":["post-4744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-archive"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7724"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4744"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}