28.08.1997
Historic opportunity
Gordon Morgan of Glasgow SSA reviews Jack Conrad’s pamphlet 'Blair’s rigged referendum and Scotland’s right to self-determination'
For a double ‘yes’ vote - For a Scottish republic
In September 11 1997, on the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Stirling Bridge, Scots have an opportunity to re-establish a Scottish parliament. I and the majority of the Scottish Socialist Alliance are campaigning for a double ‘yes’ vote in the referendum.
Jack Conrad’s pamphlet disappoints me. To produce a pamphlet devoted to attacking Scottish Militant Labour and the SSA majority rather than analysing and promoting ‘genuine self-determination’ misses an opportunity. Another pamphlet is required to satisfactorily fulfil this need.
Whilst the detail of the political attacks on SML fall within acceptable debate, the style of the attack at times is degenerate. Thus linguistic tricks are played on the words ‘socialism’ and ‘nationalism’ (“socialist-nationalist”, “national-socialists”) until inevitably, and quite deliberately, we get the defamation, “Tommy Sheridan (the most extreme enthusiast for national socialism)” (p36). A lesser misrepresentation is issued in misquoting an article I wrote in What Next? (Note 47, p41). In this case the omission of the indefinite article ‘a’ appears to have me accuse the CPGB of never supporting “bourgeois democratic reform” rather than challenging their rejection of the specific reform of the parliament on offer in the referendum.
More seriously, the pamphlet perpetuates several myths, ‘errors’ or simplifications about Scottish history which have been assiduously constructed by unionist historians over the years. Most of these relate to the lead-up to and aftermath of the union of 1707 and attempt to minimise the continuity of popular nationalism throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. The desired effect (of unionist historians, not necessarily the CPGB) is to portray nationalist demands within the organised Scottish labour movement as merely conjectural demands and not part of the tradition which created the movement.
“The Jacobite rising had nothing to do with re-establishing Scottish independence” (p26). In The Caledonian Mercury (Edinburgh, October 14 1745) Charles is quoted: “With respect to the pretended union of the two nations, the king cannot possibly ratify it, since he has (had) repeated remonstrances against it from each kingdom.” Several swords unearthed at Culloden bear the slogan, ‘Prosperity to Scotland and nae union’. Nor was it only catholics who supported Charles. Most Highland Episcopalians seem to have. Opposition to the Stuarts existed in Scotland, but 1745 was no “Scottish civil war” (p26). (For more details see Scottish Workers Republic no ix, vol ii.)
Whilst Conrad presents the view that the UK is constitutionally the unity of hereditary crowns, this is a recent invention. In 1703 the Scottish Parliaments Act Anent Peace and War provided for an independent Scottish foreign policy after Queen Anne’s death, and the Act of Security, which received royal assent in 1704, allowed the Scots parliament to choose a separate monarch from England - ie, dissolve the union of the crowns. The UK constitutionally arose from the union of three parliaments and did not exist at the time of the Jacobite rebellions; it came into existence in 1801.
“The relationship between England and Scotland has not been primarily characterised by violence” (p26). This is a fairly sanguine view.
It should not be forgotten that Cromwell had effectively annexed Scotland and formalised this in 1653 (the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland), held it against uprisings in 1654 and continued to occupy it for years. The union was dissolved after the restoration in 1670.
Thirty years on Scots threatened to unite with France against England, England passed an Alien Act which imposed trade sanctions and troops were stationed outside Edinburgh to ‘help’ the passage of the Act of Union. Scots MP’s vote against union in 1712 to be outvoted and told, “We have catch’d Scotland and we will keep her fast”.
Large-scale rebellions occur in 1714 and 1745 - both demanding the end of union. Parliament passed draconian laws outlawing many manifestations of Scottish culture after 1745 - the national anthem celebrates “rebellious Scots to crush”.
The Highland clearances entailed great suffering and violence - partly political and partly economically motivated.
The growth of Friends of the People (1792) paralleled popular support for the French Revolution. Thomas Muir of Huntershill in 1796 invites the French to invade Scotland as he claims the people would rise in support against the union. The United Scotsmen (1797) leads on to the radical rising of 1820 - one of whose aims was a Scottish republic. Wilson, Baird and Hardie are executed.
Certainly violence is one of the characteristics of the relationship of Westminster with Scotland after the union.
More significantly is that since 1820 - and, I would contest, since 1707 - every radical movement in Scotland has raised the demand of home rule or independence for Scotland. This demand for freedom, for self-determination, for justice came into the labour movement as it was forming and has remained a key demand. Keir Hardie’s Scottish Labour Party (1888) had Scottish home rule as the fifth of 18 policy points. The STUC broke from the TUC in 1897 and adopted a home rule policy in 1914. In 1914 a Scottish Home Rule Bill was almost passed. The near revolutionary events of 1919 with tanks in George Square made credible John Maclean’s demand for the Scottish workers’ republic.
What then of the referendum? In 1979, a majority of the votes cast were for a Scots parliament. The act to set it up was repealed by Margaret Thatcher. If not before, Scots certainly have felt politically oppressed since then. Scotland has a separate state apparatus, a budget which is distributed by a colonial office with no reference to the people - a clear democratic deficit. A Scots parliament is on offer in the referendum - a parliament with substantially more powers than in 1979. This is a democratic reform which must be supported by communists in the same way we supported the extension of voting rights or the end of apartheid. It is not a transitional demand, but why should we counterpose this democratic demand which is immediately on offer and which Scots have shown they want, to the demand for a federal republic of the British Isles (p26)? This latter demand may be transitional, but it is not real - not even communists agree on this as a goal, let alone a unifying campaign.
John Maclean called for a Scottish workers’ republic but would not have opposed in non-revolutionary times the establishment of a bourgeois Scottish parliament - as he supported separation for Ireland. An active boycott may be appropriate in a pre-revolutionary situation but not in current conditions. In 1979 the 40% rule meant anyone not voting counted as a vote against. Only the Workers Revolutionary Party supported a boycott and even they changed their policy two days before the referendum to supporting the parliament.
How is an actively exercised boycott to be distinguished from an a political non-vote? The Tories and other supporters of the union are eagerly awaiting a low turnout so they can say Scots support the union - and the monarchy. What comrade Conrad seeks would continue a situation where there is no democratic control over the Scottish office, no means of Scots making Scots laws or legislation.
The bizarre counterposition of a mythical federal republic of the British Isles to an actual chance to advance democracy by voting in the referendum betrays a fear of nationalism which is all too endemic throughout the pamphlet. By identifying SML with Pilsudski in Poland, comrade Conrad stretches a point. However, he in turn too closely identifies with the Luxemburg position of a federal republic (to be imposed by invasion). Let us not forget the consequences of Luxemburg’s line - a split within the workers’ movement, disorientation of the workers’ movement, defeat of the Red Army - a contributing factor in the degeneration of the Revolution. The question of national self-determination was the very issue on which Lenin and Trotsky broke with Luxemburg. Trotsky voted against the invasion on the central committee, although as head of the Red Army he then organised it. His dissent has been useful in saving his reputation amongst revolutionaries in Poland in recent years. Comrade Conrad may identify with Luxemburg - I (and, I expect, the SML) would identify with Trotsky, not Pilsudski.
However, this is too arcane a discussion. There are many variants of nationalism. By definition it is not a determiner of class lines. At times national liberation movements can be progressive; at other times united action of workers across countries is of primary import. In late capitalist Europe, the petty bourgeois nationalisms of the small nations have tended to be progressive. Scottish national movements in particular have generally been progressive and the campaign which led to the present referendum is one such. Comrade Conrad disagrees with me on this. (For a more balanced analysis of nationalism from Spain see ‘Do the workers have a country?’ Notebooks for study and research no16.)
How then do we distinguish our demand for a parliament with full powers from what is on offer? We should point out that a Scottish parliament will not have the power to tackle Scotland’s economic and social concerns - no more than Westminster; we must promote workers’ control, point out that capitalism will use violence to retain power - socialism cannot be voted in. It is even legitimate to argue that the new parliament’s powers will be illusions - power resides with the banks, with Westminster, with Brussels. In all of this we promote workers’ self-organisation.
However, we cannot say, ‘Don’t vote for a parliament’. We have argued the Tories had no mandate; we have argued that Scotland is undemocratically ruled - demanded a Scottish parliament. The entire labour movement in Scotland for over 100 years has demanded a Scottish parliament, demanded home rule. At last this can be achieved - under capitalism, without insurrection: a bourgeois parliament, but nevertheless a parliament. We should not seek to separate the vanguard from demands which have centuries of tradition and when won will foster our class’s belief in itself.
A campaign for genuine self-determination - for a Scottish workers’ republic, will be part of the propaganda of communists for years. The immediate demand for a Scottish parliament can be won by campaigning for a double ‘yes’ vote. Communists should support this.