The end of the union?
Three hundred years after the Act of Union with
England, and with elections to the Scottish parliament due on 3 May,
polls indicate a resurgence in support for Scottish independence.
PHILLIP STOTT reports on the current situation and how the left can take
up the national question in Scotland and Britain.
THE 300-YEAR hundred-year anniversary of the
Scottish parliament voting itself out of existence by agreeing a union
with England in January 1707 passed with very little formal celebration
– save the minting of a commemorative £2 coin. Despite prime
minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown’s attempt to promote ‘Britishness’, a
series of opinion polls have shown little enthusiasm for being branded
British. Indeed, there is clear evidence that a British identity has
weakened considerably in Scotland, England and Wales. But does rising
poll support for Scottish independence – in Scotland and England – mean
that the end of the union is now on the cards?
The first article of the Treaty of Union signed 300
years ago declared: "That the Two Kingdoms of England and Scotland
shall… forever after be United into One Kingdom by the name of Great
Britain". Even pro-union historians and politicians admit that this was
an agreement between two ruling elites to advance their economic
interests. One historian commented recently: "Scottish MPs [unelected]
concluded that incorporation with England offered the best remedy [to a
financial crisis] – provided that the Scots could negotiate access to
England’s colonies, a long-held ambition".
The majority of people in Scotland in 1707 were
opposed to the union and many were outraged at the decision to abolish
the Scottish parliament without any reference to the Scottish people
themselves. Riots and the stoning of the carriages of the pro-union
elite as they made their way down Edinburgh’s Royal Mile to sign the
treaty marked the opposition to a union carried out over the heads of
the Scottish people. It was a union to advance the interests of the rich
and the developing merchant and capitalist class. Robert Burns was later
famously to write that those who voted for the union had been "bought
and sold for English gold. A parcel of rogues in a nation".
The undemocratic nature of the Act of Union served
to reinforce the already existing Scottish national consciousness and
ensured that the national question would be an issue that was not going
to go away.
Moreover, it was an unequal union in the sense that
England, with a stronger economy and state, largely incorporated the
more economically backward Scotland into a larger economic power.
Scotland was effectively fast-tracked from a feudal and largely rural
country into the economic epicentre of the new Great Britain. As
capitalist relations took root, initially coal, tobacco and linen and,
following the industrial revolution, steel, shipbuilding and other
manufacturing and industrial sectors formed the basis of the Scottish
economy, along with agriculture.
But this policy of capitalist industrialisation came
at a cost. The brutal smashing of the ‘old life’ of the rural
communities was epitomised by the Highland Clearances. Tens of thousands
of families were driven off the land to work in the developing
capitalist sectors of the economy. Such events, along with the fact that
the Act of Union resulted in all political decisions affecting Scotland
being taken in Westminster, left a bitter legacy.
Scotland emerged as a key workshop for British
capitalism – itself known as the workshop of the world. By the 1770s,
40% of linen exported from Britain came from Scotland and Scottish linen
production quadrupled in 50 years. By the 1880s and the ‘white heat’ of
the industrial revolution, Scotland was producing 85% of Britain’s pig
iron exports. In shipbuilding, by the late 1880s, the Clyde was building
70% of all ship iron tonnage, employing 20,000 shipyard workers out of a
total in Britain of 47,000. By the beginning of the 20th century, the
proportion of Scots employed in primary production was 33% higher than
in England and Wales. Even as late as 1939, Glasgow was the largest
exporter of steam locomotives in the world.
In addition, an important section of the Scottish
middle class benefited by being incorporated into the British state
machine, including the army and civil service. The Scots’ elite found
roles in business, the medial profession and, in an echo of today’s
controversies, as MPs. This absorption of the Scottish capitalist class
and sections of the middle class into the British imperialist state,
alongside the pre-eminent role of British capitalism in the world,
allowed a stability and a certain acceptance of the union settlement.
This was reflected in the increasing identification with being British,
including probably among a majority of the working class in Scotland.
However, even then a strong Scottish national
identity always existed, even if it co-existed alongside an
identification with being British for a period. The embers of a future
fire were still glowing. But the relative decline in the world position
of British capitalism in the 20th century, and the collapse of
manufacturing which particularly devastated many Scottish working-class
communities, began to remove the ‘glue’ that had held the union
together. This resulted in the emergence of a more powerful national
consciousness. Support for Scottish independence increased from around
7% in 1979 to at least one third by the late 1990s – with some polls
indicating that a majority backed the idea. A major factor in reigniting
the national question was also the decline of the Tory Party in Scotland
over this period. The number of Tory MPs fell dramatically in Scotland
during the 1980s and 1990s. This meant that while successive Tory
governments were being elected in Westminster, a majority of people in
Scotland were voting against them. This had the effect of increasing
demands for a separate Scottish parliament that would more accurately
reflect the political views of the people of Scotland. By 1997, not a
single Tory MP was left.
The demand for constitutional change grew. The
majority of the capitalist class was forced, reluctantly, to accept the
need to change the political structure or face more far-reaching demands
for complete independence that could threaten the existence of a British
state.
The demand for the return of a Scottish parliament,
or home rule, was enshrined in the labour movement from its inception in
Scotland. The Labour Party traditionally backed the idea of a parliament
for Scotland. So in 1997, after winning the election, such was the
pressure to deliver that even Tony Blair’s sanitised New Labour was
compelled to cede to a referendum on devolution. Seventy percent voted
for the creation of a Scottish parliament, while in Wales a majority
backed the setting up of a Welsh assembly.
The Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI)
supported a double yes vote in the referendum: Yes for the Scottish
parliament and yes to it having tax varying powers. But we also
explained, before devolution was introduced, that the parliament would
lack real power. Reliant on an insufficient block grant from the UK
government, Holyrood was always going to be dependent on Westminster for
its financial survival. There was no scope for raising significantly
more resources for public spending, tackling poverty, etc. We argued, as
we do now, for a parliament with full powers over the economy, tax,
benefits and defence. A parliament backed up by a mass movement of the
working class and young people with the power to nationalise industry,
increase the minimum wage and benefits, one that could refuse to send
troops to Iraq, and remove Trident. Instead, devolution has proved
incapable of changing the lives of the millions of people who voted for
its creation in the first place.
Anti-Labour mood
UNDER THE CONTROL of New Labour and the Lib Dems,
the Scottish parliament has been used like a neo-liberal battering ram
against the working class. Privatisation has been imposed in schools and
hospitals. Council housing has been sold-off and hospital cuts and
closures have provoked massive community protests. Public-sector
pensions have also been a target. A recent poll, Social Attitudes in
Scotland, found 55% believed that the Scottish parliament had made no
difference to how Scotland was governed. More than half thought that the
NHS was either no better or worse now than before the parliament was set
up.
There is also massive opposition to Blair’s New
Labour government in Westminster. The Iraq war is hugely unpopular, as
is the decision to replace Trident with a new weapons system at the cost
of at least £20 billion. The ongoing profit bonanza for big business
stands in stark contrast to the neo-liberal assault by the bosses in
conjunction with Brown. All of these factors have contributed to a
powerful anti-Labour mood that could result in the Scottish National
Party (SNP) becoming the biggest party in Scotland in the May elections.
A series of opinion polls have shown the SNP ahead
of Labour in voting intentions for May and have also indicated a growing
level of support for independence. At this stage, the SNP is primarily
benefiting from the anti-Labour mood. Private polling for Labour has
underlined this, showing that the main factor in pushing people to the
SNP is the unpopularity of Blair.
However, it is also clear that support for the idea
of an independent Scotland is growing as a result of both the
anti-working class policies of New Labour and the overwhelming feeling
that the current ‘constitutional settlement’ is not working. In the
absence of a significant workers’ party many people are looking to vote
SNP as a way of punishing New Labour. While recent polls on independence
vary – support for an independent state often depends on how the
question is asked – most indicate a level of support at between 40-50%.
The response of Blair and Brown has been to launch a
‘blitzkrieg’ on the SNP and the dangers of independence. Blair’s speech
to the October Scottish Labour Party conference in Oban was widely seen
as a disastrous start of the campaign to ‘save the union’. Blair claimed
that Scotland faced a ‘constitutional nightmare’ if it voted for an
SNP-led government: "Already they are publishing plans for separation –
separate currency, separate pensions and social security systems,
leaving NATO".
Given the unpopularity of Blair and the inevitable
reaction to him coming to Scotland and ‘telling us what to do’, it was
no surprise that support for the SNP and independence increased in the
polls following the conference. This has not prevented Brown and other
Westminster Scottish MPs from trying to repeat the trick from the 1999
Scottish parliament elections when they claimed, to some effect on SNP
support, that independence would create an ‘economic Armageddon’ for
Scotland.
One Labour minister after another has predicted the
loss of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment
if Scotland became independent. Government figures for income and
expenditure have shown an £11 billion ‘black hole’ between what is
raised and spent in Scotland, and New Labour has attempted to argue that
Scotland could not be economically viable as an independent country. The
SNP has countered by arguing that many small countries, including
Norway, Ireland and Iceland, are economically successful and are a model
to follow. New Labour’s strategy is being holed beneath the water by the
deep unpopularity of Blair’s government and Jack McConnell’s Scottish
Executive. Former First Minister, Henry McLeish, has criticised this
campaign as being ‘too negative’, and has called for Labour to face up
to the need for a discussion on giving the Scottish parliament more
powers.
Scottish Nationalists
WITH THE SCOTTISH elections due on 3 May, two days
after the 300th anniversary of the formal signing of the Act of Union,
independence is likely to feature as a major issue during the election
campaign. The SNP has pledged to move a bill for a referendum on
independence. However, the SNP would need to form a coalition with other
parties to form the Scottish Executive. So desperate is the SNP to prove
itself a responsible party of government in the eyes of big business
that it has already made noises about forming a coalition with the
anti-independence Lib Dems. The Lib Dems have made it clear that they
will not form a coalition with the SNP if an independence referendum is
a ‘deal breaker’. The problem for the SNP is that unless it makes a
major breakthrough in May it would need the Lib Dem MSPs to form a
coalition government, possibly alongside the Greens. Therefore, it is
not ruled out that the SNP could agree to the formation of an Executive
while allowing a free vote on a referendum bill. SNP leader, Alex
Salmond, has made it clear that his party’s proposal for a referendum
could be delayed three or four years.
In taking this approach, the SNP is responding to
the pressure of the overwhelming majority of the capitalist
establishment in Scotland and the UK who are opposed to the break-up of
Britain for economic and political reasons.
The ruling class in Britain, including the majority
of Scottish big business, will be prepared to go to great lengths to
avoid the economic and political destabilisation the break-up of the UK
would entail. They are, of course, primarily concerned about their
profits and class interests. They are organically opposed to any moves
that would threaten to undermine the running of capitalism.
This includes their concern over the inevitable loss
of prestige and influence on the international arena that would follow
the secession of Scotland from the union. British imperialism does not
have the same weight as it did in the past. However, as we see with Iraq
and Afghanistan, it still aims to play a role on the world stage. It has
to compete with other capitalist powers in Europe and internationally.
The idea of Scottish independence, which has the potential to ignite
secessionist movements in Wales and add more combustible material to the
volatile situation in Northern Ireland, is viewed with horror by the
ruling class in Britain.
For these reasons it will (change to "would")
require a mass movement in Scotland to achieve independence. Moreover,
it is very likely that, faced with the possibility of such a movement,
the ruling class will be prepared to make more concessions on the
national question in an effort to head off a rupture of the union.
The pro-capitalist SNP will continue to ‘tack and
weave’. It has long ago accepted a policy of ‘gradualism’. Key to that
strategy is the SNP proving itself a ‘safe pair of hands’ for capitalist
interests. So it hopes to form the government in the devolved parliament
to prove its reliability for big business.
The SNP has laid out its pro-capitalist stall by
pledging to slash corporation tax in an independent Scotland from 30% to
20%, allowing big business to make even more super-profits. An
indication of how the SNP would act against the working class was
underlined by its attack on local government workers in Falkirk. The SNP
controls that council and terminated the contracts of thousands of
workers, forcing them to sign new ‘single status’ contracts with
inferior wages and conditions. Any SNP-led Scottish Executive would
rapidly be exposed for its anti-working class policies, notwithstanding
its populist policies on some issues.
The SNP has quite skilfully exploited the opposition
to the war in Iraq and Trident to build support. The SNP claims that
there would be no Scottish troops in Iraq if Scotland was independent,
nor would Trident be allowed to be sited on the Clyde. In reality, the
SNP’s opposition to the Iraq war was because of its ‘illegal’ character.
It supported the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and calls for
troops from Muslim countries to continue the occupation of Iraq instead
of US and British forces.
However, there is still a possibility of New Labour
and the Lib Dems forming the Scottish Executive after May. Depending on
the parliamentary arithmetic, it is not ruled out that a grand
anti-independence coalition of parties, including the Tories, could be
formed.
An unstable situation
THE RULING CLASS in Britain was forced to concede
powers from the centre at Westminster to Scotland and Wales in 1997 in
an effort to head off a more powerful secessionist movement from
developing. As far back as 1992, following the re-election of a Tory
government under John Major, the Financial Times commented: "The demand
for a degree of self-government cannot be resisted. On this Mr Major is
wrong and the Labour Party quite right. But the union should also be
preserved".
Many leading figures in New Labour predicted that
devolution would resolve the problem. George Robertson, former Labour
defence minister and Secretary General of NATO, boasted that devolution
would kill independence ‘stone dead’. For the first few years of the
Scottish parliament’s existence support for independence fell and there
was a mood to wait and see what devolution could deliver. Support for
the SNP fell away dramatically. In 1999, the SNP polled 28% of the vote,
winning 35 MSPs. By 2003, that had fallen to 23% and 28 MSPs. In the
2005 Westminster elections, it only polled 18%, coming third behind the
Lib Dems. The primary reason for this was the lessening of the intensity
of the national question. The SNP also failed to build on the opposition
to New Labour because it had moved to the right and embraced a more
pronounced neo-liberal programme. Among significant sections of the
working class, even those who supported independence, it was not seen as
the main issue to fight on compared to the immediate concerns of low
pay, pensions, the war in Iraq, and other class issues. However, it was
inevitable that at some point that mood would begin to change.
There is deep unpopularity over the lack of
achievements of the Scottish parliament. But there is also a growing
mood for the parliament to be given more powers. Recent polls have
underlined this. Only 12% of people support the powers of the parliament
being left as they are, while 60-70% support increased powers –
responsibility, for example, for all tax revenue raised in Scotland.
So-called ‘fiscal autonomy’ has even been advocated by the Tory Party in
Scotland. The problem for New Labour is that both Brown and McConnell
have thus far opposed any idea that increased powers should be devolved
to the Scottish parliament. This position is untenable in the long term
and is leading to increased support for the SNP. It is very likely that
a debate will open up on changing the constitutional arrangements again.
This could happen even if the SNP fails to form a
coalition after 3 May. A significant increase in the SNP’s vote and an
unstable coalition of the pro-union parties could also hasten a
re-examination of the situation. But if the SNP wins enough seats to
become the largest party there would be enormous pressure to accept that
more concessions need to be made, short of independence. The SNP would
be in favour of such a move. It would proclaim increased powers as
another step towards independence. The SNP ‘gradualists’ long ago
overtook the so-called ‘fundamentalists’ in the party. And Salmond has
hinted in the past that he would accept, at least for a period, a looser
‘Council of the Isles’. It is possible that a more federal-type
structure may be put forward, granting wide-ranging autonomy for
Scotland – more akin to the situation in Spain with the Generalidad
(Catalan parliament) which holds wide-ranging autonomous powers within
the Spanish state. The capitalists may well be prepared, if they feel
they have no option, to sanction more concessions in an attempt to head
off a bigger movement for independence.
The English question
THE POST-1999 devolutionary situation has had a
knock-on effect in England. This is partly reflected in an increased
English identity and a weakening of a British consciousness. According
to a poll conducted in January 2007, 11% of people in England see
themselves as ‘English not British’, and a further 11% as ‘more English
and British’. This represents a significant change compared to the
outlook prior to 1999. The search for an identity has accelerated
following the granting of a Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly.
Polls indicate support for an English parliament, as well as support for
the idea of an independent Scotland. Sections of the Tory Party have
flirted with English nationalism by attacking Scottish MPs for voting on
matters that affect English constituents, and calling for Scottish MPs
to be excluded from voting on such legislation at Westminster. There has
also been a long-term complaint that Scotland receives too much money
from Westminster for public spending on health and education.
The 2004 Education Bill that imposed top-up fees for
students in England but not Scotland was only passed by the votes of
Scottish Labour MPs. There was understandable resentment among workers
and young people in England at this. Tory MP, Boris Johnson, has said it
would be unacceptable for Brown to be prime minister because he is a
Scottish MP. This is not the position of the capitalist establishment.
However, they are very concerned to avoid anything that could inflame
the national question further. But, given the weakened position of the
Tory Party in Scotland and the fact that the Tories have become a
primarily English party, sections of the party and press could move in a
more English nationalist direction. It would be wrong to exaggerate the
strength of feeling on this issue. But it is a warning as to how a mood
of resentment could develop unless a powerful independent working-class
voice is built to offer an alternative.
If the Tories were to win the next UK general
election the national question would erupt. In Scotland, the Tories, who
have one MP, would be seen as an illegitimate government with no right
to legislate for Scotland. Support for independence would increase
dramatically. More importantly, it would not be passive support. It is
likely that under these circumstances a movement on the streets, in
communities and workplaces would emerge to demand independence or an
extreme form of autonomy. The ruling class would be faced with the
option of granting more far-reaching concessions or face a confrontation
that could spiral out of control.
Equally, if an SNP-led Scottish Executive were
refused the right to hold a referendum on independence by a Westminster
government, an explosion could be detonated.
Socialism or left nationalism?
THE CWI HAS a long history of fighting for the
democratic rights of the Scottish people. We support unconditionally the
right of the people of Scotland to make their own decisions about their
relationship with the other nations of Britain, including the right to
be an independent country. We campaigned for a Scottish parliament in
the 1979 and 1997 devolution referenda. We also pointed out that the
devolution settlement of 1997, based as it was on a continuation of
capitalism and with an anti-working class majority in the Scottish
parliament, would fail to meet the aspirations of the majority of the
Scottish people. The experience of devolution has underlined the point
that on the basis of capitalism there will be no solution to the
national question.
We fully understand and sympathise with the outlook
of a section of the working class and youth who see independence as a
way of breaking away from the seemingly unending attacks on their rights
and who are disgusted by the role of British imperialism in Iraq.
While taking account of this mood, however, we have
taken care to explain that an independent Scotland that failed to break
with capitalism would not be an answer to the problems of low pay,
privatisation, poverty and war. These are products of a brutal
capitalist system that the SNP is committed to continuing – even
allowing big business to make ever more rapacious profits at the expense
of the working class.
We stand instead for a socialist solution based on
public ownership and democratic working-class control of the economic
resources of Scotland, a living minimum wage, free education, an end to
privatisation, etc. Because of the strengthening of support for
independence, we have, since the late 1990s, advocated an independent
socialist Scotland as part of a voluntary and democratic socialist
confederation with England, Wales and Ireland.
This approach has put us at odds with the leaders of
the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) who have thrown away the opportunity
to build a significant socialist force in Scotland because of their
political mistakes. Not just over the issues surrounding Tommy
Sheridan’s removal as party convener, but also on the national question,
where they have completely abandoned a socialist and class position.
The SSP leadership has instead put socialism into
the ‘deep freeze’ by prioritising the ‘break-up of Britain’ while
promoting the benefits of an independent Scottish republic. This was
reflected in the failed attempt to launch the Independence Convention.
This was justified to the SSP membership: "The clearest route to
independence is the fast, broad highway of the independence convention,
involving a united front of the SNP, the SSP, the Greens and other
pro-independence forces". As was the Calton Hill declaration, drawn up
by the SSP leadership, which claimed that a route out of poverty, war
and discrimination could be found in a Scottish republic – without
explaining the need for socialism.
(See:
www.socialistworld.net/eng/2004/10/23scot.html and
www.socialistworld.net/eng/2004/08/06scotland.html)
The Independence Convention failed to take off not
least because there were virtually no working-class forces prepared to
get involved. We also opposed the launching of the convention because
the SSP leadership was prepared to use it as a cover for abandoning a
socialist programme.
This capitulation to left nationalism has deepened
as the 3 May elections and the anniversary of the Act of Union have
approached. Alan McCombes, the main policy spokesperson for the SSP, has
described 3 May as the "independence election". In an article for the
SSP website, he wrote the election is "more than just a power struggle
between the Union Jack and the Saltire. The choice is not just Scotland
versus Britain; it is also about what kind of Scotland we want to
create". This approach marks yet another dangerous and, from a socialist
point of view, unacceptable, use of language. It is clear that the
author believes this election is, at least in part, about choosing a
flag and a national identity and then voting on that basis. For
socialists and Marxists such an approach is anathema. There are many
young people and workers who have illusions in independence and see
themselves as Scottish. However, for a leader of a socialist party to
seek to exploit the existence of a national consciousness and illusions
in nationalism and then to counterpoise it to another national identity
is dangerous. It can only bolster nationalist ideas ie ‘that we are all
in this together as Scots’. It can also, even if this is not the
intention, reinforce divisions on a nationalist basis, especially
between Scottish and English people.
It will also have the effect of lowering the level
of understanding that what is primarily involved here is a struggle for
the working class to put the democratic rights of the people of Scotland
to the forefront of its own independent class interests, which are
completely separate from the pro-capitalist parties and leaders in
Scotland – including those who wrap themselves in the Saltire.
Even if later in the article McCombes explains that
the SSP is fighting for a different Scotland in opposition to the SNP’s
pro-big business approach, he restricts the SSP’s vision: "Our goal is
to build an egalitarian, peaceful, green multicultural Scotland, where
power is decentralised downwards and whose wealth is shared for the
benefit of all". But such vague if reasonable sentiments have to be
linked to the need for socialism if even these limited demands are to be
achieved.
The same theme is taken up in the SSP’s pre-election
bulletin, Transform Scotland. Again, there is no mention of the need for
socialism to achieve such a transformation. Instead, it is in the
context of independence that the call for the abolition of nuclear
weapons, removing troops from Iraq and introducing an £8 an hour minimum
wage is made. It says there is a "sense of freedom in the air", that
freedom being a reference to a growing mood for independence. But
freedom for working-class people means freedom from poverty, low pay and
capitalist exploitation, which requires a struggle for socialism.
The CWI does not approach the struggle for
democratic rights in an abstract or a sectarian way. We are prepared to
work even with non-socialist forces which are prepared to fight in
action for the democratic rights of the Scottish people. We will
campaign against any attempt by the government and the capitalist state
to attack, curtail and undermine our democratic rights. We will,
however, stress the need for a democratic mass movement to counter those
attacks, and that it should be the working class that forms the core of
such a movement. But we go further and link that to the need for a
programme that fights for the interests of the working class and puts
socialism to the forefront.
We support a referendum on independence and would
also support demands for increased powers for the parliament. However,
we also stand implacably for a united working-class movement in
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to resist the attacks of
the bosses and the pro-capitalist governments and assemblies. We also
oppose any attempts to divide the working class on the basis of
nationality, whether by the ruling class, who are past masters at divide
and rule, or by nationalist forces.
The establishment of mass workers’ parties with
socialist programmes that can defend the interests of the working class
is long overdue. By fighting for an independent socialist Scotland we
can emphasise the need to build a movement, based on the working class,
that aims to defend democratic rights and advocates a fundamental break
with capitalism. An independent capitalist Scotland has no answers for
the working class and would be used to continue the rule of the
multinationals and the millionaires. Instead, we advocate that an
independent socialist Scotland should form a voluntary and democratic
confederation of states with England, Wales and Ireland based on
socialist cooperation and working-class solidarity. Only by ending
capitalism and building a democratic socialist future can we end the
nightmare of war, environmental chaos, national and ethnic division,
poverty and inequality that capitalism thrives on.
|