Scotland’s
referendum
A working-class revolt
The referendum has turned
British politics upside down – even though the No vote won. The Yes
campaign became a mass mobilisation of working-class communities:
against austerity and rotten establishment politics, and for a positive
future. This turning point raises key issues for socialists, writes
PETER TAAFFE.
The independence referendum
in Scotland was remarkable for many things: the huge politicisation and
class polarisation, combined with the beginning of mass intervention in
politics, particularly by the most oppressed sections of the working
class, shaping their own destiny. This was hitherto seen as the preserve
of the self-appointed, stifling elites who dominate what passes for
political discourse in Britain. The referendum, with its heightened
passion, has altered the political landscape of Britain: ‘things will
never be the same again’, as even capitalist commentators have observed.
One of its most striking results was the effect that it had
internationally. A country with a population smaller than the county of
Yorkshire, and half that of greater London, albeit with a proud history
of working-class defiance, shook Europe and the world to their
foundations.
World leaders, from Barack
Obama to the Chinese head of state, Xi Jinping, drawing in the Pope on
the same side as the Orange Order, were lined up to urge frantically the
rejection of Scottish independence. The British ruling class which,
within living memory, ruled one quarter of mankind – with its prestige
and what remains of its world reputation at stake – was so terrified of
a Yes vote that it outdid itself in venom against those advocating
independence. "The world is saying no to Scottish separation", shrieked
Phillip Stephens in the Financial Times. A few days before the
referendum took place, the same journal reflected the sheer terror of
the capitalists: "Ruling elite aghast as union wobbles… Business
onslaught over Yes vote… Business 90% against Yes".
Surprise, surprise, the
International Monetary Fund was also conscripted to the
anti-independence bandwagon and warned "Recession risk in markets". Alan
Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve and fresh from
presiding over the greatest financial and economic disaster witnessed
since the 1930s, returned from internal exile to warn that "a Yes vote
would be an economic mistake for Scotland [and] a geopolitical disaster
for the west". And if Scotland had actually voted for independence, it
would be punished: "The Scots will discover the taste of austerity",
warned the FT.
Why this hysteria, a seeming
absence of any sense of proportion when judging the events in Scotland,
on the part of these mandarins of capitalism? The explanation is to be
found in the opposite yet equally powerful response that events in
Scotland have enthusiastically evoked among the masses in Europe and
elsewhere, with many countries facing their own explosive national
question. Mariano Rajoy, Spanish prime minister, and his foreign
minister, with the Catalan masses breathing down their necks, naturally
viewed Scottish independence quite simply as a ‘catastrophe’ which
would, they claimed, "worsen the economic slump in Europe and risk the
EU’s disintegration".
In reality, it is the
‘Balkanisation’ (their word) of Spain, the right of self-determination
and independence for the Catalan people and, following them, the
Basques, which they mortally fear. The Catalan movement was given a big
boost by virtue of the fact that the Scottish referendum was taking
place. ‘How could Cameron have so miscalculated?’ was the snarl, which
echoed throughout Europe. It has encouraged the Catalans and other
nationalities to demand their own referendum – bitterly resisted by
Madrid. Meanwhile, in Italy, there exists a simmering mood in the Alto
Adige, the largely German-speaking region, demanding similar rights as
the Scots for a say in their future, while the right-wing Northern
League is making similar demands for northern Italy.
Socialists and the national question
These examples of the
international ramifications of Scotland’s intense debate over
independence show that there is hardly a country today that does not
have, to one degree or another, a national question which threatens to
detonate at any time. The onset of a world economic crisis has
resurrected the national question in regions and countries where it
seemed previously to have been settled.
This means that the labour
movement, particularly those who claim to be socialists and Marxists,
have to grapple with this issue. In so doing, it is necessary to avoid
falling into the pit of opportunism, of accommodating to bourgeois,
capitalist nationalism or of adopting an empty, abstract, propagandist
approach which can never succeed in connecting with the real movement of
the working class, particularly its oppressed layers.
At each stage of developments
over the last four decades the forces of Marxism in the ranks of
Militant, now the Socialist Party, supported the Scottish people’s
legitimate demands in the national sphere. While the summits of the
labour movement, not just the right-wing but also those then on the
‘left’ like Neil Kinnock, opposed even limited devolution for Scotland
in the 1970s, we unequivocally supported it. We did not engender any
illusions though that this was a ‘final destination’ that could solve
all the problems of the Scottish people.
At the same time as defending
the right of self-determination for the Scottish people, we did not
favour the Balkanisation of countries composed of different national
groups. It is absurd to imagine that any country, particularly a small
country, can prosper and solve their problems in isolation. In a
globalised world, it is not possible to go it alone. The striving for
‘unity’ of the European capitalists, enshrined in the EU, is an
expression of the need for the productive forces – science, technique
and the organisation of labour – to be organised on a continental and
even a world scale. But the capitalists can never fully overcome the
limits of private ownership or the nation state. Only the working class
acting together can, through a democratic socialist united states of
Europe, achieve this task.
Therefore, while fighting for
an independent socialist Scotland we, and particularly our comrades in
Scotland, link this to a socialist confederation in the first instance
of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland, as well as a socialist Europe.
There were occasions in the past when we argued against independence for
Scotland as an immediate demand, particularly as a slogan. This was
because independence did not enjoy the support of significant sections
of the population. In these circumstances, to advocate
‘self-determination’, and particularly independence, that is separation,
could be interpreted by many Scottish workers as expressing a wish that
we, the majority, do not want to live with them in a common state.
However, once the idea of independence had gripped the minds of the
masses, the support of a majority or a significant and growing minority,
we faced a changed situation.
The direction of travel has
been clear in Scotland for a long time. The election of the Scottish
National Party (SNP) as a majority in the Scottish parliament was seen
as a staging post on the way to ‘independence’, particularly for the
most energetic and dynamic sections of the working class who have come
to the fore in the referendum campaign. A significant section –
oscillating between 40-50% – of young people in particular had already
embraced this idea, long before the referendum was agreed. The task of
Marxists was to give support generally but seek to give it a socialist
content. This was and is combined with warnings about the inadequacies,
to say the least, of the SNP’s resolve to remain within the framework of
capitalism, which would mean that few of the social demands driving the
Yes campaign could be realised. On the contrary, savage austerity would
have been the future for Scotland unless workers were able to use
victory in the referendum to press for a break with capitalism.
Mistakes of the left
The Yes campaign provided a
huge opportunity to strike a blow against the plans of British
capitalism for systematic attacks on the working class. Hence the Yes
placards that declared "an end to Tory rule for ever". Unfortunately,
that would not have followed independence, automatically, in the sense
of an end to cuts and support for pro-big business policies, with an SNP
government speaking out against austerity but implementing it in
practice while continuing to rule Scotland. But it showed the class
feelings behind the demand for independence.
It is incredible therefore
that even sections of the left, like George Galloway, bitterly opposed
independence on a shared platform with Tories, Liberal Democrats, as
well as an increasingly discredited Ed Miliband in the No camp. Despite
his heroic stand in the past against the Iraq war, as well as his
championing of the general case for socialism, Galloway was roundly
booed by significant sections of the young people gathered at the debate
for 16-year-olds. But he was not alone, especially when he falsely
claimed that "austerity is ending" and "a 1945-style Labour government"
was in prospect for 2015.
The Communist Party of
Britain (CPB), linked to the Morning Star newspaper, also found itself
on the wrong side of history. "A No vote in the referendum has to be
made the springboard for the mobilising of the working-class movement at
British level to demand real constitutional change", was its position.
(Statement on Scottish independence, 4 March 2014) Just how this is
possible when you oppose the aspirations of the mass of the Scottish
working class remains a mystery. The CPB’s reasons for opposing the Yes
vote? "Membership of the sterling area which subordinates Scotland to
the current neoliberal policies without any power to change them, at the
same time seriously erodes the opportunity for united working class
action across the nations of Britain… Worse still, membership of the EU
would oblige Scotland to incorporate in any written constitution the
terms of the 2012 Treaty of Stability, Coordination and Governance".
But why does this follow from
independence? Surely the working class in an independent Scotland would
have the opportunity, perhaps a greater opportunity, to oppose
membership of the EU? The CPB demonstrates here a fetish about the
sterling area, as well as in relation to the EU. Membership of both has
not stopped a united working class in Britain or Europe from fighting
the bosses and opposing actual or proposed anti-worker legislation.
The implied argument here is
that support for the independence of Scotland automatically divides the
working class. Yet it is possible to support independence and fight for
and unite the working class. This was answered more than a century ago
by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Indeed, the Marxist movement, from the
time of Marx, has a long pedigree on this issue. Marx, in general, stood
for a unified state. Yet both he and Engels stubbornly advocated Irish
independence. Only after independence, argued Marx, would federation
between Ireland and Britain then be posed.
Lenin deepened this approach
in educating the workers of Russia to defend the right of
self-determination of nations oppressed by tsarism. Lenin argued that
only in this way would it be possible to gain the confidence of the
masses of the oppressed nations. On the basis of a democratic socialist
republic they would not cut away but voluntarily link their fate to that
of the masses of Russia. This presentation of the issue was brilliantly
confirmed in the course of the Russian revolution. The Bolsheviks
recognised the right of self-determination including secession, as was
shown by the example of Finland, which separated in 1918.
The arguments of the CPB and
the small organisations on the left, including some alleged ‘Marxists’,
are echoes of the approach of Rosa Luxemburg. She opposed Lenin’s
proposal for the right of self-determination and also the decision of
the Bolsheviks after taking power in 1917 to give the land to the
peasants. She saw these demands as representing a backward step. On the
contrary, the Bolsheviks managed to unite the working class, because
they also opposed bourgeois nationalism – as the Committee for a
Workers’ International (CWI) has done consistently in Scotland.
Lenin explained that,
sometimes, you can take one step backwards in order to take two steps
forward. Where the land is divided, it is done in order to win the
confidence of the peasants who could only be convinced of the necessity
of large-scale production in agriculture over a period of time and with
their consent. The same applies to self-determination which allows
oppressed nationalities to pass through the stage of realising their own
demands, allowing them in practice to see the need to unify the
productive forces on a bigger scale, thereby arriving at a voluntary
confederation.
Only the CWI has had a
consistent position on the national question, both in Britain and
internationally. The Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), for example, in the
1970s debate over devolution, declared: "If a referendum is eventually
held in Scotland and Wales we abstain. This is not a position that means
ducking the arguments… Our abstention will mark us out from the rest of
the labour movement, retreating in fear before the new reformism,
without aligning us with the unionist, British, nationalist camp". (The
National Question, September 1977) Like a leaky umbrella that does not
work when it is unfolded, this policy was unceremoniously abandoned
without explanation.
Problems of referendums
It is true that the form in
which the struggle over independence was conducted was not ideal.
Referendums are not the preferred weapon of the working class and its
organisations. Dictatorships or undemocratic regimes often use
referendums to bolster their position, presenting a simple choice: yes
or no. The labour movement and particularly socialist forces are
sometimes compelled to stand alongside of, and share platforms with,
bourgeois or pro-bourgeois forces, with the political risk that they
will not be able to get over their message and programme.
Referendums can also be a
trap for genuine socialist forces if they do not clearly differentiate
themselves politically, in terms of perspective and programme, in the
course of the campaign from temporary nationalist ‘allies’. This does
not necessarily involve directly attacking forces with which we are
aligned. Sometimes, it is sufficient to just outline our case, which
will bring out clearly to workers our differences with the nationalists.
If we are skilful enough, audiences, particularly workers, will draw the
right political conclusions. However, on other occasions it may be
necessary to sharply differentiate ourselves in terms of programme and
perspectives from, for instance, bourgeois or petit-bourgeois
nationalists – the SNP in this referendum – and also from left
nationalism.
The forces of the CWI that
participated in the Scottish referendum did not fall into the trap of
bolstering the SNP. While energetically supporting the Yes campaign in
general, the
Socialist Party Scotland (SPS) collaborated in a splendid
independent, working-class orientated and effective campaign, which drew
in hundreds and thousands of enthusiastic Scottish workers alongside
Tommy Sheridan and prominent SPS members. Even Rupert Murdoch, in a
backhanded compliment, recognised this when he complained that too many
"lefties" were prominent in the Yes campaign.
Moreover, our case was spelt
out in some programmatic detail and contrasted with the false
perspectives of those nationalists who painted a rosy future for
Scotland on a capitalist basis. All the previous capitalist models that
the SNP invoked in the past – Ireland, Iceland, and Scandinavia as a
whole – are now clearly tarnished as a result of the devastating world
economic crisis. The referendum showed a massive rejection of austerity,
whether imposed from Westminster or Edinburgh. The demographic breakdown
of voting patterns showed that it was the working class, particularly
its most deprived and oppressed sections in the areas that voted Yes, in
Glasgow, Dundee, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire, alongside
the majority of the 16-17 year-olds, who massively opted for
independence.
Tory manoeuvring
If ever there was an example
of the kind of ‘nationalism’, reflecting the "outer shell of an immature
Bolshevism", about which Leon Trotsky spoke, it was in the solid
working-class vote for Yes in this referendum. ‘Independence’ was
organically linked in the minds of the masses with complete independence
from those who imposed the poll tax in the past, the bedroom tax today,
the persecution of the disabled and sick, etc.
This mood has not gone away.
David Cameron, two weeks before the vote, believed he was facing defeat,
which would in all probability seal his political fate. Even the Tories
were baying for his blood. If Scotland had voted Yes, Cameron’s own
party would have voted No to him! In the event, a massive scare
campaign, crucially and massively helped by the intervention of the
Labour leadership, particularly Gordon Brown – using up whatever
political capital he still possessed – managed to corral the
overwhelming majority of the middle-class and the ‘don’t knows’, into
the No camp.
The ferocious No campaign in
the last stages had an effect. Matthew d’Ancona wrote in the Sunday
Telegraph: "Lord Ashcroft’s post-referendum polling shows that 19% of
those who voted No made their decision to do so in the past month – a
vindication of the frantic campaigning by the Unionist side in that
period".
However, this has created
almost as many problems for the British ruling class as a Yes vote would
have done. Cameron, the gambler that he is – ‘chancer’, according to the
Sunday Telegraph – within hours of the result being announced, stated
that he would ‘honour’ his promise to deliver more powers on tax and
welfare to the Scottish parliament. But he added the twist that "new
powers for the Scots should be balanced by new rights for the English".
There was an implied threat
that, if this was not agreed, then the ‘vow’ of devo-max for Scotland
would be withdrawn. However, this would be "incendiary" in Scotland, as
the retiring SNP leader, Alex Salmond, said. Cameron has no choice but
to give concessions or he will face a bigger uprising than witnessed in
the referendum. His proposal is clearly designed, with a general
election months away, to appeal to English nationalism, with the added
advantage, he believes, of outfoxing Ukip and, at the same time,
wrong-footing Miliband and the Labour Party.
He is unlikely to get his
proposals passed this side of a general election. However, it is
striking how all the Tory voices which appeared on television – Cameron,
Heseltine, Hague, etc – under the cloak of ‘greater democracy’, advocate
that the 59 Scottish MPs (41 of whom are presently Labour) should no
longer vote on ‘English matters’ in the House of Commons.
Their reasoning goes that,
even if Miliband wins in May next year, he will not be able to implement
his programme because Scottish MPs will be debarred from voting on
crucial issues – the so-called ‘West Lothian question’. Yet Will Hutton
in the Observer pointed out: "The McKay commission, on the impact of
devolution on British government, pointed out there have only been two
electoral periods since 1919 – 1964 to 1966 and between March and
October 1974 – when the party in government had not won a majority in
England. Moreover, [the online democracy project] mySociety finds that
of 5,000 votes in the House of Commons since 1997, only 21 depended on
the votes of Scottish MPs".
These proposals have been
signed up to by not just Tory luminaries but also Nick Clegg. They
include ‘greater powers’ to cities and regions. This is clearly designed
to give more power to the undemocratic, dictatorial mayors like Boris
Johnson in London to implement brutal anti-working class measures, such
as the assault on ticket offices at the present time on London
Underground.
No oversight is really
exercised by councillors below the mayors or council cabinets and,
indeed, the very creation of these positions is designed to allow these
hatchet men to more easily implement further cuts. They are part of the
overall programme to further attack the living standards of the working
class. They must be implacably opposed and met by counter-proposals by
the labour movement. This should include the abolition of mayors and
cabinet rule in local authorities. Full democracy and accountability of
local councillors should be restored.
Seizing the moment
Cameron was given a bloody
nose in the referendum campaign. It is now time to finish off the whole
of the Tory gang and all capitalist politicians threatening to drag
working people further into the abyss. Scotland has shown that the
working class is rotten ripe for a clear political alternative. The
events around the referendum, particularly among the working class, show
that a potential ‘Podemos moment’ exists. In Spain, the radical movement
around Podemos came from nowhere to capture in six weeks 1.2 million
votes in the European elections. Something similar is now possible in
Scotland if Tommy Sheridan, aligned with the Marxists and others,
particularly the trade unions like RMT, were to take the plunge and
create a socialist, radical alternative which would act as a magnet to
all of those workers and youth inspired by the independence campaign.
Unfortunately, however,
instead of striking out boldly to lay the basis for a new party of the
working class, Tommy has now stated: "I suggest we in the Yes movement
promote continued unity by backing the most likely independence
supporting candidate at next May’s general election. In concrete terms
that means advocating an SNP vote to try and unseat as many pro-No party
supporters as possible".
This statement was made
without, as far as we are aware, any serious consultation with those who
supported and worked alongside him very successfully in the Hope not
Fear campaign. It was the socialist message combined with firm support
for independence that attracted thousands who were and remain deeply
opposed to and suspicious of the SNP. Now Tommy suggests the lessons of
that campaign should be abandoned. The working class should line up
behind the SNP despite the fact that it has already carried out cuts and
will carry through more, including before the 2015 election.
Thousands of socialists,
therefore, will be behind a pro-cuts agenda if Tommy's suggestions are
accepted, with socialist policies postponed to an indefinite future in
the ‘national cause’. What is this except a disastrous repeat of 1918 in
Ireland when the Irish nationalists also argued ‘labour must wait’, and
the craven trade union leaders like Thomas Johnson acceded to this?
Irish labour left the field free to the nationalists and Sinn Fein with
disastrous results for the working class.
Tommy also states: "We should
insist all pro-independence candidates in the 2016 Scottish election
commit to a March 2020 referendum". How timid! Why wait four years to
implement a referendum? Indeed, with a massive new mandate, why would a
Scottish government necessarily go for a referendum as the route to
independence? But if it did, it would be able to go for it immediately
and score a stunning victory.
But his proposals should be
rejected for other reasons as well. He states: "Unity is strength. Don’t
let our differences weaken our cause". But this does not apply between
parties based on the working class and those pro-capitalist parties like
the SNP who inevitably betray the aspirations of those who are seduced
into supporting them. If implemented this would cripple the independence
of the Scottish working class and its ability to resist the onslaught of
the capitalists politically.