26.06.2014
Scotland: Sinking loyalism and lifeboat nationalism
Jack Conrad looks at the politics of September 18
For more than three years the referendum on Scottish independence has been a political fact. Back in August 2009 the minority Scottish National Party government tried but failed to get its Referendum (Scotland) Bill 2010 into its legislative programme for 2009-10. Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Tories together formed a cowardly loyalist bloc. Naturally, having been thwarted by the Holyrood arithmetic, the SNP entered the May 5 2011 Scottish elections with a manifesto pledge to “give Scots the opportunity to decide our nation’s future in an independence referendum.”1
Given a becalmed Labour Party, a widely despised Con-Dem government and the withering expenses scandal still sweeping Westminster, it was hardly surprising, especially with hindsight, that the SNP gained a “stunning victory” ... and an absolute majority of seats (though only around 44% of the popular vote).2 Economic crisis, falling incomes, social fragmentation, loss of class solidarity ... and fragile hopes for a fairer, less harsh, more just society, saw voters take to the lifeboat of Scottish nationalism.
Salmond’s election triumph was not just a humiliation for the main Westminster parties. Tantalisingly, at last, emulating Robert de Bruce and William Wallace, the “greatest of all Scottish heroes”, lay within reach.3 Having won a majority of seats - Holyrood’s mixed-member proportional representation system had been cynically introduced to produce weak governments - the SNP could no longer be thwarted. Every political party, every political faction, every political activist readied themselves.
The CPGB was crystal-clear. Employ the most militant tactics objective circumstances permit to ensure “Scotland’s right to a referendum on the question of independence”, but, confounding nationalists of every hue, promote “the voluntary unity” of the working class.4 In constitutional terms: sweep away the unacceptable status quo and establish a “federal republic”.5 A demand famously recommended by Fredrick Engels in 1891 as “a step forward” in Britain, given its monarchy, national divisions and multiple legal systems.6 The federal republic is, needless to say, the specific form under which we envisage the working class coming to power.
Alex Salmond’s decision to go for a referendum “in the second half of the parliament” was well advised. Attempting to out-nat the nats, the Scottish Socialist Party had been stupidly agitating for a “first half” vote. Yet most of the electorate remained stubbornly unconvinced by the case for separation, including swathes of SNP voters. Polls showed support for independence running between a 25% low and a 35% high.7 In other words, SNP voters outnumbered Scottish separatists.
A paradox explained by Salmond’s meticulously triangulated tartan social democracy. The 2007-11 SNP government abolished tuition fees, nudged down classroom sizes, promoted renewable energy, etc. Spending cuts, growing social inequalities, economic shrinkage in Scotland were loudly blamed not on global capitalism, but on George Osborne, the City of London and an out-of-touch UK. Salmond’s combination of gesture and protest allowed the SNP to mop up demoralised Lib Dem voters and drive deep wedges into Labour’s central belt heartlands. The referendum pledge served brilliantly here too. Anxieties of those who might otherwise have feared voting SNP were allayed (voting SNP did not equate with voting for independence). Salmond also bought time, something obviously needed if he was to bring about a decisive shift in popular opinion.
However, it was not just a matter of time. With referendums the question itself often decides. Salmond’s instincts are thoroughly Bonapartist. Hence an early version asked voters to indicate either “Yes, I agree” or “No, I disagree” with the statement: “The Scottish parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state.” Similarly rambling formulations followed. The penultimate version was far less wordy. “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” But it too had to be dropped after the electoral commission objected. People were being improperly led into voting ‘yes’.
What really took place was an old-fashioned power struggle. Edinburgh pitted itself against London. Yet dreams of a new Bannockburn met their Culloden. Salmond had his “moral majority”, but alone the Westminster parliament possesses the legal right to alter the UK constitution. Hence the Edinburgh Agreement and the final yes/no question agreed by the British and Scottish governments in January 2013: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” In return for Salmond’s acceptance of a supposedly “fair, decisive and binding” question, David Cameron ceded temporary powers to the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum under Section 30 of the 1998 Scotland Act - the piece of legislation which set up the Scottish parliament. The Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 was duly passed by the Scottish parliament on June 27 2013 and received royal assent on August 7 2013.8
Of course, well before the referendum details had been finalised both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns were up and running.
Loyalist coalition
Registered as Better Together 2012 Limited, the ‘no’ campaign was launched in June 2012, with Alistair Darling - chancellor under Gordon Brown - as chair and main spokesperson. Better Together is stuffed to the gunnels with New Labour apparatchiks. Eg, campaign director Blair McDougall. He worked as a special advisor for Ian McCartney (2004-07) and James Purnell (2007-08) during the last Labour government. With Labour temporarily out of office, a glittering career path took him to the Movement for Change - a ‘labour movement’ organisation financed by Lord David Sainsbury. He got himself appointed national director. Hoping for the big time, McDougall then ran David Miliband’s leadership bid before selflessly moving to Better Together and his six-figure salary.
While Aslef, CWU, Community, GMB, NUM and Usdaw have come out for a ‘no’ vote, trade unions are mostly notable by their absence. Frankly, the same can be said of the other two Scottish unionist parties. Though they are formally represented - the Tories by MSP David McLetchie (died August 2013) and Scottish Liberal Democrats by their convenor, Craig Harrow - the politics of Better Together are the politics of Alistair Darling (who directly liaises with Con-Dem ministers in London).
Better Together is a vehicle for the establishment, big business and militarism. In June 2013 Better Together launched Forces Together. Purportedly it consists of people serving in the armed forces, veterans and family members. Fully in the spirit of military Keynesianism, it emphasises how Scotland “benefits from the full range of UK defence capabilities and activities”.9 Yet, in fact, the whole Forces Together operation stinks of the officer corps. Phillip Hammond, defence secretary, darkly warns that Edinburgh should not expect to inherit “Scottish personnel or Scottish-based units”.10 The top brass in particular put their oath of allegiance to the crown above the results of any tin-pot independence referendum. If there is a narrow ‘yes’ majority, expect one, two, three, many Curragh mutinies.
Money is assiduously courted and generously represented. Phil Anderton, the management consultant, sits on the ‘no’ campaign’s board; and in November 2013 Nosheena Mobarik, former chair for the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, was appointed a director. The bulk of Better Together’s funds come courtesy of just 10 rich people. The largest single contribution being the £1 million from Harry Potter author JK Rowling. Ian Taylor, the international oil trader, gave £500,000. Other big donors are Douglas Flint CBE, chair of HSBC; the Edinburgh-born crime writer, CJ Sansom, who donated £161,000; and chair of the Inverness-based Orion group, Alan Savage, who handed over £100,000. According to The Herald, “The preponderance of business people is a blow to Alex Salmond, who has made a stronger economy a cornerstone of the SNP’s case for independence.”11
There are, however, allies who are considered an embarrassment. The UK Independence Party wanted to sign up, but found itself turned away on the spurious grounds that it is not “a Scottish party”. Almost in answer, David Coburn sneaked home to become Ukip’s first Scottish MEP in May 2014. Nigel Farage is, of course, a British Alex Salmond. He wants UK independence from Europe. A heresy which puts Ukip beyond the Better Together pale.
The Scottish Orange Order found itself cold-shouldered too. Undaunted, the ghastly organisation is planning a 25,000-strong loyalist parade through central Edinburgh just five days before the September 18 referendum. Flute bands, lodges in full regalia, the Derry Apprentice Boys will all feature. Better Together worries that the march “could provoke an unwelcome backlash among liberal, leftwing voters at a crucial stage in the campaign”.12
Rainbow coalition
Yes Scotland was launched in May 2012. Though the SNP obviously constitutes the core, the Scottish Green Party and Scottish Socialist Party are official co-sponsors. The ‘yes’ campaign is meanwhile aided and abetted by Labour for Independence, a small group established in 2012 by Allan Grogan - he admits that no more than 40% of its supporters are actually in the Labour Party. Better Together brands it an SNP front.
The ‘yes’ campaign’s advisory board is a classic rainbow coalition. Members include Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s deputy first minister; Dan Macdonald, the millionaire property developer; Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Scottish-Asian businesswoman of 2010; Elaine C Smith, leftish actor and comedian; Colin Fox, the SSP’s national spokesperson; Pat Kane, musician and writer; Sarah-Jane Walls, award-winning entrepreneur; and Andrew Fairlie, the Gleneagles restaurateur. Sir George Mathewson, former chair of Royal Bank of Scotland, serves as an honorary vice-president and has pledged to be “available to offer advice and guidance when needed”.13 His political agenda is unashamedly neoliberal. Scotland must cease being a “Labour Party fiefdom” and leave behind “dependency culture”.14
A motley crew bless, promote or seek advantage from the ‘yes’ campaign. The Scottish Independence Convention, Business for Scotland, Radical Independence Campaign, Wealthy Nation, Jimmy Reid Foundation, Sean Connery, Dick Gaughan, Irvine Welsh, Tommy Sheridan, etc. Some do it in the name of Scottish business, some do it in the name of Scottish soft power, some even do it in the name of Scottish socialism.
Yes, idiotically, high on Braveheart delusions, still recoiling from the defeats of the 1980s and 90s, left nationalists desperately maintain that Scottish independence will smooth the road to social revolution. That despite the murderous failure of Stalin’s socialism in one country, the squalid results of national liberation in Latin America, Ireland, Africa and India ... and, of course, the SNP’s cringing commitment to the pound sterling, Nato, the monarchy and EU membership.
Scottish nationalism, home-grown and vicarious, has become the awful common sense of much of the left. What began as an opportunist chasing after opinion polls of under-25s has hardened into a full-blown national socialist doctrine. Self-determination is thereby equated with Scottish independence, and Scottish independence with the road towards a “socialist Scotland”.15
Assuming a ‘velvet divorce’, most likely all a ‘yes’ vote would amount to is Scotland acquiring a rather lowly position in the international pecking order. True, UK imperialism would suffer a setback. Most oil reserves will go. Maybe its permanent seat on the UN security council will fall into question. Centrifugal forces could be released too. Sinn Féin might seek an all-Ireland referendum on unity. Wales might seek to follow Scotland. Cornwall might seek to follow Wales. But such a break-up of Britain has nothing - not a thing - to do with furthering the cause of socialism.
An independent Scotland cannot buck the realities of global power. Economic policy will be straightjacketed by the necessity of preserving the UK’s integrated market. That or risk a cataclysmic flight of capital. A currency union certainly means the pound remaining under Bank of England control. Instead of being a component part of the number one ally of the world’s number one power, Scotland would rank alongside Denmark, Belgium and Portugal. All EU members, all in Nato, all minor players in the US-dominated imperialist system. Salmond has admitted as much. Responding to Barack Obama’s Brussels call for Britain to remain a “strong, robust, united and effective partner”, the first minister faithfully promised the US president that an independent Scotland “will mean that America has two great friends and allies here rather than one”.16
Minor imperialist players, by definition, carry very little weight when it comes to the World Trade Organisation, the G8 and the European single market. No less to the point, once again given a ‘velvet divorce’, an independent Scotland would actually be more vulnerable to pressure from City of London bankers and traders and UK, US, Japanese, Dutch and Chinese-based transnationals. Business-friendly tax rates, spending limits, pay freezes and flexible labour laws would be demanded and likely conceded. Ominously, Scotland’s finance minister, John Swinney, pledges to “balance the books” after independence.17 A telling phrase fielded to reassure jittery markets. Various economists are already predicting that an independent Scotland is bound to be downgraded by credit agencies. Even if Scotland is allowed to keep the pound, even with Britain guaranteeing Scotland’s debt, borrowing costs would therefore increase and thus see a downward pressure on growth.
When it served - that is, prior to the 2008 crash - Alex Salmond’s model was Ireland. He declared that his aim was to “create a Celtic lion to rival the Celtic tiger”.18 Hubris, pure hubris. Indeed, in the absence of any comparable modern example of an advanced capitalist country breaking apart, Eoin McLaughlin, of Edinburgh university, and Nathan Foley-Fisher, of the Federal Reserve Bank, find post-1922 Ireland the best parallel.19 Independence was followed by several decades of “comparative economic decline”.20 And, suffice to say, even the most politically civilised velvet divorce can easily turn sour economically. Salmond’s commitment to Scotland’s “social democratic consensus” will, however, surely be undermined by the grim realities of a declining capitalism.21
Meanwhile the working class throughout Britain is further weakened. There is, after all, a distinct possibility that Scottish nationalism, with or without a ‘yes’ vote, will turn poisonous. Around 400,000 English people live in Scotland. Their vote could swing things one way or the other. But, whatever the final result, the English both within and without could easily become an object of blame, hatred and attack. The warning signs are already there. A recent study of Scottish schoolchildren showed a third of them displaying a “worrying hostility” towards English people.22 Doubtless, this derives from attitudes inherited from parents. A no less venomous English chauvinism could easily arise in response.
Yet the pro-nationalist left blunderingly, disgracefully acts to bring about this entirely dreadful outcome. Instead of championing Scotland’s right to self-determination, a right that can be exercised in favour of voluntary unity, the pro-nationalist left acts to bring about further division between workers in Scotland and the rest of Britain. It is therefore considered axiomatic by wide swathes of the left that Scotland should organise separately. Peter Taaffe’s Committee for a Workers’ International hived off its members in Scotland, Socialist Resistance walked from Respect because it wanted to stand in Scottish elections ... and, of course, there was a widespread, if not universal, fawning before the SSP - that is, until the 2004-5 Cupids club implosion. Now the formula is: ‘Unity with the SNP plus Scottish independence equals a step in the direction of socialism.’ Such are the grotesque results of opportunism.
Loyalist left
There is, though, a ‘vote no’ left. However, without exception it offers the working class nothing. United with Labour was founded by Johann Lamont, Anas Sarwar and Gordon Brown and is to all intents and purposes a fractious extension of the Scottish Labour Party. Eg, the Lamont versus Sarwar fall-out. As the ‘big beast’, Brown has though used United with Labour as a convenient platform from which to criticise the negativity of Alistair Darling and Better Together. “Patriotic Scots” need more than Conservative bullying if they are to vote ‘no’.23 In his recently published book, My Scotland: our Britain (2014), Brown says the choice on September 18 is not between independence and the union, but between independence and “interdependence”.24
United with Labour is Better Together for those politicians who wish to avoid being tainted by Tories. Nevertheless, as Brown himself emphasises, the three main Westminster parties are now unified when it comes to ‘devo max’. A “formal cross-party pact on devolution” could be on the cards.25 There is a sting in the tail. Holyrood will be granted extra tax-raising powers, yes, but in return for reduced funding from Westminster. In other words, the Barnett formula is due for the scrapheap.26
Vince Mills, Red Paper Collective, Scottish Campaign for Socialism and what remains of the Labour left in Scotland uphold the trade unions, the women’s movement and protest campaigns as the historic forces for change ... but it is sadly clear that the unity of the working class is equated with the unity of the British state. Hence, comrade Mills advises the Labour left to “work together with the unions who are supporting the United with Labour campaign”.27 The only nationalism he sees is Scottish nationalism. He is blind to his own British loyalism. Therefore we are expected to believe that a ‘no’ vote on September 18 will deliver a crushing defeat for “nationalism”. As such, a ‘no’ vote will provide the impetus needed to shift the Labour Party “in a new direction”. Left Labourites need comforting illusions.
The Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain urges a ‘no’ vote in a similar manner. An independent Scotland would “weaken the bargaining power” of working people and strengthen the power of big business and the state at both a “British and Scottish level”.28 Above all though, the CPB fears for its British road to socialism. And, of course, the CPB, like Farage and Ukip, is morbidly opposed to Europe. Salmond’s commitment to Scotland becoming an EU member is therefore a clincher.
Showing that it inhabits a fantasy land, the CPB says a ‘no’ vote on September 18 will provide “the springboard for remobilising the working class movement at [a] British level to demand real constitutional change”. Cryptically the CPB advocates “radical federalism”. Whether that is a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales or a federation of the kingdom of England, the kingdom of Scotland and the principality of Wales is unclear. But what is clear is that the CPB puts an equal sign between the unity of the UK and the unity of the working class. A fundamental error.
There are anti-Stalinists - eg, Workers Power, Socialist Appeal, Socialist Equality Party et al - who also take a ‘no’ stance; a conclusion arrived at by following the same economistic logic as the Labour left and CPB. Eg, a ‘yes’ vote means that “Scottish nationalism will have succeeded in winning workers in Scotland to its banner and away from their tradition of support for the British labour movement” (Sandy McBurney). Working class unity is once again equated with the unity of the UK state. Citing the damage Scottish independence would do for working class unity and defence of living standards, they see no alternative but to vote ‘no’. The touching but ridiculous expectation is that this will “deepen working class unity” and open up to road for “pro-working class reforms”.29 More comforting illusions.
The notion that a ‘no’ vote can somehow redeem the cause of working class unity is sadly mistaken. A classic case of putting hope above experience. Not only do we Marxists have no interest in siding with the UK state. The fact that there is to be a referendum on September 18 testifies not to the unity of the working class. On the contrary, it testifies to the disunity of the working class ... and a yanking fall in the most elementary forms of class-consciousness. Suffice to say, the working class is not an active subject when it comes to September 18. Rather workers constitute voting fodder. Whether the result is a 45% ‘yes’ or a 45% ‘no’, there can be no hiding the non-existence of the workers as a political class ... and not only in Scotland.
Left loyalists are obviously terrified that Scottish independence will lead inexorably to the splitting of the trade union movement, the Labour Party and the left along national lines. They are certainly correct when it comes to the nationalist left. But, needless to say, it has already happened. The most ambitious Labour politicians will head south. But the Labour Party as an election machine can only but neatly divide. However, that is unlikely to be the case with the trade unions. They will rebrand Edinburgh or Glasgow HQs and continue to organise across the whole of Britain ... as some British-based trade unions still organise in both parts of Ireland. Of the 52 unions who make up the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, 12 are British-based, including the biggest affiliate.30 Despite the horrible efforts of the left nationalists that will surely be the case with an independent Scotland.
Authentic left
What about the authentic Marxist left? While adhering to the general principle of ‘One state, one party’, it must be stressed that the party we aspire to build is an international party. The mass Communist Party of Great Britain will be a national contingent of something vastly bigger. That was certainly the case in 1920, when the CPGB was founded. And well before a new Communist International is established we raise the prospect of a Communist Party of the European Union. The EU’s treaty commitment to “an ever closer union” should alone prompt such a bold move by the working class. Marxists in Scotland would, of course, find their rightful place in such a Communist Party, with or without independence.
It should also be pointed out that communists are quite capable of prefiguring the federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales by themselves organising on that geographical basis, whatever the outcome of September 18. A common history, common language, common economic and cultural ties, a common trade union movement all necessitate this approach. Note, before Germany had been united from above by Otto von Bismarck the Communist Party in Germany and afterwards the Social Democratic Party did just that.
Our perspective for a federal republic is, however, dismissed by left-loyalist critics allegedly because it “lacks traction” and is “simply a CPGB shibboleth”. If, however, the federal republic ever gained traction, it would only “add more grist to the mill of nationalism”. A conclusion based on two misplaced arguments: (a) it is a concession to Scottish nationalism and (b) it will favour the English because they make up 85% of the population. Instead of fighting for the “maximum unity of the peoples of Britain” - evidence of CPGB liberalism, according to comrade McBurney - we should be fighting for class unity against austerity. Descending into farce, he even tells us that federalism is “supported by the Liberal Democrats and increasingly by free-market Tories.”31
Well, in the here and now the UK is already a federal monarchy. One Elizabeth Windsor, but two parliaments and two assemblies. Of course, along with Engels we support a federal republic: ie, a comprehensive break with the existing constitutional order. To imply or suggest that a federal monarchy and a federal republic belong in the same political category shows that the desire to take a polemical shot against the CPGB won out over serious thought.
True, at present the federal republic is not a demand that comes tripping off the tongue of the average trade union activist. But surely the task of Marxists is to set the agenda, to come up with real answers to real problems. Scottish nationalism is no CPGB invention. There is an SNP government in Edinburgh! Alex Salmond is first minister! Scotland votes on separation on September 18! Communists have a duty to formulate answers that put the working class in the lead, when it comes to positively resolving the manifest antagonisms that exist between the peoples of England and Scotland. A federal republic which constitutionally embodies both voluntary unity and the right to self-determination is, admittedly, a significant concession to national feelings. But it is also a tried and tested antidote to nationalism. If workers in England champion the right to self-determination, this will reassure people in Scotland and Wales: it will help show them that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from our programme.
There are lessons here from the past. The tsarist empire was an overwhelmingly peasant country riven with profound national divisions. Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Poles, Latvians, Georgians, Armenians and Turks were brutally oppressed as peoples. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party sought to unite the broadest possible mass against the autocracy. Key was winning the Russian working class to fight for the right of these nations to self-determination, up to and including the right to secede. Without that there could be no chance, no hope for proletarian hegemony over the revolution.
Those who ignore or downplay such tasks not only consign themselves to mere trade union-type politics. They depart from Marxism and reveal themselves to be left loyalists. All we need do is join with the Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems in voting ‘no’ and everything will come right for the struggle against austerity. That self-deluding nonsense is what their socialist ‘no’ campaign amounts to.
How about the English constituting 85% of a federal republic? Unless one is an out-and-out nationalist, there is no problem here whatsoever. Leave aside Engels and 1891. Russia springs to mind once again. The Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (1918) was both a federal republic and contained an “unbalanced” Russian percentage of the overall population. Chapter 1, point 2 of its constitution reads as follows: “The Russian Soviet Republic is established on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of national soviet republics.”32 A similar formulation can be found in the constitution of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (1924). The introductory statement contains this ringing declaration:
The will of the peoples of the Soviet republics recently assembled in congress, where they decided unanimously to form the ‘Union of Socialist Soviet Republics’, is a sure guarantee this union is a free federation of peoples equal in rights, that the right to freely withdraw from the union is assured to each republic, that access to the union is open to all republics already existing as well as those that may be born in the future, that the new federal state will be the worthy crowning of the principles laid down as early as October 1917 of the pacific coexistence and fraternal collaboration of peoples, that it will serve as a bulwark against the capitalist world and mark a new decisive step towards the union of workers of all countries in one worldwide Socialist Soviet Republic.33
The last refuge of the left loyalist is the September 18 referendum question itself. We are told in the dismal spirit of Mr Gradgrind that what matters is the question on the ballot paper and nothing but the question on the ballot paper. But Marxists do not approach a referendum by taking the question at face value. In general referendums are designed to trick, flatter and corral an atomised population. That is why Louis Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler were so keen on them. By contrast, we positively favour representative democracy. Elected delegates can consider fine details, negotiate at length and agree subtle compromises. Referendums are blunt instruments.
The September 18 referendum is certainly a continuation of the reactionary politics pursued by both sides over many previous years ... only by other means. Those who consider themselves obliged to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because Salmond and Cameron have agreed a “straightforward” yes/no question behave like well drilled schoolchildren, not defiant revolutionaries. For pedants what matters is the words on the ballot paper. For Marxists what matters is who is asking, what they have done in the past and what they are after in the future. So who is asking? Obviously David Cameron, the pro-capitalist prime minister, and Alex Salmond, the pro-capitalist first minister. What do they want? Salmond and the SNP hunger after an independent Scotland. Then they can get snouts into billions of pounds of tax income. Then they can directly serve the banks, financial institutions and big corporations. Then they can enjoy the cornucopia of new posts, bribes and international hobnobbing. Better Together wants to keep on doing exactly that ... only on a 10 times bigger scale. Hence the loyalist campaign to preserve the 300-year union with Scotland and, along with that, Britain’s nuclear-guaranteed presence on the UN security council.
Dressing a ‘no’ vote in the colours of socialism is to deceive. It is to side with the UK state. No-one will wake up after a ‘no’ vote and find nationalism vanquished and working class unity safely re-established. That is absolutely certain. In the event of a ‘no’ the chances are that the SNP will ready itself for the next Holyrood elections in 2016 and securing another mandate for another referendum. As for the UK’s political, business, bureaucratic and military elite, it will breathe a huge sigh of collective relief because Scotland has been saved for the union. Doubtless Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jorge Mario Bergoglio will quietly celebrate too.
Voting ‘yes’ is to help bring about an independent Scotland that we do not want. Voting ‘no’ is to help defend a status quo that we do not wish to defend. Instead of siding with one goddamn awful side over another, communists say: A pox on both houses, boycott the September 18 referendum.
Notes
1. http://votesnp.com/campaigns/SNP_Manifesto_2011_lowRes.pdf.
3. www.yesscotland.net/news/alex-salmond-vision-better-future-people-scotland-yes.
4. S McDonald, ‘Constitutional crisis beckons’ Weekly Worker May 12 2011.
6. K Marx and F Engels CW London 1990, p226.
7. S McDonald, ‘Constitutional crisis beckons’ Weekly Worker May 12 2011.
8. www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2013/13/contents.
9. www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/defending-scotland-stronger-together.
10. The Scotsman October 6 2013.
12. www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/11/scottish-independence-uda-ulster-loyalists-campaign.
13. www.yesscotland.net/news/yes-scotland-advisory-board-announced.
14. www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7274-financial-giant-very-angry-at-distortion-of-independence-facts.
15. www.scottishsocialistparty.org/about-us.
18. The Daily Telegraph February 14 2008.
19. N Foley-Fisher and E McLaughlin, ‘Irish land bonds 1891-1938’ EABH Papers January 2014.
20. www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/02/economics-scottish-independence.
21. New Statesman October 20 2013.
22. The Scotsman June 21 2014.
24. Financial Times June 21-22 2014.
25. The Daily Telegraph June 3 2014.
26. See HM Treasury House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett formula: the government’s response December 2009.
27. www.campaignforsocialism.org.uk/featurearticles/anotherleftinanothercountry.php.
28. www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/communist-news/cpb-scotland-statement-on-scottish-independence.
29. Sandy McBurney, Letters Weekly Worker June 19 2014.
30. www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/IRELAND/BRITISHBASEDTRADEUNIONS-IR.htm.
31. Sandy McBurney, Letters Weekly Worker June 19 2014.