18.01.1996

Genie out of the bottle

Lee-Anne Bates spoke to Tommy Sheridan

What was your reaction to the SLP meeting last Saturday?

It was positive in that a new Socialist Party was established. Scottish Militant Labour and the Scottish Socialist Movement have always said that this is what is needed to offer a radical socialist alternative to the Labour Party.

However what was negative was the imposition of a constitution which was presented as all or nothing. It didn’t promote the tolerance and sensitivity which the Scottish Socialist Movement has been developing over the last couple of years. We respect each socialist’s right to belong to parties or groups, as long as they are prepared to commit themselves to a commonly agreed programme for radical socialist change.

That is why we have been promoting the idea of an alliance rather than a single centralised structure.

Do you see this as a bridge to a centralised party?

Absolutely. I don’t think there is any revolutionary socialist who would deny the necessity of a centralised party to execute a revolution, but we aren’t in a revolutionary situation now. We are trying to rebuild the forces for socialism against a huge ideological onslaught. There is a realignment of the left going on, but we have to build trust through action and agreed democratic programmes.

To do that I don’t think you impose a centralised structure from the outset. We aren’t prepared to say here and now that you are either with us or against us - which is what Arthur is effectively saying: you’re either in or out. We’re saying come on in and you don’t have to leave your own organisation.

Why do you think Scargill has done this?

I’m not sure why he is imposing this constitution. I think it is a political mistake. He may be worried that the pluralist/federalist structure we’re promoting would result in too many arguments.

I think the experience of Scotland has been different however. We have had a sense of maturity and responsibility which has allowed the left in action to unite.

Will you be continuing to fight for a Scottish Alliance to be part of Scargill’s SLP, or have you given up on that?

Our job really is to build a new alliance of a much more concrete character. We will work with anybody who promotes radical socialist politics. But unfortunately Arthur Scargill is making this choice. We would want people to be members of the new SLP and the alliance, but his constitution debars that.

What about Militant Labour in England and Wales? What will its attitude to the SLP be now?

I think ML will work with the new SLP and try and promote friendly relations. We’ve already offered help in the Hems-worth by-election, because any votes for a socialist candidate there is positive.

But wherever discussions are taking place in a broader way - ie, through the socialist forums - people want the pluralist approach that we are promoting in Scotland.

Do you think these debates can go forward now?

I certainly hope so. What we need on the left is a recognition that we all have something to offer. Let’s recruit members to our own organisations, but in an atmosphere of openness and genuine debate rather than the carping and sniping which has hindered the left in Britain for so long.

Arguments are healthy, but let’s pool our resources together. We’ve got tremendous respect for Arthur, but we have a responsibility to also raise opposition. We don’t want blind allegiance. The genie’s out of the bottle now and Arthur can’t stop that process of debate.

What was the reaction of the meeting as a whole on Saturday? Did people apart from the Scottish comrades accept the constitution?

There were a couple of significant objections. The chair and vice chair of the Usdaw broad left in Newcastle, one of whom is a comrade of ours, and John Nicholson from a socialist forum in Manchester. Anyone who was not speaking just in a personal capacity, but on the basis of actually having consulted with people, opposed the constitution.