24.10.1996

No support for Labour sops

Nancy Morelli replies to John Stone (Weekly Worker October 16) on Labour’s referendum plans

John Stone’s article betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding either of Labour’s proposed sop parliament for Scotland or of the real nature of self-determination, as understood by socialists. Comrade Stone and the Liaison Committee of Militants for a Revolutionary Communist International exhibit tailism and opportunism in their call for a “‘yes’ vote for autonomy/devolution”. In fact, Stone uses the terms “autonomy”, “self-determination”, “devolution” and “Scottish parliament” interchangeably, as if they all mean the same thing, and he clearly has little or no understanding of what Labour’s proposals are.

Labour’s parliament does not even hint at self-determination - ie, the right of a nation to determine its future, up to and including secession. On offer is a Mickey Mouse parliament which, if some in the Labour ranks get their way, will not even have the right to vary taxes by the magical ‘three pence in the pound’ either way.

The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is further compromised by the proposed rigged referendum which does not include questions on independence, the monarchy or on a federal structure for Britain. John Stone still does not seem to realise this. It is wrong for revolutionaries at this juncture to be advocating a ‘yes’ vote for this travesty of democracy from Labour. Instead, we should be demanding a parliament which gives the Scottish people the power to decide their relationship with the rest of the UK. Only then will people in Scotland have genuine self-determination.

I agree that any referendum offers opportunities for revolutionaries to put forward revolutionary propaganda, but Stone seems to suggest that this propaganda should be in the form of backing the Labour proposals. How can we ever win the respect of the class in Scotland if we lead them down a road to nowhere? The referendum questions are an insult and cannot in principle be backed. Is the LCMRCI the same organisation that was arguing at Communist University ’96 that the CPGB’s call for a federal republic was reformist? The comrade’s position is untenable. By all means we must use any parliament that comes into effect as a result of the referendum, but that does not mean that we have to ‘choose the butcher’ and advocate it.