31.10.1996

Labour’s Scottish parliament will not do

For a federal republic

Last week, Dundee branch of the Scottish Socialist Alliance discussed the nature of self-determination and how it can be won in Scotland, with particular reference to Labour’s referendum proposals. A number of differing and opposing views were expressed, in a healthy debate and exchange of ideas that must become the norm for the left in Britain, if it is to break out of its sectarian backwater.

Labour’s Scottish parliament proposals are a major step forward for the working class and will act as “a shining beacon to every other country”, according to members of the Communist Party of Scotland.

They cited the proportional representation and gender balance proposals as providing a unique opportunity for the left to create a bloc in the parliament. The fact that the proposals will not give any powers to determine central economic policy, foreign affairs and defence or social security does not stop them from believing that it would reverse the cuts in health and education and prevent the decimation of Scottish industry.

The fact that, initially, it will be dominated by Labour Party bureaucrats and careerists from local councils does not stop them arguing that it will “quickly come into real conflict with Westminster”.

This is despite the current compliance of Labour and SNP councils in Scotland with the Tory government’s diktats.

SNP supporters present echoed Alex Salmond’s position on the referendum: that no decision has been taken yet. They are awaiting the outcome of the general election first. However, when the time comes, it is likely that there will be sharp differences within the party over what attitude to take.

Scottish Militant Labour (SML) understands full well the limitation of Labour’s proposals and knows that, in itself, such an Edinburgh parliament will not make a real difference to the lives of the working class in Scotland. However, its emphasis is on a strong Scottish parliament “with powers to take industry, land and finance into public ownership”, and this would be linked to a socialist federation of Britain.

The question that ultimately needs to be posed to SML is: does it see a strong Scottish parliament as being the agent or body that will deliver socialism to Scotland? Surely the lessons of history show that revolutionary socialism can only come through, and more importantly survive by, the smashing of the bourgeois state and its institutions, including its parliament. Genuine socialism must be an active, participatory democracy, where everyone has a role in decision making and where representatives are elected, accountable and recallable (ie, not careerists who are selected every four or five years with no mechanism for removal by the people who elected them).

On Labour’s referendum proposals as they stand at present, SML argued that a ‘yes, yes’ vote, while putting forward “an independent socialist message”, was the way forward: “Anything else lines us up with the Tories.” It opposed a campaign of active abstention to the referendum, arguing that the SSA was too small to carry significant forces with it. Instead it was a question of recognising the political realities and the best way of reaching people.

It urged that there should be no pandering to nationalism and no pandering to the Labour Party - quite right, but that is exactly what SML is doing by not campaigning for what is necessary to eliminate the democratic deficit.

CPGB members argued that the elimination of the democratic deficit could only come about through the Scottish people having the right to self-determination, up to and including separation. While we do not advocate separation SNP-style, ultimately it is up to the Scottish people to decide. Instead what we advocate is the abolition of the UK state and the monarchy and its replacement by a voluntary union of the workers of Scotland, Wales and England through a federal republic, where Scotland can decide its relationship with the other parts of Britain and the rest of the world.

On the national question, the SSA’s declared aims and objectives are: “The SSA stands for the right of the people of Scotland to self-determination and will fight for a sovereign Scottish parliament which has the right to decide which powers to retain in Scotland and to determine its relationship with Britain and the rest of Europe.” Neither Labour’s proposals for a Scottish parliament, nor its referendum come close to meeting this objective. There is still plenty of time for Labour to perform more U-turns on their policy for Scotland, or even to lose the next election.

However, it is important to discuss their proposals as they stand. On the referendum proposals, the CPGB proposed a campaign of active abstention. The right questions are not being asked. Why will there not be other options, such as independence or a federal republic on the ballot paper? Arguing and campaigning for a ‘yes, yes’ vote fosters illusions in Labour’s Mickey Mouse parliament. The SSA should be looking to set the agenda for what is needed, not tailing the Labour Party. A campaign is needed that shifts the debate from whether we have a talking shop with few powers, to fighting for a form of government that gives the Scottish people the mechanism to exercise their democratic right to self-determination. Labour’s parliament will not do.

Nick Clarke