12.12.1996

Scotland and the Irish question

Jim Slaven is a member of the James Connolly Society and an East of Scotland organiser for the Scottish Socialist Alliance. The Weekly Worker asked him for his views

Can you give us an outline of the aims, objectives and activities of the James Connolly Society?

It was set up as an Irish republican solidarity organisation and has been going for eight to 10 years. We organise a march every year to commemorate Connolly and to try to raise the whole profile of Connolly in Edinburgh. We also try and raise the issue of Ireland, solidarity with Sinn Fein and fundraising for republican prisoners.

What is your assessment of the current political situation in the Six Counties?

The last two years has been quite up and down. There was much hope when the IRA first called the ceasefire, and then it very quickly dissipated with the reluctance of the British government to get involved in any meaningful negotiations.

Republicans over the last two years have shown themselves committed to engage positively in a peace process. Unfortunately this has not been reciprocated by the British.

A few positive things have come out of it as far as republicans are concerned, in terms of being more confident in our arguments. Before the ceasefire republican activists were very much involved in a kind of passive solidarity, working for IRA prisoners, raising money, etc. We did not look to engage too much with anybody. That’s transformed over the last couple of years. Republicans try and argue our cause as much as we can.

The nature of the conflict meant that republicans were politically isolated in the North and that had a trickle-down effect over here, where people were reluctant to break out of their communities. Republicans now accept that the onus is on them to politically go out and make some progress in Scotland.

What do you see as the long-term solution to the situation in Ireland and how do you think that will come about?

At the beginning of the whole process there was a debate amongst republicans as to what exactly the British were doing. Certainly the way they have behaved gives the idea that they weren’t serious at all and they were trying to divide the republican movement. The way republicans in Scotland think about it is that we are committed to the idea that there will be a lasting settlement and it is going to come through some form of conflict resolution, some kind of process ending in meaningful negotiations.

However that can only be done when the British acknowledge the Irish people’s right to determine their own future without outside interference or impediment.

Do you have a sympathy with those who are arguing at the moment for a return to the armed struggle?

I think we have to be honest that the reality of the situation is that there cannot be any peace without republicans involvement in the conflict resolution and also, conversely, there cannot be any resolution without British involvement.

So somewhere along the line we have to be looking to negotiate with the British government: that’s the reality. I think it is unfortunate that you have the Irish Republican Socialist Party/Irish National Liberation Army and the Continuity Army Council in there, because one of the aims the British wanted to get out of this whole drawn-out peace process was to push the republican movement to the point of splitting. I think they have failed in that. The republican movement remains united, it remains strong and it remains committed to its objectives.

Considering the growing dissatisfaction with the peace process in the nationalist communities, do you think that the ‘dove’ or ‘hawk’ wing of the republican movement has got the upper hand at present?

It is difficult to assess what is going on internally within the IRA, but certainly republicans were frustrated by the lack of progress. There is an argument to say that republicans were unreasonably reasonable in their relations with the British and those lessons will be learnt. There is absolutely no chance anywhere down the line that there will be a re-run of the last two years.

Recently you had an article published in Red, the magazine of the Scottish Socialist Alliance. Counterposed to it was an article by David Ervine, leader of the Progressive Unionist Party. Do you think Ervine and his like deserve space in socialist or progressive publications?

No, I don’t. There was quite a lot of unhappiness in Edinburgh SSA that they were giving space to a loyalist paramilitaries, who are ultimately funded and controlled by the British and play a vital role in the British war machine in the North. So we were extremely unhappy that the editorial group took that decision. However, once the decision was taken, the opportunity arose to give a republican analysis. It was unfortunate that it was counterposed like that, but I think it would have been a mistake to miss that opportunity. There seems to be a move to try and look at the loyalist paramilitaries in a new light, trying to make them into working class heroes. 

How do you see the role of the SSA, and how do you think it should develop?

The Alliance contains people from different socialist traditions. I went into it a year ago, hoping that it was going to be a new socialist alternative and it was actually going to make a real impact on Scottish politics. But it’s been quite demoralising going to all these meetings.

Scottish Militant Labour are very keen on standing in elections, but there are a lot of people, particularly in Edinburgh, who are hostile to that idea. Not that we are hostile to the idea of elections, but the feeling is that we should be doing more work on the ground within the community campaigns and then if the opportunity comes to stand a candidate, then so be it. There is a feeling in Edinburgh that the SSA is preoccupied with standing candidates in elections and a bit less occupied with trying to do some real work in the communities.

There are a few reasons against standing, none of them objections on principle. I don’t think we have discussed any of the crucial issues, like the national question in Scotland or Ireland. We are putting up candidates on a platform of the lowest common denominator, expecting everybody to fall in behind it. I personally find the idea difficult of going around doors trying to encourage people to vote or join the SSA, when we have not really discussed some of the thorny issues that exist.

So what we are trying to do in Edinburgh is to have a day school on some of these issues. Let’s talk about them and debate them. SML especially are trying to keep a lid on all these types of debates that they think are going to be difficult for them.

Another problem is that a large amount of the membership seem to be entirely passive and they make no contribution. There seems to be a lack of ideas about how we’re going to get these people to make an input into the organisation. In Edinburgh SML are so keen on standing in by-elections that they seem to spend very little time thinking about how we are going to build the Alliance, how we are going to get leftwing people in other organisations to join us.

Can you briefly outline your position on the national question in Scotland, your attitude to Labour’s Scottish parliament and their referendum?

My position on the national question in Scotland is for the break up of the UK. We believe that the Scottish people should have the right to run their own affairs, the same as the Irish, English and Welsh people. I would not see any future in a ‘British’ solution as it exists just now. I think that is one of the issues that has to be progressed, because obviously there are different views in the Alliance.

In terms of Labour’s referendum, I think it is just another example of how far Labour have lost the plot in Scotland. There is a feeling for constitutional change in Scotland and Labour seems so scared of losing votes in England that they are now going to make people jump through several hoops before they get what they want. If there is going to be a referendum, then certainly I would favour one that was multi-option. Let’s put everything on the table and have a real referendum rather than one for tax raising powers.

My preferred choice would be a Scottish Socialist Republic, although ultimately it is up to the Scottish people to decide. I think we have to accept that there is a feeling in Scotland for constitutional change and it might be for a Scottish parliament. The crucial thing is though that there should be a mechanism whereby the Scottish people themselves determine what they want. if they decide they want the status quo, then that’s their prerogative.