20.03.1997

Judging the mood in Scotland

Reply to Party notes

The national organiser’s comments on our work in Scotland (‘Party notes’ Weekly Worker March l3) were, not for the first time, inaccurate, misleading and potentially damaging to our work here. We are reluctant to make an argument where one may only exist in semantic terms, but we do feel that Mark Fischer’s points require, at the very least, clarification and in some cases correction.

Firstly, any weaknesses in our work in Scotland must be accepted as criticism of the Party as a whole, as each stage of our intervention has been considered in consultation with members of the Provisional Central Committee prior to resolutions being submitted or our line being carried forward. The thrust of our interventions has been argued in articles by both of us in the pages of the Weekly Worker and have never been polemicised against by any member of our organisation, let alone any member of the PCC.

Our work on the national question can hardly be characterised as “overly concerned with tenuous agreements with small irrelevant grouplets” within the Scottish Socialist Alliance. We cannot work out what Mark is talking about. The bulk of our work has, as previous articles will bear out, been engaging Scottish Militant Labour and comrades from the Scottish Socialist Movement and providing a communist pole of attraction within the SSA.

We have met once with comrades from the Independent/Republican group in Edinburgh to get them on board with the Ad Hoc Committee for Genuine Self-Determination.

If, Mark is referring to the non-publication of a Republican Worker Tendency supplement in the Weekly Worker and our views on that, then it is a totally different question and a matter of opinion whether it is useful for the supplement to be printed. It is, however, quite a separate issue from our work on the national question. We suggest that it is Mark who is overly concerned and over-sensitive regarding these so-called “small grouplets”.

Mark goes on to confuse the campaign for genuine self-determination with the outcome of the campaign: ie, the boycott of Labour’s rigged referendum. The “potential mass appeal” exists at this time for genuine self-determination. Particularly now that Labour is again about to backtrack on even what is on offer at the moment by suggesting that it will take five years to set up a parliament with any tax-raising powers. Any boycott campaign will come about as a result of our success in capturing the mood for genuine self-determination. As the mass realise that they do not need to accept the crap on offer, then boycott will be the logical conclusion. But, again, Mark fails to understand the feeling of people in Scotland at this time and he clearly is unaware that polls show 45% of the population in Scotland want Labour’s sop and 33% want SNP-type independence. Our views are swimming against the tide. We, and the Alliance, have a duty to take people beyond the options on offer and to mobilise people for what is necessary.

Secondly, he follows SML in his defeatist belief that the questions for the referendum are already set in tablets of stone. But, Mark, six months ago it was set in tablets that the Labour Party would not have a referendum on the question of a Scottish parliament. It is nor the communist method to take such a defeatist attitude. It is by demanding and fighting for the type of question we need - ie, a sovereign parliament with all powers - that the campaign will be built. Mark is obsessed with this Mickey Mouse referendum. We are much more interested in mobilising people for genuine self-determination. The referendum is another barrier to the people of Scotland winning their rights. Mark writes that “we must say now that we will boycott Blair’s referendum”.

Well, what does Mark think we have been saying since the Party school last summer? Does Mark not read the reports from Scotland? Comrades in Scotland are in no way ducking the issue, as he implies. We have boldly and consistently argued this in all political forums.

Thirdly, Mark writes that Mary Ward’s questions relating to Scottish nationhood did not “make an explicit appearance at our recent school in Scotland”. This is bullshit. The bulk of Mary Ward’s intervention at the very first session of the school was around this very question. We can only suggest that Mark must have been jet-lagged from his long journey north at this point in proceedings. It is an area that we feel needs further exploration, research and debate and perhaps very soon Mary Ward will have time to write on the issue. We are glad that Mark recognises the fluidity and importance of the movement in Scotland. We are really looking forward to the arrival of the leading member from Centre to help with our work here. We think by immersing herself in Scottish politics, it will be useful in combating erroneous ideas which some comrades at Centre seem to have regarding our work. Or maybe she will become just as frustrated as we are at the fact that Centre is not listening.

There is not a faction on the Scottish question. We welcome and accept the ‘Thesis on the national question in Scotland’. However, it is not just our right but our duty to point out, even to senior comrades, when they are wrong.

Scottish Committee,
CPGB