10.04.1997

Sop parliament and nationalism

Philip Stott, leading member of Scottish Militant Labour, told Nick Clarke about the organisation’s new stance

If Blair’s rigged referendum is a device to buy off the democratic demands of the Scottish people, why does SML call for a ‘yes, yes’ vote?

Militant has argued for a parliament for Scotland since the late 1970s and the 1979 devolution referendum. We have held a consistent position since then in putting the case for a Scottish parliament with real power: powers of nationalisation; powers of ownership over land; powers to use the revenues raised through oil and gas to make a difference over jobs, education, housing, unemployment and all the social problems in Scotland.

We have also been to the forefront in pointing out, over the last few years, that what Labour are offering does not match up to what is actually needed, as far as the Scottish people are concerned. Under John Smith’s 1992 general election proposals, they put forward a position for ‘assigned revenues’ - that is, all tax raised in Scotland could be used by the parliament. That’s a million light years away from what Blair’s proposing now. In actual fact we said in 1992 that while we would support the proposals put forward by Labour in terms of it being at least a step in the right direction, we were even critical then that it was not enough; that assigned revenues would not be enough unless you had the powers of nationalisation, for example.

So there is no question that Blair’s proposals mark a huge leap even from the position that Labour put forward in 1992. Blair’s puppet parliament, as we describe it, will have its strings pulled by Westminster. However, in terms of our position on the referendum, tactically we believe we have to go for a double ‘yes’ vote because the overwhelming majority in Scotland are in favour of constitutional change.

While not giving an ounce of support for Blair’s proposals in terms of how weak that parliament is, we think that it is correct to argue for a double ‘yes’ vote in the referendum as a very small step, but nevertheless a step in the right direction of what I think in the next few years will be an enormous issue which is going to arise on the constitutional question, particularly if Labour introduce their puppet parliament.

So you don’t think it will buy off the democratic demands of the people of Scotland?

On the contrary, I think what we will see now is the floodgates starting to open here. Blair is no supporter of devolution in any form. If Blair could, he would cancel the referendum; he would cancel any plans for a Scottish parliament - he sees it as a side issue. However, he knows that if he backs down on the issue of devolution the Scottish Labour Party would revolt and split - there is no doubt about that. He couldn’t deliver a Labour vote and the Scottish National Party would gain enormously out of that.

We have criticised SML for the ‘art of the possible’ - ie, reformism. We say that you believe that socialism will come through parliament. Does SML want to reform the system or overthrow it?

Our position is absolutely clear: the system has to be overthrown. There is no way any parliament is going to be able to introduce socialism from above. Socialism is about, first of all, a mass movement - a revolution that overthrows the existing state, the existing structure, in our case capitalism. Our view is that parliament can be used, from the point of view of standing in elections, but we stand for a root and branch transformation of society: that is, taking into public ownership the means of production - planned production, owned and democratically run and controlled by the working class. The old society cannot be reformed out of existence.

How do you equate this with what appeared in the Scottish Socialist Alliance’s Glasgow bulletin, which spoke about “a parliament prepared to transform Scotland into a modern socialist democracy”?

What we are arguing for here is certain powers of parliament. It is true that we want a Scottish parliament which has powers to introduce nationalisation, public ownership, etc. That’s important, because otherwise what difference does a parliament make unless it can challenge big business and the establishment? But the idea that you simply stand in elections, you have a majority, you go into parliament, you pass a law and then you have socialism - history tells you that’s not the way it works. The ruling class will use every means at its disposal, including the abolition of parliaments.

You now seem to be calling for the break-up of Britain. What happened to your line on a socialist federation of Britain? Was there an all-Britain debate on this?

We definitely do not stand for the breakup of Britain: we have never put that forward as our slogan. The centre page article I wrote in Scottish Socialist Voice raised the question of “Is Britain going to break up” - question mark. That is something that is being debated both in our organisation and in society generally.

I think independence movements will develop because of the impasse of capitalism. The interests of all workers can’t be gained on the basis of the present system. Add to that the national aspirations of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish people, then the national question is not going to go away.

So we don’t call for the break-up of Britain, and our position has been, since 1995, for a socialist federation, a voluntary federation where Scotland could participate in a socialist federation of workers.

Now whether we are talking about an all-Britain socialist revolution or a revolution in Scotland first, well, history has to decide that. If you look at the general trends that will develop, particularly under a Labour government, particularly if Blair introduces his puppet parliament, then I think that there will definitely be a move towards more and more support for independence for Scotland. Socialists have to make sure that if there is support for independence, then we can raise the ideas of socialism in that movement.

In relation to the support for a vote for an independence option on the ballot paper, this is a tactical question for us. If our option was excluded and there was only independence, Labour’s devolution or the status quo, then we would critically support a vote for independence. That’s not the same as saying we now stand for independence.

We call for a powerful Scottish parliament. This does pose the question of how that could co-exist within the British state - that’s where this issue of the break-up of Britain comes about. If you accept that a Scottish parliament must have real power, doesn’t that then pose the question of an almighty collision with Westminster?

Nationalism is ultimately reactionary. By supporting the call for independence in a referendum, aren’t you playing into the nationalists’ hands?

We would like to think quite the opposite is the case. Support for independence is higher in the working class areas of Scotland and ironically most SNP MPs come from the rural areas. Independence is also a class question in my opinion.

Nationalism itself can be a class question - there’s the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressor. In Scotland there is a dual consciousness - there is an idea of being Scottish and there is an idea of being working class. If we allow the SNP to call all the shots on the issue of a Scottish parliament and support for independence goes up to 40%, 50% or 60%, which is a possibility, then what do we do? Do we stand aside from it or do we argue that if Scotland is going to be independent it should be a socialist Scotland? Are we going to link up with the working class in England and Wales, in Europe, or are we going to allow the narrow, bourgeois nationalism of the SNP to hold sway over enormous layers of the working class?

I think that if there was a referendum with only three options, then we should challenge the SNP head on over what type of independence we are talking about - you cannot have independence from capitalism, or from the Maastricht Treaty, under the SNP.

As revolutionaries do we not have a duty to fight for working class unity? By ‘critically’ advocating independence aren’t you adapting to the division of the working class?

If we were simply arguing for an independent Scotland, for ‘socialism in one country’, then you’d have a case for that. We are for the unity of the working class - there’s no question about it. But if you then draw the conclusion that therefore we are opposed to independence, that you should argue against independence at all times to all people, they will not listen to you.

Even if Scotland was to become independent in the future on the basis of mass support for it, our hope would be that it would not be seen as division within the working class. Lenin, particularly in his writings on the national question and in relation to the Russian Revolution, put great store in winning the different nationalities to come together to forge a revolution.

All organisations have to address the best way to put forward a socialist programme calling for revolutionary change, and at the same time taking into account the national aspirations of the people.

Why is SML now calling for a Labour vote in some areas?

In Scottish Socialist Voice we called for a Labour vote in Ayr and Stirling, marginal seats where the SSA has decided not to stand. I think it is correct not to stand in the Tory marginals, but personally I would not call for a vote for Labour even in those areas. If we are asked what the SSA is saying, what SML is saying in the seats where we are not standing, then we should simply say we are not making a recommendation. Again that is something that can be discussed within the SSA.

The article in SSV seems to implicitly call for a vote for the SNP in the seats where they are the second party. Is the view of that article SML policy?

No, it is not official policy. It is a tactical question. You have to take every concrete situation as it arises. If there is theoretically a seat where you have a leftwing SNP candidate standing and the only other alternative would be a Tory or a Blairite, then SML or SSA would need to discuss what we say in that area. Again I have to say that I don’t think we should call for an SNP vote and we have not done that in any seat.

Has SML now declared UDI and are there now two separate organisations in Scotland and the rest of Britain?

No and no. We have not declared UDI at all. In fact it has never really come up as a discussion in our organisation. There are not two separate organisations in Britain. We obviously have our own branches and structures on a Scottish basis, as I’m sure the CPGB does.

We also make sure we have full discussion on an all-Britain basis as often as possible, particularly on key political issues like the national question, and for that matter we participate in international discussions through our Committee for a Workers’ International.

SML is not a completely separate organisation from comrades in the rest of Britain. At the same time we have a certain amount of what could be called political devolution, where we produce our newspaper and work through the SSA, which is a much broader organisation than SML.