14.08.1997

Outrageous formulation

On Sunday August 10 the National Council of the Scottish Socialist Alliance met. The main items for discussion were SSA campaigns on the Jobseekers Allowance and a shorter working week, and the SSA’s participation in Scotland Forward.

The level of Scotland Forward activity seems to be patchy, varying from frenetic activity in some parts of the country to invisibility in others. SSA members who are active are taking a very localist approach. The SSA has produced its own ‘yes, yes’ leaflet. CPGB comrades were critical of this, particularly the slogan, ‘Yes for the parliament to end poverty and unemployment’.

This was felt by CPGB comrades to foster illusions that what is on offer by the government will in some way be able to tackle the serious social issues in Scotland today. These criticisms were dismissed as resulting form the CPGB’s political opposition to the referendum itself.

Sean Clearkin, general election candidate in Paisley South, welcomed the leaflet but was critical that it did not put forward the Alliance’s distinctive position, particularly vis à vis a democratic socialist republic.

National Council members emphasised the need to maximise the ‘yes, yes’ vote and to generate interest in the referendum. There were plans to hold at least two press conferences in the run-up to September 11.

There was a discussion on the three by-elections in the Glasgow area - one due to the suicide of Gordon McMaster and two council elections due to sitting councillors gaining parliamentary seats. The National Council, while waiting for the branches to consider their positions, was positively minded to contest the seats.

The heat of the day, however, was generated when under ‘matters arising’ Ritchie Venton of Scottish Militant Labour raised the pamphlet by Jack Conrad, Blair’s rigged referendum and Scotland’s right to self-determination.

Ritchie took exception to SML being referred to as ‘national socialist’ in the pamphlet. He felt it was a “deliberate and outrageous formulation to use” and wished to register his discontent that comrades in the SSA should be associated with this suggestion and the notion that he was “sectarian”.

I said that, while not liking the use of the term ‘national socialist’ myself, I thought it should be read in the context of the entire pamphlet to see where Jack Conrad’s article was leading. Nick Clarke of the CPGB felt that there was nothing peculiar in the term and it precisely tried to indicate the dangers of national roads to socialism which were a characteristic of official communism. Recent articles in Scottish Socialist Voice have certainly indicated an orientation toward independence and a socialist road in Scotland independent of the rest of the UK state.

Alan Green was also critical of the pamphlet even though he indicated that he had not read it and did not intend to do so.

I also pointed out that space would be available in the Weekly Worker for Ritchie to reply. The CPGB had asked a number of SSA comrades to review the pamphlet, but to date they had not taken up the offer.

Tommy Sheridan felt that this was “not good enough” and that CPGB comrades in Scotland should disassociate themselves from Jack Conrad’s remarks. If they did not it would show political cowardice on their part (see comment from the Scottish Committee below).

I am glad that Ritchie raised his concerns but I also hope he will take up the offer to write to the Weekly Worker disagreeing with Jack Conrad’s use of ‘national socialist’. I would be very happy indeed if he were to counter the allegation in the pamphlet that he is a supporter of Peter Taaffe’s desire to dump the SSA in favour of forming the Scottish Socialist Party. These are rumours which are rife around the left and which have prompted some to label Ritchie as sectarian.

I have always found him to be pro-SSA and therefore assumed that he is not out to build a sect. Being sectarian needs to be understood properly. It is not about whether someone is friendly or committed, but whether they put the short-term interest of building their own organisation above the interest of the working class as a whole. It is up to Ritchie to honestly state in print where he stands on this issue, if not in our paper then in Scottish Socialist Voice. SML must stop the practice of having these discussions behind closed doors. The arguments must be had out in front of the working class.

This attack on the CPGB has become a regular feature of National Council meetings. Clearly our different stance on the most important issue facing people in Scotland causes tension within the SSA. There are those who would prefer to live in the world of consensus politics.

Some members of the National Council seem to find our continued involvement a nuisance and do not see the need to concentrate on the 20% which divides us, rather than the 80% which unites us. The view which some members of the SSA seem to share with Dave Nellist of the Socialist Party that we should ignore the 20% and concentrate on the 80% is a recipe for permanent disunity, not stronger unity.

The struggle for the truth should not be subsumed beneath the united front banner. There is an idea that the working class cannot understand political debate within the left and that we must pretend to agree on all issues. This is of course wrong. As hard working members of the SSA, who have worked in and financially backed the general election campaign and other campaigns, we will not be silenced or pushed out.

Mary Ward