18.09.1997

Creating space for communist politics

Anne Murphy discusses the work of the CPGB in Scotland and reviews the debate at last week’s Communist Party aggregate

The morning of September 12 was a happy one for the Scottish establishment. Even the Tories seemed relieved. At 60% the turnout for the referendum was lower than the ‘yes, yes’ campaign had wanted, but the 74.3% ‘yes’ to the first question and 63.5% to the second question showed that Labour’s parliament had the mandate of a large section of Scottish society.

Only in Glasgow was the turnout low enough to cause the establishment concern - at 51% it showed the depth of alienation among many in the city. The Tommy Graham affair and the other corruption charges have sickened many previously loyal Labour voters in Glasgow.

There was fear in Scotland Forward prior to the referendum that the death of Diana would result in many being too depressed to vote. If anything however, I would say it was the opposite. The ‘yes, yes’ campaign was so lacklustre and uninspiring that it looked certain to limp badly towards the end. A straw poll conducted by Scotland on Sunday the day before Diana’s death found a good deal of apathy and ignorance. The Labour government and its allies were only too painfully aware of this problem. The week break from campaigning gave them a chance to repackage the campaign and put forward a very different message. There was a move away from the concept of a Scottish parliament which would strengthen the union to an approach which talked up its powers.

The white paper was carefully glossed over and the parliament was presented as a possible road to independence - or at least a step in that direction. The fact that the white paper clearly states that the sovereignty of Westminster would in no way be undermined by an Edinburgh parliament was conveniently forgotten. When we in the Campaign for Genuine Self-Determination raised this with Alex Salmond in a Scottish Television debate he declined to answer. The Labour government realised that it was not going to inspire the Scottish people with a parish council. So it created the illusion of something far more.

It was a sham. As Friday’s Herald commented, those in favour of devolution had every reason to be grateful to the “crusading enthusiasm of the SNP, which mobilised its crucial support decisively” (September 12). Throughout Scotland the SNP ‘yes, yes’ propaganda was the most prominent. Those who wanted real change in Scotland were mobilised to fight for a sop. Blair’s smile on Friday morning was a smile of personal triumph. He could now drop the pretence. He insisted that the sovereignty of Westminster remained unchallenged. He had got one over on the Scottish people.

The September aggregate of the CPGB discussed the referendum campaign, including our own intervention. A number of areas were brought into focus. Our predictions of a mass movement around the national question was one. The Scottish Committee believes that we did not really acknowledge the passivity within the working class. The election of a Labour government had dulled the anger directed against the Tories. Labour was promising a solution to the national question. The militancy around council cuts in Glasgow had faded. These factors, combined with the continuance of the period of reaction, meant that the prospect of mass action became increasingly unlikely. Had we reassessed the situation more fully, particularly after our failure to win the Scottish Socialist Alliance conference, we would, I believe, have put far more stress on the tactic of writing ‘Self-determination now’ across the ballot paper. Given that the spoilt ballot papers were actually counted and the totals announced, it could have been an effective way of protesting against the sellout and not accepting the rigged referendum. Although we did use this tactic towards the end, we did not push it enough.

That said, we certainly believe that the tactic of an active boycott was a correct one. When communists fight for reforms they need to do so by agitating for independent working class action. That is what is necessary. A sop handed down from above to an inert working class does not get us a single step nearer socialism. It is only the self-activity of the working class that will win. Socialism cannot come from above. Going with the ‘yes, yes’ campaign did the opposite of what some Scottish Militant Labour comrades told us it would do. Rather than it being the CGSD that was irrelevant, it was the Alliance and the rest of the left. Although we undoubtedly suffered a squeeze from the Labour-loyal media, we still managed to make an impact through newspaper articles, the letters pages of the Scotsman and Herald, and television debates.

Where were the rest of the left? Nowhere to be seen. They had become completely submerged within the bourgeois agenda. They posed no threat to the establishment in its attempts to buy off the people of Scotland. In fact it was the opposite. They agitated from the front pages of their papers for exactly that sellout.

Despite our small resources we were the only independent working class voice. The Campaign for Genuine Self-Determination and the CPGB became known as those protesting against the sellout.

Naturally if we had won the Alliance we could have made a far greater impact. With roots in the working class in key areas of Glasgow we could have built upon people’s democratic aspirations and linked them to the beginnings of disillusionment with Labour. People wanted far more than what was on offer. It was possible that this could be mobilised into mass action.

However, given the various factors described above and - crucially - the fact that the Alliance sold out to Labour, this was not to be. But we have planted a flag. We have through our hard work and courage created our own political space in Scottish national politics. That is a real achievement.

Other things need to be mentioned about the rest of the left over the period of the referendum. While both the SWP and SML called for a ‘yes, yes’ vote, their practical campaigning was little in evidence. Saturdays on Argyll Street in central Glasgow saw ourselves and the SNP with separate stalls on the referendum, while SML and the SWP concentrated on minimum wage and free education campaigns. In reality they absented themselves from a struggle which goes right to the heart of the British state - to the question of how we are ruled. They gave their support to the bourgeoisie’s successful attempt to buy off the democratic aspirations of the people with a sop, and made an ignominious retreat to economism.

The SML leaders, having led their organisation into Scotland Forward, quickly pulled back from the prospect of such close involvement with the establishment. The opposition of many of their own members to Scotland Forward possibly made them think again. However, this was done without the slightest hint of self-criticism.

Another criticism made by the CPGB Scottish Committee at the aggregate was that there had been very little activity in England around the issue. It was argued by some comrades that this would have been mere tokenism, as the struggle was not focused in England. Nevertheless, I believe the criticism still stands. It is important to lead the way in England, by fighting for practical ways in which the English working class can take a stand in support of the right of self-determination for Scotland and Wales. It is true that our paper is an all-Britain one, in which in-depth debate and reportage took place over the length of the campaign - unlike the sparse coverage from the rest of the left and indeed the bourgeois press in England. However, in the context of fighting for a federal republic, it is important to try to build better practical links in England than existed over the referendum campaign.

The efficiency of our organisation’s functioning nationally also came under attack. There were periods of unnecessary delays due to communication problems between Scotland and London. While many of these problems are a natural occurrence as our branches become more real, they clearly need to be overcome. More consultation between the Weekly Worker and the branches was also called for.

The need for more theoretical work to be done in the branches is vital. Criticism and open discussion are better utilised by a membership that is confident about our ideas. These and many other issues will be looked at over the coming period as we begin discussion around our perspectives for 1998.

Finally, our relationship with the SSA was discussed. Overall we are very pleased with the impact that we have made. Despite the attempts of Allan Green to silence or even kick us out, we know that there are others who are coming closer to our idea of party building. They are beginning to understand the need for open debate in front of the class, and loyalty to the Party project rather than your own organisation. Besides the full involvement of Rosie Kane, co-chair of the Alliance, in the Campaign for Genuine Self-Determination, there were others who expressed sympathy with our views. Unfortunately, by and large these views did not find their way into print.

Perhaps now, with the referendum behind us, others within the SSA will be moved to put pen to paper in order to make a critical reappraisal of the Alliance’s position. There must be no cessation of sharp debate.