16.10.1997

Tommy gets his wish

In the week before the Scottish referendum, I argued in the Weekly Worker (September 4) that Tommy Sheridan should be praying for a small ‘No’ vote, a bigger ‘yes’ vote and an even larger abstention. Such a pattern of voting would be a further kick in the teeth for the Tories. But it would not be a massive endorsement of Blair. It would be seen as a lack of confidence in New Labour’s plans.

If this mass ‘vote of no confidence’ could be identified in the public mind with those fighting for a republic, including a federal republic, that would be a significant advance for the left. It would provide a launch pad for Tommy’s republican campaign for a seat in the new parliament. Unfortunately, the SML did not campaign for a federal republic, or any republic, nor support a boycott. They did not have the politics or confidence to stand against the Blairite tide.

Yet despite his own capitulation to Blairism, Tommy’s prayers were answered. In Glasgow, the heartland of the Scottish working class the following votes were recorded. The ‘no’ votes were 8.4%, the lowest in Scotland. The ‘yes’ votes were 42% of the electorate. But the majority, almost 49%, abstained. The SML will have to stop boasting that to say ‘yes, yes was to merge with the proletariat and to say ‘boycott’ was to cut yourself off from the masses. In my book the 49% with no confidence in Blair’s proposal are more than the 42% who support it.

Across the whole of Scotland 1.5 million voters abstained and 30,999 spoiled their ballot papers (see table).

Let us consider the areas where the abstention vote was 40% or more. First within this group are the four major urban centres in Scotland. In Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh we find a similar pattern. The ‘no’ votes are low. In Dundee it was 13%, in Aberdeen 15% and Edinburgh 17%. In terms of ‘yes’ and abstain, Dundee voted 42% ‘yes’, but 45% abstained. In Aberdeen only 38% were for ‘yes’, but 47% abstained. Of the four, Edinburgh was the only major city in which more people voted yes (43%) than abstained (40%).

Whilst we do not know the exact class distribution of these votes, it is reasonable to suggest that the social weight of the working class in the major urban areas is reflected in a fairly consistent pattern of voting. Workers rejected the ‘no’ vote. But they were more likely to register a vote of no confidence in New Labour’s plans, than to vote ‘yes’.

Secondly we can identify four more rural areas - Aberdeenshire, Moray, Angus, and the Western Isles, where abstentions were above 40%. Again abstentions were higher than the ‘yes’ votes. What is significant about the first three of these is the fact that they are strong SNP areas. Given that not everybody in the SNP was entirely happy with backing Labour, it seems reasonable to suggest that the high abstentions were from SNP voters.

These are people who want a more radical constitutional settlement than Blair is offering. The Western Isles has a radical and Gaelic culture. Although Labour are now the main party, it has a long SNP tradition.

Thirdly we have large abstentions in Shetland (47%) and Orkney (47%). These can be explained differently. In 1979 both Shetland and Orkney voted ‘no’, for reasons more to do with fear of Glasgow or Edinburgh domination than support for Tory unionism. The people of these islands also look to the Nordic Union as an alternative to Scotland. This time they have swung over with the largest rises in the ‘yes’ vote since 1979. It rose 35% in Shetland and 29% in Orkney. On balance it seems possible that abstentions here reflect conservatism more than radicalism.

The 1995 council elections were the last time the referendum constituencies were used. We can use the 1995 voting patterns as a guide. The distribution of ‘no’ votes in 1997 correlates to the council elections. The lowest ‘no’ votes occur where in 1995 Labour scored over 50% of the vote and the SNP were second. These include Glasgow, West Dumbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Western Isles (using general election figures), West Lothian, Mid Lothian, Inverclyde (Lib Dems second), Dundee, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Clackmannanshire and North Ayrshire.

Areas with the highest ‘no’ votes - for example East Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Perth and Kinross, Scottish Borders and South Ayrshire - are where the Tories held parliamentary seats up to the general election or were in second place. Comparing the Tory general election results with the ‘no’ votes shows that the ‘no’ votes were higher, even though there was a lower turnout in the referendum. The Tories turned out their vote behind ‘no’. They were the least likely to abstain. The three areas with the lowest abstentions were all places where the Tories were stronger. More Tories equal lower abstentions.

There is little doubt that the experience of Thatcherism and the poll tax radicalised opinion in Scotland on self-determination. But in 1997 there was a lower turnout than 1979. There has been an average rise in the ‘yes’ vote of between 20 and 25%. But the abstentions also rose by between two and six percent. This does not taken account of those missing from the electoral register as a result of the poll tax. The shift in opinion to the left on this issue over the last 20 years has been accompanied by an increase in abstention, most marked in the cities. The exceptions being the Shetlands and Western Isles.

The question of how we should interpret the abstention votes needs to be clarified. I include here the spoilt ballot papers as another form of abstention. In the broadest sense, they are a vote of no confidence in Blair’s proposals.  Of course some people will have abstained because they did not even realise that there was a referendum going on. Those aware of the referendum range from workers who are apathetic to those with a positive reason to abstain. The apathy vote is also a political statement. As socialists, we know that even the most demoralised worker can get up and fight back, if they see a real opportunity for change. Demoralised workers, who see nothing significant for them in Blair’s proposals and refuse to vote, are nevertheless registering their own vote of no confidence. At the other extreme are communists and nationalists, whose abstentions were a conscious rejection of both ‘no’ and ‘yes’ options.

In itself the fact that people abstained for a variety of reasons tells us little or nothing about the class and political significance of the abstention votes. Therefore we need to identify the overall political location of the block of abstention votes, relative to the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ blocks? Should the abstentions be considered largely a conservative or radical ‘vote’?  Do the abstentions represent a reactionary block to the right of the ‘nos’ and ‘yeses’? Are they the soft centre between the ‘noes’ to the right, and the ‘yeses’ on the left? Or is it the case that the ‘noes’ represent the right, the ‘yeses’ the moderate centre, and the abstentions the left?

The evidence of voting patterns suggests the latter. The political alignment of communists with this block was therefore correct. The proof of the boycott pudding was in the class pattern of voting. This does not mean that we can say exactly how many people abstained as a direct result of the boycott campaign. It might be three, 33 or 33,333 - or perhaps more. Who can say with any certainty? No doubt some abstained as a direct result of the boycott campaign. But it would be futile to spend much time on guessing at this.

The real point is not what share of the abstention vote the boycott campaign delivered. Rather it is that by our political stand we made ourselves part of the abstentionist masses. As somebody once said in a different context, ‘They may be bastards, but they are our bastards’. They may have refused to vote, but they are our refuseniks.

We must take political responsibility for our actions. This is not the same as claiming that we persuaded x%. What we need to understand is the political character of these votes, rather than how many were down to us.

Those who on September 11 registered their vote of no confidence in Blair’s devolution can be divided into ‘passive’ and ‘active’ or ‘spontaneous’ and ‘conscious’. There was a spontaneous abstention vote in the urban areas - especially the poor, the people without rights, without a political voice, without a stake in the system. They said to themselves, ‘I’m not bothering to vote for Tony Blair or his useless proposals’.

The conscious or active abstentionists, or ‘boycotters and spoilers’ were those who sought to organise and give political focus and direction to the abstentionist masses. Boycott was a quite deliberate political act, from those with an alternative agenda. The conscious element organised themselves and went out and tried to persuade others to abstain. We include in this the Edinburgh republicans, who spoilt their ballot papers with stickers calling for a Scottish republic. We include the Campaign for Genuine Self-Determination that did most of its activity in Glasgow and perhaps had some influence in Dundee.

The most conscious part of the abstention camp were republicans and communists. Unfortunately this ‘vanguard’ was very small. It was divided between those who wanted a “parliament with full powers” and were hankering after SML, those who wanted a Scottish republic and those wanted a federal republic. They made a political case for abstention. They gave a voice to the million and a half who abstained. Despite their heroic efforts, they were too weak to decisively influence the politics of abstentionism. Two thousand or even 200 organised and active republicans would have had a major impact on the popular mood. One militant demonstration in Glasgow calling for a federal republic and a boycott of the referendum would have had a significant impact on the political landscape.

Had it been possible to organise a more active boycott around republican demands, we would have begun to locate the abstentions as not merely against Blair, but postively in favour of a republic. With mass activity on the ground, the abstention votes would have been more clearly identified with left and republican demands. ‘Painting the abstention votes red’ is not something that propagandists can do. It is mass demonstrations and other forms of mass action that can ‘colour’ the political opinion of the contending classes.

The problem was not in the spontaneity of the masses. A million and a half voters went on ‘strike’ against Blair’s ballot. The problem was in the consciousness of the so-called socialist leaders. The SSA would have been able to play a leading role. Instead it was split three ways and marginalised by the Blair campaign. The SSA became passive onlookers at Blair’s coronation.

The main problem has been SML whose lack of political consciousness made them the rearguard of the ‘yes’ campaign instead of the vanguard of the boycott. As soon as they joined the Blair camp, the Scottish left was beaten, despite the heroic efforts of the CGSD and Edinburgh republicans. The SSA failed to adopt the boycott slogan and turn the abstentions into a clearer political expression of working class alienation. At the root of this was the SML’s failure to take a republican position.

The miserable toadyism of SML around the slogan of a “parliament with full powers” instead of a federal republic has reaped its own reward. If I was Blair or a Labour spin doctor, I would keep very quiet about the fact that 49% of the electorate in Glasgow abstained. If I was SML, I would keep quiet about that figure as well. But the Scottish comrades (CPGB and RWT) in the SSA are surely entitled to barrack SML speakers at the next SSA with the chant, “49% ... 49%... 49% ...”

I would hope that a motion be put before the next meeting of the SSA, along the following lines:

“This meeting congratulates the working class of Glasgow for decisively rejecting the Tory ‘no’ campaign in the recent referendum. Furthermore we applaud the fact that a majority of the Glasgow working class were not taken in by the propaganda, lies and deception of the New Labour’s ‘yes, yes’ campaign, and refused to support Blair’s proposals. We call upon the SSA to campaign against Blair’s phoney parliament and in favour of a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales”.

Dave Craig

Scottish referendum, September 1997

Thanks to Allan Armstrong (RWT) for his invaluable help in preparing this article – DC