23.10.1997

Nationalistic omens

Around the left

It should be clear by now that Scottish Militant Labour has nailed its colours firmly to the nationalist mast. In a sense, it wants Scottish nationalism/separatism to act as a short cut to ‘socialism’. This essentially stems from its passive view of history. The SML tradition looks for a ‘History-driven’ bandwagon to jump on - and then hangs on to it like grim death.

Revealing his talent for over-dramatisation, comrade Phillip Stott boldly states in Socialism Today: “Scotland woke on December 12 [sic] to find that history has been made. A seismic tremor created by the 1.75 million people who voted ‘yes’ to a Scottish assembly had cracked open the seemingly monolithic British state which had ruled from Westminster for 300 years” (October 1997). Yes, the Scottish masses were told by the media that history had been made on September 11.

This “seismic tremor” also hit Wales, according to comrade Dave Reid in the same journal. As he colourfully puts it, “A political earthquake in South Wales looms - as the tectonic plates of a rightward-moving government and a radicalising working class clash.” Incidentally, for a different spin on the Welsh vote try Workers Power.It states that WP’s

“campaign for a ‘no’ vote was totally vindicated. We argued that the assembly offered little for the working class in Wales, and that all its promises to get rid of quangos, to allow Welsh people to discuss issues that affected them, could be achieved without an assembly” (October).

Comrade Stott stares intensely at the voting patterns and discovers ... SML’s analysis. “The vote for a Scottish parliament was also a vote for fundamental social and economic change,” he claims. He further argues: “As The Scotsman said, this was the first electorate in the world to have endorsed a general mandate to increase taxes.”

It all follows, says comrade Stott, that “there was an iron determination to achieve this democratic advance, seen as long overdue; and it was the poor in the working class communities who delivered the decisive ‘yes’ votes.”

Debatable, comrade, debatable. To put it mildly, the comrade’s analysis is very partial and one-sided. He completely ignores all those facts - particularly psephological ones - which suggest an alternative analysis. Like the massive number of abstentions which totaled 1,574,589. Like the 30,999 spoilt ballot papers. Like the fact that in Glasgow the biggest ‘vote’ - 48.8% - was for ‘abstain’ rather than ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Like the fact that Edinburgh was the only major city in which more people voted ‘yes’ than abstain. And so on.

But comrade Stott sees none of this - or rather, he chooses not to present his readers with any troublesome data. All he can see is SML’s historical schema, of which the ‘yes’ votes are a mere reflection. The 1,574,589 Scots who did not vote - for whatever reason - just do not come into the picture. This can be seen in the way comrade Stott presents the voting figures, ignoring the low turnout completely:

“Glasgow on the other hand voted 83% to 17% for a Scottish parliament. Dundee voted massively in favour (76%), as did Aberdeen and Edinburgh (both 72%). These votes clearly reflect working class aspirations to break with the poverty and unemployment which haunts these areas.”

Comrade Phil Stott is not alone in believing this. Comrade Chris Bamberry of the SWP in Socialist Review also argues: “In Scotland the class nature of the ‘yes, yes’ was obvious in the thumping majorities delivered in the four major cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee and in the industrial areas of the west of Scotland, the Central Belt, Lothian and West Fife” (October). Not untrue of course, but ...

After finishing his statistical analysis, Comrade Stott promises that SML “will be discussing a programme for the national question that can win the support of the working class”.

Sounds innocent enough, you could say. After all, one thing SML certainly needs is a programme that can address the national question - its conduct during the Scottish referendum campaign proved that conclusively.

However, the not unreasonable suspicion is that this is another way of saying, ‘We will become more nationalist’. The rest of comrade Stott’s comments do not do much to dispel this fear. He reminds us:

“Support for independence in Scotland is over 30% and a majority among young people under 25 ... Scotland is a nation, reflected in a separate legal and educational system and, above all, in the consciousness of the mass of people, who regard themselves primarily as Scottish.”

Comrade Stott further speculates:

“While it is not inevitable that Scotland will become an independent country, the trend of development is clear. Key sections of Scots - the youth and most political workers - support independence and the demand for more far-reaching powers, including independence, will be a key feature of the years to come.”

This poses a fundamental question. Will SML - using the new “programme” mentioned by comrade Stott - act to combat this “trend” towards separatism? Frankly, the omens are not good.

Don Preston