04.03.1999

Uncomfortable unanimity

Tom Delargy of the Scottish Socialist Party reflects on its founding conference

Something rather odd happened at the SSP’s founding conference (Sunday February 21). It was, for the most part, surprisingly pleasant. Everyone must have been pleased with the turnout - 200 or so delegates in a packed-to-capacity hall. On top of that £14,000 raised in pledges towards our target of a £100,000 election fund. Not at all bad. Many excellent speeches. A healthy tolerance of minorities being allowed, even encouraged, to articulate their concerns.

However, the national council ought to come clean and admit that there was a serious fault with the way things were conducted. The motions on the two principal areas of controversy, Europe and drugs, were not seen by delegates until the day of conference. This is unacceptable. These motions, including the preambles to them, were three pages long each. And no opportunity was allowed to suggest amendments. It has to be accepted by the national council that delegates to conference should not feel bounced in this way ever again.

What, for me, gave conference a surreal quality was the utterly unexpected, virtually unanimous backing for positions that I support. On the drugs question I arrived confident that I would be in the majority. What does amaze me is that of the 200 or so delegates, no one abstained and only one voted against Kevin Williamson’s paper. Bill Bonnar himself voted for it. What on earth are we to make of this? People do change their minds, especially as a result of a good, open debate. I myself have done this. Many times. But does Bill truly believe, “It is time to recognise that drug use (legal and illegal) is here to stay for the foreseeable future and a strategy needs to be developed which recognises this and has as its primary objective reducing the harm which drugs can cause - through education; providing the necessary resources and back-up; changing whatever drug laws are causing more damage than the drugs themselves - as well as promoting tolerance and understanding towards drug users”? Does he now support “ending the criminalisation and victimisation of drug users by employers and the law”? If he does, I would like to take this opportunity to warmly applaud his change of heart. Several speakers did argue that the motion could have been tougher. Indeed it could. There is, nevertheless, an inexorable logic which will drive the policy of the SSP to make fully explicit that which remains, for the moment, implicit. I just hope everyone who voted for it, Bill included, appreciates just what they have let themselves in for.

If this road-to-Damascus conversion of Bill surprised me, I still find it virtually impossible to take in what happened in the European debate. Once again, Bill and I found ourselves on the same side of the ideological barricades. While it is true that there was an unexpectedly large number of abstentions, not a single delegate voted against the motion! All speakers had to admit that the new motion was a fudge cobbled together at the very last minute. While neither the CWI (especially outside Scotland) nor the anti-CWI coalition of Hugh Kerr, Allan Green and Bill Bonnar can be entirely satisfied, I want to go on the record to say that I am over the moon.

This last-minute fudge between the CWI and the anti-CWI has, inadvertently, given me most of what I wanted. I will not say that I could not have done a better job had I drafted the motion myself. I believe I could. That said, the ‘compromise’ motion represents one hell of an advance on both of the original motions, neither of which I could have voted for. These focused exclusively on support for and opposition to the Maastricht Treaty and the single currency. CWI members Harvey Duke, Nicky McKerral and Phil Stott all put the case for a ‘no’ vote in any referendum on the single currency but chose not to push the issue to a vote at conference (this brought criticism from Hannah Sell in this week’s The Socialist). If I understood Phil correctly, he thinks that the party will need to settle this question prior to the European elections in June. I believe that any attempt to do so would be a serious mistake. Here we have one of the rare occasions where I would enthusiastically echo Bill Bonnar. Let us wait until the referendum is called before taking a definitive decision.

The CWI, Socialist Outlook, the SWP, the Scargillite Labour Party and others have already declared for a ‘no’ vote. Until quite recently, that was my position. Unlike the CPGB, I still will not categorically rule it out. I am however increasingly attracted to supporting a boycott. Calling for a ‘no’ vote does not just run the risk of causing confusion between international socialists and rightwing, little Englander xenophobes (and the likelihood is that it will be the latter who will dominate any campaign). Pinning our colours so firmly to the ‘no’ mast is also liable to create illusions in workers’ heads, to foster a complacent attitude that by remaining outside Euroland a capitalist UK, or an independent capitalist Scotland, could evade the convergence criteria. This is unlikely to be the case. Savage cuts of our jobs, wages, welfare state, etc are likely to be justified either by the need to enter Euroland or in order to remain competitive with it.

International socialists need to ensure that the debate at the time of the referendum is not reduced to whether it is preferable for workers’ pockets, wallets and bank accounts to be emptied of euros rather than pound sterling, as our jobs and wages are slashed to maintain capitalist profitability. I would argue that the SSP and our co-thinkers, our comrades south of the border in the Socialist Alliances, need time to compare the pros and cons of a ‘no’ vote versus a boycott. I would also strongly support the right of Hugh Kerr, Allan Green, Bill Bonnar and others to be given more time to articulate their case for a critical support for the euro.

No one can be in any doubt that if the CWI had lost the vote at this year’s conference on the SSP’s approach to the referendum, it would have immediately declared its intention to fight, fight and fight again in order to save the party it loves. Hugh, Allan and Bill can be expected to do likewise if and when they lose such a vote. It could be five years or more before Blair gets the bottle to hold a referendum. Do we really want to make a hypocrite of Hugh in the interim by insisting he argues a line on Europe which we all know he rejects? I do not think it is in anyone’s interest that we try. And I do not believe he could carry any conviction even if he agreed to do it.

Whenever either side wins a vote on what we should do in the referendum, this will just usher in the first phase of the losers’ attempt to get the decision overturned. We ought therefore, if we can, to postpone any decision until we need to make one. Conference’s motion on the euro stated: “While recognising that what we are witnessing is part of a natural development within the European capitalist system, we will actively oppose and campaign against any and every proposal which acts against the interests of the working class. This includes opposition to the draconian cuts in public expenditure necessary to meet the criteria for the establishment of the euro.” If Hugh, Allan and Bill can live with this, I believe they have conceded as much as we can reasonably ask, especially given the amount of time left before the announcement of the referendum.

I can be accused (I fully expect to be accused) of sitting on the fence by those who have already made up their minds in favour of a boycott and by those, the majority, who support a ‘no’ vote. But I refuse to be bounced years in advance of the referendum. We ought to fraternally debate this question, as we ought to debate every issue of substance. Openly and honestly. When it comes to debating our differences, being on the winning side, though nice, is not everything.

I have to own up to feeling more than a little concerned about the unanimity, or near unanimity, of votes on questions which initially appeared to be extremely controversial. In addition to the unfortunate way that delegates were presented with these motions, and the lack of opportunity to amend them, another factor might account for the remarkable absence of dissent. The desire to be on the winning side is the type of opportunism which so swelled the ranks of Stalinist parties in the past.

Bourgeois and social democratic parties are also corrupted by this culture of opportunism and mindlessly following the leader. Our culture has to be different. It has to be one of encouraging minorities to express their dissident views, and to have their own views challenged in turn. This is one reason why I support Hugh, Bill, Allan and others not to have to pretend they oppose Emu when they clearly do not. It is also why I am pleased that Phil Stott, Nicky McKerral, Harvey Duke, Hannah Sell and all CWI members, north and south of the border, have finally gone public in openly criticising Hugh, Bill and Allan for supporting a ‘democratic Europe’ and a ‘people’s Europe’ which remains a capitalist Europe. I do not apologise for the fact that on this question I stand unambiguously alongside the CWI, parting company with the CPGB, leaving them in the capable hands of Bill, Hugh and Allan.