08.04.1999

Unionists, democrats and nationalists

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group restates the case for a federal republic

In the Weekly Worker (March 11) Alan Ross provided some additional information to Tom Delargy’s previous article on the Scottish Socialist Party conference (March 4). Tom had not reported the debate on the most important subject facing the SSP, namely the national question. It had been a quite lively argument and involved many of the SSP ‘big guns’, who directed their fire against the demand for a federal republic.

By neglecting this, Tom’s report gave a misleading view. As it turns out, Tom was apparently absent from this part of the conference, which explains why he did not report it. He tried to get the missing information, but was unable to do so through no fault of his own. Fair enough. But Tom should have told readers that he was only reporting part of the conference. Alternatively he should have accepted comrade Ross’s corrective as fair comment.

Unfortunately Tom cannot bring himself to do this. Instead he starts up a ruck against Nick Clarke and Mary Ward. His real purpose is to attack any campaigning for a federal republic, which he claims is a waste of time. He therefore gives aid and comfort to the SSP’s nationalist ‘big guns’.

He says that supporters of a federal republic won “a mere handful of votes”. Yet the article by comrade Ross did not claim any different. What the article did say was that the SSP’s aim of independence was the main debate of the conference, and that the call for a federal republic was the main point of contention in that debate. Tom says nothing to disprove this.

Tom gets a little carried away with his own importance, when he claims that he persuaded Nick and Mary eventually to join the SSP. This is simply not true. Nick and Mary held out against joining the SSP quite deliberately. They were encouraged in this by both the RDG and CPGB. They refused to join as long as politically possible. This refusal was directly connected to the contradiction between their position on a federal republic and the SSP’s support for independence. The political logic of this was understood by, for example, Allan Armstrong and the Red Republicans, but not by Tom. He ‘explains’ the whole episode in terms of Nick and Mary being confused and his own powers of persuasion.

A combination of the federal republic and the open public resistance to joining by Nick and Mary indicates that they had the hardest line against nationalism, amongst those comrades previously in the Scottish Socialist Alliance. But as political realists their refusal to join was not absolute. They held out as long as possible and then did what was necessary.

When the question of Scottish independence was debated at the conference, it was the federal republican comrades who made the case against independence. Those like Tom who rushed to join the SSP as soon as possible, and months before Nick and Mary, did not have any motion on the question and did not even turn up for the debate.

Instead of proving the correctness of Tom’s tactics, it proved the correctness of the argument made by both the RDG and the CPGB. There is a direct correlation with your speed of joining the SSP and your preparedness to challenge nationalism. This was shown at the SSP founding conference. If Nick and Mary are only firing peashooters at the enemy, they were at least on the battlefield in the front line trenches. Those peashooters can sting if you get hit in the eye. They are certainly more effective against the nationalist enemy than the ‘big gun’ of anti-nationalism that Tom is threatening to bring to the front line. Nobody has seen this big gun yet. I am absolutely sure it only fires blanks.

Let us put this argument in the wider context of Scottish politics. Marxists or communists in Scotland have only three basic positions. I will call these unionist-communist, democrat-communist and nationalist-communist. For simplicity, I will simply use the term unionist, democrat and nationalist. But we should not forget, at least to begin with, that the advocates of each genuinely consider their line is communist and internationalist.

Unionism and monarchism are the historic form taken by British nationalism. The union fuses England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the crown. Loyalism, to use the Northern Irish term, means loyalty to both the union and the monarchy. The very term ‘United Kingdom’ captures the essence of both union and monarchy. From the various historic beginnings of unionism, it was not a voluntary union of peoples. It was imposed by English arms or by agreement between the ruling classes. This remains true today, although it is now hidden beneath centuries of conservatism, political apathy and ruling class interests. Modern British unionism has advanced a variety of solutions - from one central parliament (Tories) and devolved assemblies (Labour and Lib Dems) to a federal monarchy (Lib Dems). Each of these options rests on the two pillars of union and monarchy.

The right of nations to self-determination is a republican principle. It means that the people have the sovereign right to decide on unity or separation. Concretely this means a constitutional right for the people of a given national territory to hold a referendum, convene a constituent assembly, and for its result to be carried out in practice. Such a constitutional right to self-determination does not exist in the unionist constitution. The union between England and Scotland was not a democratic union and that remains true today.

The republican principle of self-determination can be achieved through independence or a federal republic. The latter means abolishing the monarchy and the union and reconstituting the state as a voluntary democratic union. A voluntary federal republic (but not the federal monarchy), including the constitutional right to a referendum, is the alternative form of self-determination to separatism.

In general, the democrats may advocate either a federal republic or an independent republic, as alternative forms of self-determination. Marx and Engels considered both these options, and various combinations of these options, in their writings on Ireland. However, democrat-communists begin from the working class internationalist principle of the maximum political unity of the working class. This may take the form of different nationalities cohabiting in a single state. Consequently a federal republic is a preferable option, unless state violence and repression demands a policy of separation. In the former Yugoslavia, for example, it is absolutely correct and necessary to demand independence for ethnic Albanians in Kosova.

Nationalists also accept the right of nations to self-determination. But independence alone serves their interests. They therefore reject the federal republic. Democrats do not have an absolute opposition to independence, and consider each situation concretely. It is possible to be a mistaken democrat, who advocates independence at the wrong time, in the wrong place and in the wrong circumstances. This mistake is no minor matter. It is a serious departure from international democracy, because in practice it helps to promote nationalist sentiment within the working class. It simply helps the nationalist enemies of the working class.

A balance sheet of the three positions indicates what they have in common. Democrats and nationalists have in common the principle of self-determination. In some circumstances, both would advocate independence. Democrats and unionists have in common their opposition to separatism. For unionists this opposition is absolute and for democrats it is due to circumstances. Having said this, we must never lose sight of the fact that in the UK the main enemy is British nationalism, not Scottish nationalism.

Last month a public meeting was held by the Glasgow Marxist Forum. All three positions were defended. Mary Ward put the case of the democrats for a federal republic. Sandy McBurney put forward the unionist case and Allan Armstrong put the nationalist position.

Sandy had two main arguments. First he claimed that the unionist state incorporated the right to self-determination. He accepted that there was no constitutional right. He claimed that the ruling class were so honourable that as soon as a majority in Scotland voted for independence, they would accept the result and implement it. They would do so without carrying out any economic and political sabotage. This strained the credibility so much, that the audience almost gasped in shock. Even Sandy looked a bit sheepish, and we were not sure he believed it himself. Is this the same perfidious Albion whose history of duplicity, sabotage and use of terror is renowned throughout the world?

Sandy’s second argument was his defence of the monarchy. Of course as a communist Sandy obviously did not support the monarchy. He stated he wants to see it abolished. I have never heard a socialist say otherwise. But Sandy has absorbed the dominant culture of liberalism, which infects virtually the whole left. He has a liberal rather than a revolutionary attitude.

Liberals think the monarchy is tolerable. It is hardly worth getting rid of and certainly not by means of violent action. Revolutionaries want its immediate abolition, by violence if necessary. Revolutionaries want the masses to destroy the monarchy yesterday and certainly no later than tomorrow. Liberals think perhaps it will abolish itself sometime in the vague future. The liberal attitude is one of patience and tolerance. And which class will carry out this historic task? Every liberal prays it will be the bourgeoisie and not the working class.

When we hear Sandy, it is the voice of a liberal anti-monarchist not a revolutionary. He gives us a ‘proletarian’ rationale. The workers are not interested and cannot be mobilised. Sandy does not stop to consider whose political culture has encouraged the workers to tolerate the monarchy.

The nationalist-communist case was argued by Allan Armstrong. For many years Allan argued the case for a federal republic and was one of the comrades to first raise this slogan within the Marxist movement as far back as 1980. But he has been influenced by the growth of nationalism in Scotland. It is worth asking whether Allan should be seen as a mistaken democrat or a nationalist. The mistaken democrat recognises the validity of a federal republic, but considers that independence is the correct line. The nationalist rejects the federal republic as such.

Recent attacks on the federal republic by Allan in the Weekly Worker show that he has gone over to nationalism. He does not accept that it is a legitimate alternative to his own call for independence. He is now opposed to a federal republic as such, which he claims is unionist. His opposition to the slogan of ‘international socialism’ tends to confirm my worst fears. I would be only too pleased to find out that my old comrade was not in the nationalist camp. But political logic tells us otherwise.

So where is Tom Delargy with his anti-nationalist big gun? He rejects the democrat position of a federal republic. The whole thrust of his letter is an attack on the federal republic through attacking Nick and Mary. He also rejects the independence demand advocated by Allan Armstrong and Scottish Militant Labour. We must deduce from this that Tom’s anti-nationalism is simply old fashioned unionism. This is why his big gun failed to fire during the founding conference of the SSP.

Unionists are British nationalists. Nobody will be fooled when British nationalists call themselves ‘anti-nationalist’ and ‘internationalists’.