02.05.2001

SWP enters SSP

May Day unity

Throughout last week the Scottish Socialist Party organised a series of regional aggregates to discuss the proposal from the executive to accept the Socialist Workers Party?s application for its members to be allowed to join the SSP. At each aggregate a consultative vote was taken to advise the national council, which took the final decision on Sunday April 29.

The results were as follows: East: 34 for, one against, one abstention; Highlands and Islands: 30 for, 11 against, six abstentions; North East: 15 for, 13 against, no abstentions; West: 53 for, 11 against, two abstentions. Total: 132 for, 36 against, nine abstentions.

The results show an overwhelming majority of SSP members in favour of unity. The closest result was in the North East, where two separate aggregates took place. The aggregate dominated by the Dundee branches voted narrowly against the executive, but the overall vote for the North East (including Aberdeen) tipped the balance in favour of unity.

The reason for this hostility comes from the Dundee-based Committee for a Workers? International grouping - the rump of what remained after the overwhelming majority of the former Scottish Militant Labour broke from Peter Taaffe?s CWI. This majority is known as the International Socialist Movement. The Taaffe loyalists claim they want to stick with the original timetable, which would allow the SWP to join at the end of June. This, they say, would give the SWP time to clarify its position on a number of issues: eg, the national question. They also state that by campaigning together in the general election the SWP will be able to prove they have ?changed their ways? and have a ?genuine interest in building the SSP?. In reality the CWI opposition is based on the same sectarian hostility to the SWP - and to left unity not under CWI control - as is daily displayed in the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales.

Many comrades who attended national council pointed out the debates around political issues should increase when the SWP join, not be ?finalised? and then buried beforehand. As Alan McCombes said (and then promptly corrected himself), calling for a trial period and for the exclusion of socialists over political differences would be ?even more bureaucratic? than the SSP executive?s guidelines banning the public sale of factional literature.

The CWI group, through the Dundee West branch, presented the following motion to national council: ?The NC agrees to a period of joint work with the SWP during the election campaign prior to them joining as agreed by the last SSP NC. We believe that the proposed timetable is too short to allow the necessary time for joint work and discussion on the outstanding political issues and organisational implications of the SWP?s membership. The question of the SWP?s membership should be re-discussed at the NC at the end of June.?

Aside from the CWI stalling tactics, the other main opposition to unity came from the London-phobic Scottish nationalists. Various comrades expressed a fear that the SWP would overturn the nationalist position for an ?independent socialist Scotland?. This cannot be ruled in the long run, but does not seem to be on the cards in the near future. Playing to his ultra-nationalist wing, comrade McCombes reassured a comrade from the youth group that the SSP would not affiliate to the SWP-sponsored Globalise Resistance so long as it was still ?run from London?. To the amusement of many (and the embarrassment of the CWI), Donald Anderson of the particularly vile Scottish Republican Socialist Movement voiced his support for the Taaffeite motion.

The outcome of national council was extremely positive with the final motion for unity carried overwhelmingly: 25 in favour, three against and no abstentions. There will certainly be immediate political and organisational ramifications. Organisationally the SWP is to provide four full-timers - interestingly one of them is to be funded by the SWP central committee. This begs the question: will other platforms within the SSP, such as the Republican Communist Network, be entitled to fund a full-timer? When asked about this possibility Allan Green did not provide an answer.

The political effect will also be interesting. The SWP - formally a revolutionary organisation - will shift the numerical balance towards all-Britain unity and internationalism, although, judging from its attitude towards the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales, that is unlikely to impact upon the reformist nature of the SSP?s programme and politics.

The 2003 elections to the Holyrood parliament and their immediate aftermath will obviously be crunch time. Polls indicate that the SNP will emerge as the largest party. The SSP leadership is using the June 7 Westminster general election to boost its chances. One hundred thousand votes across the whole of Scotland is designed to provide a springboard towards seven or eight SMPs and a post-election deal with the SNP on an independence referendum. The SSP leadership will vote not for an ?independent socialist Scotland? but an independent kingdom of Scotland.

Will the SWP platform go along with this separation - a move which would obviously weaken the historical unity of the working class movement in Britain?

It is too early to judge. And what about the ?anti-nationalist? Republican Communist Network? What position will it take? This remains to be seen. One thing is certain, however: in Scotland authentic communists will fight tooth and nail for the most militant, most democratic unity of all nationalities in Britain against the UK state.

So the entry of the SWP into the SSP on May 1 2001 holds great opportunities for the left - not just in Scotland, but also for England and Wales. It is an objective and subjective boost to those who want to see the SA and WSA move towards a party structure. The potential is there for the left to end its organisational division along national lines and come together into one all-Britain democratic and centralist party.

Sarah McDonald