07.03.2002
Scottish socialists aim for 8 MSPs
Delegates to the Scottish Socialist Party's fourth annual conference, held in Dundee, had little trouble finding the venue. Caird Hall sported a huge banner across its roof bearing the epithet, 'Dundee welcomes the SSP conference'. Television cameras and the presence of journalists from several Scottish newspapers provided a reminder that the SSP can legitimately claim that it is a small, but visible, part of the Scottish political landscape. Indeed, a small but growing part of the political landscape. First greetings to conference came from the newly formed Shetland branch. Proof positive that a united left can begin to make inroads into the working class, winning it away from the "protection racket" of the Labour Party, as Tommy Sheridan put it. Comrade Sheridan's claim of "400 delegates for over 3,000 members" was perhaps slightly exaggerated - Scottish Socialist Voice put the number of delegates at only 300 and only half the membership pay any dues - but nonetheless the various reports before conference confirm that progress is being made and, though we should not stand in awe, or simply try and mimic as some do, there are profound lessons here for all Socialist Alliance comrades to learn both in England and Wales. Most notably that the bold step forward from the Scottish Socialist Alliance to the Scottish Socialist Party has put socialism back onto the agenda. While the Socialist Alliance in England has its sights on the local elections in May, the SSP is gearing up for its campaign for the Holyrood elections in 2003. Currently the SSP is registering 6%-7% support in the opinion polls for the regionally based list section. While constituency elections take place under the first-past-the-post system, MSPs are also elected from regional lists proportionally. Support for the SSP in the FPTP section is notably lower - elections for Westminster last year yielded 10 saved deposits but only 3.1% of the total vote. However, the proportional list is a different story, and if the polled level of support is replicated at the ballot box in 2003 then it can reasonably be expected to produce anything between two and eight MSPs for the SSP. The commendably ambitious strategy proposed by the executive - standing candidates in all 73 FPTP constituency seats as well as putting up eight regional slates - was challenged by a motion from Edinburgh North and Leith. It called for regions to be allowed to decide whether they stood in the FPTP seats or concentrated on the list. Localist arguments against 'paper candidates' and about 'maximising the constituency vote' through targeted campaigning - well rehearsed in the recent debates within the Socialist Alliance about how many candidates to stand in the upcoming local elections - were rehashed by the proponents of the amendment. Of course, standing in elections ought to be a means to an end, not an end in itself - certainly for revolutionary socialists and communists. In the current period of low-level class struggle, it is a strategically important (but not the only) tactic for revolutionaries to employ within the overall framework of raising the consciousness and combativity of our class. It provides us with a platform from which to disseminate our socialist and democratic ideas and organise within the class. Our election challenges should thus be bold and ambitious. We should not argue for 'paper candidates' - a pejorative term - but for the widest campaign, one which provides the opportunity to win the maximum number of people to positively and demonstrably identify with the socialist message. Even from a narrow electoralist perspective, the Edinburgh motion was wrong-headed. A localist approach in fact tends to lose votes, decreasing as it does our national visibility. Standing in all the FPTP seats will mean a free mail shot to every voter in Scotland. Thankfully the Edinburgh amendment fell. There is clearly a dominant feeling within the SSP that the road to socialist liberation goes through Holyrood. The book Imagine by Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCombes weaved together nationalist mythology and leftwing reformism and the entry of the SWP in May 2001 has done nothing to alter that orientation. Kelvin branch's minority motion, again to amend the executive's report on the Holyrood elections, foreshadowed the Sunday debate on the 'war against terrorism'. It asked conference to "seriously consider standing an internee [from Guantanamo Bay - JM] as a candidate" or else support them as a 'united front' candidate. Though this was correctly dismissed by Keef Tomkinson and others as "tokenistic" and promptly rejected by conference, the debate was more notable for what was not said. As on the Sunday, what was remarkable about this debate was the deafening silence of the Socialist Worker Platform on this question. The SWP did not challenge the SSP's opposition to islamic fundamentalism during the war - SSP leaders condemned the September 11 attacks on America (initially this caused SWP members to break the 'guidelines' against public sales of Socialist Worker). Two issues, however, dominated all others. The first day of conference was largely taken up with discussion of the Socialist Women's Network motion calling for equal representation for men and women on regional lists, which would be ensured by the operation of a 50-50 mechanism. Men would top four of the regional lists and women the four others, with candidates of the opposite sex occupying the second and third position on each list, with male and female comrades alternating from fourth position down. Having already been the main topic of pre-conference discussion, this provoked the most intense and passionate debate at conference itself. Supporters of the motion were not averse to arguing, as Catriona Grant did, that those who opposed it were "in the wrong party", and opponents were equally forward in raising the danger of careerism. Nobody present was keen to be seen as 'sexist'. The women's network case was also backed up and lent some coherence by the SSP's manifesto commitment to "equal representation for women at all levels of government" - something that was repeatedly used to counter opponents. Supporters did not argue so much that there was a problem of 'institutional sexism' within the SSP that needed rectifying. Rather they pointed to women's oppression under capitalism (which undoubtedly exists) and claimed that the best way to overcome this within wider society was by adjusting the SSP's internal democracy. The argument is not without merit. By putting women candidates to the forefront the SSP puts into practice what it preaches. However, in private, many opponents of the quota system not only complain that it curbs SSP democracy - the right to stand for selection and to vote for any candidate - but suggest that the womens commission has ulterior motives. Comrades such as Catriona Grant, Carolyn Leckie and Rosie Kane are suspected of being careerists that dream of being MSPs rather than serving the common cause. Unfortunately opponents of the scheme offered no coherent alternative to the 50-50 mechanism. Thus, despite all the impassioned speeches against, mainly by women, the motion was passed by a margin of 47 votes (150 for, 117 against). Though the CWI was the only one of the 'big three' to oppose 50-50, the other two split over the question - prominent ISMers lined up on both sides, while one SWP rebel opposed the position of her platform, making a powerful speech against the proposal. However, this was hardly evidence of the "end of factionalism", proclaimed by the Sunday Herald's journalist Andrew Crawford. Europe and the euro was another topic debated pre-conference in the pages of Scottish Socialist Voice. Proposals from the executive for a special conference on the question, to be held in June, were debated. The main opposition to this came from the CWI's hard 'no' camp, which was keen to force a decision and win the day there and then. Understandably, given this school of thought's apparent strength (ISM plus CWI plus SWP). Even some who were in favour of deferring the decision, like Felicity McCarthy, who took to the platform to speak on behalf of the executive, expressed their sympathy for the 'no' camp. However, the hard 'no' camp narrowly lost the day - executive loyalty plus the extreme left combining to winning effect, despite the fact that the former will almost certainly line up with the IDS Tories, BNP, the Labour left and the UKIP whenever a referendum is announced. The June conference will also see a discussion of the SSP's constitution. Unfortunately those advocating the principled position of an active boycott are few and far between. Contrary to the view expressed by many comrades over the weekend, this is not merely a 'tactical' question, but also one of principle. Namely, that of class independence from both the pan-European and nationalist wings of the bourgeoisie. However, as comrade Keef Tomkinson pointed out, the euro referendum will indeed take place "all over Britain". Therefore this is a crucial area where campaigns within the Socialist Alliance and SSP can be drawn together; advocates of an active boycott must unite and begin to coordinate their forces across the whole of the UK. Conference easily passed a motion calling for the formation of a European Socialist Alliance. Yet paradoxically not only does this sit uneasily with a 'no' vote in a euro referendum, but also with the SSP's call for an 'independent socialist Scotland' which was oft repeated throughout the conference and was never far from the surface even in debates when it was not directly referred to. A European SA is also surely at odds with the SSP's point blank refusal to even contemplate an all-Britain SA, let alone the coming together of all communists and revolutionary socialists in Scotland, England and Wales in a single party capable of defeating the UK state. Unfortunately, the motion from the Workers' Unity platform calling for the formation of such a party to be adopted as an aim was overwhelmingly defeated. James Mallory * Factional alignments and fights * Tokenism wins the day * Internationalist gestures, nationalist reality * Euro conference
Worker