31.03.2004

SSP conference: Nationalism holds sway

Sarah McDonald reports from the Scottish Socialist Party's March 27-28 conference in Edinburgh, which saw around 500 delegates in attendance

The Scottish Socialist Party held its annual conference over the weekend of March 27-28 in Edinburgh University’s George Square Theatre. As always, there was healthy and varied debate over a wide range of issue affecting the party’s policies, campaigns and constitution. The conference was well attended, with around 500 delegates turning out on both days.

The first discussion of the weekend was opened by Alan McCombes on the issues surrounding the SSP’s manifesto for the June 10 European elections. Comrade McCombes stated during his opening contribution that “the EU has nothing to do with internationalism” and therefore the SSP, “unlike other pro-independence parties, does not want to swap subordination to London with subordination to Brussels”.

The Committee for a Workers’ International made its first organised intervention on this question. The CWI’s main focus was in support of amendments to the manifesto that called for the democratic workers’ control of industry. While the amendments were designed to put a red gulf between the CWI and the executive committee, they were based more on economism than consistent working class democracy. Sinead Daley criticised comrade McCombes by pointing out that whether we are subordinate to London or Brussels (or Edinburgh, for that matter) is not the main issue. We would, she said, still remain exploited by the capitalist system. A valid point, as far as it goes, but surely we need a coherent position on the national question that goes beyond ‘a plague on all your houses’.

The CWI’s third amendment was for the manifesto to refer to the “socialist” movement rather than the “social” movement in Europe, and to call for a socialist Scotland in a “socialist” rather than “social” Europe. The argument given by the EC for referring to the social, not socialist movement was that many of the groups involved in the European Social Forum do not define themselves as socialist. To which the CWI retorted that the SSP’s European manifesto ought to reflect the aims and principles of the SSP, which is a socialist organisation. All the CWI amendments fell.

The Republican Communist Network managed to get a motion passed calling for greater unity across Britain and Europe for the European elections, including standing on a common platform and slate with the European anti-capitalist left. Such motions, calling for a limited unity or unity in the abstract, are never contentious in the SSP. However, when it comes to actively promoting the organisational unity of socialists through a single, all-Britain party or the British working class through a federal republic, then it is a different story altogether.

An issue that was contentious concerned the question of how best to counter racism and fascism. A motion (obviously originating with the Socialist Worker platform - words such as ‘islamophobia’ and ‘Nazi’ are a bit of a giveaway), called for support for various broad-based anti-racist initiatives, as well as promotion of the SSP’s black members’ network. These measures were seen as essential components of a campaign to stop people voting “Nazi” in June. The motion was passed with an amendment which linked opposition to the far right with issues such as jobs, housing and poverty, and the causes of racism to the lack of a socialist perspective. An improvement on the original motion.

The issue of gender representation was raised again, harking back once more to the decision of conference 2002. It was overwhelmingly decided then that 50-50 gender balance should be imposed when deciding candidates for Westminster elections. Last weekend there was a counter to this motion, which called for branches to be free to choose their candidates regardless of gender. This motion received minimal support and, although there was a debate, it seemed passionless compared with two years ago. It would appear that most of the comrades who oppose this tokenistic approach to gender representation are resigned to the fact that it is now the SSP position.

Another interesting debate was around the independence convention - set up on the initiative of the SSP to campaign for Scottish independence with other nationalist organisations. At the time when this was first raised at national council it did not go down too well with a good number of comrades, as it was clearly demanding support and campaign for an independent capitalist Scotland. However, it was a logical progression of the SSP’s nationalist politics and comrades should not have been surprised to be put in this position.

The first motion, from Edinburgh Pentland, claimed that independence was merely a tactical issue, not a matter of principle, and that supporting it is conditional on whether it strengthens the working class. The motion, moved by Ian Robertson of the Republican Communist Network, called for the convention to be made up of members of the communities, trade union and working class organisations. The RCN claims to want to give the convention working class content, but it still lends support to the idea of breaking up the British working class along national lines.

The second motion on this issue came from the CWI. It stated that setting up the independence convention was a mistake and that the SSP should campaign for independence on class issues. The third came from the SW platform, which proved to be the best of a bad bunch. It also argued, albeit from a more internationalist-sounding perspective, that independence was a tactical issue and, as usual with the SWP’s motions on the national question, drew no concrete conclusion. The Workers Unity platform put forward an amendment to this motion calling for an all-Britain socialist party. It was unfortunate that, in their rush to champion the principle of working class unity, the comrades proposed to delete “we support the right of the Scottish people to self-determination”, along with the nationalism that followed this correct declaration. Not that it would have made much difference, given the amendment only received a handful of votes. All these minority positions were defeated.

Following on from this, the ultra-nationalist Scottish Republican Socialist Movement called for an end to the discussion on the national question, which the SRSM insists has now been settled once and for all. It accuses a small, vociferous group of activists who use the same “divisive” arguments against independence of preventing the SSP from fulfilling its full potential. The motion called for the clause on independence to be entrenched and therefore unalterable.

This was voted down after a short, but passionate debate, where both Mary Ward (RCN) and Catriona Grant for the majority International Socialist Movement spoke convincingly on the democratic rights of members and the importance of debate and discussion. At the moment, with those in the SSP calling for an all-Britain organisation few and ineffective, the leadership can vote against motions of this nature with confidence. What will be interesting is to see if they maintain this commitment to openness and democracy once the drive to a working class party builds up steam in the rest of Britain. At present, calls to unite with socialists in England and Wales can be met with the dismissive response, ‘Unite with what?’

Another motion of interest on the first day of conference was over the issue of trade union officials. The SSP has continuously stood by the principle that its elected representatives should earn no more than the average wage of a skilled worker. The motion from Edinburgh South looked to extend that principle to members seeking election to full-time trade union posts. This motion unfortunately fell. The reason for its lack of success was undoubtedly connected with the fact that affiliation of the RMT is regarded as the beginning of serious trade union involvement in the SSP. Asking trade union officials to live on the average pay of those they represent might be a barrier to winning over some influential comrades in the union movement. The opportunistic shelving of principles in the search for the big time is something that is not, unfortunately, restricted to the SWP in England and Wales.

Talking of which, there was a significant debate over the SSP’s attitude to Respect. The first motion in this group called for uncritical support, while the second correctly stated that Respect is a step back for the left compared with the Socialist Alliance and called on the left south of the border to continue to work through the SA. Although there is a lot to be said for the sentiments of this motion - the call for socialist politics in preference to fluffy, broad-based campaigns - it failed to recognise the reality of the situation. The SA has just about ceased to be a functioning organisation nationally and locally, with only a few branches still able to operate now the SWP has jumped ship.

Respect, although programmatically a step back from the SA, is really all that is available as a viable project in England and Wales. Interestingly nearly all those apart from the SW platform who spoke criticised the SWP’s cynical tactic - adopted to accommodate George Galloway - of dropping its call for all elected officials to take only a worker’s wage. In the end a third fairly bland motion, calling for mutual support and where appropriate joint campaigns with Respect, was passed.

Two of the most interesting and informative debates took place on the Sunday morning. On the issue of secular education there was a series of motions and amendments over our attitude towards religious observance in schools. The result was a much improved position, calling for the separation of church and state and the ending of state sponsorship for acts of religious worship or observance. However, the SSP favours freedom of religion and opposes any state bans on the wearing or displaying of religious symbols.

The second interesting debate was over the SSP’s position on prostitution tolerance zones, which are promoted in a bill due to come before the Scottish parliament. Many spoke in favour of PTZs as helping to protect women sex workers. Many saw them as a step towards decriminalisation of prostitution. What was not mentioned was that decriminalisation would not only protect women (and the few men that work in the industry): it would also empower them. Others spoke against PTZs saying, quite legitimately, that it would not protect the most vulnerable people in the industry, such as those under the age of 16 and those fleeing abuse. Others argued that PTZs would merely legitimise exploitation and abuse.

What was particularly good about this discussion is that it was open and honest: no platforms were pushing their own agenda and delegates were listening to the debate and continuously rethinking their position. It was decided that the issue would be remitted, while the party organises educational day schools on the subject at both local and Scottish levels, allowing the SSP to make a more informed decision.