Will Respect stand in Scotland? | |
| Allan Green
SSP national secretary |
from Scottish Socialist Party to Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Alliance
December 9
Dear comrades in the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Alliance (England), I have been sent a report of the Socialist Alliance (England) executive meeting that met last night. The report states:
“The SWP voted against the following emergency motion put by Andy Newman to the SA exec and the motion was voted down: ‘The Socialist Alliance sends it fraternal greetings to the SSP in the current difficult period and confirms its support for the SSP in all elections in Scotland.’
“Rob Hoveman (who is an SWP full-timer in the Respect office) said: ‘Respect has no intention of contesting the general election in Scotland.’ So Andy asked: ‘Can you clarify whether Respect would contest elections for the Scottish parliament?’ and Rob replied: ‘Respect has no intention of contesting the general election in Scotland.’”
I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or not this report is accurate. Can you please specifically confirm whether or not the Socialist Alliance executive voted down the above motion? If SWP members voted against the motion, we would be grateful if the SWP could confirm whether or not they were representing, or representative of, the SWP.
If the above report is accurate, it is extremely concerning, especially in the light of recent public comments by prominent Respect member George Galloway. Both the SWP and the Socialist Alliance have previously explicitly stated that the SSP would not be challenged in elections by English-based left organisations.
As both the SWP and the Socialist Alliance are actively supportive of Respect, we would be grateful for clarification. In particular, we would appreciate a straightforward written statement from your organisation which made it clear whether or not your organisation recognises that in Scotland there is a separate and distinct party for socialists to join, the SSP, and whether or not you would be willing to consider that Respect should organise in Scotland in the future. It would be helpful if you give us a categorical assurance that you would not be in favour of Respect organising nor standing in elections in Scotland at any time in the future.
We hope that you will be able to respond quickly and positively to our requests for clarification on these matters and that mutual positive relations between our respective organisations can be maintained and improved in the future.
Allan Green
SSP national secretary
Megaphone diplomacy
| |
| Rob Hoveman
Socialist Alliance national secretary |
From Socialist Alliance to Scottish Socialist Party
December 10
Dear Allan,
I’m afraid I haven’t seen the report of the Socialist Alliance executive meeting which was held last Wednesday mentioned in your email, and the official minutes of the meeting are not yet available. I hope, however, that I can clarify the situation.
Last March the Socialist Alliance held a special conference to determine its attitude towards the newly formed Respect coalition. The overwhelming majority at the conference voted to support Respect and not to stand candidates in the forthcoming European and local elections. Since that time the overwhelming majority of Socialist Alliance branches have voted to support Respect and have then ceased to meet, as members put their energies into building Respect.
However, we are obliged under the Socialist Alliance constitution to have an annual conference. It was not possible to hold this conference in December, when it was originally scheduled. The primary purpose of the executive meeting last Wednesday was to discuss proposals from me about holding the conference on February 5. The only other item on the circulated agenda was a letter from an organisation called the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform.
The executive meeting itself consisted of just three executive members out of more than 30. One of the three members attending the meeting asked at the beginning for an item on Scotland to be added to the agenda. When we arrived at this item, the same member suddenly proposed a verbal resolution on relations with the SSP and standing in elections in Scotland. The executive meeting, which had been convened primarily to approve arrangements for a forthcoming conference, could hardly be considered sufficiently representative or credible to pass resolutions on matters which had not been previously circulated.
It is, of course, the standing policy of the Socialist Alliance not to stand in Scotland. The two people, including myself, who voted against the Scotland resolution, thus defeating it, had and have no desire to alter the standing policy of the Socialist Alliance not to stand in Scotland. Indeed we continue to believe that it would be counterproductive for the Socialist Alliance to stand in elections in England and Wales either. I also suspect that the resolution was mischievous in intent and believe that it is far better that any problems that may have emerged between the SSP, George Galloway and Respect are best dealt with by those bodies and people themselves and preferably without megaphone diplomacy.
I understand the SWP and Respect are also writing to you in response to letters from you. I do hope that if there should be any further misunderstandings between us as a result of reports which themselves may have mischievous intent, you won’t hesitate to give me a call to clear the air. My number is included, in case you have lost it.
With best wishes
Rob Hoveman
Socialist Alliance national secretary
Normal process
| |
| John Rees
national secretary, Respect |
From Respect to Scottish Socialist Party
December 11
Dear Allan,
Thanks very much for the opportunity to clarify Respect’s attitude to the Scottish Socialist Party, which remains unchanged since I last wrote to you on this issue.
Respect has no plans to organise or to contest elections in Scotland. We will continue to call on voters in Scotland to support the Scottish Socialist Party. A simple phone call, without recourse to lengthy correspondence or articles in the left press, would have clarified this point.
We are of course grateful for the solidarity of the SSP in the past. But you, in your recent correspondence, and other members of the SSP on other occasions have exercised the right to comment on the policies and strategy, and even the internal discussions, of Respect. I’m sure you realise that Respect supporters can exercise the same right with regard to the SSP. This is part and parcel of the normal process of democratic debate on the left.
We very much hope to develop our fraternal relations with the SSP and we look forward to the SSP making a similarly forthright declaration of support for Respect in England and Wales. We feel that it is unfortunate that the SSP lent support to the Liverpool-based group that is now known as the United Socialist Party and that it prefers to support Forward Wales against Respect. We also look forward to Respect speakers being offered similar platforms in Scotland to those repeatedly extended to SSP speakers by Respect in England, most recently at the European Social Forum.
Best wishes
John Rees
national secretary, Respect
Scottish sovereignity
| |
| Allan Green
SSP national secretary |
from Scottish Socialist Party to Respect
December 12
Dear sisters and brothers,
Thank you for your letter of December 11. Unfortunately it has not clarified most of the points that we raised.
We had previously pointed out that George Galloway, a member of the Respect officers’ group and prominent Respect national spokesperson, had, through the Mail on Sunday, launched an attack on the SSP. The public attack used derogatory language such as “Trotskyite apparatchiks”. It called for splits in the SSP and suggested that Respect were considering standing against the SSP in the next elections to the Scottish parliament.
We have previously said: “We would be grateful if you could provide the SSP members with an explanation of where Respect stands in relation to George Galloway’s comments.” Your only response was to defend the right of Respect members to comment on the policies, strategy and internal discussion of the SSP. You even said: “This is part and parcel of the normal process of democratic debate on the left.” Is it really the case that all Respect has to say on this matter is that his comments, calling for a split in the SSP and the Scottish left at future elections, are simply part of normal democratic debate on the left?
We also had asked: “Are George Galloway’s reported comments about Respect considering standing in Scottish elections accurate?” You have not responded to this request for clarification. We note and welcome that you have said that Respect has no plans to stand in elections in Scotland. But we would be grateful if you could let us know if you have already been considering standing in the elections to the Scottish parliament, as this is what George Galloway has been reported in the Mail on Sunday as saying.
We had further said, given George Galloway’s public remarks, “It would be helpful if you give us a categorical assurance that you will not organise nor stand in elections in Scotland at any time in the future.” On behalf of the party, I can give Respect a categorical assurance that under no circumstances whatsoever will the SSP even consider standing in elections in England at any time in the future. Can you reciprocate with a similar categorical assurance?
You did raise a few new points. I will, of course, give you the courtesy of a direct response to all of these points. Should you feel that we have not responded in full to any of your points, please let us know and we will do our best to rectify the situation.
You asked for Respect speakers to be given platforms by the SSP. Of course, that has always been the case. At our recent Socialism 2004 conference, the opening speaker was Respect supporter Mark Steele. Mark’s opening speech was witty, insightful and inspiring. Mark performed an extremely positive role throughout the weekend conference. We had also invited George Galloway to this event but, unfortunately, George was unavailable. Michael Lavalette, Respect NC member, spoke the previous year in the opening rally, again making a valued contribution. Ken Loach, another prominent Respect supporter, has over the years played a tremendous role actively participating in and supporting SSP events. There are countless English-based socialists who have played an enormous role providing solidarity and support to the SSP. The flow of speakers and ideas between England and Scotland is, of course, mutually beneficial. This should and will continue.
You also said: “We feel it is unfortunate that the SSP lent support to the Liverpool-based group that is now known as the United Socialist Party and that it prefers to support Forward Wales against Respect.”
With regards to the United Socialist Party, I genuinely do not know what you are referring to. Tommy Sheridan once, in a personal capacity, spoke at a meeting in Liverpool with people who went on to form the United Socialist Party. Tommy called for a deepening of the unity process in England and at no time before, during or after the meeting did Tommy, or any other SSP EC member, call for a vote against Respect in England.
The SSP has had a mutually supportive relationship with Forward Wales (now Forward Wales, the Welsh Socialist Party) from before the foundation of Respect. When Respect was founded later, we made our position with regards to Wales crystal clear in our letter to the Respect EC on April 20 2004. We said: “The SSP has had a mutually supportive relationship with the Socialist Alliance in England and the Welsh Socialist Alliance. One of the positive aspects of this relationship was that the three organisations understood and appreciated the fact that they were organising in three separate nations - Scotland, England and Wales. Whilst there was obviously a need for close links and cooperation, not least because we were operating in the one state, the sovereignty of each party was recognised and respected. It was explicit that the three organisations would only organise in their own country.
“We believe that this approach was pivotal to the positive relationship between these organisations and that this approach should be continued now that the Socialist Alliance in England has agreed to back Respect.
“The SSP executive are of the view that it would be divisive for Respect to stand in opposition to Forward Wales, a party that has been launched after the success of John Marek in the Welsh assembly elections. Forward Wales has a range of socialist policies and they have attracted several individuals of standing in Welsh politics. Just as the SSP would urge socialists not to stand against Respect in the elections in England, we urge Respect not to stand against Forward Wales.”
Although the SSP clearly does not agree with Respect splitting the left vote in Wales, that has not stopped the SSP building solidarity with Respect in England. As we reminded you in our last letter, at the June elections the SSP cooperated to enable a Respect party political broadcast to be transmitted across Britain, even though Respect was standing against Forward Wales. You obviously do not agree with our view on Wales, but at least you have always known exactly where we stand and why.
Incidentally, in that same letter of April 20, we also said: “The SSP are seeking a formal response to our request that you make it explicit that you do not intend to organise in Scotland at any time in the future [original emphasis]. The Socialist Alliance has always been clear that it only organises in England. There is, in our opinion, some public ambiguity with Respect. Your spokespersons continue to use the term ‘Britain’ when discussing the future of your organisation. It has also been registered with the Electoral Commission as intending to stand in elections in England, Scotland and Wales. John Rees has previously indicated to me that this entry was down to the Electoral Commission rather than Respect. However, the Electoral Commission website still has this claim. We would be grateful, if you do not intend to stand in Scotland, for you to arrange for your entry in the website to be quickly changed.”
In our recent letter this month we again said: “In the past we have pointed out that the Respect entry in the Electoral Commission website states it will contest elections in England, Scotland and Wales. If you have no intention of standing in elections in Scotland, could you please now quickly arrange with the Electoral Commission for the reference to Respect standing in elections in Scotland to be removed from their public website.”
Since the foundation of Respect we have repeatedly asked you to provide us with such points of clarification. One of the most prominent Respect spokespersons has just launched a savage attack on the SSP in the press. He called for a split in the SSP, saying that Respect has already been considering standing in the Scottish parliament elections in 2007 against the SSP. Hopefully Respect will now agree to provide the clarity that we have been waiting patiently for during most of 2004. If you were to choose not to provide straight answers to the points raised in this letter, it will be difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Respect leadership are deliberately being evasive.
Yours for socialism
Allan Green
national secretary SSP
