11.05.2011
Constitutional crisis beckons
Labour's defeat at the hands of the SNP is hardly a cause for celebration, argues Sarah McDonald
While the May 5 elections across Britain saw an overwhelming rejection of a change in the electoral system, the results in Scotland most certainly open up the possibility of a substantial change to the constitutional status quo. Electoral reform: no; constitutional reform: perhaps.
While Labour made gains in local council elections in England and secured 50% of Welsh assembly seats, it met with a humiliating defeat in the Scottish parliamentary election. The Scottish National Party won a landslide victory (though largely making their gains on the back of the collapsed Liberal Democrat vote), even though one of the arguments against any form of proportional representation is that it makes a clear-cut majority less likely.
Yet, as readers will know, the SNP won the first ever outright majority in the Scottish parliament since its creation in 1999, with a total of 69 seats. Labour won 37, the Conservatives 15, Liberal Democrats five, Greens two, with Margo MacDonald remaining as the sole independent candidate.
The SNP had failed to mount a real challenge in the Scottish parliament until 2007, when resentment against the unpopular, Blair-led Westminster government saw it reap the benefits as the largest party, forming a minority government for the last four years. Its outright victory this time around can be put down to various factors. First Nick Clegg’s capitulation in Westminster led to the virtual wipe-out of the Lib Dems in Scotland. Secondly the SNP won seats from Labour across Scotland’s cities (including traditional Labour strongholds such as Glasgow Anniesland, former first minister Donald Dewar’s old seat). In part these gains may be down to the SNP trying to present itself as an anti-cuts party (which it clearly is not). But it completely controls the North East, including Aberdeen and Dundee, and holds a majority of seats in both Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Thirdly a large section of the media, ranging from the Scottish Sun to the Scotsman, backed the SNP to one degree or another - in the Sun’s case support for the nationalists sat incongruously alongside support for the Tories. Finally, in an election campaign that has been widely regarded as dull and uneventful, the SNP’s Alex Salmond came across as by far the most charismatic, capable politician among the party leaders, greatly outshining Scottish Labour leader Ian Gray, whose most memorable media moment during the campaign came when he was chased by a small group of protesters into a Subway sandwich shop. Gray held onto his own seat by a mere 151 votes and promptly stepped down from the leadership.
Referendum
So what are the implications of this nationalist victory? It is certainly not something to be celebrated, as some on the Scottish left are doing. It is true that the SNP vote is often a protest vote - anti-Labour, anti-Lib Dem, anti-cuts. But, anti-cuts or not, it does not represent a move to the left, compared to Labour.
This result will push the call for a referendum on Scottish independence to the foreground of Scottish politics. Salmond has claimed the “moral right” to call such a referendum within the next five years - and indeed he must, otherwise his party will lose all credibility. Whatever Salmond’s five-year plan is, he will have to play this one very skilfully if he is to succeed in winning a vote for secession.
The SNP’s triumph in no way equates to a vote for independence. Opinion polls still show that only 25%-35% of the population is in favour of separation. Ironically, many who vote SNP are actually opposed to independence - its very raison d’être. The Labour Party, in fact, changed tactics in the last week of its campaign to remind voters that the SNP does advocate independence.
If the SNP managed to hold a referendum - despite the obstacles that Westminster will erect - and lose, it will likely put the separatist movement back quite significantly. Salmond will perhaps try to win over support among the unconvinced by offering a third option on the ballot paper - for fiscal autonomy within the UK, with responsibility for the military and foreign affairs remaining with Westminster. He will obviously delay the referendum in order to buy some time, as he knows full well that he would not win support for independence in present circumstances. Whether conditions would be more favourable for him a few years from now remains to be seen.
Of course, Alex Salmond may well have the “moral right” (or - let us be little more political about it - the democratic mandate) to call a referendum, but he does not actually have the constitutional right to do so - that is the reserve of Westminster. Salmond has stated he want an “indicative referendum”, where a ‘yes’ result would not legally sanction Scottish separation, but rather add weight to the demand for it. But this hardly displays confidence in the outcome.
David Cameron has said: “If they want to hold a referendum, I will fight to keep our United Kingdom together with every single fibre I have.” Presumably this means opposing the very idea of a referendum on the subject if there was a possibility of a ‘yes’. Of course, the British state will seek to do everything it can to hold the union together. It would perhaps be in Cameron’s best interests to insist on calling a referendum himself very soon. Not only are current indicators strongly against separation: he would be able to choose the phrasing of the question. A ‘no’ vote could put the establishment’s Scottish headache onto the backburner for the foreseeable future.
We communists are also opposed to the idea of Scottish separation, but for very different reasons from David Cameron’s unionism. We are for the greatest voluntary unity of the working class, rather than seeing it further divided on national lines. After all, to be successful we need to make revolution on a world scale; therefore we need to take power within the largest possible units, not the smallest (eg, we favour a united states of Europe, not fragmentation of the existing states) to avoid immediate defeat.
Self-determination
As communists we are consistent democrats. We believe that the people of Scotland should have the right to self-determination, up to and including the right to secede. But that is totally different from advocating separation. For some unfathomable reason there are some on the left who equate self-determination with independence.
The right to self-determination is a democratic demand. We would certainly support the Scottish people’s right to a referendum on the question of independence, should the UK state attempt to bar it, while at the same time vehemently opposing separation. The call for a federal republic links the demand for republicanism with the democratic demand for self-determination, while at the same time promoting the voluntary unity of the working class in Britain.
As readers will be aware, we have consistently fought for this position on the national question - a position which promotes the unity of the working class. Sadly, this is not the view of the Scottish left, which has embraced nationalism in varying degrees over the last 15 years or so. The Scottish Socialist Party is an organisation defined by nationalism, where Scottish independence has become central to all its work. Solidarity has a nationalist position on independence too, but to a greater or lesser extent depending on who it is you are talking to and what kind of mood they are in.
The Committee for a Workers’ International has two ‘affiliated parties’ in Britain - the Socialist Party in England and Wales, and the Socialist Party Scotland. Chris Bambery was able to pull away a substantial section of the Socialist Workers Party in Scotland to his International Socialist Group split, linked to the John Rees Counterfire grouping. These separate Scottish entities are symptomatic of the left’s failure to properly address the national question - leading to outright nationalism on the one hand and directionless opportunism on the other.
This will doubtlessly lead to utter confusion, as Scotland faces the prospect of a referendum campaign. The SSP will, of course, not only support a referendum on independence, but agitate for a ‘yes’ vote - no great shock there, given that it is a left nationalist organisation. If Solidarity does not drop its own pro-independence position, it too will end up campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote. The Socialist Party Scotland has commented in its post-election analysis that a referendum is on the cards, but avoided offering a position on the matter.[1]
Abysmal
The left’s performance in the election was as abysmal as expected. In an article on Counterfire’s website Ben Wray quite correctly comments: “We have lost our roots within working class areas. Galloway’s vote in the east of Glasgow (where youth unemployment is running at 50%) and Pollok were particularly weak.” His solution, however, lacks vision. He argued: “The need for a Scotland-wide voice that argues the capitalists should pay the price for the crisis and that the solution is a bigger, not smaller, public sector is paramount.”[2]
SPS, while calling on the unions to build a fightback and urging the working class to organise in local anti-cuts groups, is hardly offering a political and organisational lead. Better though than the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. Essentially the AWL argued that the left vote might have been crap, but at least we can all take solace in the fact that George Galloway wasn’t elected! (The AWL’s contribution to the election campaign was to actively campaign against Galloway).[3]
Galloway was the best chance that the left had of getting someone elected, but his result was poor - his Coalition Against Cuts picked up a disappointing 3.5% of the list vote in Glasgow. Even if there had been no other left candidates standing against him and he had picked up the entire vote of the Socialist Labour Party (1.1%) and SSP (0.7%), he still would have been some way short of picking up the final proportional representation seat, which was won by the Tories with just over 6%. Elsewhere in Scotland the SSP and Solidarity proved they are completely finished, trailing far behind even the SLP. How long will it be before the likes of Alan McCombes find a comfortable home in the SNP? Entertainingly, the Socialist Equality Party failed to pick up a single vote in the West of Scotland region - presumably its candidate failed to persuade himself he was worth voting for.
What is needed is not a “Scotland-wide voice” to oppose cuts in public services. While the anti-cuts movement is a key area of work, it cannot provide a political alternative. What is needed is a Britain-wide party armed with a Marxist programme. The brief coming together of the sects at election time to offer uninspiring statements on the NHS and suchlike will not lead to electoral breakthroughs. It will continue to reap the same results as it has in the past few years: around one percent of the vote and little or no profile between elections, when comrades can go back to being SWP, CWI, etc (the vanguard in waiting).
Our advice - to vote for anti-cuts candidates of the workers’ movement, both inside and outside the Labour Party - was correct, but it arises from the position of extreme weakness that our movement finds itself in. In the absence of a credible partyist project we called for support for working class anti-cuts candidates in order to agitate for independent working class politics in the election, while at the same time arguing for the need for a Communist Party across Britain.
Notes