Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

The Scottish debate

Click here to read the CWI's reply to this document

[Next]

As already explained, the statement on the Scottish economy which was accepted unanimously by the Scottish Socialist Party conference calls for sweeping social/public ownership of finance, large scale industry, construction, energy and land under democratic control and management.

We were therefore astounded to learn that sections of the international were told that the Scottish Socialist Party opposed the nationalisation of the North Sea oil companies (which in fact is one of the central demands of the Scottish Socialist Party which had been highlighted in election material as well as in the party programme).

We also hear reports that "the Scottish Socialist Party has a limited nationalisation programme" and - from a member of the International Secretariat at the women's school in Cologne - "the Scottish comrades have illusions in multinational capitalism." These statements are quite frankly grotesque falsifications which have nothing in common with the traditions of genuine Marxism.

The basis for these ludicrous allegations is that the original draft included a section on call centres and branch assembly plants for products originating outside of Scotland. The draft pointed out that it "may not be practical in the short term at least to take these into public ownership." But that "we would, nonetheless, enforce certain basic standards of wages and conditions, including a £7 an hour minimum wage; trade union rights; a 35 hour week moving towards a four day week; and workers control."

We went on to state that those companies who attempted to pull out to seek more profitable environments would forfeit their assets without compensation and would be forced to pay the equivalent of three years wages in redundancy to each worker made redundant.

Prior to the conference, Philip sent an email to Alan suggesting that 'The question of not nationalising 'branch assembly plants' or call centres maybe needs more discussion." Fair enough. In discussions that involved Philip, and other Dundee comrades there was agreement that we should remit this point for further discussion, but that it was a tactical question.

There was no question of denouncing this statement as in any way reformist. So why do the comrades now say that this shows "how rapidly the economic programme of the Scottish Socialist Party could move in a reformist direction". Why does it show that?

The companies involved actually employ a tiny fraction of the Scottish workforce - around three per cent. But there are localised concentrations of call centres and electronic plants that are part of a chain of production stretching across various countries. How do we explain our programme to workers in these areas?

For Scotland's 30,000 call centre workers - who are almost all employed by external employers to answer phones and deal with enquiries - what do we say we will do in power? Nationalise their call centre which may, for example, deal with enquiries for a mobile phone company or software company based outside Scotland?

But the company will simply change its number, will be the reply. Therefore what we are proposing is to nationalise banks of silent telephones. How do we win call centre workers to the banner of socialist change - that is the question that is posed. Exactly the same points apply to some branch assembly plant.

At the International Socialist Movement conference, Tony Saunois and Hannah Sell said we would issue an international appeal for the working class across the world to follow suit and take over multinationals. Of course we would do that. But the suggestion that the working class internationally will rise up simultaneously against capitalism is to substitute naive idealism for a concrete and rigorous analysis of the class struggle and an honest perspective of how it is likely to unfold.

Our slogan in favour of an independent socialist Scotland precisely flows from our understanding that the international struggle will not unfold uniformly and simultaneously. There are huge variations from one country in conditions, traditions, the state of the workers' movement, the level of consciousness of socialism etc.

To pretend that the Scottish Socialist Party could simply issue an appeal to workers in Silicon Valley, California, for example, and wait for them to seize their companies can only disorientate, miseducate and disarm the working class in Scotland.

What we are fighting for in Scotland is a transitional state in which for a temporary period the economy will not be fully socialised because it is impossible to create a fully socialised economy in a small country like Scotland.

In the meantime how do we galvanise support for socialism within that section of the working class who work in call centres or branch assemble plants? Although a small minority of the overall workforce, there are huge concentrations of these types of workforces in certain regions such as West Lothian, Inverclyde, parts of Lanarkshire and to some extent Glasgow where there is a burgeoning call centre industry. Answer their fears with visionary references to world revolution is not a serious programme for mobilising workers behind our banner.

In any case, the hysteria that has been whipped up on this issue by the Committee or a Workers' International/Socialist Party leadership is dishonest. These issues are not entirely new. In the early 1980s, the Marxist economist and member of Militant, Andrew Glynn wrote a pamphlet, (probably the best selling pamphlet ever produced by Militant) entitled 'Capitalist Crisis - Tribune's Alternative Strategy or Socialist Plan'.

In the final chapter, What a Socialist Plan Could Achieve, he argues for the nationalisation of the top 200 monopolies and states: "26 of the top 200 companies are foreign owned - depending on the particular situation it might he expedient to leave some of them unnationalised, but the nationalisation of others would probably be indispensable." (Our emphasis).

Those of is who were around at that time have racked our memories, but cannot recall an international campaign within the Committee for a Workers' International to denounce Andrew Glyn as a reformist, let alone a defender of multinational capitalism.

In Scotland the Scottish Socialist Party is a serious factor in politics. Academics have been commissioned by serious TV current affairs programmes to scrutinise our manifesto and to cost it in detail. Workers and trade unionists are increasingly demanding to know exactly what policies we will implement in power. As a result, we have to go much further in developing our programme than simply recite a few slogans about nationalising the top 150 monopolies.

In fact, we believe that the What We Stand For programme of the Socialist Party of England and Wales as spelled out in The Socialist newspaper every week is totally inadequate to deal with the developing political situation.

There is, for example no reference whatsoever to the national question, one of the key features of British politics in the 21st century. Instead, The Socialist calls for public ownership of the top 150 monopolies, presumably on an all Britain-basis, because it does not raise elsewhere the revolutionary demand for the break up of the British state and the establishment of a socialist Scotland, a socialist Wales, a socialist Ireland and a socialist England, within a wider European socialist alliance.

The failure of the Socialist Party of England and Wales to deal with the national question is in our opinion an astonishing omission given the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and the rising national consciousness and support for independence in both countries. This is an issue that we would like to debate elsewhere, not with the faction in Scotland who we understand support our analysis on this issue, but with the leadership of the Socialist Party of England and Wales.

In the meantime we will simply make the point that the demand for the nationalisation of the top 150 British monopolies would leave most of the Scottish economy in private hands. Only one Scottish company, Scottish Power, and a couple of Scottish banks, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland, would be taken into public ownership.

Only some North Sea Oil companies would be nationalised. There is no reference either to land ownership in the What We Stand For programme of the Socialist Party - a key question in Scotland. As applied to Scotland, the What We Stand For programme outlined every week in The Socialist is actually a timid, reformist, left social democratic programme. In contrast, the programme of the Scottish Socialist Party confronts all of the major power structures in Scotland and is 1000 times more revolutionary in content.

At the Scottish Socialist Party conference the proposal for a Scottish Service Tax was agreed unanimously and welcomed enthusiastically by all trends within the party. There was not so much as a hint of criticism from any of the comrades who have signed the factional statement - before during or after the conference- that they had any criticisms of this policy.

Once again, we suspect that the leadership of the faction has succumbed to pressure from the Committee or a Workers' International/Socialist Party leadership who now seem obsessed with "proving" that the Scottish Socialist Party is in the process of degenerating into a reformist party. According to an editorial in the paper of the Socialist Party, The Socialist (14 April), the Scottish Service Tax "is in effect a mildly redistributive, reformist measure. "

This editorial was dishonest because it failed to explain that the Scottish Service Tax is a specific policy which we are fighting for within the Scottish Parliament which does not have the powers to impose a general wealth tax or take industry and finance into public ownership, the measures which The Socialist counterpose to the Scottish Service Tax.

The Scottish Parliament does have the power to change local authority funding; this policy is a specific demand which we are placing on the parliament.

Do the comrades seriously suggest that within bodies with limited powers such as the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London Assembly and local councils that we should confine ourselves to general propaganda for socialism and ignore the fight for specific policies which would improve the lives of the working class? This is not a secondary point; it is fundamental to the type of parties and organisations that we are trying to build.

At the most recent Scottish Socialist Party National Council meeting, when we specifically answered this criticism in advance of the discussion, not one person argued against our assessment of the importance of launching a campaign on this issue. Republican Communist Network members rightly made the point that revolutionaries have to be seen to be fighting for reforms The International Socialist Movement comrade from Dundee who is also a signatory to the factional statement did not attempt to defend the position of either The Socialist or the statement of the minority faction.

The comrades are becoming hopelessly confused between reformism and the fight for reforms. Let's be clear on this point: any revolutionary who refuses to fight for reforms is not a revolutionary. The difference between revolutionaries and reformists is not that revolutionaries don't fight for reforms; it is that revolutionaries don't confine themselves to fighting for reforms.

In fact, revolutionaries are the strongest and most committed fighters for reforms. If we were to stand aloof from the fight for reforms then we would have no credibility to raise our general socialist vision. By fighting for and achieving reforms, we will be in a much stronger position to convince working class people to join the longer term fight for socialism.

What else was the fight to overthrow the Poll Tax but a fight for a reform under capitalism? What was the fight to restore free education, which was given massive and uncritical coverage in The Socialist, but a fight for a reform under capitalism? We do not recall The Socialist dismissing the demand for the abolition of tuition fees as a mild, reformist measure.

The Dundee comrades have put resources into campaigning for the repeal of Clause 28, the legislation introduced by Thatcher banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools. We wholeheartedly agree with campaigning on that issue - but this is indeed a mild reform supported by New Labour, the lib Dems, the SNP, and big sections of the media.

In contrast, when Tommy spoke in favour of the Scottish Service Tax at a recent session of the Scottish Parliament there was furious opposition , not just from the Tories, but from the Lib Dems and New Labour who denounced it as "too radical". New Labour has even produced its own briefing document attacking the idea of the Scottish Service Tax, claiming that it "will drive business out of Scotland". The SNP also criticised the proposal, albeit in a more restrained fashion.

Yet the faction statement says: "on the economy and the approach to the Scottish Service Tax we see an increasing tendency to reinforce reformist ideas within the Scottish Socialist Party i.e. the idea that significant and lasting reforms can be achieved within the framework of capitalism or on a Scottish basis alone."

What does this mean? The comrades really do have to be more specific rather than indulge in innuendo. What evidence do the comrades have that "there has been a tendency to reinforce reformist ideas"? They provide no evidence because there is no evidence.

Let's spell out what the statement on the Scottish Service Tax agreed at the Scottish Socialist Party conference actually says right from the start: "Such grotesque disparities of wealth cannot be rectified within the existing political, economic and constitutional framework. The Scottish Parliament has no serious fiscal or economic powers. It does, however, have control over local government taxation. While fighting for radical socialist change nationally and globally, the Scottish Socialist Party will also campaign for the Scottish Parliament to use its limited powers to begin to challenge inequality. "

In moving the statement at the conference, Alan McCombes repeatedly emphasised that this was not a blueprint for socialism, that it was a limited measure, but that it was achievable within the framework of the limited powers allocated to the Scottish Parliament. We also pointed out that it would be opposed tooth and nail by big business and the rich. Of course it is a partial measure that will not eradicate poverty or inequality, as the policy statement itself stresses. But it does open up in a concrete way, the whole question of wealth redistribution and exposes the big parties in Scotland who can't evade this issue by claiming they don't have the powers to act.

Why do the comrades now, after agreeing without a word of dissent to the statement at the Scottish Socialist Party conference, then at further meetings - including a subsequent Scottish Socialist Party executive attended by Philip which discussed fully the campaign around the Scottish Service Tax - do the comrades now come forward in writing with an insinuation that there is some hidden reformist agenda being smuggled into the Scottish Socialist Party?

The comrades are hopelessly muddled on this issue. They state in Scottish Socialist Party Conference Review that "in general we would not oppose such a tax reform but it would be largely ineffective in combating poverty and deprivation." They then say that "the demand will be fiercely resisted by the political establishment who will not want the idea even of a limited wealth redistribution to become something that the parliament gets an appetite for." But if it was such a mild and ineffective reformist measure, why should there be resistance?

The reason it will be resisted is because it would represent the beginning of a turning of the tide. A victory for the working class on this issue would pave the way for further struggles and further victories and would begin to alter the balance of forces. Which is precisely why we should be promoting and fighting for this demand.

The comrades then say "We have always argued that these sort of tax-reforms which in the past were the demands of the reformist left - had to be linked to the nationalisation of wealth, the banks, business etc. "

This seemingly radical-sounding formulation is actually conservative to the core. What it says, in reality, is: "There's no point in fighting for the Scottish Parliament to use its powers to challenge the wealth of the rich because they will resist it. So let's just confine ourselves to abstract propaganda in favour of socialism."

Such arguments stray dangerously close to the approach of the fundamentalist sect, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) which used to oppose strikes for higher wages because they did not challenge the system of exploitation.

Far from defending a revolutionary position, as the faction comrades and the Committee or a Workers' International/Socialist Party leadership like to portray themselves, they are actually promoting a form of resolutionary socialism. This passive, academic approach would be disastrous if adopted by the Scottish Socialist Party, and flies in the face of the fighting, combative tradition of our organisation in Scotland.

We are all in favour of anti-capitalist, pro-socialist propaganda. We are currently working on a book which will advance in a popular form the case for the socialist transformation of society in Scotland and internationally. But we do not counterpose that to the fight for day-to-day reforms and improvements, or suggest that these have to wait until sometime in the mists of future when socialism is posed.

The comrades state that under the Scottish Service Tax low paid workers would only benefit by a maximum of £15 a week. We can hardly believe that this argument is seriously being raised. Under the Poll Tax, workers were asked to pay £6 to £8 a week (depending on their local authority area). Even allowing for inflation this is still less than £15 a week. Yet the Poll Tax sparked off the biggest mass movements seen in Britain for generations and toppled Margaret Thatcher.

Let's look it another way. Fifteen pounds a week is 50 per cent more than the Scottish Local Government Staff pay claim submitted by Unison this year on behalf of low paid workers. The Unison claim is for an increase of 5 per cent or £500 a year (i.e. £10 a week). For low paid workers, £15 a week represents a substantial improvement in living standards.

The comrades also seem to be hinting that the rich will find ways around paying extra taxation, including moving across the border. This is the same argument that was put to us by a journalist with links to New Labour - that there would be an exodus of the rich from Scotland. But you cannot have it both ways. If this is only a "mildly redistributive reformist measure" why should wealthy individuals uproot themselves and families and go to live in England or abroad?

Maybe Brian Soutar, with hundreds of millions of pounds of personal wealth will move out of Scotland because he faces a bill for an extra £87,000. Maybe - but unfortunately, highly unlikely.

On this issue, the comrades zig-zag from one extreme to another without any sense of balance or proportion. The Scottish Service Tax would in effect increase the top rate of taxation from 40 per cent to 52 per cent. This would be resisted ferociously by the rich. But if implemented, they would still be paying much lower rates of taxation than was the case before Thatcher came to power.

On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to play down the significance of such a measure. The comrades say "it is incomparable to the transfer of wealth to the social wage of the working class in the 60s and 70s through the NHS, the modern welfare state and free education."

That is indisputable - but that was then and this is now. Context is everything. The last 20 years has been a period of vicious counter-reforms. Internationally the rich have waged war against the poor with little or no resistance from the workers organisations.

If a measure such as this were to be implemented by the Scottish Parliament as a result of a campaign of mass action by the Scottish Socialist Party, it would mark a significant turning of the tide, a key psychological victory and would have profound repercussions outside of Scotland, not least in England and Wales.

Of course it would not eradicate poverty and inequality as the Scottish Socialist Party statement makes clear. But it would precipitate an important shift in the balance of class forces in Scotland.

Is such a victory possible? From where we stand today, that may seem unlikely. On the other hand who could have imagined when the Scottish Socialist Party was set up that within 18 months, the new party would have succeeded in scrapping warrant sales and poindings - which has been Labour's policy for 100 years. The reason for that was not just because of the eloquence and skill of our parliamentary representative and his assistants, but because of the electoral success of the Scottish Socialist Party in working class areas and the fear that has instilled into Labour backbenchers.

If there was a massive campaign in favour of redistributing wealth in the run up to the 2003 elections; if the Scottish Socialist Party succeeded in gaining a large group of MSPs and councillors; if there was a hung parliament; and especially if all this was set against a background of a recession and swingeing central government cuts in local authority funding, it is not ruled out that mass pressure including a council tax non-payment campaign could lead to a victory.

Even if we do not ultimately succeed with this campaign, the fact that we are seen to be prepared to fight for practical, short term improvements in the living standards and conditions of the working class will assist us build support for our longer term vision of an independent socialist Scotland. Revolutionaries have always put forward immediate demands and slogans around which the working class can be mobilised. Take the struggle of Liverpool City Council under the leadership of Militant in the 1980s. The main demand which mobilised the entire city, including a one day general strike was "Return the £30 million stolen from Liverpool by Thatcher".

In the book The Rise of Militant, Peter Taaffe approvingly quotes the Militant of 16/4/84: "The council was only asking for £30 million from the Government's contingency funds. In the recent budget the Tories had given £35 million to 650,000 already earning £ 750,000 a year.

The Scottish Service Tax would involve removing around £250 million from those earning over £70,000, which would then be redistributed to those on low incomes. Again, even allowing for inflation, the Scottish Service Tax involves a battle for much more resources -and from a much narrower strata of the population because it would be confined to Scotland - than was demanded by Liverpool City Council.

Did the Liverpool struggle pose the question of the socialist transformation of society? Of course not. In fact, it was conceded by a Tory government under pressure from a mass movement in Liverpool. So was this a mildly reformist demand? Were we sowing reformist illusions that if only Liverpool could get back the £30 million the problems of the working class would be solved?

As part of the campaign comrades did raise the idea of the need for socialism - but they did so in a very general way. Ninety per cent of the material produced concentrated on conditions in Liverpool and the need to win £30 million from the Thatcher government. The climbdown of the Tories on this issue was a huge victory. And it revealed that reforms can be won under capitalism if they are fought for in a militant fashion.

Moreover, because of the conditions at that stage, the leaders of this struggle in the form of Derek Hatton and Tony Mulhearn and others did not proclaim themselves to be members of a revolutionary organisation - indeed they denied it.

And because of the orientation at that time to the Labour Party the entire struggle and our strategy was carried out in the name of the District Labour Party and the Council Labour Group (where only 13 out of the 47 councillors were members of Militant).

The council won a 95 per cent victory. Isn't it ironic that at the time the Socialist Worker described it as a "sell-out". The victory wasn't revolutionary enough for them. We would ask the comrades to ponder these points carefully.

[Continue...]

Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join