Scotland: Independence from what?

[Q]

This article is about a hot topic for the left and indeed the working class in Scotland and beyond, so I thought that it would be interesting to share it.

The Scottish National Party’s support for Nato confirms Alex Salmond as a canny bourgeois politician, argues Paul Demarty (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/935/scotland-independence-from-what)



http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/images/wwimages/ww935/SM_trident.jpg
Trident-armed submarine: SNP climbing on board?

The most striking thing about the Scottish National Party conference was that it was, in all fairness, a conference. Debate was allowed, and on one particular point it raged fiercely.

That point has been a sore one within the SNP for some time now. Alex Salmond, its slick operator of a leader, has long proposed to drop the SNP’s formal opposition to an independent Scotland’s membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. That opposition has been in place since Nato’s formation in 1949, based on a general revulsion towards nuclear weapons within the ranks of the SNP.

The policy was finally overturned at the SNP’s conference last week, after a fraught discussion, and by a slim margin. Anti-Nato feeling is well rooted in the SNP - the rebellion against the change was led by eight MSPs, two of whom have now resigned. John Finnie, referring to the slightly contradictory terms of the conference compromise, said “I cannot belong to a party that quite rightly does not wish to hold nuclear weapons on its soil, but wants to join a first-strike nuclear alliance.”

Of course, that is not exactly what is on offer - because Scotland is already in Nato. The underlying problem is exactly what form a putative independent Scotland will take. What commitments will be broken along with the union? How independent is independence? According to Salmond’s grand plan, the answer is on the whole: ‘not very.’

The problem is less and less a purely academic one. Salmond now has his first shot at a referendum to make the SNP dream a reality. Before the end of 2014, the Scottish people will be given a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question: should Scotland leave the United Kingdom?

This is being spun by the SNP as a result, but it has not escaped notice that it is really a setback. Gone is the much-mooted third option, so-called ‘devo-max’, which would concede to Holyrood powers over fiscal policy, while retaining control of foreign policy in Westminster. Devo-max was widely believed to be a more attractive option to the majority of Scots than full independence; the shrewd pragmatist, Salmond, would be quite happy to salami-slice his way to independence.

If a straight yes/no vote was held tomorrow, the nationalists would lose by a considerable, but hardly crushing, margin. It is possible that the Westminster government will, by the end of 2014, be so virulently hated north of the border that the ‘yes’ camp wins; but at present it is the unionists’ to lose, and there is no reason to assume Cameron and Clegg (and, for that matter, Miliband) will bungle things so disastrously as to change that.

A victory for the ‘no’ camp will not settle the issue, however. The SNP is no longer the near single-issue campaign it once was. Above all else, it has become a credible party of government in Scotland, cementing its power, just as Scottish Labour accelerates its process of political suicide. Defeat in the referendum would not kill the SNP.

What, then, is Salmond’s plan? He has understandably gone quiet on his Celtic-Scandinavian ‘arc of prosperity’ line - an arc which connected up the once wildly successful economies of Ireland, Iceland and Norway. Norway is still in a vaguely fit economic state, all things considered; Ireland and Iceland are transparently basket cases. Still, it gives us some idea of what is in his head - favourable tax arrangements to attract foreign investment on a relatively thin economic basis. That plan is to be firmed up by taking hold of North Sea oil.

Beyond that, the story is more about what is not going to go: Nato membership, obviously, which would place Scotland firmly in the US sphere of influence, is the point that is being talked about right now. But Salmond wants to retain European Union membership as well. He also wants to keep the British pound sterling as Scotland’s currency, and retain the British monarch as head of state.

It is unlikely that Cameron would oppose the retention of her maj. Everything else at least offers an opportunity for obstruction, a sticking point in the hard negotiations that would follow a ‘yes’ vote. The Nato question is tied up with the relative military capacities of Scotland and the rest of the UK; Cameron could quite easily claim that British army units stationed or recruited from north of the border are the crown’s, not the SNP’s, to dispose of. The SNP admits that it would have to buy serious naval military ordinance in combination with the UK government, a proposal that would likely be met with the traditional middle finger.

There are legal disputes in the offing about Scotland’s EU membership; Salmond expects automatic membership, but other opinions exist that would force a rather punishing readmission process on a newly independent country, giving Cameron at the very least something to scare the Scots with in the lead-up to a referendum. Salmond claims that 90% of North Sea oil falls in Scottish territorial waters, but Westminster will certainly find ways to disagree with that.

Keeping the pound would tie Scotland to the Bank of England, and to substantial parts of British fiscal and monetary policy by default. ‘Devolving’ the currency would in any case be unacceptable to unionists, and is hardly that attractive an option, given the endless troubles across the channel in the euro zone. Scotland could be forced into competing with the City of London on terms decided by a government in the same City’s pocket. The result, presumably, would not be pretty.

To back up their negotiating position, the defenders of the union have all the might of the British imperialist state behind them. To back up his, Salmond will have whatever democratic mandate he can get in a referendum; a marginal result on a small turnout will not represent the kind of critical mass of popular support needed to get a decent deal for the fledgling state.

In spite of all this, it has to be said that - apart, maybe, from the currency question - Salmond’s plan for independence has a serious basis in reality. These are all legitimate points of dispute, which would be settled ultimately by the balance of forces at work.

Salmond is canny enough to know that independence is a relative matter. To obtain a workable state order, Scotland will have to find a place in the global order. Giving way on Nato membership, that very un-nationalist line on the EU: all these things point towards a single priority, which is establishing Scotland as a responsible and credible member of the ‘international community’ - which is to say, firmly within the US sphere of influence.

Thus, his plan has a credibility utterly lacking from the 57 varieties of ‘left’ reasoning for a ‘yes’ vote. The title of a new Socialist Workers Party pamphlet on the subject - ‘Yes to independence, no to nationalism’ - sums up nicely the utter stupidity of the left on this subject. The supposedly non-nationalist arguments amount to the idea that breaking up the British state is a blow to the effective unity of imperialism. This is flagrantly ludicrous on the Salmond plan - which would see all of the island of Britain still in Nato and still in the EU.

To dissent from Salmond’s plan, however, demands an alternative vision. And no alternative vision is available from the SWP, the Scottish Socialist Party and Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity other than left nationalism. The latter, unlike the SNP’s policy, has absolutely no basis in reality. It amounts to a repackaged version of socialism in one country - except this time it would be in a tiny country, not even self-sufficient in food production, but with a small hint of Chávezesque petro-socialism attached.

The SSP, and all those left fragments north of the border backing the ‘yes’ campaign, will no doubt issue the fiercest calumnies against Salmond for ‘selling out’ over Nato. If their alternative was an international revolutionary movement, then there would be a case for the slick leader to answer. In truth, the left nationalists are pushing the most absurd petty bourgeois fantasy, while Salmond is pushing a potential bourgeois reality. He will brush advocates of a leftwing ‘yes’ vote aside like so many flying ants.

However much it is being presented as an existential choice for Scotland’s future, it is striking how little is on offer from either camp. The battle is not between the butcher’s apron and the saltire, but rather over whether or not Scotland is to have American and/or German patronage filtered through London. The defenders of the union - including the shambolic Labour operation north of the border - have nothing to offer but subjection to a decrepit, reactionary constitution and economic devastation. The nationalists offer a marginal change in paymasters. Whoever wins, the Scottish people will lose.

A serious left intervention has to fight for Scotland’s right to self-determination. It has to fight to destroy that decrepit state regime that squats upon us all. But it also has to fight for a meaningful, voluntary union of the three British nationalities, for the fullest flowering of democracy, on the basis of the historic and hard-won unity of Scottish, Welsh and English workers, in a federal republic.

[Invader Zim]

Not being Scottish I don't really think it appropriate to have any kind of serious view on the issue. That said, given the same scenario in the case of Wales, the nationalists are irritating wankers who don't know how to operate a calculator, have ludicrous reactionary views of the worst order (Wales for the 'Welsh', whoever they might be), and generally being small minded bigots. They are worse than the other side, the British nationalist idiot, but they have one redeeming feature, they aren't in your face all the time and don't have a ludicrously misplaced persecution complex. They're just knobs, and none of them represent me or anybody else who isn't middle or upper class (though Plaid, entirely transparently, pretend otherwise).

I doubt it is much different in Scotland.

[Proteus2]

it really is an up-side-down world when politicians can gain extra support from the public by raising the possibility of sending their sons and daughters to fight for what is effectively a US foreign legion. But clearly this is a move for the media's benefit. Now the SNP can join the gang. Now were on the right side. Now when we get independence NATO will rush to our aid when the Faroe Islands launch a surprise amphibious attack.

[RedAnarchist]

"Hey people, let's divide ourselves up even further because some capitalist party wants to have power over us! All our problems will be solved when we change the flag that flies over the Scottish Parliament!".

At least the Scottish Nationalists seem like somewhat normal people, unlike English nationalists.

[Will Scarlet]

At least the Scottish Nationalists seem like somewhat normal people, unlike English nationalists.
I guess Scottish independence is a national liberation movement of sorts. Whereas English/British nationalism can only ever be extremely reactionary.

Like Zim I don't really think it's for me to say what Scottish people should do, even more so since I'm not only from England but the south of England. I couldn't begrudge anyone who wants to get out from under Tory rule, especially Tory rule that no one even asked for. I don't think independence will really change things in Scotland that much, but I also don't think the thickness of the imaginary line between England and Scotland would have a huge effect on real class struggle in Britain.

[RedAnarchist]

I guess Scottish independence is a national liberation movement of sorts. Whereas English/British nationalism can only ever be extremely reactionary.

Yeah, I agree - the UK is dominated by England and the English government.

[Crimson Commissar]

Like Zim I don't really think it's for me to say what Scottish people should do, even more so since I'm not only from England but the south of England. I couldn't begrudge anyone who wants to get out from under Tory rule, especially Tory rule that no one even asked for. I don't think independence will really change things in Scotland that much, but I also don't think the thickness of the imaginary line between England and Scotland would have a huge effect on real class struggle in Britain.

I suppose the only negative effect this could have on British socialism is the general political allegiances of the two nations. Scotland has always tended to lean more towards the left, while much of England has been very open to the Tories and other rightist groups and is their "base of power", effectively. Scotland leaving the union would only further solidify this, which while that might lead to better conditions for the Scottish working class, probably doesn't spell good news for those of us down here in England.

I'd say in the long run I agree it doesn't really matter what lines we draw over the British isles. When it comes down to it, Britain is still capitalist, Ireland is still capitalist, if Scotland or Wales ever gain independence chances are they'll be capitalist too, and probably continue to be NATO-aligned as the OP has so unfortunately reminded me of...


Yeah, I agree - the UK is dominated by England and the English government.

I don't necessarily think it's as black and white as this actually. Scottish and Welsh federalism has lead to a fair few social reforms that England simply doesn't have access to, for instance. And it's just plain wrong to say that the Scots and Welsh don't have just as much of a hand in the UK government as the English do. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both Scottish, after all.

[LiberationTheologist]

Under independence at least the nuclear weapons will be moved and resources will be denied to imperialist UK, or at least they will have to pay more to get them.

What this article claims is being proposed is not true independence for another reason - just as in the case of Canada and I believe Australia too. The "governor general"; the queens representative sounds likely to remain in place and if there is a critical juncture of the government about to be overturned, then the queens representative will step in and call things off just like what happened in Canada in 2010 or 2008.

None the less political independence is beneficial for human diversity so it should be supported although not uncritically.Even in this distorted version of political independence.

[Invader Zim]

Under independence at least the nuclear weapons will be moved and resources will be denied to imperialist UK, or at least they will have to pay more to get them.


Who, precisely, is 'they'? And it is highly unlikely that they will have to pay anything more to get oil which is pretty much the only natural resource of value that Scotland has any considerable access to. And it won't have access to it for much longer, as the amount of oil being pumped out of the North Sea is already in sharp decline. In other words its past peak, and passed it about a decade ago. Moreover, oil is not drilled by a public company or authority, it is drilled by private companies and the British government makes money off them by taxing them and their customers (which is one reason why our petrol prices are sky high). Doubtless the same system would operate and rather than the taxes going to the UK Treasury they would instead go to Scotland's coffers. Unless the Scots hiked up the taxes the price wouldn't go up, and if they did ramp it up too much the British government would just import that oil from elsewhere.

It is also worth considering the fact that the price of oil is sky high at the moment, but if it returns to the the thirty year trend (which sooner or later it probably will do) in a post-independence Scotland then the rest of the UK might find that even after importing the stuff, and paying an extra tax on that doubtless, it'll still be cheaper. And that would actually screw Scotland whose projected profitability is built on the ambitious belief that the North Sea has at least another 40 years of oil in it and that global prices are going to continue to stay this high. Both seem increasingly risky gambles, but you don't see the SNP providing the Scottish people with anything other than the rose tinted view of Scotland's economic viability. Plaid Cymru do the exact same thing here in Wales, but with the even more ludicrous dream of reviving the Welsh coal industry, which is a total fantasy. Not least because even if the coal industry could have remained profitable in the 80s, when the infrastructure was already there, how can it possibly be now that it has all be torn down and has been for what, a quarter of a century?

See this is the problem with the whole independence debates in the UK, people don't actually have any clue how the UK operates as it is, so the perceived cost/benefit analysis they take as individuals when considering it is littered with misapprehensions which all the capitalist parties, be they in Westminster, Cardiff or Holyrood, exploit in different ways. The fact is that these people do not represent the interests of the working classes, and nothing any of them say or do should be trusted to benefit a majority of people living in these regions. And that is why the whole question is, as far as I'm concerned here in Wales, a total farce unless independence is the product of the emergence of socialism - in which the State as we understand it is, or at least should be, rendered a moot point. So really, I guess I don't have much stake in the debate, as far as I'm concerned the entire question is irrelevant and ignores the real issue.

[Blake's Baby]

I suppose the only negative effect this could have on British socialism is the general political allegiances of the two nations. Scotland has always tended to lean more towards the left, while much of England has been very open to the Tories and other rightist groups and is their "base of power", effectively. Scotland leaving the union would only further solidify this, which while that might lead to better conditions for the Scottish working class, probably doesn't spell good news for those of us down here in England...

Scotland has had the 'luxury' of voting Labour and getting a Tory govenment. Likewise, during the Blair years, England voted Tory but got a Labour government. All that will happen if Scotland becomes independent (independent of England, not of the Crown, not of the EU, not of NATO) is that Scotland will develop its own faux-Tories (not necessarily pro-unionist, but maybe like the Christain Democrats or the Gaulists); meanwhile England, faced with never divesting itself of a Tory government, will re-discover the art of voting Labour in Essex.

Every country (hey, except Sweden) needs to alternate its governmental team; Punch must be followed by Judy. It's not credible that England will have a thousand years of Tory government on the back of Scottish independence; looking at the past 40 years, the most successful governmental teams were Thatcher-Major (1979-1997) and Blair-Brown (1997-2010) and both those administrations went into meltdown long before they were kicked over.

Scotland is actually fairly unimportant in that. Scotland elects a majority of Labour MPs, and practically no Tory MPs. The difference between a high-point of maybe 6 Tory MPs in Scotland, and a low-point of 1 or even no Tory MPs, is utterly negligible in terms of the swings of 30+ or so at the ends of those administrations. Scotland is not a 'marginal'. It's sold Labour in UK terms, has been for decades. It has no more of a decisive effect than County Durham or South Wales.

It seems to be the case that it's pretty much impossible for any party to govern the UK - and as England has 80% of the UK population, that really means 'for any party to govern England' - for more than 10 years or so without serious problems in maintaing its own discipline and coherence.


...I'd say in the long run I agree it doesn't really matter what lines we draw over the British isles. When it comes down to it, Britain is still capitalist, Ireland is still capitalist, if Scotland or Wales ever gain independence chances are they'll be capitalist too, and probably continue to be NATO-aligned as the OP has so unfortunately reminded me of...

I don't think there's any question of 'chances' that Scotland or Wales remaining capitalist, how could they not be capitalist? Scotland will be exactly as capitalist as Slovakia or Montenegro or any other little bit of some former unified state that's been broken up by local nationalism.



...
I don't necessarily think it's as black and white as this actually. Scottish and Welsh federalism has lead to a fair few social reforms that England simply doesn't have access to, for instance. And it's just plain wrong to say that the Scots and Welsh don't have just as much of a hand in the UK government as the English do. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both Scottish, after all.

Both born in Scotland, but Blair didn't represent a Scottish constituency. How 'Scottish' was Blair? Spike Milligan, cliff Richard and Johanna Lumley were all born in India, not sure I'd think of any of them as being particularly 'Indian' or representing India much.

England has 80% of the UK population (or thereabouts) and 80% of the Westminster MPs (ish). It has a massive weight in the UK political scene (at least, in so far as 'England' as a concept actually exists, which it doesn't in anything like the same way as Soctland or even Wales do...)

[LiberationTheologist]

Who, precisely, is 'they'? And it is highly unlikely that they will have to pay anything more to get oil which is pretty much the only natural resource of value that Scotland has any considerable access to. And it won't have access to it for much longer, as the amount of oil being pumped out of the North Sea is already in sharp decline. In other words its past peak, and passed it about a decade ago. Moreover, oil is not drilled by a public company or authority, it is drilled by private companies and the British government makes money off them by taxing them and their customers (which is one reason why our petrol prices are sky high). Doubtless the same system would operate and rather than the taxes going to the UK Treasury they would instead go to Scotland's coffers. Unless the Scots hiked up the taxes the price wouldn't go up, and if they did ramp it up too much the British government would just import that oil from elsewhere.

It is also worth considering the fact that the price of oil is sky high at the moment, but if it returns to the the thirty year trend (which sooner or later it probably will do) in a post-independence Scotland then the rest of the UK might find that even after importing the stuff, and paying an extra tax on that doubtless, it'll still be cheaper. And that would actually screw Scotland whose projected profitability is built on the ambitious belief that the North Sea has at least another 40 years of oil in it and that global prices are going to continue to stay this high. Both seem increasingly risky gambles, but you don't see the SNP providing the Scottish people with anything other than the rose tinted view of Scotland's economic viability. Plaid Cymru do the exact same thing here in Wales, but with the even more ludicrous dream of reviving the Welsh coal industry, which is a total fantasy. Not least because even if the coal industry could have remained profitable in the 80s, when the infrastructure was already there, how can it possibly be now that it has all be torn down and has been for what, a quarter of a century?

See this is the problem with the whole independence debates in the UK, people don't actually have any clue how the UK operates as it is, so the perceived cost/benefit analysis they take as individuals when considering it is littered with misapprehensions which all the capitalist parties, be they in Westminster, Cardiff or Holyrood, exploit in different ways. The fact is that these people do not represent the interests of the working classes, and nothing any of them say or do should be trusted to benefit a majority of people living in these regions. And that is why the whole question is, as far as I'm concerned here in Wales, a total farce unless independence is the product of the emergence of socialism - in which the State as we understand it is, or at least should be, rendered a moot point. So really, I guess I don't have much stake in the debate, as far as I'm concerned the entire question is irrelevant and ignores the real issue.

They is the UK government and unless the Scottish people of conscious (notice I said people of conscious and not workers) are totally powerless in their government then they will continue to opposes UK imperialism and the UK empire itself and demand the UK pay more.

I understand your valid concerns above about whos financial interests will be served under this weak Scottish Independence but marginal improvement is better than no improvement and you are basically arguing for the status quo because there is not a sufficient socialist component to Scottish Independence. Guess what the fight will go on and it is incumbent on the people in Scotland to fight for a more just society. I fully oppose this dogmatic stance by people who claim there must be a workers revolution before a political revolution. Yes to Scottish Independence and yes to socialism!

[cb9's_unity]

I know very little of the specifics of British history, but I'll throw in my two cents anyways.

This should be addressed for what it clearly seems to me; a retreat into the battles of the past that avoids the more pressing realities of the present. As an American my opinion doesn't matter much, but I think the people of Europe would do a lot better to focus their energies on in engaging with the shit show that is the EU. How can Scottish independence be anything but a sideshow to the bourgeois nationalist governments deciding who is going to take the brunt of the crisis and how the EU might redefine itself through it.

The left should be preparing for the historic moment in which the very concept of what nation-state will be going forward in Europe is changed. What does any nationalist movement mean when nationalism itself can no longer rely on its revolutionary past to overshadow its increasingly antiquarian appearance.

Can a modern nationalist movement do anything but obscure the increasingly international political, economic, and social nature of capitalism?

[Blake's Baby]

Rosa Luxemburg made this point 100 years ago in relation to Poland. An independent Poland, she argued, would not be a gain for the Polish working class, nor for the Russian working class, nor for the working class internationally. It would only be a gain for the powers that then had a little client-state; primarily Germany.

What happened when Poland was declared independent? Germany immediately supported the 'socialist' regime there and it invaded revolutionary Russia. It became a client-state of German imperialism against the revolutionary working class. Why would Scotland fare any better? The fact that there isn't a revolutionary working class at the moment is neither here nor there, it still wouldn't play a positive internationalist role.

If it isn't aligned with England (economically, a much bigger player as well as its closest neighbour) its choices are 1-German client-state (it's staying in the EU, until recently looked likely to adopt the Euro under an SNP government); 2-an American client-state (staying in NATO). What other choices are there for a Scottish bourgeoisie?

[cynicles]

Aaaw, first-world separatist movements, this will surely solve the problems of the Scottish people. Why have austerity forced on you by the UK when you can have it forced on you by your own government.

[leaveuskidsalone]

Even if it's not exactly a big step for the Scottish working class, it's hardly a bad move. A blow to British capitalism and the break up of the United Kingdom (alongside possible Irish unification as a result) is completely fiiiiine by me.

[Invader Zim]

They is the UK government and unless the Scottish people of conscious (notice I said people of conscious and not workers) are totally powerless in their government then they will continue to opposes UK imperialism and the UK empire itself and demand the UK pay more.

You don't really know how the oil business works, do you? The Scottish people, via the Scottish government, sell drilling rights to oil companies. They also tax the companies. That is how all the revenue is accumulated by the state for the oil. The oil companies then sell the oil to whomever will pay them the most for it. So unless the Scottish government passed legislation to artificially increase the costs on oil companies exporting to Britain, effectively levelling a duty on the oil, then there would be nothing preventing the British state importing oil from elsewhere at lower cost. What you propose wouldn't make any difference, the cost of the barrel of oil is what it is, and the British state would be under no obligation to pay over the barrel for it. Furthermore, if the Scottish government did ramp up the price of oil, through duties by another name, then the British government would do the same to products travelling north of the border. And that will, undoubtedly, not only include a vast array of essential products, but also include contracts with the British government to include Scotland within its defence budget, maintain Scottish diplomatic staff within its embassies, ad infinitum. In short if the Scottish government wanted to engage in a duties war against Britain, it would lose. Like the rest of the nationalists you need to get with reality and pick up a book on basic capitalist economics.

[ComradeOm]

The people of Scotland have the right to self-determination. This should not be a controversial statement. There is no good reason for Scotland to be governed by a foreign government that is preoccupied with enriching the south-east of England. And anyone who thinks that that doesn't have an impact today should look at the distribution in mortality rates across the UK (http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/images/Relative-mortality-by-postcode-for-male-pensioners-in-the-United-Kingdom.gif)

National self-determination is an prerequisite for socialism but this is not a discussion about socialist society or geopolitics. An independent Scotland would not suddenly become a revolutionary bastion or a new Koblenz. But it would be better off than it currently is; frankly, this is enough a reason to approve. If Scotland wants to become the new Denmark then fine, good luck to that

Either way, the decision is one for the voters in Scotland


What happened when Poland was declared independent? Germany immediately supported the 'socialist' regime there and it invaded revolutionary Russia. It became a client-state of German imperialism against the revolutionary working class. Why would Scotland fare any better?Because Edinburgh is about a thousand kilometres further from Moscow than Warsaw is? I don't think the Russians have much to fear from Scottish independence

[l'Enfermé]

Yes, we should bring up Luxemburg's century old chauvinist argument against national self-determination. :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

There is no good reason for Scotland to be governed by a foreign government that is preoccupied with enriching the south-east of England.

Given the representation of the Scottish ruling elite within that 'foreign government' that seems a little misleading - it is not as if the Scottish ruling elite has been under political occupation for the last 300 years. Indeed, a considerable portion of that political elite were utterly complicit in the actual process of forming the union - which they would not have been if union were indeed a form of political occupation, and they enthusiastically took their place in London at the seats of power across the entire island of Britain. Put simply, they would never have been in favour of it if it were to severely reduce their power, influence and financial status.

The simple truth is that without that ruling class complicity whose wheels were greased by bribery (political and financial), looming national bankruptcy, and general underhandedness, on both sides of the border, there would not have been an Act of Union. The precise same can be said of Wales. The fact is that Union was sufficiently favourable to the majority of the 'British' (admittedly an anachronistic term in this context) ruling elite to ensure its emergence, and its continued existence has been reliant upon that precise same concern - what benefits do the elites on both sides of the border receive from the Union?

It is entirely necessary to understand this issue in those terms, the debate regarding union and independence has not, and does not, have anything to do with what is right or best for the vast majority of people living under the union. This is, as usual, about what is best for social elites.

[Pravda]

So we should support Scottish nationalism?

[Crimson Commissar]

So we should support Scottish nationalism?

Independence is a very different thing from nationalism. Of course, by nature of being the somewhat "lesser nation" of the union that is Great Britain, Scottish nationalism has evolved into something that encompasses a far wider range of the political spectrum and is supported by groups on both the left, right and everything inbetween. Whereas English nationalism for instance has not taken this same path of development.

I'd have to ask if a lot of people on here would support the right of the English people to independence if the UK was ever in the position to dissolve itself? The idea of it has been tainted by far-right groups over the years, but I don't see how self-determination should be a struggle only applicable to certain specific groups that you can designate as being "more oppressed". There should be a lot more co-operation between Scottish/Welsh/Irish independence movements and the English I think, rather than the animosity or bitterness you sometimes get from them. We're not all raving imperialist lunatics that want to occupy nations outside our borders..

[ComradeOm]

The simple truth is that without that ruling class complicity whose wheels were greased by bribery (political and financial), looming national bankruptcy, and general underhandedness, on both sides of the border, there would not have been an Act of Union. The precise same can be said of WalesIt could also be said of Ireland where 'English gold' was liberally applied to secure Act of Union. And indeed of much of the old Empire: collaboration with local elites was a key component of Britain's imperial era. Yet few would have suggested that this complicity on the part of the old elites somehow legitimised or excused generations of subsequent English rule


The fact is that Union was sufficiently favourable to the majority of the 'British' (admittedly an anachronistic term in this context) ruling elite to ensure its emergence, and its continued existence has been reliant upon that precise same concern - what benefits do the elites on both sides of the border receive from the Union?And there remains the question as to whether the elites on both sides of the border will conspire to smother this referendum or, alternatively, whether Scottish elites understand the degree to which London's policies have been pursued to the detriment of Scotland


So we should support Scottish nationalism?Good point. It's only a matter of time before the Scots start setting up internment camps and seeking out lebensraum in Northumberland

[Thirsty Crow]

This article is about a hot topic for the left and indeed the working class in Scotland and beyond, so I thought that it would be interesting to share it.

An honest question: why should independence be considered:

a) a hot topic for the working class in Scotland

b) a hot topic for the working class... beyond

In all honesty, I could only find this in the excerpt you posted:


Keeping the pound would tie Scotland to the Bank of England, and to substantial parts of British fiscal and monetary policy by default. ‘Devolving’ the currency would in any case be unacceptable to unionists, and is hardly that attractive an option, given the endless troubles across the channel in the euro zone. Scotland could be forced into competing with the City of London on terms decided by a government in the same City’s pocket. The result, presumably, would not be pretty.

Which I can't interpret as anything other than signifying a "hot topic" for the ruling class, which can lend itself to speculation on the potential manouvers and acts by the same class, and only then would some kind of relevance for the working class as a class be glimpsed.

[cynicles]

Yes, we should bring up Luxemburg's century old chauvinist argument against national self-determination. :rolleyes:
It wasn't a chauvinist one it was just an aversion to nationalism she gained growing up in the Polish political environment where there were right-wing psuedo-socialists active and promoting it.

[Pravda]

Good point. It's only a matter of time before the Scots start setting up internment camps and seeking out lebensraum in Northumberland
Lol what?
Tell me, why should we support Scottish independence? What is the point of separatist movements in Europe today (Basque country, Catalonia, division of Belgium, maybe Republika Srpska)? I mean for the working class, although even local bourgeoisie doesnt look too keen.

[ComradeOm]

It wasn't a chauvinist one it was just an aversion to nationalism she gained growing up in the Polish political environment where there were right-wing psuedo-socialists active and promoting it.Was it any wonder that an independent Poland or the PPS became dominated by right-wing elements when the likes of Luxemburg and Jogiches were maintaining a policy that effectively, if not intentionally, endorsed continued Russo-German domination over Poland? And neither of those were particularly benign masters

Edit:

Tell me, why should we support Scottish independence? What is the point of separatist movements in Europe today (Basque country, Catalonia, division of Belgium, maybe Republika Srpska)? I mean for the working class, although even local bourgeoisie doesnt look too keen?A country can be run better, whether by the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, by a government based within the country itself. This much is obvious: an independent Scotland has far more scope to develop its own path than when in a UK of 60+m people. And if a people don't want to be ruled by a foreign government then there is no reason why they should be

The idea that a socialist society would continue to enforce the domination of one nationality over another is nonsensical. If the Scots/Basques/Catalans/whoever do not want to be ruled by alien governments then they should be be forced to suffer such. If they are happy with rule from London/Madrid/wherever, then fine

But let me reverse the question: why do would you oppose Scottish independence? Because suddenly it would turn everyone into rabid tartan-wearing fascists? Please. A position opposed to self-determination is one that implicitly upholds the continued domination of Scotland by London

[l'Enfermé]

I do wonder how Luxemburg and co. justified the continued existence of that sectarian outfit, the SDKPiL, while basically capitulating to Russian chauvinism.

[cynicles]

The position was in reaction to the Polish rightwing the position she took didn't lay the ground work for the rightwing to emerge. It's irrelevant anyways since each separatist movements has to be evaluated on it's own merits and not just unconditionally cheered on by every leftists like a group of brain damaged seals clapping for fish. She was wrong on this and Lenin was right.

[Pravda]

A country can be run better, whether by the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, by a government based within the country itself.
So what? And better for who?


This much is obvious: an independent Scotland has far more scope to develop its own path than when in a UK of 60+m people.
Again, Scotland is not a person. Maybe national bourgeoisie will be more independent, but even that is hard to believe even in that in a world where every country is pushing the same austerity policy. And Scotland would be in the group of small countries. Look what is going to happen in Kosovo, as one article said "friends are coming for their part".
Also, do you think Scotland will be developed faster if it will become independent? How can you be certain? For example, as an independent country it will have to spend more money for its own state machinery etc.


And if a people don't want to be ruled by a foreign government then there is no reason why they should be
"If people want to kill Jews/Araps/Kurds (whoever) there is no reason why shouldnt they". This is kicking politic opinions from communist movement, "if they want it its they choice". Also, like "the people" are deciding in some vacuum and they are not subject of propaganda that reflect someones interests (im talking in general, because i dont know are Scotts local bourgeoisie is really interested in separatism).


The idea that a socialist society would continue to enforce the domination of one nationality over another is nonsensical.
As if i want to "enforce the domination of one nationality over another". Do you really think i, for some reason, talk from point of English chauvinism?


If the Scots/Basques/Catalans/whoever do not want to be ruled by alien governments then they should be be forced to suffer such. If they are happy with rule from London/Madrid/wherever, then fine

The point is that that arguments like "Spain is living of Catalons back" (or in former Yugoslavia favorite nationalist phrase "Croatia is working, Belgrade is being build", or "foreign currency to those who are making it"), are just populist scheme to blame somebody else for crisis (or something else). The point is that crises (or misery) is immanent to capitalism, not that someone else is ruling "not we" (by not we they mean local rich).

Also, what if Spanish dont like that Madrid is ruling, French dont like Paris, in my region in Croatia you have strong anti-Zagreb (nations capital) feelings because its a centralized state. Following that argument, should we also support every local dissatisfaction?


But let me reverse the question: why do would you oppose Scottish independence? Because suddenly it would turn everyone into rabid tartan-wearing fascists? Please. A position opposed to self-determination is one that implicitly upholds the continued domination of Scotland by London
No, i really dont think they will become fascist. They dont even seem to passionate about it.
Im opposed because nationalism is opium for the masses, tool for bourgeoisie to delude people with all shiny talks about our homeland, patriotism etc. until they get what they wanted. Just like happened in former Yugoslav states (with the aroma of lots and lots of blood). So similar case like Luxemburg.
And of course the most controversial thing about this position is that it can be understood as support for the bigger nation chauvinism, but that is to say that we and Iran are on the same side becouse we oppose imperialism.

Regarding Lenin, as i remember he was never for right forself-determination unconditionally, and it would be ridiculous to say that position of Scots is as it was for peoples of tsarist Russia.

[Grenzer]

Rosa Luxemburg made this point 100 years ago in relation to Poland. An independent Poland, she argued, would not be a gain for the Polish working class, nor for the Russian working class, nor for the working class internationally. It would only be a gain for the powers that then had a little client-state; primarily Germany.

Yes, because clearly, Soviet Russia holding on to Poland against the will of the Polish workers would be a splendid and emancipatory act.

Luxemburg was dead wrong on this. Socialist unity has to be on a purely voluntary basis. In the best of all possible worlds, the working class will have enough revolutionary consciousness to realize that there is no reason not to unite into a greater socialist republic; but what if they don't? What the fuck are you going to do, just blow the workers off and tell them that they're going to be a part of it whether they like it or not? It's idiocy, chauvinism, and blanquism.

You've also set up a huge fucking strawman here: No one ever argued for an independent bourgeois republic in Poland. The idea was that following a workers' revolution in Russia and Germany, Poland would be released from the dominion of those countries and then the workers' republic in Poland would then unite with those countries. If Poland chooses not to, then clearly revolutionary consciousness and a proletarian dictatorship do not exist in Poland, and holding on to Poland anyway in this circumstance is an act of blanquism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Edit:
A country can be run better, whether by the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, by a government based within the country itself. This much is obvious: an independent Scotland has far more scope to develop its own path than when in a UK of 60+m people. And if a people don't want to be ruled by a foreign government then there is no reason why they should be

First of all, the question that is implicit here is whether communists should partake in the management of the capitalist system by providing political support (or maybe even by direct participation in the government), but that is kind of besides the debate here so I don't think there's any need to go there.

But what you say is "obvious" is definitely not obvious.
Where is any kind of a substantiation of the claim that "a country can be run better by the bourgeoisie (since that is the topic of this thread) through a government based within the country itself"? Why would that be so?
And what would "having far more scope to develop its own path" mean? Indeed, are you arguing here for the Scottish bourgeoisie to have more manouvering space and possibilities, while that would also mean benefits for the working class? How would that happen?


Yes, because clearly, Soviet Russia holding on to Poland against the will of the Polish workers would be a splendid and emancipatory act.

Isn't this a strawman as well? What does Luxemburg's view on this have to do with Soviet Russia?

[bricolage]

And anyone who thinks that that doesn't have an impact today should look at the distribution in mortality rates across the UK (http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/images/Relative-mortality-by-postcode-for-male-pensioners-in-the-United-Kingdom.gif)
So we should support the independence of Middlesborough from London? And that of Newham from Westminster?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, we should bring up Luxemburg's century old chauvinist argument against national self-determination. :rolleyes:

Her argument was hypocritical, not chauvinist, comrade.

Anyway, as comrade Q already knows, I'm at loggerheads with the CPGB's position on Scotland vs. that part of England that isn't northern England (there, the likes of The Boss can be placated by my diplomatic tone). An independent Scotland might even leave the eurozone, but as long as it stays in the EU it's a positive development for Continental-style worker-class politics.


Why would Scotland fare any better? The fact that there isn't a revolutionary working class at the moment is neither here nor there, it still wouldn't play a positive internationalist role.

If it isn't aligned with England (economically, a much bigger player as well as its closest neighbour) its choices are 1-German client-state (it's staying in the EU, until recently looked likely to adopt the Euro under an SNP government); 2-an American client-state (staying in NATO). What other choices are there for a Scottish bourgeoisie?

As I said well over a year ago:



Anyone who thinks the replacement of US capitalism, the replacement of the dollar by China, or by the yuan is not going to be accompanied by tremendous disruptions and increased misery of the world working class doesn't know his or her ass from a whole in the ground, much less "politics" from "economics" much less "national" from "social." And hasn't been paying attention to what's been going on in the world economy for the last 10 years.
Actually, I'm referring to the replacement of US capitalism by a multi-polar capitalism. It's not just China and rat races to the bottom. There's also a possible shift back to Europe, and Germany in particular.

Within the European camp, the shift from UK finance capitalism to German industrial capitalism hasn't "increased the misery of the European working class," although there is still US influence in the European austerity measures. Any temporary immiseration can be blamed on the maneuverings of the old power and not the new one.

And don't tell me that the rising Brazil has somehow immiserated the South American working class.

Simply put, it is in an economically multi-polar or bi-polar world where worker struggles advance the greatest.


Bi-polar or multi-polar capitalism gives workers a window of opportunity to organize more concretely, just like the period before WWI, and just like the early years of the Cold War.

Again, you just don't recognize the distinction between a politically revolutionary period and a politically non-revolutionary period, especially for the working class.

[Blake's Baby]

...
You've also set up a huge fucking strawman here: No one ever argued for an independent bourgeois republic in Poland...

So why are people arguing for an independent bourgeois republic in Scotland?

Oh, no, wait, why are people arguing for an independent bourgeois monarchy in Scotland?

On the domination of Scotland by England: since WWI, Prime Ministers from Scotland have included Alec Douglas Home, Ramsey MacDonald, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown; Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada but brought up in Scotland; Stanley Baldwin's mother was Scottish; Harold Macmillan was the grandson of the Scottish entrepreneur (son of an Arran crofter) who founded Macmillan's publishing house; David Cameron's father was Scottish.

The UK's political class is unrepresentatively drawn from Scotland and Scottish familes in England (and the Empire, including Bonar Law). There is an argument to say that at least in the past 100 years, Scotland had politically dominated England.

[ComradeOm]

So what? And better for who?The people who live there

This is what always happens here. There'll be talk about nationalism and geopolitics but no one will actually talk about the actual people living in the country. That's what follows from the silly assumption that there are no shades of "misery" in capitalism


And Scotland would be in the group of small countries. Look what is going to happen in Kosovo, as one article said "friends are coming for their part"And look at Denmark. And Switzerland. And the Finland. And Slovakia. And Croatia. And Slovenia

The idea that small countries are inherently economically not viable is some bizarre throwback to the 19th C when everyone was convinced that if you had no empire then you had nothing. It's a sign of snobbery from someone who almost certainly comes from a 'big country' and can't imagine anything else

That's the same attitude that informs most of these comments. It's always people based in large, imperialist nations who are mystified by the demands of small nations for independence. Funny that


As if i want to "enforce the domination of one nationality over another". Do you really think i, for some reason, talk from point of English chauvinism?Yes, yes you are. It may not be intentional but the position that Scotland should continue to be ruled by England is effectively a social-imperialist position

(Ironically, it puts you to the right of those English nationalists who demand an 'English parliament'. The Union is far more suited to the English bourgeoisie than an independent England)


Where is any kind of a substantiation of the claim that "a country can be run better by the bourgeoisie (since that is the topic of this thread) through a government based within the country itself"? Why would that be so? It's self-evident. A government based in Scotland would, inherently, have more in stake in the governance of the country than a distant London-based one. It's near inconceivable that the shocking neglect of the past 2-3 decades - as the London government cannibalised its Scottish, Welsh and northern industrial base - would have happened had there been local Scottish government. The bourgeoisie would have been cutting its own throat


So we should support the independence of Middlesborough from London? And that of Newham from Westminster?If there was any basis for it, sure. But it's called national self-determination for a reason. That's because it is typically only those regions that have a differentiated culture or history that are able to form coherent centrifugal movements

[robbo203]

It depresses me no end reading through this thread. Those who think there is some advantage to the workers in supporting the nationalist cause can offer no defence against the charge that that cause is a capitalist cause through and through just as the nation state is itself a fundamentally capitalist construction, through and through. Lets not beat about the bush here - we are asked to set aside the class struggle and join hands with our local capitalist class if we happen to be workers in Scotland (or wherever) and together assert what it is clamed to be a common interest and take on what is claimed to be a common identity - to be Scottish (or whatever) and proud of it!

Well, to hell with that. I couldn't give a tuppenny ha'pence worth for how the powers-that-be care to slice up the adminstration of capitalism among themsleves along so called national territorial lines., And please - lets us not have that transperently flimsy argument in defence of this wretchedly anti socialist position that not to support Scottish independence (or whatever) is somehow to condone English chauvinism. As if the options available to us are so starkly black or white as this. It is actually perfectly possible to oppose both



Really, what we are seeing paraded here on this thread is that same old tired clapped-out "lesser of two evils" argument which has been the bane of the Left since , well, time immemorial. It is precisely the same "logic of the treadmill" which says we must vote Labour to keep the Tories or pro-capitalist Obama to keep the pro capitalist Romney out. We are urged to sell our soul to Tweedledum and the specious grounds that Tweedledee's bidding price is even lower


When is the Left ever going to learn that this "lesser of two evils" argument is a trap and snare that, at the end of the day, will only emasculate it and grind it down. The malaise to which it has succumbed these days has in no small measure been brought upon itself by courting such idiocies in the name of "realism" and "pragmatism"

There is no advantage to be gained by such opportunistic manouverings. It would be far better to take your stand on the uncompromising and principled position that, quite simply, socialists have no truck with nationalism in any shape or form whatsoever. Nor, for that matter, capitalist politicians, however genial and plausible they might seem

[cynicles]

Why can't these other places call for independance? Who cares about cultures? If they had a political argument and economic argument and a strong desire to unhinge themselves from neo-liberal London why not?

[Not Convinced]

Being Scottish, and not reading the whole thread I would say the best reason to vote independence is dissociation from recent actions of the British government and the fact that a smaller, decentralised government is surely going to be better for us on the ground

[ComradeOm]

And please - lets us not have that transperently flimsy argument in defence of this wretchedly anti socialist position that not to support Scottish independence (or whatever) is somehow to condone English chauvinismFunny how the 'internationalism' of socialists from England or America (or other 'big nations') so often fails to challenge existing structures of national control. Funny how you can make such a principle out of rejecting something that you will almost certainly never be on the sharp end of. Funny how this supposed rejection of nationalism is an implicit acceptance of the continuation of English rule over Scotland

Of course you don't see the need to fight for something that you already have; in the process you belittle and misrepresent those who seek to attain the same independence. If a lot of you posters had been around half a century ago then you'd all be upholding empire and sneering at the Africans with their national programmes. Or insisting that Polish struggles against German-Russian repression were pointless


There is no advantage to be gained by such opportunistic manouverings. It would be far better to take your stand on the uncompromising and principled position that, quite simply, socialists have no truck with nationalism in any shape or form whatsoeverThen please, please slink back to the ghetto of sectarian politics where you can continue to argue over typos in The Holy Family

We won't condone anti-racism measures because the problem is capitalism. We won't support that gay pride march because the problem is capitalism. Who cares about abortion law? The problem is capitalism and, besides, I'm not a woman. Improving equality in the workplace? Talk to the hand because the problem is capitalism. We won't support an independent Scotland because the problem is capitalism

Instead you'll stick to your slogans and go to bed happy that you in no way compromised with the man by (shock) endorsing something that may be progressive. At least that way you'll maintain your ideological purity

So since you deal in simple concepts, let me make this clear: the current scenario whereby London has political control over Scotland is unsustainable. The Act of Union will be broken, if not before then by revolution. A socialist society run on all-GB lines (whereby England still controls Wales and Scotland) is unimaginable. In whatever form, a socialist Scotland will be run by the inhabitants of Scotland. But you refuse consider expediting this future, and insist on accepting the current scenario, because you value your own integrity too highly


the nation state is itself a fundamentally capitalist constructionI wonder, can you tell me when the first recorded mention of 'Germany' was?

[robbo203]

Funny how the 'internationalism' of socialists from England or America (or other 'big nations') so often fails to challenge existing structures of national control. Funny how you can make such a principle out of rejecting something that you will almost certainly never be on the sharp end of. Funny how this supposed rejection of nationalism is an implicit acceptance of the continuation of English rule over Scotland


Its funny how some people can be so inattentive as to completely miss the point that I explicitly made - that rejecting Scottish nationalism (or any other nationalisms) does NOT mean supporting English chauvinism



Of course you don't see the need to fight for something that you already have; in the process you belittle and misrepresent those who seek to attain the same independence. If a lot of you posters had been around half a century ago then you'd all be upholding empire and sneering at the Africans with their national programmes.

Dont be so fucking ridiculous, you wet liberal



Then please, please slink back to the ghetto of sectarian politics where you can continue to argue over typos in The Holy Family

We won't condone anti-racism measures because the problem is capitalism. We won't support that gay pride march because the problem is capitalism. Who cares about abortion law? The problem is capitalism and, besides, I'm not a woman. Improving equality in the workplace? Talk to the hand because the problem is capitalism. We won't support an independent Scotland because the problem is capitalism


Your logic is warped. Opposing racism is not logically comparable to supporting nationalism . Racism divides the working class. So does sexism. And so incidentally does nationalism at a global level. The subtext of nationalism is that the capitalists and workers have a common cause and a common identity in the form of "the nation". As a wet liberal you might sneer at the socialist project of working class unity across the world, irrespective of the artifical boundaries imposed by capitalism - which you then have the nerve to call "sectarian" - but the fact remains that an "independent Scotland" will not solve a single problem faced by workers within this entity called Scotland. So why are you supporting it, eh?



So since you deal in simple concepts, let me make this clear: the current scenario whereby London has political control over Scotland is unsustainable. The Act of Union will be broken, if not before then by revolution. A socialist society run on all-GB lines (whereby England still controls Wales and Scotland) is unimaginable. In whatever form, a socialist Scotland will be run by the inhabitants of Scotland.

So there vou have it. Proof, if proof was needed, that ComradeOm hasnt got a clue about socialism. The Stalinist idea that you could have "socialism in one country" - define "socialism" , ComradeOm - without a mass socialist movement worldwide is pie in the sky. And that worldwide socialistmovement is certainly not going to materialise by advocating nationalism. A so called "socialist Scotland", it seems to me, would be little different than when a certain Scotsman called Gordon Brown was prime minister of the UK. But then presumably that is what you thought we had when Mr Brown was in charge - "socialism". Or maybe you consider Mr Salmond a better choice



But you refuse consider expediting this future, and insist on accepting the current scenario, because you value your own integrity too highly


Read my lips again - I dont accept the "current scenario". I simply do not interpet the way you as a liberal and a nationalist interpret it. Unlike you , as a socialist, I refuse to go down the dead-end diversionary road of nationalism which can only end in disappointment and disllusionment and more to point , further disunite the worlds's working class.



I wonder, can you tell me when the first recorded mention of 'Germany' was?


I have no idea and your point is...?

My reading of history is that the nation-state is a comparatively recent phenomenon - an emergent product of ascendant capitalism . I suggest you read Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities which fleshes out this idea. Presumably the first recorded mention of "Greece" was two and a bit millenia ago but you are not suggesting - are you? - that Athens and Sparta were budding "nation states"?

[LiberationTheologist]

You have people who favor capitalism who oppose national political independence of smaller countries for financial profit reasons(capital gain)

You have so called socialists who oppose national political independence for financial profit reasons (capital control).

Notice that so called capitalists and so called socialists both support oppression and domination in the name of their favored economic systems.

We have a multitude of historical proof showing that political entities that oppose national liberation based on ideological reasons monopolize power and become new oppressors. Russia, USA, China, England, France, Spain, Indonesia, Japan etcetera. Look at the destruction these large nations have caused throughout history.

It is more just to oppose and break up these mammoth oppressive countries rather than fight for a dictatorial one nation state order even if you are a socialist. I don't know of any real alternatives to the political nation state being proposed. If there were one I might support it but until I see a just and realistic proposal then, history has shown a more just world is only possible with smaller political nation states.

Both socialist and anti-imperialist struggles will continue under this shoddy political independence of Scotland and the good thing about this is that it is a model, although some what flawed of the breakup of large imperialist states. Hopefully we can begin to break up the USA and Russia and China in similar fashion, by votes instead of wars. As a matter of a fact there is a political question in Puerto Rico being proposed right now. Now, to work on the Russia and Chinese imperialist states.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's self-evident. A government based in Scotland would, inherently, have more in stake in the governance of the country than a distant London-based one. It's near inconceivable that the shocking neglect of the past 2-3 decades - as the London government cannibalised its Scottish, Welsh and northern industrial base - would have happened had there been local Scottish government. The bourgeoisie would have been cutting its own throat

No, it's not self-evident and you cannot actually engage in a debate when the starting point is "it's self-evident" as you probably won't provide all of the arguments you actually can.

Why would a government based in Scotland inherently have more in stake in the governance of the country? Becasue of the physical proximity to its voters and tax payers ("distant London-based one")? Or because of national solidarity and the necessity to maintain civil order which presumably would draw more concessions from the ruling class?

With regard to the industrial base. It seems that here you understand the decline of manufacturing as nothing more than a political decision. I don't think this is as useful since it neglects the actual economic dimension, the actual imperatives forced onto the governemnt by conditions of capital accumulation. After all, the drive towards the reduction of manufacturing was not only an affair suffered by the British working class, and has its roots much deeper than a notion of shocking neglect suggests. The bourgeoisie, based in Scotland or wherever, are forced to cut their own throat and do it continuously precisely because labour power is only an expenditure which cuts into profits, so how could this pressure be nullified by a local based government is beyond me.

And I have to admit that I'm speaking from experience as well here since it was precisely the incipient Croatian ruling class that presided over very similar "shocking neglect" of the industrial base as part of their, more or less conscious, class politics. So again, unless you wish to claim that somehow this example is lacking due to a...special characteristic of the Croatian bourgeoisie in relation to the Scottish bourgeoisie, why would I consider this problem self-evident, when exactly the opposite of what you argue here is something that I not only read about but also experienced in a kind of a mediated way?

[ComradeOm]

Its funny how some people can be so inattentive as to completely miss the point that I explicitly made - that rejecting Scottish nationalism (or any other nationalisms) does NOT mean supporting English chauvinismAnd your explicit rejection of Scottish nationalism is an implicit condoning of English nationalism. Which is my point

Great Britain - that is, the United Kingdom - is little more than Big England. It is a political structure in which the interests of the English bourgeoisie predominate; a mechanism by which London exerts control over the rest of the island. Its continuation is the continuation of English rule over Scotland. Ironically, as I said above, Unionism is infinitely more conductive to English national interests than the nationalism of the less reputable English far-right

So rejecting an abolition of the Union is a rejection of Scottish self-determination and a programme of continued English control of the UK. I don't expect you to start marching alongside English Democrats but your position is actually just as bad


Dont be so fucking ridiculous, you wet liberalWell let's test this. Would you have supported those nationalist movements that fought for independence from the European empires in Africa and Asia?

(Obviously African national liberation struggles are not comparable to that of Scotland but it's a useful indicator when pointing out the absurdity of blanket and unconditional anti-nationalism principles)


The Stalinist idea that you could have "socialism in one country" - define "socialism" , ComradeOm - without a mass socialist movement worldwide is pie in the skyWhat is it with people these days and an inability to read posts? Are you all so eager to start building your strawmen? Or unable to observe any sort of nuance?

There is absolutely nothing in my above post, never mind the passage quoted, that suggests that I advocate 'socialism in one country' or that socialism could be created in Scotland without a global revolutionary movement. You just picked that out of mid-air. I really don't know where that came from


I have no idea and your point is...?Ah, wait. That's probably it: the inability to distinguish between the nation and the nationstate. Which was the point of my question

Germany as a nationstate is a very recent development: it is less than a century and a half old. Yet references to 'the German nation' go back centuries. It may have been politically and administratively fractured but people centuries ago would have known what you meant by 'Germany': that region in which those language, customs and institutions were markedly German. In other words, Germany existed as a nation long before it had boundaries fixed to it and called a nationstate

(You were being flippant of course but the same applies to Greece: a distinctly Greek culture, language and people have existed around the Aegean for millennia. In short, Greece as a nation far predates Greece as a nationstate)

In contrast, the nationstate is a decidedly political unit of control. Even then though, instead of some Tower of Babel-esque tale of evil capitalists dividing up Europe into squabbling nationstates, the 19th C saw the standardisation of nationalities as dominant regions exerted their influence to eradicate local patois and customs. Ile de France defines what is French, Turin informs Italian, etc, etc. And in Britain there was a sustained assault on Irish, Scottish and Welsh languages and customs. (Which ironically you would no doubt view as progressive)

So in any revolutionary scenario the British state may collapse or the Scottish state may collapse but Scotland and England will not disappear as nations. At least not unless you want to install some stifling mono-culture on everyone (which would of course be nothing short of cultural destruction). The Scottish nation - that bundle of dialects, customs and experiences than makes someone 'Scottish', as opposed to, say, Japanese - will endure


Why would a government based in Scotland inherently have more in stake in the governance of the country? Becasue of the physical proximity to its voters and tax payers ("distant London-based one")? Or because of national solidarity and the necessity to maintain civil order which presumably would draw more concessions from the ruling class?'National solidarity' does not come into it but there are elements to the rest

Proximity and legitimacy rooted in national borders both dictate that elites are more accountable in smaller regions. The struggle to maintain hegemony, plus the inherent self-interest of the bourgeoisie in its own backyard, ensure this. Scottish policies, determined by Scottish politicians are obviously going to be of more value than English policies devised in London

(Which doesn't mean of course that Scottish politicians will do a particularly good job but it's hard to see how they could do worse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12898723) than recent London governments)


With regard to the industrial base. It seems that here you understand the decline of manufacturing as nothing more than a political decision. I don't think this is as useful since it neglects the actual economic dimension, the actual imperatives forced onto the governemnt by conditions of capital accumulation. After all, the drive towards the reduction of manufacturing was not only an affair suffered by the British working class, and has its roots much deeper than a notion of shocking neglect suggests. The bourgeoisie, based in Scotland or wherever, are forced to cut their own throat and do it continuously precisely because labour power is only an expenditure which cuts into profits, so how could this pressure be nullified by a local based government is beyond meNope

The best example of this is the UK which has de-industrialised at a rate unprecedented in the West (http://www.google.ie/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&rlz=1C1SKPL_enSA453SA453&biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=isch&tbnid=H3Fatd4bqWoztM:&imgrefurl=http://lincicome.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-recovery-strategy-based-on-exports.html&docid=X3lR46Jt3-VyEM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oKWxWOEilyQ/SwGcRPsK9tI/AAAAAAAABeI/vB2ILm3KTQY/s1600/Picture%252B1.png&w=511&h=419&ei=hz2VUI-rIa-a1AWs4IC4Aw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1072&vpy=262&dur=277&hovh=203&hovw=248&tx=147&ty=98&sig=102312404483824728614&page=2&tbnh=192&tbnw=220&start=15&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:18,s:0,i:117). No other Western economy has shifted away from a manufacturing-based economy at such a rate. This is not just economics but is the product of government policy which, since the 1980s, has deliberately encouraged the growth of the financial services sector, at the expense of others. As Germany and, to a lesser degree, France have shown, it is perfectly possible for European countries to maintain competitive industrial bases even in this global market

Which is what you would expect. Government policy impacts on the national economy. The problem in the UK has been that a London-based government could not care less about the fringes of the UK. Everything else is secondary to the needs of the City of London. It is not a coincidence that the further you go from the City, the poorer households get (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44001000/gif/_44001975_poverty_graphic416.gif)

So, in summary, while there are broad economic trends there is still very much a role for the state to govern economic affairs within its borders

[Crimson Commissar]

Would those who argue against the British Union be so opposed to the idea if it perhaps hadn't taken such an imperialistic tone?

What about historical examples like Yugoslavia, where each constituent nation was given considerable autonomy and the interests of Serbia where the capital was located did not necessarily dictate the path of the entire state? What if a similar political structure was to be created over the British isles?

I suppose the question here is, is this really a disagreement with the Union, or just a disagreement with England? What if Scotland, Wales and Ireland formed some kind of "Celtic Union" with a capital in Dublin? Would this then be seen as an instrument of Irish imperialism and a denial of Scottish and Welsh self-determination?

[Invader Zim]

It could also be said of Ireland where 'English gold' was liberally applied to secure Act of Union. And indeed of much of the old Empire: collaboration with local elites was a key component of Britain's imperial era. Yet few would have suggested that this complicity on the part of the old elites somehow legitimised or excused generations of subsequent English rule

That is true, but it is there that the comparison breaks down. Unless your understanding of Anglo-Scottish relations in the 17th and 18th century is built on having watched the film Braveheart and extrapolating that image several centuries forward in time, and choosing to forget that the heads of the English monarchy (with the exception of a brief interlude) for over a century prior to the Act of Union, were all members of a Scottish royal house, or that Scottish nobility, since 1603, had enjoyed an unprecedented position of power and authority in the English court precisely because the Kings (and later queens) were related to most of them.

The same situation can hardly be said to have existed in the Americas, the West Indies,, India, British Africa or elsewhere. Indeed, the only really comparable situation was in the case of Wales, where again, Welsh nobility enjoyed unprecedented influence in the English court due to the the fact that the Tudor house, which presided over the Acts of Union, was a Welsh one. And again, the Acts would never have been passed had the most powerful nobility in Wales not petitioned for it.


And there remains the question as to whether the elites on both sides of the border will conspire to smother this referendum or, alternatively, whether Scottish elites understand the degree to which London's policies have been pursued to the detriment of Scotland

To be honest this is all academic, all the evidence suggests that if there is a referendum the SNP will suffer a massive defeat.

And you ask whether Scottish elites 'understand the degree to which London's policies have been pursued to the detriment of Scotland', as if London and 'Scottish elites' are mutually exclusive. The position of the Scottish elite in London, compared to their English, Welsh and Irish counterparts is actually over-represented. The Scots have, compared to their relative position within the the UK in terms of population, more MPs representing them than any of Britain's other constituent nations. Furthermore, the highest offices of power in London have consistently been over-represented by Scots. To suggest that the Scottish elite does not enjoy an unprecedented position of power within the wider British political elite is just ludicrous.

If, as you suggest, Scotland does get a hard deal out of being in the Union, manifestly its political and economic elite do not, and they have not used their considerable access to the highest positions of political power to resolve Scotland's hard deal.


do not want to be ruled by alien governments then they should be be forced to suffer such.

Alien? To keep this within the context of capitalist governance which you are employing, as noted, the Scottish elite are actually slightly over-represented and enjoy devolved powers that the English do not. Suggesting that Scotland is ruled over by a foreign government, when its elite comprise a considerable and unrepresentative powerful body within that government, doesn't make any sense. They are not suffering taxation without representation, and nor are the elite here in Wales.

[robbo203]

And your explicit rejection of Scottish nationalism is an implicit condoning of English nationalism. Which is my point

So rejecting an abolition of the Union is a rejection of Scottish self-determination and a programme of continued English control of the UK. I don't expect you to start marching alongside English Democrats but your position is actually just as bad


Groan. Not this ridiculously stupid argument again! Are you are seriously incapable of seeing that the enemy of an ememy is not necessiarily a friend, that you can reject both Scottish nartionalism AND English nationalism and in fact ALL nationalism? In your little worldview everything seems to be either black or white with no other hue possible. It reminds me of Bush's dumb utterance during the Iraq War that if "you are not with us you are with the terrorists".

To make myself more plain I can recall at the time of the Libyan conflict there was quite a lot of discussion about that conflict on this forum. 3 quite distinct positions emerged out of the discssuion

1) Those who supported the Gaddafi regime and opposed the bombing of Libya by Western imperialist powers

2) Those who opposed the Gaddafi regime and opposed the bombing of Libya by Western imperialist powers

3) Those who opposed the Gaddafi regime and supproted the bombing of Libya by Western imperialist powers


Quite a number of people took up the first position, I and a few others took up the second position and hardly anyone took ip the the third position with one notable exception - a lone liberal who went under the name of a certain "ComradeOm". Correct me if I am wrong but this same ComradeOm argued strongly for decisive Western military intervention, maintaining that the rebels, left to their own devices, would be incapable of mounting a successful assault against the Gaddafi regime


Now this is all very odd since I take it you are one and the same person as this individual who declared his support for western military intervention at the time of the Libyan conflcit. But wait! - what do we see now on this thread but statements from you such as

That's the same attitude that informs most of these comments. It's always people based in large, imperialist nations who are mystified by the demands of small nations for independence. Funny that



Yes "funny! indeed! On the one hand, there you are self righteously preaching to us about the rights of small plucky nations to remain free of the depredations visited upon them by "large imperalist nations", on the other, you have no compunction whatosoever about advocating miiltary and brutal intervention by these self same "large imperialist nations" in the affairs of the former. Thats rank hypocrisy if I ever met it. . While you have the utter effrontery to compare my position as a revolutionary socialist who opposes nationalism in whatever form it takes with stance of the scumbag Englsih Democrats (nationalists), it has to be said that you and your soulmates in NATO, having achieved your goal of Gaddafi-free Libya, might care to contemplate the bitter legacy and utter shambles you have bequeathed to the Libyan workers as a result of your reckless warmongery. Libya is free of the dictator Gaddafi but it is not free of war and is nowhere close to being a democratic society.

However, the main reason I brought up the Libyan example was to demonstrate conclusively that it is entirely possible to take up a position that supports neither side in a conflict and that it is entirely possible to say loudly and clearly - a plague on bothyour houses!. Do you now finally accept this point and will you now finally desist from making absurd allegations such as that opposing Scottish nationalism means supporting or condoning English nationalism? You see where that kind of twisted logic got you in the case of Libya - namely supporting western imperialism vis a vis a certain small nation



Well let's test this. Would you have supported those nationalist movements that fought for independence from the European empires in Africa and Asia?

(Obviously African national liberation struggles are not comparable to that of Scotland but it's a useful indicator when pointing out the absurdity of blanket and unconditional anti-nationalism principles)


There is nothing whatsoever absurd about a blanket and unconditional anti-nationalism principle. It is a principled position that plainly recognises that nationalism of any kind runs directly counter to the need for working class unity and working class consciousness and that nationalism promotes the false idea that workers and capitalists of a particular nation share a common cause and a common identity


You know very well I do not and would not support those various bourgeois national liberation movements in Africa and Asia you refer to so why ask what can only be a rhetorical question? Many of these so called national liberation movements ended in the establishment of brutal and corrupt depostisms that ruthlessly exploited their own populations under a neocolonial dispensation in which the local comprador bourgeosie happily collaborated with foreign capitalists to advance their mutual interests. Care to explain to me what is so "progressive" about that, huh? In an increasingly globalised economy this is bound to happen to an ever increasing extent, Im afraid, and only a naive idealist would think otherwise. Third world nationalism is an irrelevance just as much a Scottish nationalism

So, no, I woild not support so called national liberation or independence any more than I would support the retention of old fashioned colonialism. (just as I did not support Gaddafi any more than I supported Western terroristic intervention in Libya) As a socialist I would say both these things are an irrelevance and a distraction in a world in which capital is increasingly global in scope. What is needed instead is a paradigm shift in the way of looking at the world and the question of how you slice up the administration of global capitalism along territorial lines is for me a matter of complete indifference




What is it with people these days and an inability to read posts? Are you all so eager to start building your strawmen? Or unable to observe any sort of nuance?

Which is pretty rich coming from someone who thinks that because you oppose Scottish Nationalism you must therefore condone English nationalism!




There is absolutely nothing in my above post, never mind the passage quoted, that suggests that I advocate 'socialism in one country' or that socialism could be created in Scotland without a global revolutionary movement. You just picked that out of mid-air. I really don't know where that came from


You talked about a "socialist Scotland (which) will be run by the inhabitants of Scotland." - thats where I got it from, it was not something I plucked out of mid air. You also prefaced that with the ludicrous comment that "A socialist society run on all-GB lines (whereby England still controls Wales and Scotland) is unimaginable which very much implies that you envisage the retention of a state in socialism - which is why I asked you to define socialism which I note you have declined to do.


If you are now saying that socialism is not possible without a global revolutionary movement then what on earth are you doing advocating nationalism - seeking common cuase with the local capitalists - which can only have the effect of retarding and dividing that global movement?



Ah, wait. That's probably it: the inability to distinguish between the nation and the nationstate. Which was the point of my question


I was not talking about the "nation" but the nation-state and its allied ideology of nationalism. (and explicitly said this but once you've shown yourself to be an inattentive reader of other people's posts) I am well aware of the difference between nation and nation state. The one is an ethnic-cultural construction; the other, a politico-economic construction.


The German anarchist, Gustav Landauer. Landauer once commented that "if I want to transform patriotism then I do not proceed in the slightest against the fine fact of the nation...but against the mixing up of the nation and the state". There is something to be said for that and in no sense do I wish to see some grotesque global monoculture inflicted on the world's diverse cultures despite your insinuation to the contrary. Nationalists may protest at the encroachment of a global cosmopolitan culture on what they see as their own national culture but nationalism itself has been historically ruthless is its monocultural tendency to steamroll over of local cultures and in its artificial and often retrospective invention of so called national cultures

Where I would disagree with Landauer perhaps is over his use of the word the "nation. i would baulk at using it myself since , in my view, it has been too contaminated by statism to be salvageable for a revolutionary socialist purpose

[ComradeOm]

You know very well I do not and would not support those various bourgeois national liberation movements in Africa and AsiaAnd. There. We. Go.

This is the product of your passivity and your dogmatic adherence to principle. By rejecting any form of short-term relief in the national question you are blind to the continued suffering . All because their cause isn't sufficiently ideologically pure for you. Had we been having this discussion sixty years ago then you would have ignored the real crises of the oppressed in Africa and Asia and all attempted to address these. Yet you accuse me of condoning imperialism? Nice

(And this, people, is why an purely intellectual conception of Marxism, divorced from the sufferings of actual people, is a dangerous thing)

So we have you rejecting the dismantling of imperialist structures (by anything other than a group of bearded revolutionaries wielding copies of Kapital) and indeed blaming most of Africa's subsequent ills on the post-independence regimes, ie stripping away the historical context of decades of incredibly damaging imperial rule. In what way, words aside, is your does your position not amount to English nationalism?


However, the main reason I brought up the Libyan example was to demonstrate conclusively that it is entirely possible to take up a position that supports neither side in a conflict and that it is entirely possible to say loudly and clearly - a plague on bothyour houses!Again, that just shows how pointlessly abstracted your thinking is. You're wrong: in Libya there was no option to condemn both sides. To have somehow prevented the NATO intervention would have been to condemn the anti-Gaddafi revolt to defeat. Simple as. Your rejection of intervention was in practice a blow against the rebels. That's not how you intended it, perhaps, but it was the only possible outcome of your position

There was no other practical option to intervention - and I was certainty asking for one at the time - this 'third way' was simply a bit of ideological posturing. It's like hand-wringing over the crimes of Empire while refusing to support measures to address these

And I'm happy to lay my reasoning out (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2059590&postcount=203) and accept that I, reluctantly, supported the least worst option. I'm also happy to be one of the few who saw the contradiction between being anti-Gadaffi and anti-intervention and valuing the survival of the revolt over the price to be paid to the West

In neither case has there been anything "twisted" about my logic. In fact I've been quite consistent: anti-imperialism, and indeed communism, means support for those who struggle against repression, be it national liberation against Empire, revolt against a corrupt and violent dictatorship or a genteel referendum for Scottish independence

Although, I suppose that you also have been consistent in your refusal to support such movements, in favour of your pure revolution (long-term) and continued repression (short-term). I doubt that we're going to reconcile over this any time soon... by which I mean that I'm not about to accept imperialism in the name of some distant revolution


If you are now saying that socialism is not possible without a global revolutionary movement then what on earth are you doing advocating nationalism - seeking common cuase with the local capitalists - which can only have the effect of retarding and dividing that global movement?Because nations exist. Fact. The "global revolutionary movement" cannot but be nation-based. A French movement, Spanish movement, English movement, Scottish movement, etc, etc. The idea that these would be inherently antagonistic to each other is baseless; it's the contrast between the fraternity of peoples and bland monoculture. The only real party that Scottish independence would sunder is Labour


I was not talking about the "nation" but the nation-state and its allied ideology of nationalism. (and explicitly said this but once you've shown yourself to be an inattentive reader of other people's posts) I am well aware of the difference between nation and nation state. The one is an ethnic-cultural construction; the other, a politico-economic constructionSo nations exist. How then do you justify the elevation of one "ethnic-cultural construction" over another? What is it about the English nation that warrants its dominance, as opposed to Scotland and others to whom you'd deny the right to self-determination? Why is it that you reject the "monocultural tendency" of nationalism while refusing to condemn those very structures that carry out this "steamrolling over of local cultures"?

There's an inconsistency here. The nationstate developed under capitalism as a product of the (slow and inconsistent) acknowledgement that the rule of one nation over another was increasingly unsustainable


The same situation can hardly be said to have existed in the Americas, the West Indies,, India, British Africa or elsewhere. Indeed, the only really comparable situation was in the case of Wales, where again, Welsh nobility enjoyed unprecedented influence in the English court due to the the fact that the Tudor house, which presided over the Acts of Union, was a Welsh one. And again, the Acts would never have been passed had the most powerful nobility in Wales not petitioned for it. That's a slightly rosy view of Anglo-Welsh relations (I'm fairly sure that all those imposing castles weren't built as summer homes) but I, naturally, take the point that previous Welsh and Scottish elites were more enthusiastic for Union. But that was then, when London was in the process of putting together a globe-spanning empire and the sky was the limit. This is now, when Wales and Scotland are about the only meaningful possessions that London has left. And certainly Scotland has not done particularly well out of the past few decades

This whole issue of a referendum would not have arisen if at least a fraction of the Scottish elite hadn't decided that the deal struck by their forefathers was no longer to their liking. To what degree they have split on this issue, well, we'll see that in time


And you ask whether Scottish elites 'understand the degree to which London's policies have been pursued to the detriment of Scotland', as if London and 'Scottish elites' are mutually exclusive. The position of the Scottish elite in London, compared to their English, Welsh and Irish counterparts is actually over-represented. The Scots have, compared to their relative position within the the UK in terms of population, more MPs representing them than any of Britain's other constituent nationsI don't see that as a matter of importance at all. Scotland has 59 of 645 MPs, the majority of whom work within the established parties. That is very limited Scottish influence on Westminster. Proportions and the odd individuals don't count for much when England retains such an overwhelming numerical advantage in the Commons

Addressing this was the whole point of devolution: allowing Scotland exclusive authority over (some) issues that were exclusively Scottish. Independence is merely taking this principle to its natural conclusion and removing the influence of 533 English MPs on Scottish policy

[Thirsty Crow]

Just this brief sort of an off topic comment:


Again, that just shows how pointlessly abstracted your thinking is. You're wrong: in Libya there was no option to condemn both sides. To have somehow prevented the NATO intervention would have been to condemn the anti-Gaddafi revolt to defeat. Simple as. Your rejection of intervention was in practice a blow against the rebels. That's not how you intended it, perhaps, but it was the only possible outcome of your position

There is no practice here, at least when you consider the function of the analyses produced by revolutionaries who have no connection to or influence over the march of events in such situations.
So what is the function of these analyses? Not to spew forth pointlessly abstract support (in this, and numerous other cases offering "support" is nothing but indicator of the desire to be relevant in that concrete influence over events might be exercised - but that support does not get a revolutionary group any closer to its, admittedly implied, goal, and in fact hampers the infinitely more modest, yet achieavable, goal of clarification and drawing out lessons) but to clearly assess the current developments from the standpoint of class and the prospects for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

So the issue is not one of phantom outcomes (as if anyone here, indeed everyone here combined, could wield material power) or what-if-we-had-power, and I think you're wrong in assessing what robbo claims as pointlessly abstract. It's only "abstract" if you think the first and foremost goal of revolutionary groups (or more absurd yet, individuals posting on the internet) should be to feverishly advocate measures from the bourgeois state(s).

[LiberationTheologist]

that you can reject both Scottish nartionalism AND English nationalism and in fact ALL nationalism?

How is your new borderless world going to work? I'll wait for your answer.



To make myself more plain I can recall at the time of the Libyan conflict there was quite a lot of discussion about that conflict on this forum. 3 quite distinct positions emerged out of the discssuion

1) Those who supported the Gaddafi regime and opposed the bombing of Libya by Western imperialist powers

2) Those who opposed the Gaddafi regime and opposed the bombing of Libya by Western imperialist powers

3) Those who opposed the Gaddafi regime and supproted the bombing of Libya by Western imperialist powers


Quite a number of people took up the first position, I and a few others took up the second position and hardly anyone took ip the the third position with one notable exception - a lone liberal who went under the name of a certain "ComradeOm". Correct me if I am wrong but this same ComradeOm argued strongly for decisive Western military intervention, maintaining that the rebels, left to their own devices, would be incapable of mounting a successful assault against the Gaddafi regimeTell me how you opposed the Gaddafi government while the USA, France, Italy and other imperialist murdering capitalist filth were bombing the country. How did you go about that? Sounding off against the government of Libya as it was about to be bombed would just give plain cover to the action. It sounds like your actions/position were on the same side of the issue as the poster you are accussing.




There is nothing whatsoever absurd about a blanket and unconditional anti-nationalism principle. It is a principled position that plainly recognises that nationalism of any kind runs directly counter to the need for working class unity and working class consciousness and that nationalism promotes the false idea that workers and capitalists of a particular nation share a common cause and a common identityThe nation state is a reality, what is your alternative to the nation state?



Third world nationalism is an irrelevance just as much a Scottish nationalismI assure you nationalism is very relevant, just look at Scotland, Catalonia, Ireland, South Sudan, Timor, Puerto Rico, Chechnya etcetera, etcetera. Oppose nationalism all day while reality spins around you. Again how will your post nation-state society work? How will we get there by opposing nationalism of all kind. Your quote below says you have no answer to the question.


So, no, I woild not support so called national liberation or independence any more than I would support the retention of old fashioned colonialism. (just as I did not support Gaddafi any more than I supported Western terroristic intervention in Libya) As a socialist I would say both these things are an irrelevance and a distraction in a world in which capital is increasingly global in scope. What is needed instead is a paradigm shift in the way of looking at the world and the question of how you slice up the administration of global capitalism along territorial lines is for me a matter of complete indifference

[rednordman]

Now when we get independence NATO will rush to our aid when the Faroe Islands launch a surprise amphibious attack.Alt for Foroya!!

[rebelstar]

the union should be broken up and scotland wales and the 6 counties in ireland given independence

[robbo203]

And. There. We. Go.

This is the product of your passivity and your dogmatic adherence to principle. By rejecting any form of short-term relief in the national question you are blind to the continued suffering . All because their cause isn't sufficiently ideologically pure for you. Had we been having this discussion sixty years ago then you would have ignored the real crises of the oppressed in Africa and Asia and all attempted to address these. Yet you accuse me of condoning imperialism? Nice

(And this, people, is why an purely intellectual conception of Marxism, divorced from the sufferings of actual people, is a dangerous thing)

So we have you rejecting the dismantling of imperialist structures (by anything other than a group of bearded revolutionaries wielding copies of Kapital) and indeed blaming most of Africa's subsequent ills on the post-independence regimes, ie stripping away the historical context of decades of incredibly damaging imperial rule. In what way, words aside, is your does your position not amount to English nationalism?



Here we go again. It seems you lack the wit and imagination to grasp where I am coming from so it behoves me once again, I guess, to explain to you where your whole analysis falls flat on its face

I am not blind to the "contined suffering" of people and as you presumptuously suggest . My point is rather that nationalism and so called national liberation is no solution to the plight of those experiencing such suffering and in fact distract from the solution where it does not actually make matters even worse (as in the case of wars) I would have thought the facts pretty much speak for themselves in that regard, dont you? Oddly enough, you more or less concede this point in refering to Africa's subsequent ills in the post independence era but then suggest that socialists attribute most of these ills to post independence governments per se (rather than capitalism) If anything, thats what liberals like your good self tend to do, not socialists. Socialists are well are of the capitalist context which foredooms the nationalist project to failure and miserable disppointment.

The real beneficiaries of these bourgeoies movements of pseudo national liberation have been the corrupt local comprador bourgeoisie who have happily collobrated with the foreign capitalists to their mutual advantage. In many cases particularly in Africa (and I say this as one who was born and raised in Africa myself) they have done their utmost to ensure a compliant and suitably exploitable workforce by means of brutal repression to ensure an adequate inflow of capital



But your dishonesty and deceitfulness does not end with your outrageous claim that I am sort of callous individual blind to the the suffering of others - who the fuck do you think you are BTW when you dont even know me or what I feel? - but , from the fact that I reject nationalism and so called national iliberation you once again infer that I somehow support or condone imperialism even the poimt where you claim in would reject the dismantling of imperial structures. What more bizarre fantasies are you going to come up with next, I wonder? Either you are a sandwich short of a picnic or you are arguing here in bad faith but let me repeat again what I said before: I neither support imperialism (and certainly have no wish to stand in the way of its hypothetical dismantling) nor the so called national iberation struggle which supposedly "liberated" the people you self righteously presume to speak for and whose suffering you presume to empathise with in contrast to those who according to the venerable Saint ComradeOm "hold purely intellectual conception of Marxism, divorced from the sufferings of actual people"

You ask in what way "does your position not amount to English nationalism?" by not supporting Scottish nationalism. To coin an expression : "Duh" . Christ, for a supposedly intelligent bloke you come out with the most stupid idiotic arguments at times. I can explain in a single sentence or two why opposing scottish nationalism does not amount to supporting english nationalism.

It is because we socialists oppose it not because it is Scottish but because it is nationalist. Thats precisely the same reason, incidentally, why we also oppose english nationalism - not becuae it is english but becuase it is nationalist. Attacking Scottish nationalism because it is nationalism is thus helping to undermine English nationalism in precisely the same way as attacking English nationalism helps to undermine scottish nationalism. The englishness or scottishness of the nationalism in question is is neither here nor there ; it is the nationalist content common to all nationalisms that is the issue


Nationalism, as I said before, conveys the false and diversionary idea that workers and capitalists in a particular country have a common cause and and a common identity. That is why a revolutionary socialist cannot be a nationalist. Nationalism necessarily entails the blurring of class divisions and the muffling of class struggle and, as such, is an idelogical prop of capitalism





Again, that just shows how pointlessly abstracted your thinking is. You're wrong: in Libya there was no option to condemn both sides. To have somehow prevented the NATO intervention would have been to condemn the anti-Gaddafi revolt to defeat. Simple as. Your rejection of intervention was in practice a blow against the rebels. That's not how you intended it, perhaps, but it was the only possible outcome of your position


This is frankly laughable and goes to to show precisely where your faintly ridiculous posturing as some kind of real politick pragmatist can lead to. You earlier said "Yet you accuse me of condoning imperialism? Nice" Now you are actually trying to justfiy your support for imperialism and NATO's intevention. Yes - "Nice" indeed? Keep on like this and you will only make the hole your have already dug for yourself even bigger.

And your wrong you know - there is another option which is not to support either side. To say "it is not an option" is ridiculous . Of course it is. Socialists have frequently chosen that option, arguing that not a single drop drop of working class blood is worth spilling in a capitalist war. If it was not an option how did they manage to chose it. Are you saying it is impossible for people to be pacifists? Surely not.


What, I huess, you are trying to say in your usual cackhanded way is that exercising that option might not have much effect on developments while the socialist movement is small and relatively uninfluential. That much may be true but that is not an argument against take a principled stand on capitalist wars by refusing to side with one side or the other.


The problem is that while muppets like you continue to fall for the big capitalist lie that it really matters that we take sides in capitalist war then by your very actions you help to perpetuate the lack of influence that socialists currently exert instead of joining with socialists and increase our influence. But dont flatter yourself, Mr Imperialist lackey, that NATO and other such august capitalist bodies are taking much heed of what you say. You are as irrelevant to them as we socialists are and they will press ahead with their agenda of mass murder with or without your blesing





Although, I suppose that you also have been consistent in your refusal to support such movements, in favour of your pure revolution (long-term) and continued repression (short-term). I doubt that we're going to reconcile over this any time soon... by which I mean that I'm not about to accept imperialism in the name of some distant revolution


Firstly - arguing for revolutiuon does not mean being in favour of "continued repression". I mean, really - how how dumb can you get. How many socialists do you know who favour "contined repression" in the short term while arguing for revolution in the long run. What you dont seem to realise - how could you as a liberal? - that national liberation is not a negation of repression. It is just the continuation of repression in another form and under the auspices of another capitalist body

Secondly you say you are "not about to accept imperialism in the name of some distant revolutiom" But hold on here! You already have accepted the need for imperialism - have you not? - in the case of Libta,. You welcomed NATOs intervention in the conflict so there can be no doubt at all about your pro imperialist sympathisies here




Because nations exist. Fact. The "global revolutionary movement" cannot but be nation-based. A French movement, Spanish movement, English movement, Scottish movement, etc, etc. The idea that these would be inherently antagonistic to each other is baseless; it's the contrast between the fraternity of peoples and bland monoculture. The only real party that Scottish independence would sunder is Labour

So nations exist. How then do you justify the elevation of one "ethnic-cultural construction" over another? What is it about the English nation that warrants its dominance, as opposed to Scotland and others to whom you'd deny the right to self-determination? Why is it that you reject the "monocultural tendency" of nationalism while refusing to condemn those very structures that carry out this "steamrolling over of local cultures"?


This is incoherent and contradictory becuase again you are confusing nations as an ethnic-cultural construction with the nation-state as a political economic constriuction. Yes nations exist but when we are talking about the dominance of England over Scotland - or whatever - we are talking in nation state terms , not ethnic-cultural terms, Its the same with your point about the global revolutionary movement. Yes it has to be organised along national lines for the purpose of capturring power since political power functions at the level of nation state but that does not in any way signify an endorsement of nationalism. Nationalist seek to perpetuate the division of the world along nation state lines; revolutionary socialists dont becuase we know darn well that that is tantmount to the perpetuation of capitalism

I dont know what you are on about when you say I do not condemn those very structures that carry out this "steamrolling over of local cultures"? I do. This is precisely part of my critique of nationalism - that it reduces cultural diversity, It is not the clash of cultures that is really at stake but political control whereby the nation state cynically explots cultural differences for its own ends

[Agathor]

Yeah, I agree - the UK is dominated by England and the English government.

Well, between 2001 and 2010 the country was run by two Scots - Blair and Brown - who would have lost without Welsh and Scottish votes. The 'English domination' line is extremely anachronistic and makes you look like a sparty pillock.

If you want to know how an independent Scotland would be governed just look at the composition of the Scottish Parliament: Two dominant parties, SNP and Labour, and a half dozen minor parties. Unless we count the two Green MSPs there is absolutely no left. I see no reason to believe that this will change if Scotland becomes independent. The consequences of independence would be a slightly gentler descent in neoliberalism for the Scots and a slightly steeper one for the English and Welsh.

[Agathor]

the union should be broken up and scotland wales and the 6 counties in ireland given independence

Why?

[Paul Cockshott]

Which is what you would expect. Government policy impacts on the national economy. The problem in the UK has been that a London-based government could not care less about the fringes of the UK. Everything else is secondary to the needs of the City of London. It is not a coincidence that the further you go from the City, the poorer households get (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44001000/gif/_44001975_poverty_graphic416.gif)

So, in summary, while there are broad economic trends there is still very much a role for the state to govern economic affairs within its borders

These are good points, but of course Salmond's policy of retaining the pound means that we will still be under the thumb of the London financial interests.

[Blake's Baby]

What other choice does he have? The Dollar? Obviously five years ago the perspective was to be another Eurozone country, to live a 'Celtic Tiger' dream like Ireland, but that's looking like a dead duck now.

So in sum: he wants to keep the Pound, keep the Monarchy, stay in the EU and stay in NATO. Where exactly is the progressive content in this?

[Yazman]

Nationalism, as I said before, conveys the false and diversionary idea that workers and capitalists in a particular country have a common cause and and a common identity. That is why a revolutionary socialist cannot be a nationalist. Nationalism necessarily entails the blurring of class divisions and the muffling of class struggle and, as such, is an idelogical prop of capitalism

They do not have a common economic or class-based cause or identity, but one thing I consistently see many revolutionary leftists completely forget (or sometimes outright ignore) is the fact that culture is a real force and an important one in society and one that, if you disregard, will ultimately be your downfall and the disregarding of which can lead to an oppressive system and even straightup imperialism. The oppression of indigenous people throughout the world is a great example of this, and even in most so-called "socialist" countries like Nicaragua under the Sandinistas (think about the Miskito people), indigenous people were horribly oppressed.

Scottish people do share a common culture, and in some areas, a common language. Their culture and their identity as Scottish people is distinct and it is unique and if you try to pretend that it isn't relevant and that they should just forget about it and view themselves as faceless workers in a horde of government-overthrowing drones you may lose their interest.

I am not necessarily supporting nationalism here but you should really take notice and remember that culture is very important and it isn't something you can just strip away or ignore. You talk about being irrelevant - well, this may very well become the case if you try to pretend that culture isn't an important factor in shaping the socio-political fabric of any human society. I don't think an ethnic state is a good thing (hence my opposition to Israeli policy, for example) so I'm not necessarily advocating for Scottish nationalism but if their culture is being marginalised or destroyed, demands for changes to the status quo are legitimate. Remember, systematic destruction of a culture can even constitute genocide. I'm not saying genocide is happening in Scotland because it isn't, but I am using the example to illustrate the importance of taking culture into consideration.

If you want to get people's attention, you will need to remember that you can't just ignore their needs as a culture and pretend that it isn't important. Because it might not be important to you, but it is important to them. And if you ignore culture and pretend that it is worthless and irrelevant, then nationalists will take advantage of your ignorance and workers will flock to them, because nationalists often do appeal to this where many revolutionary leftists fail to do so. Being aware of different cultures and their needs, and the importance of enabling them to continue their existence isn't inherently nationalist and is completely compatible with revolutionary leftist politics. But when you ignore it or just don't know that it's important, that's where you fundamentally fail on a certain level and help nationalism grow.

A Scottish worker and a Scottish capitalist do have a shared cultural identity. Things aren't so black and white as "workers on this side, capitalists on that side" - they are more shades of grey. Their class interests may differ, but their cultural identity may not, and there is real value in having somebody who is culturally aware or culturally sensitive to a local culture being in power. There is value in that. Because when somebody of a different culture comes along, ignores the local culture and tries to impose their own, that can be oppressive, and it can even be imperialistic.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Scottish people do share a common culture, and in some areas, a common language...

Yeah. English. 98% of the population of Scotland speaks English, which is higher than the proportion of English speakers in England (because England has a higher proportion of immigrants).

Has anybody mentioned Shetland and Orkney yet, which have only been incorporated into Scotland in comparatively recent times and consistently don't want to be part of an independant Scotland? If Scotland leaves the UK, will Orkney and Shetland get to leave to Scotland and rejoin the UK, bringing the oil with them? Should Shetland and Orkney, which have their own (Scandinavian) cultural traditions which are not those of a common 'Scottish' culture, be allowed their own independence?

[Yazman]

Yeah. English. 98% of the population of Scotland speaks English, which is higher than the proportion of English speakers in England (because England has a higher proportion of immigrants).

Has anybody mentioned Shetland and Orkney yet, which have only been incorporated into Scotland in comparatively recent times and consistently don't want to be part of an independant Scotland? If Scotland leaves the UK, will Orkney and Shetland get to leave to Scotland and rejoin the UK, bringing the oil with them? Should Shetland and Orkney, which have their own (Scandinavian) cultural traditions which are not those of a common 'Scottish' culture, be allowed their own independence?

Yes that's right, the fact that English is the main language doesn't change the fact that their culture is still their own and an important factor in shaping their identity and it is a very bad thing to disregard this, I think. The multitude of cultures that are predominantly english-speaking reinforces this - Australia, Jamaica, USA, south africa, even countries like India, the Philippines, etc where english is common. English is not synonymous with England anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

As far as Shetland and Orkney go - of course! My point here is that we as revolutionary leftists shouldn't take such an ignorant and blind attitude here - culture IS important and to ignore it is dangerous (and can lead to imperialism, or at worst, outright genocide). If an independent Scotland including Orkney & Shetland ended up being oppressive towards those cultures then surely they would be well within their right to consider returning to the UK (or some other option). Although independence isn't necessarily the only option here - perhaps as far as Scotland goes (or in the case of our hypothetical Orkney-Shetland scenario) such things as more devolution of power or heightened autonomy might be worth looking at before going to straightup independence.

[Blake's Baby]

... their culture is still their own and an important factor in shaping their identity ...

Their cultures ... their identities... is my point.


... If an independent Scotland including Orkney & Shetland ended up being oppressive towards those cultures then surely they would be well within their right to consider returning to the UK (or some other option). Although independence isn't necessarily the only option here - perhaps as far as Scotland goes (or in the case of our hypothetical Orkney-Shetland scenario) such things as more devolution of power or heightened autonomy might be worth looking at before going to straightup independence.

Scotland already has devolution and/or regional autonomy. It is not noticeably 'oppressed' though it is certainly among the poorer parts of the UK. Certainly the Scottish bourgeoisie has not suffered from union - rather the reverse. Has the working class? Difficult to say, but as Scotland has more feudal survivals than England (in terms of land-tenure and such-like) I'd suspect the union has to an extent allowed Scotland to develop more than it would have done on its own.

The question stands: if 'Scotland' is to be accorded the status of an 'oppressed cultural minority' in a UK context (because it apparently has a 'culture' of its own, even though it has a multiplicity of cultures, just like everywere else) then why shouldn't Orkney and Shetland be accorded the status of 'oppressed cultural minorities' in a Scotish context? They don't share the 'culture' that you accord to Scotland, so presumably they aren't even part of that 'cultural' Scotland you're referring to, despite being politically part of it at present.

Maybe Orkney and Shetland shouldn't be given independence from the UK, even if the rest of Scotland achieves it? After all, if Scotland as you claim is a cultural phenomenon those parts of the 'state' of Scotland that don't share that culture aren't really Scottish, right?

[Yazman]

I'm not sure why you keep banging on about Orkney & Shetland when I already answered that:


If an independent Scotland including Orkney & Shetland ended up being oppressive towards those cultures then surely they would be well within their right to consider returning to the UK (or some other option).I agree that if the people of Orkney and Shetland don't consider their cultures to be Scottish and if they don't consider themselves to be marginalised for whatever reason, then they should fight for the status they so deserve - whether that's remaining part of the UK or becoming part of an independent Scotland.

As far as the working class & bourgeoisie go - my point is that society isn't always quite so one-dimensional and that a purely economic analysis of separatism isn't valid and we shouldn't encourage it, since there's a lot more to the situation than that. I feel that it's one of the biggest problems with revolutionary left politics historically and currently and I think broadly speaking our movement is in dire need of social & anthropological perspectives. Note that I'm not arguing for ethnic states here but just for a more nuanced position than "they're all just workers or capitalists!" Because culture is important and it does matter, and like I aid earlier if we ignore that it merely gives the right more strength in their arguments. And like I said earlier, they often do take advantage of that ignorance on our part (broadly speaking as a movement) to goad different groups in society into supporting ridiculous right wing ideas like extreme nationalism. We can combat that by including culture in our analysis and ensuring that different cultures in society aren't marginalised and their interests & needs incorporated as workers, just as we do with women and LGBT people.

When you ignore culture as an aspect in society it can and does lead to oppression of minority cultures especially. In severe cases it can even be perceived as systematic assimilation or even genocide. That isn't even remotely close to happening in Scotland and I don't think it's even fair to say Scottish people are oppressed, but sometimes in separatist movements culture is a major part. I'm not even arguing for independence here, I'm just saying that society and our analysis of it shouldn't be so one-dimensional. There's more to it than just relationship to the means of production, although class interests are fundamentally important and central to our analysis, they shouldn't be the only part of our analysis.

[robbo203]

They do not have a common economic or class-based cause or identity, but one thing I consistently see many revolutionary leftists completely forget (or sometimes outright ignore) is the fact that culture is a real force and an important one in society and one that, if you disregard, will ultimately be your downfall and the disregarding of which can lead to an oppressive system and even straightup imperialism. The oppression of indigenous people throughout the world is a great example of this, and even in most so-called "socialist" countries like Nicaragua under the Sandinistas (think about the Miskito people), indigenous people were horribly oppressed.

Scottish people do share a common culture, and in some areas, a common language. Their culture and their identity as Scottish people is distinct and it is unique and if you try to pretend that it isn't relevant and that they should just forget about it and view themselves as faceless workers in a horde of government-overthrowing drones you may lose their interest.



This is one huge great whopping red herring . It is not culture per se that is the issue. It is the identification with the nation-state - that is, nationalism - that is the problem. It short it is the politics and not the ethnicity of the people that we should concern ourselves with

As a socialist I have no problem with the fact of ethnic cultures. In point of fact, one of my gripes with nationalism is that it homogenises societies and undermines local cultures. So called national cultures are largely a myth anyway, an invention of the bookworm purveyors of nationalism and the supporters of that eminently capitalist institition - the nation state. These same nationalists then have the nerve to turn around and blame some amorphous global culture for its debilitating effect on national culture. Typically such a global culture is said to express itself in a kind of process sometimes dubbed the “McDonaldization” of society.

This is viewed by its critics as yet another example of American cultural imperialism - American mass culture being seen as more or less synonymous with this emerging global culture. But this resentment towards American cultural dominance is hardly new. As Richard Pells notes:

"In 1901, the British writer William Stead published a book called, ominously, The Americanization of the World. The title captured a set of apprehensions -- about the disappearance of national languages and traditions, and the obliteration of the unique identities of countries under the weight of American habits and states of mind -- that persists today." (“American Culture Goes Global, or Does It?” The Chronicle Review : the Chronicle of Higher Education April 12 2002 http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i31/31b00701.htm)


However, as Pells’ points out, the charge of American cultural imperialism is unfair. Despite those allegations, the cultural relationship between the United States and the rest of the world over the past 100 years has never been one-sided. On the contrary, the United States was, and continues to be, as much a consumer of foreign intellectual, culinary and artistic influences as it has been a shaper of global culture.


If anything I would argue that it is the nationalist approach to culture that is more malign, more insidious because of its tendency to want to claustrophobically exclude and to be judgemental and to preseve in aspic its own festishised idea of a "national culture". This stems from the competitive nature of this very thing we call the nation state. I welcome and relish the fact that I am able to experience a veritable pot pouri of cultures. Cultures should be living growing things, not static objects of religious devotion which nationalism turns them into.

But it is not national cultures which are the problem anyway. National cultures are only the armour in which nation-states, the territotial units of global capitalism, deck themselves out in their mock battles - and sometimes very real - battles with other nation-states to differentiate themselves from one another and to provide a fake pretext for what those battles are fought over - the preservation (allegedly) of their way of life , their "culture". As if.

In reality those battles are squabbles between different ruling classes over much more humdrum sordid matters like markets, trade routes and resources . So called "national cultures" are wheeled as a way of firmly binding the workers to the capitalist in the pretence that they share a common cause and a common identity represented precisely in the form of a so called national culture. In short, belief in a nation state sanctified by this so called national culture, is tantamount to act of class collaboration

How on earth can a revolutionary socialist not oppose that? You tell me

[Yazman]

This is one huge great whopping red herring . It is not culture per se that is the issue. It is the identification with the nation-state - that is, nationalism - that is the problem. It short it is the politics and not the ethnicity of the people that we should concern ourselves with

As a socialist I have no problem with the fact of ethnic cultures. In point of fact, one of my gripes with nationalism is that it homogenises societies and undermines local cultures. So called national cultures are largely a myth anyway, an invention of the bookworm purveyors of nationalism and the supporters of that eminently capitalist institition - the nation state. These same nationalists then have the nerve to turn around and blame some amorphous global culture for its debilitating effect on national culture. Typically such a global culture is said to express itself in a kind of process sometimes dubbed the “McDonaldization” of society.

This is viewed by its critics as yet another example of American cultural imperialism - American mass culture being seen as more or less synonymous with this emerging global culture. But this resentment towards American cultural dominance is hardly new. As Richard Pells notes:

"In 1901, the British writer William Stead published a book called, ominously, The Americanization of the World. The title captured a set of apprehensions -- about the disappearance of national languages and traditions, and the obliteration of the unique identities of countries under the weight of American habits and states of mind -- that persists today." (“American Culture Goes Global, or Does It?” The Chronicle Review : the Chronicle of Higher Education April 12 2002 http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i31/31b00701.htm)


However, as Pells’ points out, the charge of American cultural imperialism is unfair. Despite those allegations, the cultural relationship between the United States and the rest of the world over the past 100 years has never been one-sided. On the contrary, the United States was, and continues to be, as much a consumer of foreign intellectual, culinary and artistic influences as it has been a shaper of global culture.


If anything I would argue that it is the nationalist approach to culture that is more malign, more insidious because of its tendency to want to claustrophobically exclude and to be judgemental and to preseve in aspic its own festishised idea of a "national culture". This stems from the competitive nature of this very thing we call the nation state. I welcome and relish the fact that I am able to experience a veritable pot pouri of cultures. Cultures should be living growing things, not static objects of religious devotion which nationalism turns them into.

But it is not national cultures which are the problem anyway. National cultures are only the armour in which nation-states, the territotial units of global capitalism, deck themselves out in their mock battles - and sometimes very real - battles with other nation-states to differentiate themselves from one another and to provide a fake pretext for what those battles are fought over - the preservation (allegedly) of their way of life , their "culture". As if.

In reality those battles are squabbles between different ruling classes over much more humdrum sordid matters like markets, trade routes and resources . So called "national cultures" are wheeled as a way of firmly binding the workers to the capitalist in the pretence that they share a common cause and a common identity represented precisely in the form of a so called national culture. In short, belief in a nation state sanctified by this so called national culture, is tantamount to act of class collaboration

How on earth can a revolutionary socialist not oppose that? You tell me

There seems to be an awfully huge leap in your post here. Not once did I ever associate culture with the nation-state - and in fact multiple times have I stated that they are not synonymous and not necessarily linked, and usually aren't. I do oppose ideas of "national culture", ethnic states and homogenisation and I thought that was evident by the fact I stated as such and did not argue for nationalist positions of any kind but merely for more nuanced analysis than "we're all just workers, I don't care if your culture is marginalised" - it's an ignorant and dangerous position for revolutionary leftists to hold that only helps the extreme right.

I'm not arguing in favour of nationalist notions of culture nor for "national cultures" at all. I'm saying that it isn't enough to merely examine society via strictly economic or strictly political methods, but that culture is important (as well as other factors). People aren't "just" workers, they have various identities and views that shape their worldview.

I'm not for nation-states and I'm not arguing in favour of an independent Scotland here. I'm arguing against one-dimensional analysis of society. To suggest that all movements should be viewed with the same "one size fits all" scope that you seem to be supporting is something I view as a fundamental error at best.

[Blake's Baby]

No one is saying 'I don't care if your culture is marginalised'. At worst some of us might be saying 'I don't care if you think that what you see as someone else's culture is marginalised (this in response to someone from Ireland, and someone from Australia, arguing that 'Scotland' as a mono-cultural entity - that doesn't exist - is marginalised), because 'it' isn't.' Scotland's problems have little to do with cultural imperialism.

[Yazman]

No one is saying 'I don't care if your culture is marginalised'. At worst some of us might be saying 'I don't care if you think that what you see as someone else's culture is marginalised (this in response to someone from Ireland, and someone from Australia, arguing that 'Scotland' as a mono-cultural entity - that doesn't exist - is marginalised), because 'it' isn't.' Scotland's problems have little to do with cultural imperialism.

1. I never argued that Scotland was a mono-cultural entity
2. I never argued that Scotland's problems have to do with cultural imperialism
3. I never argued that Scotland's culture is even marginalised at all.

What I did argue, is that it is ignorant and potentially dangerous to disregard other elements in our analysis of society - I take issue with the fact that both you and others claim that only political or only economic issues should be part of our analysis.

That's why I said it. Take this quote from my original post on the previous page and replace the term with any cultural identity and it's the same (the original post said "Scottish" instead of "Dinka"):


A Dinka worker and a Dinka capitalist do have a shared cultural identity. Things aren't so black and white as "workers on this side, capitalists on that side" - they are more shades of grey. Their class interests may differ, but their cultural identity may not, and there is real value in having somebody who is culturally aware or culturally sensitive to a local culture being in power. There is value in that. Because when somebody of a different culture comes along, ignores the local culture and tries to impose their own, that can be oppressive, and it can even be imperialistic.I wasn't literally saying that Scottish people are oppressed. It was in response to a statement that claimed they have no shared identity at all any more than say, a Scottish worker would with a Brazilian capitalist. Because there is a part of their identity that is shared, but a purely economic or a purely political analysis doesn't take that factor into account and therefore creates problems and fails to accurately assess society on a certain level.

[robbo203]

There seems to be an awfully huge leap in your post here. Not once did I ever associate culture with the nation-state - and in fact multiple times have I stated that they are not synonymous and not necessarily linked, and usually aren't. I do oppose ideas of "national culture", ethnic states and homogenisation and I thought that was evident by the fact I stated as such and did not argue for nationalist positions of any kind but merely for more nuanced analysis than "we're all just workers, I don't care if your culture is marginalised" - it's an ignorant and dangerous position for revolutionary leftists to hold that only helps the extreme right.

I'm not arguing in favour of nationalist notions of culture nor for "national cultures" at all. I'm saying that it isn't enough to merely examine society via strictly economic or strictly political methods, but that culture is important (as well as other factors). People aren't "just" workers, they have various identities and views that shape their worldview.

I'm not for nation-states and I'm not arguing in favour of an independent Scotland here. I'm arguing against one-dimensional analysis of society. To suggest that all movements should be viewed with the same "one size fits all" scope that you seem to be supporting is something I view as a fundamental error at best.


I hear what you are saying and I am not trying to attribute to you the views that I am attacking. I am simply trying to outline my response to those views.


However I would say that to the unwary it might seem from the way formulated your argument that you are possibly advocating such views. So for instance, you say:

Scottish people do share a common culture, and in some areas, a common language. Their culture and their identity as Scottish people is distinct and it is unique and if you try to pretend that it isn't relevant and that they should just forget about it and view themselves as faceless workers in a horde of government-overthrowing drones you may lose their interest.

But is there - I ask in all innocence - such a thing as the "Scottish people" separate and apart from - or predating - the nationalist construction/invention of it as the population of certain territorially bounded nation-state called "Scotland". Is there such a thing as a distinct and uniquely identifiable "scottish culture" or you just being lulled into thinking there is by the pervasive influence of nationalist thinking

To identify and isolate certain cultural complexes is fiendishly difficult and problematic at the best of times. I dont know much about Scotland - I only ever visited it once on some rather forgettable rain-sodden holiday - but here in sunny Spain (well its pissing down at the moment) , it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to talk in such general terms about a "spanish culture". Every part of this hugely diverse country is different from the others in customs , habits , cultural preferences, diet, dialect and so on. Christ, even just down the road in the Alpujarras - a long valley sandwiched between the Sierra Nevada and the Contraviesa ranges, south of Granada , the culture is quite different to say someone from Malaga. My Spanish is not great but speaking to a native Alpujarran is sometimes just impossible! And its not just dialect either - the whole outlook on life is quite different too.


How then do we get to distil from all this diversity a certain array of characteristics that enable us to speak of a "spanish culture". I think it is to fail to do justice to the reality of the situation to reduce it to collection of cliches, stamped with the mark of approval from the Department of Tourism: beaches, bullfighting, flamenco and white villages. Is this what what "spanish culture" amounts to - a list of images for popular consumption abroad, the product of a 5 minute exercise in word association? Ditto "Scottish culture". Does it really amount to a matter of kilts, haggis, bagpipes and of course Loch Lomond's Nessie


It is for these sorts of reasons that I am very awary about talking about "Scottish culture" and by implication a "Scottish people". Even if we could identify a clear cultural complex that could be called "scottish", I struggle to see how this could be meaningfully separated from the nationalist way of looking at things in which a nation-state called "Scotland" is posited whose boundaries are alleged to coincide with those of that cultural complex

[Yazman]

I'm greatly enjoying this discussion as well as your criticism of my position - I hope you're enjoying this (and my criticism of your position) too! Thanks in advance!


I hear what you are saying and I am not trying to attribute to you the views that I am attacking. I am simply trying to outline my response to those views.


However I would say that to the unwary it might seem from the way formulated your argument that you are possibly advocating such views. So for instance, you say:

Scottish people do share a common culture, and in some areas, a common language. Their culture and their identity as Scottish people is distinct and it is unique and if you try to pretend that it isn't relevant and that they should just forget about it and view themselves as faceless workers in a horde of government-overthrowing drones you may lose their interest.

But is there - I ask in all innocence - such a thing as the "Scottish people" separate and apart from - or predating - the nationalist construction/invention of it as the population of certain territorially bounded nation-state called "Scotland". Is there such a thing as a distinct and uniquely identifiable "scottish culture" or you just being lulled into thinking there is by the pervasive influence of nationalist thinking

I agree. I don't know nearly enough about Scotland to make such a statement and you are correct to criticise it. I should have used the example of other cultures I know/have studied extensively. Hence why I rephrased it to say "Dinka" earlier. As we have both said, culture shouldn't be identified with a nation-state. I think that in itself can be a dangerous position. I was more stating that in our analysis the needs of different cultures should be taken into account - if such a thing as "Scottish culture" exists, it is certainly important to consider. Perhaps Scotland is far more diverse than we realise? The anthropology of Scotland isn't really my strong point in that field. Some cultures are much more easily identified than others.


To identify and isolate certain cultural complexes is fiendishly difficult and problematic at the best of times. I dont know much about Scotland - I only ever visited it once on some rather forgettable rain-sodden holiday - but here in sunny Spain (well its pissing down at the moment) , it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to talk in such general terms about a "spanish culture". Every part of this hugely diverse country is different from the others in customs , habits , cultural preferences, diet, dialect and so on. Christ, even just down the road in the Alpujarras - a long valley sandwiched between the Sierra Nevada and the Contraviesa ranges, south of Granada , the culture is quite different to say someone from Malaga. My Spanish is not great but speaking to a native Alpujarran is sometimes just impossible! And its not just dialect either - the whole outlook on life is quite different too.Indeed, but what you're saying here is what I'm really arguing. Spain is a BRILLIANT example, as it is a very diverse region and does have many unique ethnicities and cultures within it. "Spain" is clearly a political construct. I'm arguing for the consideration of this in our analysis, but not in the context of national constructs, but rather in their own context. i.e. the Basque people, or the Dinka people (think Sudan, especially South Sudan, parts of Ethiopia, and other areas). Where I think we fall short and cause problems, is when we don't take culture into account and the needs of different cultures. Most problematic is that of indigenous cultures who have been almost universally mistreated, by both reactionary and revolutionary governments alike.


How then do we get to distil from all this diversity a certain array of characteristics that enable us to speak of a "spanish culture". I think it is to fail to do justice to the reality of the situation to reduce it to collection of cliches, stamped with the mark of approval from the Department of Tourism: beaches, bullfighting, flamenco and white villages. Is this what what "spanish culture" amounts to - a list of images for popular consumption abroad, the product of a 5 minute exercise in word association? Ditto "Scottish culture". Does it really amount to a matter of kilts, haggis, bagpipes and of course Loch Lomond's NessieIt's more than that - it includes a whole range of things, although does not necessitate each aspect individually. Rituals, taboos, views, history, (sometimes) ethnicity, (sometimes) religion, rites of passage, etc. The 'iconic' aspects are of course part of this, but those are just what people tend to think of, but don't get it wrong - culture is much more than things such as flamenco and bullfighting.


It is for these sorts of reasons that I am very awary about talking about "Scottish culture" and by implication a "Scottish people". Even if we could identify a clear cultural complex that could be called "scottish", I struggle to see how this could be meaningfully separated from the nationalist way of looking at things in which a nation-state called "Scotland" is posited whose boundaries are alleged to coincide with those of that cultural complexWe separate it meaningfully by remembering that no culture is inherently linked to the nation-state (which is a political construct_. Although geography may sometimes be important when it comes to such things as sacred sites, for example (such as those of the Lakota Sioux, various indigenous australian groups, etc). Each culture holds its own value and at the same time can provide different worldviews and needs for those who are a part of it - it is important in our analysis in regards to providing context to the situation of those involved, just as we take into account sexuality, disability, "race" (even if it is a social construct it persists socially, unfortunately) and other issues that may provide much-needed context to analysis. We combat nationalists not by taking a stance of "cultural blindness", but by making sure we remember that there are often people who may be part of a cultural group and that they may be motivated towards separatism by discrimination against their culture - for example, the discrimination against Torres Strait Islanders in Australia and the attempted destruction of this culture in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries. There are many ways to combat this, but for example, one might support the inclusion of indigenous languages in their local curriculum, support for local cultural projects, etc.

Instead of simply rejecting culture as a component of our analysis of society and immediately condemning all separatist movements as uniformly nationalist and class enemies, it is worth examining these issues in detail. For example, I disagree with national cultures completely - many, many nation-states are very very diverse and some separatist movements include people of many cultures. Yet the revolutionary does not often take the best approach when it comes to separatists, some of whom may be motivated by cultural issues & conflicts. Instead of making a strong case as to why a new nation-state might not in this particular case be the best way forward, many revolutionary leftists are wont to simply condemn them all uniformly as reactionary or bourgeois nationalists, even in cases where they may be committed leftists. Make a case for a more equal society that provides for the needs of all! Is it not reasonable to say that indigenous people should be able to maintain their cultural practices, their language, their rituals, etc? Just an example.