Scottish Independence

[No War But Cold War]

Is there any reason to support the 2014 referendum?

[LeonJWilliams]

Self-determinism?
More democratic.
They won't have the population of England electing their leader (SNP will make all the laws not the Conservative Party).

[roy]

from a communist standpoint, there's no reason to support the creation of another capitalist state, so no.

[LeonJWilliams]

from a communist standpoint, there's no reason to support the creation of another capitalist state, so no.

Other than it being more democratic?

Is there any communist reason to oppose it?

[roy]

how will it be more democratic? it will just be another country where people can vote for near-identical candidates

communist reasons to oppose it? promotes nationalism, divides working class. the standard stuff.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah i'm not sold on this.

Actually somebody who promotes left opposition to Scottish nationalism quite effectively is George Galloway. Went to see him the other week and an acquiantance of mine, who is doing a PhD and is supposedly a Marxist, painfully supports Scottish independence and a loose relationship with the EU, and more integration with the nordic countries. Galloway ripped him a new one.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I support Scottish independence if the Scottish working class does.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I support Scottish independence if the Scottish working class does.
Why? That's like saying you support christian fundamentalists in Italy because the majority of their supporters are Italian working-class.

The answer to the national question is not putting more capitalists in power under the illusion of freedom - whether the Scottish proletariat thinks that or not.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm opposed to nationalism, national self-determination, and so forth, but it would be kind of a guilty pleasure to see the reaction of the right-wing union jack waving scum up there in Scotland.

[hetz]

Yes, I don't have a problem with democratic and peaceful national self-determination.
Besides it would be cool to have a new country like Scotland in Europe.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why? That's like saying you support christian fundamentalists in Italy because the majority of their supporters are Italian working-class.
Are you really claiming that supporting an independent Scotland is equivalent to supporting religious reactionaries? Alrighty then.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The problem is the SNP's version of independence doesn't go far enough. Leave the UK but keep the Queen?

[Brutus]

I think Scotland would fail miserably without the rest of britain

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Are you really claiming that supporting an independent Scotland is equivalent to supporting religious reactionaries? Alrighty then.
No, I just don't agree with the defeatist concept of conforming to a lesser evil.

What will happen if Scotland becomes independent? How will this benefit the scottish working class? What defines a member of the 'Scottish working-class' anyhow? Why does this ambiguous group's claim over a chunk of land on a reasonably large island any more valid than every other human being on this planet - I thought we're supposed to be against private property, capitalist states no less? Why split the proletariat further?

Even in the reformism you propose, there are still better alternatives to independence for Scotland's proletariat.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What will happen if Scotland becomes independent? How will this benefit the scottish working class? What defines a member of the 'Scottish working-class' anyhow? Why does this ambiguous group's claim over a chunk of land on a reasonably large island any more valid than every other human being on this planet - I thought we're supposed to be against private property, capitalist states no less? Why split the proletariat further?
Are you proposing that states (which in the capitalist era are capitalist by default) can be abolished before the material conditions for abolishing them exist?

By the Scottish working class, I mean the working class in Scotland.

In general, I find Scottish nationalism to be far less reactionary than the British nationalism opposed to it, which your ultra-left stance supports by default.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In general, I find Scottish nationalism to be far less reactionary than the British nationalism opposed to it, which your ultra-left stance supports by default.

I would just like to zero in on this and ask why?

And why I ask, is that instead of saying 'I support this if it benefits the working class', you say 'I support this if the working class supports it', and whilst indeed this is not quite akin to supporting extremist Christian fundamentalism, the point still stands that you're tailgating rather than using historical materialism to come to a conclusion on the Scotland question.

Part of me - the emotional part - would quite like to see Scotland, so derided by the English, stick their middle finger up and go it alone. But most of me - the logical side - realises that the progressive case for independence is all smoke and mirrors, based on fiscal, monetary and trade relationships that don't exist yet and may never do (the euro, the scandanavians and so on). I just don't see how, given the tremendous economic risk involved in independence, there is a commensurate potential reward for the Scottish working class and so I really can't get behind it at all, at this point in time.

[Blake's Baby]

... I find Scottish nationalism to be far less reactionary than the British nationalism opposed to it, which your ultra-left stance supports by default.

I love this. Because we oppose British nationalism, Scottish nationalism, and English nationalism, we must suport British nationalism. 'Ultra-left' is such a great term for dismissing anything that challenges your capitulation to the bourgeoisie.

On the thread about 'Why you find Left Communists annoying', the throwing about of the term 'left wing of capital' is held up as one of our original sins. Well, the knee-jerk use of 'ultra-left', when what you mean is 'intransigently communist', is the flip-side. We don't comromise with nationalism; that's what makes us 'ultra-left' and you 'the left wing of capital'.


...most of me - the logical side - realises that the progressive case for independence is all smoke and mirrors, based on fiscal, monetary and trade relationships that don't exist yet and may never do (the euro, the scandanavians and so on). I just don't see how, given the tremendous economic risk involved in independence, there is a commensurate potential reward for the Scottish working class and so I really can't get behind it at all, at this point in time.

Not to mention that it doesn't help the working class in Wales, England or Northern Ireland. We're stronger united, not disunited. That unity currently exists - to an extent; if Scotland were independent (in NATO, in the EU, with the Queen) it would not exist, but the bourgeoisie in Scotland would certainly be strengthened.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Are you proposing that states (which in the capitalist era are capitalist by default) can be abolished before the material conditions for abolishing them exist?
Where did I say that? Supporting a Scottish state is supporting a nationalist-back capitalist gain to power. To give praise to such a thing given Scotland's current condition is simply ludicrous, especially for the so-called 'communists' who support the SNP.

Why would scotland's proletariat be any more 'free'? Do you think that the businessmen exploiting them will just cease to exist and move to London?


By the Scottish working class, I mean the working class in Scotland.

So people living geographically in Northern Britain? Why not in another part of the UK?


In general, I find Scottish nationalism to be far less reactionary than the British nationalism opposed to it, which your ultra-left stance supports by default.Ha! What's your point!? I don't support 'British nationalism' any more than I do the 'less reactionary and therefore pro working-class Scottish nationalism'! To try and dictate that these two radically nationalist ideas are the sole competitors in what happens to Scotland's proletariat is to create a false dichotomy. Nationalism acts as a political and cultural division of millions of people; why would you want more national movements?

By the way, is the term 'Ultra-leftist' a description of the communists who do not tolerate the existence of openly nationalist, capitalist states? If so, then I am indeed ultra-left in my politics.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Not to mention that it doesn't help the working class in Wales, England or Northern Ireland. We're stronger united, not disunited. That unity currently exists - to an extent; if Scotland were independent (in NATO, in the EU, with the Queen) it would not exist, but the bourgeoisie in Scotland would certainly be strengthened.
How silly of me. It's British nationalism providing working class unity. :rolleyes:

[Blake's Baby]

What has 'British nationalism' got to do with it?

We're stronger together because we're together - it's easier for English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish workers to organise and struggle together because we live in a (relatively) unitary state. If we didn't, it wouldn't be.

Is it easier for you to organise with workers in Florida (a different part of the country you live in) or workers in Canada (a different country)? You realise of course if you say 'Florida' you're supporting American nationalism?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Supporting a Scottish state is supporting a nationalist-back capitalist gain to power.
So if Scotland is independent the bourgeoisie will gain more power than they have now? That's even sillier than you arguing that I think the bourgeoisie in Scotland will magically wither away after independence.


Why would scotland's proletariat be any more 'free'?
Only a socialist revolution can liberate the working class. That said, not all nationalism is reactionary. British nationalism, however, is reactionary, and the hardcore self-identified unionists tend to be notably right-wing. Smashing that power bloc potentially opens up more space for working class unity, not less.


By the way, is the term 'Ultra-leftist' a description of the communists who do not tolerate the existence of openly nationalist, capitalist states? If so, then I am indeed ultra-left in my politics.
I'm not going to get into that further. I really shouldn't throw a divisive term like that around. I apologize for doing so.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is it easier for you to organise with workers in Florida (a different part of the country you live in) or workers in Canada (a different country)? You realise of course if you say 'Florida' you're supporting American nationalism?
Are we talking about reformist organizing in existing unions or workers' organisations, which tend to be organized nationally? An odd argument for a left com.

I would think revolutionary organizing would mean organizing with workers closest to you geographically, regardless of lines on a map.

For me, Canada is 120 or so miles away, compared to thousands for Florida. If there's a national border between Scotland and England, it's the same geographic area for them, versus them and workers in Turkey, for example.

[Blake's Baby]

'WA' obviously doesn't mean West Virginia then. Not Wisonsin either... Washington State? If so, feel free to replace 'Florida' with 'Oregon'. The point is that it's easier to organise with workers in a neighbouring region in the same country (even if, like Washington/Oregon or England/Scotland, there are differences in legal codes, etc) than workers in a different country.

Organising means organising. I now live in a part of the UK that put me closer to France and Belgium than Scotland or Northern Ireland. But it's still easier to go to Edinburgh or meet comrades from Scotland that come down here than it is to go to France or Belgium, partly because I don't need a passport (ie, permission from the state) to travel to Scotland.

I've no idea how the 'citizenship tests' would work out if Scotland were independent, I might be able to claim dual citizenship anyway, but not all workers living in England could. I really don't understand why you can't see that slapping a national border down between England and Scotland wouldn't be a problem.

[LeonJWilliams]

On the democracy situation.

Are you saying it's better to be part of British nationalism and never have the representative you want (due to the small population of Scotland and the large population of England) than be part of Scottish nationalism and have democracy?

[Blake's Baby]

Are you saying bourgeois democray is good?

Scotland is over-represented at Westminster (proportionally, there should be 44 MPs for Scotland, in fact there are 59); Scots are over-represented among MPs (there are a lot of Scottish MPs sitting in English constituencies, but not many English holding Scottish constituencies); David Cameron (half-Scottish), Gordon Brown (Scottish), Tony Blair (Scottish), Alec Douglas Home (Scottish), Harold Macmillan (half-Scottish), Ramsey MacDonald (Scottish) Stan Baldwin (half-Scottish) and Andrew Bonar Law (born in Canada of a family from Scotland, brought up in Scotland) were all Prime Ministers in the last 100 years.

There's a good argument to say that Scots have in fact dominated politics in the rest of the UK for a century or more. Not that I care, because I don't think that being Scottish is any guarantee that you have any greater understanding of anything than not being Scottish, and because ppoliticians at the end of the day are politicians. But there really isn't a 'democratic deficit'. This isn't to say that sometimes the Westminster government hasn't targetted Scotland, for instance by imposing the Poll Tax a year earlier than England and Wales. But, really, the 'fairness' or otherwise of capitalism isn't our concern.

[Red Banana]

Bourgeois democracy is better than no democracy.

But if Scotland left, and from what I understand they elect more progressive MP's to parliament, wouldn't that just kind of screw the workers on the rest of the isles with a more tory-concentrated parliament? Even if Scottish workers would benefit from it (which I'm not exactly sold on) you have to think about how it would effect the proletariat in other places.

[Blake's Baby]

'No democracy' is not the situation Scotland is in though.

[Red Banana]

I was just answering your question. You didn't mention Scotland at first so I thought it was just kind of a general question.

If there was a 'democratic deficit' though, which you have just pointed out there isn't, that couldn't be solved while maintaining unity, I could understand a desire for independence more.

[Blake's Baby]

But the point isn't the fairness of capitalist democracy, the point is the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state. More likely with a united working class in the UK, or more likely with a 9/10 UK and and independent Scotland? I'd argue the former.

[Red Banana]

Don't get me wrong, I prefer unity. But revolution doesn't seem to be in the near future, so if independence would help the working class in the immediate, which again is probably not the case when it comes to Scotland, it would be worth doing. Also, if our revolution is going to be international, it wouldn't really matter whether or not Scotland is independent, so I don't see that as much of an impediment , though I could be persuaded otherwise.

[Blake's Baby]

I get that you're posing hyotheticals, but really, it isn't clear to some of us what the advantage of independence is for the working class either in Scotland or the rest of the UK (or beyond).

However, it is clear that seperating the UK working class into two new states (9/10UK and Scotland) would make it more difficult to organise for the revolution.

Yes, revolution needs must be international, because the world is divided into different nations. That doesn't mean that multiplying the nations isn't a problem.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I get that you're posing hyotheticals, but really, it isn't clear to some of us what the advantage of independence is for the working class either in Scotland or the rest of the UK (or beyond).

However, it is clear that seperating the UK working class into two new states (9/10UK and Scotland) would make it more difficult to organise for the revolution.

It's not clear to me. How exactly would it be more difficult?

[Devrim]

But the point isn't the fairness of capitalist democracy, the point is the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state. More likely with a united working class in the UK, or more likely with a 9/10 UK and and independent Scotland? I'd argue the former.

Actually I think that some of the reasoning argued in this thread is problematic. As communists, we oppose all nationalism, which includes Scottish nationalism. We don't oppose it with English or British nationalism though. By implication arguing for the continuation of the Union (even if it is because you think it makes a united working class more likely) is arguing on the side of English/British nationalism.

I think that you haven't thought this through very well. I am virtually certain that you wouldn't argue for a vote either way in this election, but you seem to be arguing, if only by implication, that retaining the union would be beneficial to the working class. I don't think that this is true either. There isn't a solution for the working class within bourgeois or nationalist politics.

What then do I believe we should say on this issue? Primarily I think we should be stressing that no nationalism offers anything. Like in the choice in a general election in the UK neither party offers anything to the working class as they both have to manage capitalism, here in this case neither nation offers anything to the working class as they will both have to manage capital. There is no side here for us.

To be honest I don't see that the dissolution of the act of union will bring about a massive rise in nationalism on either side of the border, certainly not to the extent of workers being mobilized into fighting each other on behalf of either national state. To draw an European analogy, I would see this as being more on the lines of the break up of Czechoslovakia rather than that of Yugoslavia.

During times of massive revolutionary upsurge, 1848, 1917-21, revolution has flowed across boarders with little heed for national boundaries. Even in the recent (much smaller) events in the Arab world, national frontiers did little to stop the tidal wave engulfing the entire region. In which case why would the seperation of England and Scotland be of much importance?

Devrim

[Red Banana]

In this case it probably wouldn't help the working class, but rather, as I said earlier, hurt the working class in the rest of the UK.

I get your point though, making more states would probably just make more obstacles for the time when the revolution does come.

[Will Scarlet]

Bourgeois democracy is better than no democracy.

But if Scotland left, and from what I understand they elect more progressive MP's to parliament, wouldn't that just kind of screw the workers on the rest of the isles with a more tory-concentrated parliament? Even if Scottish workers would benefit from it (which I'm not exactly sold on) you have to think about how it would effect the proletariat in other places.
You don't need to look very hard to find tories rubbing their hands together and talking about a 'permanent majority' if Scotland leaves the union, but it's a bit of a myth. It takes away a chunk of certain Labour seats but historically it would only have made a substantial difference in the outcome in three elections since the second world war (you can see the numbers here http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/ ). The most recent election included, there would have been a tory majority without Scotland - so you can see what kind of difference this really makes. You can easily flip the argument too, it's one of the most used arguments for independence on the left that Scotland never votes for these right wing governments but gets them from England. This is true.

The other left arguments I have seen for independence are that it is an anti cuts/austerity and anti nuke/imperialist.

I think these are all pretty idealist arguments. Social democracy, the welfare state, these things are finished no matter how much people try to vote for them. Trident is way too big for the SNP to really just turf it out, I don't believe they would do it. They didn't support the war on Iraq but they supported Afghanistan, Libya, they want to stay in Nato and so on. I seem to recall reading that they even want to keep a joint military with the UK.

I don't believe left supporters of independence are going to get what they want from it. But I also don't think it's really a problem for the radical left how thick the imaginary line between Scotland and England is.

[Paul Cockshott]

They have also recently decided that they want to keep sterling which means they will have as much chance of an independent economic policy as Spain or Italy have now.

[Blake's Baby]

Actually I think that some of the reasoning argued in this thread is problematic. As communists, we oppose all nationalism, which includes Scottish nationalism. We don't oppose it with English or British nationalism though. By implication arguing for the continuation of the Union (even if it is because you think it makes a united working class more likely) is arguing on the side of English/British nationalism...

I don't think it would be a question of English and Scottish workers shooting at each other. I'm arguing that removing Scotland from the union would make it harder for Scottish workers to organise with workers in England Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, the CBG and IP comrades north of the border don't need passports to come south and discuss with us, nor do my comrades in England need passports to go to Edinburgh. A few weeks ago, the CWO people from North-East England went up to Glasgow to leaflet the TUC demo. That would be more difficult if there were two seperate states.





...
During times of massive revolutionary upsurge, 1848, 1917-21, revolution has flowed across boarders with little heed for national boundaries. Even in the recent (much smaller) events in the Arab world, national frontiers did little to stop the tidal wave engulfing the entire region. In which case why would the seperation of England and Scotland be of much importance?



I'm not just talking about a period of revolutionary upheaval. I'm talking about now, or potentially in 18 months anyway. It's easier to meet people in the country you live in than it is to travel to a different country. How easy has it been for communists to organise in a divided Ireland? Not very, I'd argue. How about in the republics of former-Czechoslovakia? Are realtionships between communists in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as easy as they would have been had the Czechoslovakian Federation not been abolished?

[Android]

I don't think it would be a question of English and Scottish workers shooting at each other. I'm arguing that removing Scotland from the union would make it harder for Scottish workers to organise with workers in England Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, the CBG and IP comrades north of the border don't need passports to come south and discuss with us, nor do my comrades in England need passports to go to Edinburgh. A few weeks ago, the CWO people from North-East England went up to Glasgow to leaflet the TUC demo. That would be more difficult if there were two seperate states.

I don't think this is true though. Since the aim of SNP appears to be an independent Scotland within the EU. I would imagine travelling between Scotland and England would not be affected that much, if at all. I don't think you would be asked for your passport due to the free movement of people, etc.


How easy has it been for communists to organise in a divided Ireland?

I lived up until a few years ago in the North West of Ireland, just south of the border. Travelling across the border is fairly easy, there really is not any obstacle to doing it, now. Of course in the past there were check-points as a result of the Troubles. That is to be expected when there was an ongoing conflict.

Which is not really on the cards, at all here I think it is fairly safe to say.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Only a socialist revolution can liberate the working class. That said, not all nationalism is reactionary. British nationalism, however, is reactionary, and the hardcore self-identified unionists tend to be notably right-wing. Smashing that power bloc potentially opens up more space for working class unity, not less.

Granted, it would be a crushing blow to the pro unionists, but do you really think it would make that much of a difference? How could dividing the country lead to more unity? Wouldn't it just cause more tension between the unionists and the secessionists?

It seems to me that secession would create a deep divide in Scottish society, which would then distract people from things that actually matter.


On the democracy situation.

Are you saying it's better to be part of British nationalism and never have the representative you want (due to the small population of Scotland and the large population of England) than be part of Scottish nationalism and have democracy?

Why should we, as communists, care who sits in parliament?

[Devrim]

I don't think it would be a question of English and Scottish workers shooting at each other. I'm arguing that removing Scotland from the union would make it harder for Scottish workers to organise with workers in England Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, the CBG and IP comrades north of the border don't need passports to come south and discuss with us, nor do my comrades in England need passports to go to Edinburgh. A few weeks ago, the CWO people from North-East England went up to Glasgow to leaflet the TUC demo. That would be more difficult if there were two seperate states.

The last time I went to visit comrades in a foreign country, I crossed three international borders without having to show my passport. I imagine that Scotland and the remnants of the UK would come up with some sort of agreement, which would allow cross boarder travel without a passport. Besides the vast majority of people who live in the UK have a passport anyway.


I'm not just talking about a period of revolutionary upheaval. I'm talking about now, or potentially in 18 months anyway. It's easier to meet people in the country you live in than it is to travel to a different country.

I suppose it depends where you live in that country. I think you have a bit of an 'island mentality' here. It is difficult to travel to other countries from Britain precisely because there are none next to it. If you live near to the border it my be easier to travel to the capital of a neighbouring country than the capital of your own. Of course language can be a problem, but wouldn't be in this case as England and Scotland have the same language.


How easy has it been for communists to organise in a divided Ireland? Not very, I'd argue.If we are talking about left communists, I would suggest that there aren't enough in Ireland to organise. Of course there are difficulties, but mant left groups have all Ireland sections.


How about in the republics of former-Czechoslovakia? Are realtionships between communists in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as easy as they would have been had the Czechoslovakian Federation not been abolished?KpK has people in both countries. The anarchists still have a Czechoslovak Anarchist Federation. I suppose phone calls are more expensive, but modern electronic media like Skype gets around that.

I don't think that the objections that you raise here are very relevant ones. You could possibly make a better argument in that it would divide workers in some nationalised industries like the PO. Evem with this though there have been effective local pay agreements for decades, and I don't think it would in any way balance with what I regard as a terrible error in taking a side in bourgeois politics by supporting the continuation of the union.

Devrim

[Red Banana]

Why should we, as communists, care who sits in parliament?

When living in a non revolutionary situation, the role of communists (other than agitating, educating, organizing, etc.) is to do what we can to improve the conditions of the working class.

I know if I lived in the UK I would be sitting a little more comfortably in my seat knowing there was a Labor rather than Tory dominated parliament. That doesn't mean we should support them, but simply caring about who has the bludgeon over your head at any given moment is a legitimate concern.

[l'Enfermé]

I would love to see an independent Scotland if only because they might adopt the Braveheart soundtrack as their national anthem and crown Mel Gibson as their King.

[Leftsolidarity]

If the Scottish working class feels that it should be independent then they should have it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Actually I think that some of the reasoning argued in this thread is problematic. As communists, we oppose all nationalism, which includes Scottish nationalism. We don't oppose it with English or British nationalism though. By implication arguing for the continuation of the Union (even if it is because you think it makes a united working class more likely) is arguing on the side of English/British nationalism.

I think that you haven't thought this through very well. I am virtually certain that you wouldn't argue for a vote either way in this election, but you seem to be arguing, if only by implication, that retaining the union would be beneficial to the working class. I don't think that this is true either. There isn't a solution for the working class within bourgeois or nationalist politics.

What then do I believe we should say on this issue? Primarily I think we should be stressing that no nationalism offers anything. Like in the choice in a general election in the UK neither party offers anything to the working class as they both have to manage capitalism, here in this case neither nation offers anything to the working class as they will both have to manage capital. There is no side here for us.

To be honest I don't see that the dissolution of the act of union will bring about a massive rise in nationalism on either side of the border, certainly not to the extent of workers being mobilized into fighting each other on behalf of either national state. To draw an European analogy, I would see this as being more on the lines of the break up of Czechoslovakia rather than that of Yugoslavia.

During times of massive revolutionary upsurge, 1848, 1917-21, revolution has flowed across boarders with little heed for national boundaries. Even in the recent (much smaller) events in the Arab world, national frontiers did little to stop the tidal wave engulfing the entire region. In which case why would the seperation of England and Scotland be of much importance?

Devrim

Would a Welsh/Norn' Irish person opposing Scottish independence be an English/British nationalist, though? I think there is a certain (potential, future) benefit to unity, in relative terms (i.e. compared to the breaking up of the British isles), if only because Scottish independence could set a precedence to Welsh, Northern Irish and even Cornish independence.

[Devrim]

Would a Welsh/Norn' Irish person opposing Scottish independence be an English/British nationalist, though? I think there is a certain (potential, future) benefit to unity, in relative terms (i.e. compared to the breaking up of the British isles), if only because Scottish independence could set a precedence to Welsh, Northern Irish and even Cornish independence.

I just want to make it very clear that I am not saying that BB is an English/British nationalist. I just think he is mistaken on this issue. Why do you think that there is a 'certain (potential, future benefit to unity'? So what if the UK falls apart?

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I just want to make it very clear that I am not saying that BB is an English/British nationalist. I just think he is mistaken on this issue. Why do you think that there is a 'certain (potential, future benefit to unity'? So what if the UK falls apart?

Devrim

No, I don't think anybody mistakes Blake's Baby for a nationalist.

If the UK falls apart, then not only will the issue of the day be independence vs unity, but inevitably the working class will be divided along the lines of pro-independence and pro-unity. It is a class-splitting issue, and whilst in a period of defensive struggle at the moment that may not seem all that defining in terms of the class struggle overall, it could - in some hopefully non-hypothetical future revolutionary period - hamper efforts for working class unity across the British isles.

So, whilst obviously i'm not in praxis arguing on a pro-unity basis for unity's sake, i'm rather arguing that it's a better option for the future than independence.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm opposed to nationalism, national self-determination, and so forth, but it would be kind of a guilty pleasure to see the reaction of the right-wing union jack waving scum up there in Scotland.
This and also while we shouldn't support Scottish nationalism we shouldn't stand against it. It is not our fight. And it doesn't divide the working class to divy up into more countries, really. The proletariat will always be an international class regardless. National independence does not create chauvinism. In fact it might even clear some stuff up as it will create more equitable relations among workers. In the same way that empowering blacks and latinos in the US by organizing those communities might. Well anyway, there is no use in standing against it for belief that it harms internationalism. Internationalism can be harmed by international organizations, and we certainly shouldn't protect the unity of a capitalist state on behalf of internationalism.

TL;DR
Supporting self-determination is nationalist, but so is protecting national unity on behalf of internationalism.

[LeonJWilliams]

No, I don't think anybody mistakes Blake's Baby for a nationalist.

If the UK falls apart, then not only will the issue of the day be independence vs unity, but inevitably the working class will be divided along the lines of pro-independence and pro-unity. It is a class-splitting issue, and whilst in a period of defensive struggle at the moment that may not seem all that defining in terms of the class struggle overall, it could - in some hopefully non-hypothetical future revolutionary period - hamper efforts for working class unity across the British isles.

So, whilst obviously i'm not in praxis arguing on a pro-unity basis for unity's sake, i'm rather arguing that it's a better option for the future than independence.

I don't really see the problem, are you saying or implying that the working class must agree on everything in order to be able to work together or they can't revolt together/at the same time?
Is it a geographical issue? The working class is divided along sporting lines, the City and United fans won't struggle together.

I'm not taking the pi** and I do genuinely want to understand the general vibe among the various left tendencies, maybe you could expand on your argument.

Apologies if I seem rude, it's not intentional.

[LeonJWilliams]

If Scotland votes yes to independence will that mean no more BNP and UKIP?

Could be a reason to vote yes!

Could a vote for nationalism actually be very damaging to nationalism?

[Leftsolidarity]

I just find the agruments against independence kind of ridiculous. So we shouldn't fight against neo-colonialism and oppression of a certain nationality because that "divides" the working class? If a certain nationality feels that it is being oppressed under a state, it should be allowed to break away from said state. "Unity" is not being forced together on the terms of another nation's bourgeoisie and if you want real unity you should be supporting other people's struggles against their oppressions. Not condemn them and blame them for dividing the working class.

[Tifosi]

I just find the agruments against independence kind of ridiculous. So we shouldn't fight against neo-colonialism and oppression of a certain nationality because that "divides" the working class? If a certain nationality feels that it is being oppressed under a state, it should be allowed to break away from said state. "Unity" is not being forced together on the terms of another nation's bourgeoisie and if you want real unity you should be supporting other people's struggles against their oppressions. Not condemn them and blame them for dividing the working class.

Scotland is under the boot of English colonialism, em, yea :blushing:

To talk as if us Scots are an oppressed minority in the UK is just ridiculous.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

'WA' obviously doesn't mean West Virginia then. Not Wisonsin either... Washington State? If so, feel free to replace 'Florida' with 'Oregon'.
Yes, Washington State.


The point is that it's easier to organise with workers in a neighbouring region in the same country (even if, like Washington/Oregon or England/Scotland, there are differences in legal codes, etc) than workers in a different country.
It's just my considered belief that British unionist nationalism is far more divisive and even outright reactionary, and kicking it over may open up space for more working class unity, not less.


I really don't understand why you can't see that slapping a national border down between England and Scotland wouldn't be a problem.
The bourgeoisie are international, so a successful proletarian revolution will be organized across national lines. I don't see this potential border as impeding revolutionary struggle.

[Yazman]

I understand the reasoning behind the opposition to independence movements like this - "why should we help them, it's only helping nationalists" - that's a fair point. But it also seems to be a little defensive of national constructions like the UK merely for the sake of legal unity - i.e. while from a legal standpoint it is far easier to build unions, parties, and organisations within the UK as opposed to between two states like the potential UK and Scotland, it seems to be ultimately defensive of one state over another. I don't feel that we should really be taking the position of "well I think this national construct is better because then EVERYBODY's part of it" - I really don't think opposition to nationalist movements should be along the lines of "one big unitarian state" politics.

Also while nationalists often take advantage of independence movements - I don't think it's fair to characterise all pushes for independence as nationalist in nature. Self determination can be an entirely reasonable demand and a fair basis for fighting for independence, imo. I don't think all independence movements are motivated purely by nationalism. There are historical and cultural factors too. Although Europeans certainly love their tiny little nationalisms so when it comes to Europe it usually is nationalism. But when, say, indigenous Americans campaign for more autonomy, that isn't necessarily motivated by nationalism.

As far as Scottish independence goes, I'm not really sure about it. I don't really support or oppose it. Most of the Scottish people I have spoken to IRL about it supported it, with the exception of 1-2, but these were all immigrants so perhaps their worldview is different to Scottish people in Scotland.

[LeonJWilliams]

Although Europeans certainly love their tiny little nationalisms so when it comes to Europe it usually is nationalism.

Could you explain what you mean by this please?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't really see the problem, are you saying or implying that the working class must agree on everything in order to be able to work together or they can't revolt together/at the same time?
Is it a geographical issue? The working class is divided along sporting lines, the City and United fans won't struggle together.

I'm not taking the pi** and I do genuinely want to understand the general vibe among the various left tendencies, maybe you could expand on your argument.

Apologies if I seem rude, it's not intentional.

It's a bit ridiculous to compare nationhood with a game of sport (and yes, i'm a very tribal football fan myself, I do understand sporting rivalry). You're not going to get to a revolutionary period, and then have working class people divide up into United, City, Liverpool, Everton and Spurs fans. Don't be totally silly!

The issue is, however, that they could divide along national lines. Especially if, as a young hypothetical state-for-itself, drums up nationalist feeling for a few years to come.

I mean, I think some of you are under-estimating the medium-term impacts of independence. It's inevitable that a vote for independence, and the act of creating a new state, will drum up a lot of nationalist sentiment amongst the Scottish working class, and only lead to an increase in the little Englander mentality ('how dare the Scottish vote for independence'). It's a massive propaganda opportunity for both English and Scottish nationalists, not to mention that the Welsh, Irish (and Cornish) nationalists might look to follow suit.

[ed miliband]

As far as Scottish independence goes, I'm not really sure about it. I don't really support or oppose it. Most of the Scottish people I have spoken to IRL about it supported it, with the exception of 1-2, but these were all immigrants so perhaps their worldview is different to Scottish people in Scotland.

really? because for all the bluffing from national liberation supporters on here about supporting "what the scottish working class want", there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is widespread support for scottish independence. a recent mori poll suggested only 30% of scots support independence, with the rest against or indifferent.

[Rugged Collectivist]

When living in a non revolutionary situation, the role of communists (other than agitating, educating, organizing, etc.) is to do what we can to improve the conditions of the working class.

I know if I lived in the UK I would be sitting a little more comfortably in my seat knowing there was a Labor rather than Tory dominated parliament. That doesn't mean we should support them, but simply caring about who has the bludgeon over your head at any given moment is a legitimate concern.

I'm going to have to disagree. Our goal as communists is working class emancipation. Anything else can be left to the liberals. It isn't our responsibility to make capitalism friendlier.

I still think there's merit in defending disadvantaged people against abuse and helping the poor, but this has to be approached from a revolutionary perspective. Focusing on reforms and saying things like "communism can wait, we have to raise taxes right now" distracts us from our real goal and leads to things like social democracy and Eurocommunism. We should avoid working within the system, as we would risk getting comfortable there.


I understand the reasoning behind the opposition to independence movements like this - "why should we help them, it's only helping nationalists" - that's a fair point. But it also seems to be a little defensive of national constructions like the UK merely for the sake of legal unity - i.e. while from a legal standpoint it is far easier to build unions, parties, and organisations within the UK as opposed to between two states like the potential UK and Scotland, it seems to be ultimately defensive of one state over another.

What if instead of supporting the UK because you think it would make organizing easier, you genuinely don't give a shit either way?

[Devrim]

If the UK falls apart, then not only will the issue of the day be independence vs unity, but inevitably the working class will be divided along the lines of pro-independence and pro-unity. It is a class-splitting issue, and whilst in a period of defensive struggle at the moment that may not seem all that defining in terms of the class struggle overall, it could - in some hopefully non-hypothetical future revolutionary period - hamper efforts for working class unity across the British isles.

You could equally make an argument, and indeed much of the left does, that it is an issue if you don't have independence, it will rumble on as an issue that divides the class. The point for us, as revolutionaries, is that we are not crystal ball gazers. We don't no which conditions will be most suitable for building class unity in the future. However, we don't line up behind different nationalist factions. Being against the break up of the UK is, by implication, supporting those who support the continuation of the union.

I am a bit confused by the position advocated by BB here. If we are against the break up of the UK, then surely it would be logical to advocate voting against it in a referendum, which I am absolutely sure that he wouldn't do.

Surely a communist argument must be based around saying that independence is not a key issue. In days like these the crucial issue for a working class under massive attack is to defend working class living standards.


It's just my considered belief that British unionist nationalism is far more divisive and even outright reactionary, and kicking it over may open up space for more working class unity, not less.

The impression that I get is that most English people don't really care about whether Scotland becomes independent. According to opinion polls there is a slightly higher number of people in England in favour of Scottish independence than there are in Scotland.

In Northern Ireland Unionism has a hold of a significant section of the working class. However, I don't think this is reflected in the UK today, and certainly not on the Scottish question. The Unionists in Ireland have always seen themselves as British. However, the Britain that they look to is one that hasn't really existed for decades now. I'd imagine there is more anti-Irish feeling in the UK than anti-Scottish feeling, but I don't think that you could mobilize that much support in the UK working class for keeping Northern Ireland in the UK. With Scotland I imagine there would be even less.


Also while nationalists often take advantage of independence movements - I don't think it's fair to characterise all pushes for independence as nationalist in nature. Self determination can be an entirely reasonable demand and a fair basis for fighting for independence, imo. I don't think all independence movements are motivated purely by nationalism. There are historical and cultural factors too. Although Europeans certainly love their tiny little nationalisms so when it comes to Europe it usually is nationalism. But when, say, indigenous Americans campaign for more autonomy, that isn't necessarily motivated by nationalism.

Historical and cultural factors are intrinsically linked to nationalism.

Devrim

[Blake's Baby]

...
I don't think that the objections that you raise here are very relevant ones. You could possibly make a better argument in that it would divide workers in some nationalised industries like the PO. Evem with this though there have been effective local pay agreements for decades, and I don't think it would in any way balance with what I regard as a terrible error in taking a side in bourgeois politics by supporting the continuation of the union.


Hmm. I don't think I am 'supporting the continuation of the union', but I'll consider my position carefully before commenting further.

[Q]

Communists work towards the biggest possible unity of our class. However, this class unity can only possibly exist on a voluntary level. This mean democratic unity and, for that reason, the ending of the union of crowns that makes up the UK today and the start of a federative republic which would likely only be achieved through revolution.

Under capitalism however the independence of Scotland would go with a heightened nationalist awareness that would have its impact on Scottish (and quite possibly English) culture for a long time; it would wreck the economies on both sides of the border (but probably more on the Scottish side); and the new Scottish nation would have to settle itself within the the capitalist state system, making it quite reactionary from the very beginning as it would need to fiercely oppress any pro-working class movements.

I think we rather need to look the other way. Marx and Engels, in their time, were big supporters of German unification, because that would mean that the German working class would come together and potentially could form the strongest proletarian movement on the continent, overcoming the restrictions of the state system. Likewise, I'd rather argue for European unification: Form a federative republic across the continent, overcome the strictures we face today in Greece and elsewhere and create the possibility to let the European working class rise to the task of revolutionary self-emancipation.

So, should we support Scottish independence? I think not. We should rather explain why we stand for the opposite: United we stand stronger!

[Manic Impressive]

It is essentially a non issue for our class. It really doesn't make that much of a difference either way. The SPGB's position on this is for workers to spoil their ballots. However, history shows that the balkanization of nations tends to result in worse conditions for workers so an independent Scotland is in my opinion the worse of the two options.

plus if they become independent we might have to change our name :ohmy:

[Q]

It is essentially a non issue for our class. It really doesn't make that much of a difference either way. The SPGB's position on this is for workers to spoil their ballots. However, history shows that the balkanization of nations tends to result in worse conditions for workers so an independent Scotland is in my opinion the worse of the two options.
So, if it worsens conditions for our class, how is it a non-issue?


plus if they become independent we might have to change our name :ohmy:

Oh noes :p

[Manic Impressive]

So, if it worsens conditions for our class, how is it a non-issue?
Because the only issue of importance for our class is revolution. Anything else is conserving capitalism.


Oh noes :p
inorite

[Q]

Because the only issue of importance for our class is revolution. Anything else is conserving capitalism.
So, how is Balkanisation a non-issue for creating the conditions of revolution? Or is revolution something that just happens in a vacuum?

[Devrim]

So, if it worsens conditions for our class, how is it a non-issue?

I don't buy into this at all. I don't think it will make anything much better for workers, but then I don't think it would make it much worse either. To be honest in the EU today, I imagine it would be pretty much a non-event.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You could equally make an argument, and indeed much of the left does, that it is an issue if you don't have independence, it will rumble on as an issue that divides the class. The point for us, as revolutionaries, is that we are not crystal ball gazers. We don't no which conditions will be most suitable for building class unity in the future. However, we don't line up behind different nationalist factions. Being against the break up of the UK is, by implication, supporting those who support the continuation of the union.

I would argue that this is a fallacy. As a left communist, you are used to - and indeed rather adept at - arguing rather nuanced positions. I would say that is what is being done here. Whilst nobody is lining up behind English, British or any other nationalism here, what i'm certainly doing is arguing that independence for Scotland has a high risk of actually making conditions for the working class, both in the present and the future, worse than the status quo. In the present because there doesn't seem to be any coherent economic plan for independence, I wouldn't trust the SNP to plan my New Year's Eve night out, let alone the economic future of a newly independent state. And in the future for the reasons i've previously mentioned; it sub-categorises workers in the British Isles so that we would have Irish workers, English workers and Scottish workers, not to mention the nascent nationalism that would inevitably result from a newly independent Scotland.

See the position being argued here as an anti-independence one, not a pro-unity one. If i've made myself clear above (which i'm well aware that I may not have done!), then your idea that anti-independence = a pro-unity argument shouldn't necessarily follow, in this case.

[Manic Impressive]

So, how is Balkanisation a non-issue for creating the conditions of revolution? Or is revolution something that just happens in a vacuum?
Because it in no way challenges the global capitalist system. It's merely a changing of the guard. It does nothing to inspire class consciousness. It's like asking whether this or that austerity reform by the conservative government makes revolution more or less likely. It doesn't really effect anything that greatly, however workers in Scotland and the rest of Britain may be slightly worse off of as a result.

I'm not sure if anyone else has said this yet but it doesn't have much chance of passing anyway and the SNP are well aware of this. More likely will be greater autonomy for Scotland while remaining in the union.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Surely a communist argument must be based around saying that independence is not a key issue. In days like these the crucial issue for a working class under massive attack is to defend working class living standards.


Again, i'm not sure how this follows. If the crucial issue for the working class is to defend living standards against the most vitriolic of capitalist attacks, then surely we are best at doing that as a united working class, not one where a significant chunk of these isles' workers are caught up in the establishment of a newly independent state, and all the change that entails.

Yet you start your argument by saying this is not a key issue? I'm not sure I follow? It seems vacuous to suggest that independence won't have some bearing on the ability of the working class to launch a united defence and fightback against the current attack on living standards.

[Devrim]

I would argue that this is a fallacy. As a left communist, you are used to - and indeed rather adept at - arguing rather nuanced positions. I would say that is what is being done here.
...
See the position being argued here as an anti-independence one, not a pro-unity one. If i've made myself clear above (which i'm well aware that I may not have done!), then your idea that anti-independence = a pro-unity argument shouldn't necessarily follow, in this case.

I can see what you are saying. I think that there is a difference here though. When we are saying something like don't support either side in a conflict such as the Libyan one, and somebody is saying that this is tantamount to supporting US imperialism, we are not actually arguing that a victory for the rebels would be better. What we are doing is not taking sides in a conflict between different factions of the bourgeoisie.

I think that I am making a similar argument here. However, the argument that is being made here is not that the working class has no interest in either side of this conflict, but actually that it does have an interest in one side. I am not claiming in anyway that anybody is arguing this from the position of English nationalism, but I think that it is taking a side.


In the present because there doesn't seem to be any coherent economic plan for independence, I wouldn't trust the SNP to plan my New Year's Eve night out, let alone the economic future of a newly independent state.

As has been mentioned already. There is very little chance of a new independent state being set up here. Even what the SNP are arguing (staying in Sterling) isn't arguing that.


And in the future for the reasons i've previously mentioned; it sub-categorises workers in the British Isles so that we would have Irish workers, English workers and Scottish workers, not to mention the nascent nationalism that would inevitably result from a newly independent Scotland.

Would an independent state bring about an increase in nationalism in Scottish workers though. I think this is crystal ball gazing.

You raise important points in your other post. I have a guest at home for the next few days though and have to go out and pick them up now, so I will be a bit busy to reply for a while.

Devrim

[Leftsolidarity]

Because the only issue of importance for our class is revolution. Anything else is conserving capitalism.



I literally lol'd at this.


It is essentially a non issue for our class. It really doesn't make that much of a difference either way.

I bet some Scots would disagree with you and they are the ones that matter in this.

[Manic Impressive]

I literally lol'd at this.
As a capitalist you would.


I bet some Scots would disagree with you and they are the ones that matter in this.
Some Scots are nationalists, even more of them support capitalism. So why would we consult them on what is in the best interests of our class when they have not yet become class conscious?

[Leftsolidarity]

As a capitalist you would.



You see right through me :blushing:


Some Scots are nationalists, even more of them support capitalism. So why would we consult them on what is in the best interests of our class when they have not yet become class conscious?

Because this is dealing with the self-determination of an oppressed nation that feels that it needs to be independent to have freedom. It's not up to you to tell them whether or not they're mature enough to be on their own.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Because this is dealing with the self-determination of an oppressed nation that feels that it needs to be independent to have freedom.

Some Scots may feel that way, but that doesn't make it true.


It's not up to you to tell them whether or not they're mature enough to be on their own.

He's just stating his opinion, like you. I don't know where Ratty is from, but we're both Americans so our opinions on this means fuck all.

[Red Banana]

I'm going to have to disagree. Our goal as communists is working class emancipation. Anything else can be left to the liberals. It isn't our responsibility to make capitalism friendlier.

I still think there's merit in defending disadvantaged people against abuse and helping the poor, but this has to be approached from a revolutionary perspective. Focusing on reforms and saying things like "communism can wait, we have to raise taxes right now" distracts us from our real goal and leads to things like social democracy and Eurocommunism. We should avoid working within the system, as we would risk getting comfortable there.

Yes, our goal is working class emancipation, but that can't be done until an international socialist revolution takes place, which unfortunately is not in the near future. We should be doing everything we can to help bring about that revolution sooner rather than later, and part of doing that is empowering and improving the conditions of the working class in the immediate.

Liberals aren't going to help the working class, in fact, if we understand Liberalism in the same context, they have been, are, and will be doing everything the can to disempower the working class. So that job is left to us.

We can't just sit around and expect a revolution to fall in our lap, we have to actively engage people and organize to make real, material gains for the movement. We have to show people that collectively, they can make significant changes for the better, and that this collective power can be used not only to merely change the system for the better, but to abolish it all together. Someone who doesn't even think they could get, for example, universal healthcare by organizing with their fellow workers sure as hell wouldn't think they could stage an all out proletarian revolution by organizing with their fellow workers. We need to show people what we have to offer and how we can help them first before we can expect them to participate in a revolution with us.

[Engels]

Because this is dealing with the self-determination of an oppressed nation that feels that it needs to be independent to have freedom. It's not up to you to tell them whether or not they're mature enough to be on their own.

National liberation has everything to do with liberalism and bourgeois revolutions. It’s a bit tiring watching people peddle the same Leninist drivel of the “right to self-determination” decades later as though it were some bit of Holy Scripture.

Moreover, using terms like “oppressed” and “oppressor nations” is problematic. It leads to an abstraction of the “Nation” which serves to hide any class based contradictions. You prance around pandering to nationalism in the name of “liberation” and eschewing any semblance of class analysis instead of upholding internationalism.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Yes, our goal is working class emancipation, but that can't be done until an international socialist revolution takes place, which unfortunately is not in the near future. We should be doing everything we can to help bring about that revolution sooner rather than later, and part of doing that is empowering and improving the conditions of the working class in the immediate.

Liberals aren't going to help the working class, in fact, if we understand Liberalism in the same context, they have been, are, and will be doing everything the can to disempower the working class. So that job is left to us.

We can't just sit around and expect a revolution to fall in our lap, we have to actively engage people and organize to make real, material gains for the movement. We have to show people that collectively, they can make significant changes for the better, and that this collective power can be used not only to merely change the system for the better, but to abolish it all together. Someone who doesn't even think they could get, for example, universal healthcare by organizing with their fellow workers sure as hell wouldn't think they could stage an all out proletarian revolution by organizing with their fellow workers. We need to show people what we have to offer and how we can help them first before we can expect them to participate in a revolution with us.

The only way to really help the working class is to abolish capitalism. I just don't think universal healthcare is going to lead to revolution. It's interesting to note that revolution and working class militancy seems to occur in places where workers have less rights.

As I said earlier, participation in bourgeois government rarely accomplishes anything. Once a party gets into government it moderates itself to stay there. They keep saying "Revolution is too far off, we have to focus on fighting austerity". It's a bad strategy that has given us nothing but trouble.

[Red Banana]

The only way to really help the working class is to abolish capitalism. I just don't think universal healthcare is going to lead to revolution. It's interesting to note that revolution and working class militancy seems to occur in places where workers have less rights.

As I said earlier, participation in bourgeois government rarely accomplishes anything. Once a party gets into government it moderates itself to stay there. They keep saying "Revolution is too far off, we have to focus on fighting austerity". It's a bad strategy that has given us nothing but trouble.

Of course universal healthcare (or any other reform) won't bring about revolution. It is the organizing, personal relations, collective empowerment, etc. that happen while fighting for improvements to the conditions of the working class that will build the foundations upon which the revolution will stand.

I think the correlation between workers having fewer rights and workers having a revolutionary class consciousness is a false one. Workers in America have fewer rights than those in Western Europe, yet the labor movement over there seems to be more militant than ours. And at the same time workers in China have fewer rights than those in the US, and labor struggles over there are much more militant.

I think revolutionary class consciousness is more a result of a plethora of material conditions, specific to each case, than any one, universal principle like "more rights= reformism, fewer rights= revolution", things are way too complex for that.

As to the party, I used to think participation in bourgeois parliamentary bodies was worth while, but I find myself erring more and more towards agitating for improvements/ revolution from outside the system for the same reasons you do, though I'm not exactly positioned on that debate.

[Igor]

The only way to really help the working class is to abolish capitalism. I just don't think universal healthcare is going to lead to revolution. It's interesting to note that revolution and working class militancy seems to occur in places where workers have less rights.

Nah, I kinda actually disagree with this. I agree with the notion but it's a bit stupid to say the only way to "really help" the working class is to abolish capitalism; things such as the welfare state do concretely help the working class and I've been in life situations (and actually, am right now) where I know I'd be completely fucked if I didn't have kinda good social security network behind me. It's just important to understand that this isn't our goal, but should be regarded as merely first aid: it does help the working class to survive the daily shittiness of capitalism. Of course, we should aim to get rid of that shittiness altogether but some posters here occasionally tend to forget how fucking important it is to preserve things like universal healthcare under capitalism. This doesn't mean we have to give our support to parties such as Democrats or Labour - which I wouldn't even consider "left wing of capital" at this point, just plain capital - by means no, but they are important issues nevertheless.

Also I really can't say I agree on the latter one either, or would you seriously say the countries like the United States or UK experienced a leftist surge during years of Reagan and Thatcher? The whole idea of "first Hitler, then us" is extremely callous and dangerous thinking, which most of the time backfires and doesn't really have that many historical precedents.


As I said earlier, participation in bourgeois government rarely accomplishes anything. Once a party gets into government it moderates itself to stay there. They keep saying "Revolution is too far off, we have to focus on fighting austerity". It's a bad strategy that has given us nothing but trouble.

i agree with this though, voting a party in a parliament is the best way to ensure it has nothing at all to do with revolutionary politics at that point.

also re: scottish independence, I'm honestly fairly indifferent. I agree with Ratty Monster on the notion that it's not really our political game, and I don't think it's going to make it that much harder for the nations that currently form the United Kingdom to reach a revolutionary situation. But as I'm a very recent immigrant to this country, I don't really feel like the guy to go and say it's not something Scottish people, or even class-conscious Scottish leftists should be pining for. I just see it something useless, but hardly harmful.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What has 'British nationalism' got to do with it?

We're stronger together because we're together - it's easier for English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish workers to organise and struggle together because we live in a (relatively) unitary state. If we didn't, it wouldn't be.

Is it easier for you to organise with workers in Florida (a different part of the country you live in) or workers in Canada (a different country)? You realise of course if you say 'Florida' you're supporting American nationalism?

Yes, but the working class isn't united and no nice words will change that. The protestant working class of Northern Ireland for example, is oppressing the catholic working class and as a result gains a good bit of privilege from it. You can't have your cake and eat it, if you want to free the Irish working class than you have to drag along the protestant working class kicking and screaming.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Nah, I kinda actually disagree with this. I agree with the notion but it's a bit stupid to say the only way to "really help" the working class is to abolish capitalism; things such as the welfare state do concretely help the working class and I've been in life situations (and actually, am right now) where I know I'd be completely fucked if I didn't have kinda good social security network behind me. It's just important to understand that this isn't our goal, but should be regarded as merely first aid: it does help the working class to survive the daily shittiness of capitalism. Of course, we should aim to get rid of that shittiness altogether but some posters here occasionally tend to forget how fucking important it is to preserve things like universal healthcare under capitalism. This doesn't mean we have to give our support to parties such as Democrats or Labour - which I wouldn't even consider "left wing of capital" at this point, just plain capital - by means no, but they are important issues nevertheless.

Yeah, that was probably a shitty choice of words on my part. My family gets food stamps and Medicaid. It just seems pointless to put too much energy into this stuff because it's always going to be under attack until we abolish capitalism. The left has been on the defensive for too long. We won't get anywhere if we dig in to defend the gains we already have. I'm not saying we shouldn't defend this stuff, but we shouldn't just put revolution on the back burner and pour all of our energy into it.


Also I really can't say I agree on the latter one either, or would you seriously say the countries like the United States or UK experienced a leftist surge during years of Reagan and Thatcher? The whole idea of "first Hitler, then us" is extremely callous and dangerous thinking, which most of the time backfires and doesn't really have that many historical precedents.

I don't think there's a direct correlation between (the lack of) worker's rights and militancy. I was using places like China, Russia, and India as examples to counter the claim that achieving reformist goals is absolutely necessary to prepare the workers for socialism.

If either of you want to talk more about this just PM me. We shouldn't derail the thread any longer. I guess you could start a thread about it, but one might already exist for all I know, and I really don't have that much more to say on the subject if you don't.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, but the working class isn't united and no nice words will change that. The protestant working class of Northern Ireland for example, is oppressing the catholic working class and as a result gains a good bit of privilege from it. You can't have your cake and eat it, if you want to free the Irish working class than you have to drag along the protestant working class kicking and screaming.

And isn't a large part of the sectarianism in Northern Ireland not solely the religious aspect, but the issues of Irish independence, home rule and unionism?

Going back to the time of Robert Peel and even before, was the main beef not between Republicans and Unionists? Yes, of course religion plays a large element but seems as though that also goes back to politics - the catholics of course historically have had their allegiance to the Pope and not to Britain, introducing another political element into the situation there, combined with the exploitation through home rule and so on, I would argue that the situation mirrors the problem with Scottish independence, more than this line peddled frequently about it being a solely, or predominantly, a religious conflict.

[Blake's Baby]

The Irish independence movement was historically very much based on Protestants, and the European Enlightenment.

If you go back to the events of 1692, the Pope supported William of Orange, not James Stuart. It's only since the 1920s that this Irish national myth of a Catholic Ireland against a Protestant England has grown up.

[Yazman]

really? because for all the bluffing from national liberation supporters on here about supporting "what the scottish working class want", there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is widespread support for scottish independence. a recent mori poll suggested only 30% of scots support independence, with the rest against or indifferent.

I'm not a national liberation supporter and I haven't got any real opinion on the question of Scottish independence. Neither did I say "most Scottish people support independence." Read what I said. I stated it was "from the Scottish people I've spoken to", which is literally less than ten people, all of whom are immigrants to the country I currently reside in, which isn't even in the same hemisphere as Europe. I wasn't making any statement on the popularity of independence or staying with the union. I wouldn't have a clue what Scottish people think. It was just something I noticed among the few Scottish people here that I've asked about it.


What if instead of supporting the UK because you think it would make organizing easier, you genuinely don't give a shit either way?

That's ok, but then if you don't give a shit why are you even posting in this topic?


Could you explain what you mean by this please?

It was a joke. A lot of people here find it hilarious that nationalism is so strong in so many european countries even though most of them are basically smaller than some of the smallest provinces here. It's quite absurd to people in a country like Australia (at least in the region I have lived), one that is massive (approximately the size of the continental USA), that people would be nationalistic about tiny places like the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, etc. For people in this country it's like imagining if people in Brisbane were "Brisbane nationalists" who want independence. Nationalism is excessively common in Europe, and from what I've noticed living here, people often consider it to be one of the absurd/ridiculous/stupid aspects of European societies. It's just a matter of geographical perspective. When you have lived in a country the size of a continent like Australia, the idea of being nationalistic about a place that isn't even 50,000 square kilometres is ridiculous.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Irish independence movement was historically very much based on Protestants, and the European Enlightenment.

If you go back to the events of 1692, the Pope supported William of Orange, not James Stuart. It's only since the 1920s that this Irish national myth of a Catholic Ireland against a Protestant England has grown up.

One can hardly say the Pope acts out of anything other than political expediency, though. And this was true even more so in period in question. Regardless of whether it was the Pope or Jose Manuel Barroso who acted, the point is that the sectarianism in Northern Ireland, which certainly has a religious element, was caused by political factors, not by some great disagreement over the nature of the bible or whatever. And this shows that the lack of unity of the Northern Irish working class stems back to issues of independence and so on, so when we say that independence for Scotland could divide the working class, we are not just 'crystal ball gazing.'

[Relyks]

Seems kind of silly for Scotland to become independent. Besides, it looks like the UK is becoming more or less a federal state (as I suspect will also happen to Spain). Over time Scotland (and for that matter the other countries) can get more power, while still being part of the same country.

[Android]

The Irish independence movement was historically very much based on Protestants, and the European Enlightenment.

If you go back to the events of 1692, the Pope supported William of Orange, not James Stuart. It's only since the 1920s that this Irish national myth of a Catholic Ireland against a Protestant England has grown up.

In general I agree with your argument here. Although I do think the bit in bold is a bit of an exaggeration to say the least.

I don't think the national antagonism expressed in terms of cultural/religious difference is a post-1920 development at all. Although there is cycles of sectarian tension throughout Irish history. You are right to focus on 1920s as there was a clear drop off, for obvious reasons like targeting of Protestants during during the events of that time, in the participation of people from a Protestant background in Irish nationalist politics as time went on. To the point where presently nationalist politics is nearly completely Catholic* in terms of composition, even if there are token Prods.

And the development of cultural nationalism, i.e. four green fields, Irish(Catholic)-Ireland, romantic conception) is something that can be traced back (Celtic tribes or whatever). But the impetus for it in the modern context is the post-Fenian Celtic Revival. And the outlook and set of ideas of people like D.P. Moran and other cultural nationalists in shaping nationalists politics in this way. Which was necessary logically for the nationalist movement, given what their project was. Why left-leaning people / Marxists reproduce this outlook is a whole different matter.

*purely in a cultural/political sense. Matters of theology are largely irrelevant to nationalist politics, even more so now then ever. Even if you tend to get Catholic nationalist odd balls (e.g., G. McGeough). This also has declined over time, even if there is still small pockets of Catholic nationalist sentiment in some rural areas.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, reading it back, I'm sue I meant to put a 'mostly' or some other qualifier in there. Obviously there are many elements of 'Celtic Twilight' and Romanticism and whatnot; many of the pieces from which a national mythology has been constructed pre-date the 1920s - but I'd argue that the constriction itself is substantially a post-1920 phenomenon of defining a past for Ireland that is self-consciously 'different' to Britain and specifically England.

[IrishWorker]

Supporting the breakup of the United Kingdom should be in the interests of all progressives. Historically the United Kingdom is culpable in the worst types of class crimes. Any move towards weakening the British establishment its monarchy and its neo-imperialist aspirations should be welcomed and purseued never stop until we have our foot on their throat.
I fully support Scottish independence and the Scottish Republican Socialist Party. Less Imperialist influence in an independent Scotland can only have positive implications for the working class there. If Scotland votes for independence it will be a step closer to the liberation of the Scottish working class. As it stands not much will change in an independent Scotland other than the flag. Capitalists will still control the means of production distribution and exchange and the old order will remain relatively intact but the perception of change to the working class will be profound.
An independent Scotland is a move towards the collapse of the pillars of the old society and is conformation that anything even a Scottish Socialist Republic is achievable.

[Android]

Yeah, reading it back, I'm sue I meant to put a 'mostly' or some other qualifier in there. Obviously there are many elements of 'Celtic Twilight' and Romanticism and whatnot; many of the pieces from which a national mythology has been constructed pre-date the 1920s - but I'd argue that the constriction itself is substantially a post-1920 phenomenon of defining a past for Ireland that is self-consciously 'different' to Britain and specifically England.

The construction of a national myth I don't think is an after-the-event development. The development of a (cultural) nationalist self conception is an integral part of national movements, and the Irish one in certainly no exception to this.

This point is evident too in the way in which Scottish independence is often outlined as deriving from a distinct Scottishness.

I may post at more length later on this as I am tired at the moment and away from home.

[Blake's Baby]

Really? I'm not sure how the construction of a national myth can preceed the existence of a 'nation'. That's why I said the 'elements' preceeded it, but the weaving together of those elements into an over-arching national narrative can only be a result of the cultural hegemony of the emerging bourgeoisie, can't it?

[Narcissus]

Scotland WILL fail if it goes independent. Salmond does not have nearly as much gas as he says he does, the EU wont let Scotland join without also joining the Euro, and Scotland will have a significantly lower budget without the monetary support of England.

Having spent the last 5 years of my life as an Englishman in Scotland, I can tell you if Salmond is going to get the 10% more votes that he needs, he will do it by inciting the nationalistic spirit that still remains (see Scottish national anthem, and the lines commonly sung in between). Salmond has forced Cameron into allowing 16 year olds to vote - who are not currently educated AT ALL about politics, and will presumably try to play to the often inherent (but sadly uniformed) anti-establishment spirit of teens, with his customary giant bullfrog-like smirk on his face in acknowledgement of the irony, barely missable in his plan that proves a sad indictment of the capitalist media and western society as a whole.

It seems to me to be a petty fight to have exactly the same policies, but for them to come in a folder marked Hollyrood not Westminster. Not to mention that everyone will be poorer, and the rich will not be able to be taxed more because they will all have traded in their quaint highland estates for ones in England as it is unbefitting to live in the colonies. Of course this leaves the working class to bear the tax burden - presuming it is still the working class and not the can't-find-work-ing class.

Seriously Scotland, Salmond's independence does nothing for you. Say no (or better yet educate yourself and make the right decision).

[IrishWorker]

Scotland WILL fail if it goes independent. Salmond does not have nearly as much gas as he says he does, the EU wont let Scotland join without also joining the Euro, and Scotland will have a significantly lower budget without the monetary support of England.

Having spent the last 5 years of my life as an Englishman in Scotland, I can tell you if Salmond is going to get the 10% more votes that he needs, he will do it by inciting the nationalistic spirit that still remains (see Scottish national anthem, and the lines commonly sung in between). Salmond has forced Cameron into allowing 16 year olds to vote - who are not currently educated AT ALL about politics, and will presumably try to play to the often inherent (but sadly uniformed) anti-establishment spirit of teens, with his customary giant bullfrog-like smirk on his face in acknowledgement of the irony, barely missable in his plan that proves a sad indictment of the capitalist media and western society as a whole.

It seems to me to be a petty fight to have exactly the same policies, but for them to come in a folder marked Hollyrood not Westminster. Not to mention that everyone will be poorer, and the rich will not be able to be taxed more because they will all have traded in their quaint highland estates for ones in England as it is unbefitting to live in the colonies. Of course this leaves the working class to bear the tax burden - presuming it is still the working class and not the can't-find-work-ing class.

Seriously Scotland, Salmond's independence does nothing for you. Say no (or better yet educate yourself and make the right decision).

There is no real mileage in the argument your making against independence mate.Your basically saying the Scottish working class will be slightly more oppressed under an independent Scotland than they already are now. An independent Scotland wont change the lives of the people there to much but anything that weakens the UK establishment is a step in the right direction.

Senior EU diplomat disproves your bitter pro Brit rant.

A leading European diplomat has said that an independent Scotland could "live comfortably" within the EU and such an outcome would be "better for its citizens".

Robert Cooper, has helped draw up European policy on strategy, security and foreign affairs since moving from London to Brussels in 2002.

Writing in the December edition of the political magazine Eurozine, Mr Cooper forecasts that regions such as Flanders and Catalonia will follow Scotland in pressing for independence.

He says the EU been so successful in creating an environment in which small states can live comfortably that other countries and regions gaining independence may become a pattern of the future.

Mr Cooper adds:

"This should not be a surprise since, for most purposes, small states are better than big states: more intimate, more cohesive, closer to the citizen. Only two things make big states desirable: the security of a big army and the prosperity of a big market.

"The EU has provided the second while enabling small states to flourish and to have a voice in making the rules to run it."

Mr Cooper says that "small states are pleasant for their citizens" and that in his experience more "problems come from large states than small ones".

Yes Scotland's chief executive, Blair Jenkins, said: "We are often being asked whether Scotland is big enough to be independent. My answer is a resounding 'Absolutely.'

"When I hear 'No' politicians say Scotland is not big enough, strong enough or clever enough to grow and prosper as an independent country, I wonder what that says about their faith - or lack of it - in the Scottish people. I have no doubts on that front.

"Of roughly 200 independent countries, around half are smaller than Scotland. Indeed, many of the wealthiest countries are smaller in size to Scotland. Scotland, too, would be a wealthy country - the sixth richest in the industrialised world in terms of wealth per head of population, based on figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

"In terms of well-being, half the top 20 countries on the Human Development Index have populations of less than 10 million, including five that are smaller than Scotland."

[Narcissus]

Ok I will condense my argument:

1. Scotland must give up pound for EURO (edit) if it wants to join EU.
2. Scotland and England currently prop each other up financially (shared military, scots get free higher education, shared health service) Scotland will need to build own military.
3. Rich people will literally leave for England, and so the working class will have to pay higher taxes for the same societal benefits.
4. Salmond is under pressure to deliver all the same benefits, despite the obvious initial dip the Scottish economy will suffer, along with significantly fewer funds; this will rack up a huge amount of debt.

I get that it would be great to do away with the image of 'great' Britain, and all that it once stood for, but I think the Scottish working class would be better off in the UK instead of an independent Scotland, and I don't see the Scottish national party taking Scotland left.

[Blake's Baby]

Ok I will condense my argument:

1. Scotland must give up pound for sterling if it wants to join EU...

I'm not sure what you think you're saying here. 'The Pound' is 'Sterling'. Do you think Scotland has to join the Euro?


...
2. Scotland and England currently prop each other up financially (shared military, scots get free higher education, shared health service) Scotland will need to build own military...

Not sure why you think this is true. Scotland currently has more of 'its' citizens in the British armed forces than England doesn (in percentage terms), why (as they're still under the Queen) does there need to be any major change to the military, beyond establishing parallel institutions north and south, and transfering control of Scottish regiments and squadrons to Edinburgh?

Parallel institutions will end up costing more for both 9/10UK and Scotland than unitary institutions though.


...
3. Rich people will literally leave for England, and so the working class will have to pay higher taxes for the same societal benefits...

I agree with the likelihood of this, for sure.


...
4. Salmond is under pressure to deliver all the same benefits, despite the obvious initial dip the Scottish economy will suffer, along with significantly fewer funds; this will rack up a huge amount of debt...

And this.

[Narcissus]

I'm not sure what you think you're saying here. 'The Pound' is 'Sterling'. Do you think Scotland has to join the Euro?

Sorry, I meant pound to euro

Not sure why you think this is true. Scotland currently has more of 'its' citizens in the British armed forces than England doesn (in percentage terms), why (as they're still under the Queen) does there need to be any major change to the military, beyond establishing parallel institutions north and south, and transfering control of Scottish regiments and squadrons to Edinburgh?

Fair enough, but independence + keep monarch of previous country = pointless (as an emotional statement against imperialism) and I do know that this is Salmond's current plan

Parallel institutions will end up costing more for both 9/10UK and Scotland than unitary institutions though.

Yep, and imagine the set up cost!

I agree with the likelihood of this, for sure.


And this.

I mostly feel like the Scottish independence Salmond proposes will not benefit the working class, or be that significant enough a middle finger to Britannia and all those imperial connotations. By the sounds of it you agree with me.

Also, with regard to Irish worker, I am sorry if it seemed like I was pro Brit. The truth is that I moved to Australia to avoid all the jubilee crap, the keep calm merchandise, and the general British nationalism that comes from a very small country trying to justify its waning importance to the world. Also Alex Salmond makes me very cross.

[IrishWorker]

Ok I will condense my argument:

1. Scotland must give up pound for EURO (edit) if it wants to join EU.
2. Scotland and England currently prop each other up financially (shared military, scots get free higher education, shared health service) Scotland will need to build own military.
3. Rich people will literally leave for England, and so the working class will have to pay higher taxes for the same societal benefits.
4. Salmond is under pressure to deliver all the same benefits, despite the obvious initial dip the Scottish economy will suffer, along with significantly fewer funds; this will rack up a huge amount of debt.

I get that it would be great to do away with the image of 'great' Britain, and all that it once stood for, but I think the Scottish working class would be better off in the UK instead of an independent Scotland, and I don't see the Scottish national party taking Scotland left.

1. Is it really relevant what capitalist currency is used in an independent Scotland, what difference does it make? The nationalist forces aligning themselves with Scottish independence have already made it clear that they will retain sterling currency as well with the monarchy. The progressive forces have declared that Scottish independence will give them an opportunity to create a workers state. Scotland is not much different from Ireland the other traditionally Gaelic nations currently being occupied by the British and the same rules apply. As James Connolly so eloquently put it, “If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. Breaking the link with the UK can give the progressive forces in Scotland a real chance to set in motion real revolutionary change and not just change the currency but change the entire nations relationship with capital.

2. Scotland is more than capable of building up its own military if needs be. Essentially it will mean less Scottish youths being killed in imperialist wars for the UKs neo- imperialist aspirations. And it will mean a serious weakening of UK imperialist forces and Trident being relocated to the south. Making Scotland less of a target for the enemies of UK imperialism.

3. Most of the rich already live in London anyway.

4. Debt is a fact of any capitalist state more so debt that is never meant to be paid in full is a fact of every capitalist state. It’s a moot point as long as capitalism is in existence capitalist states will use the bond markets, get into debt and struggle to pay it off. Only by properly articulating this fact of capitalism plus its boom and bust nature can we hope to destroy the system. Will the progressive forces in Scotland be able to do this more effectively under independence, I think so.

Under independence the nation of Scotland has the opportunity to create a situation in which it becomes the supreme arbiter of its own destiny free from imperil bondage and free to make its own mistakes and maybe even lead the way. Yes it may be a nationalist issue and the SNP is probably not the best political movement about but all other progressive forces including the Scottish Republican Socialist Party support independence as a stepping stone towards something not associated with the old degenerating Cleptocracey that is the UK.

[Blake's Baby]

...Scotland is not much different from Ireland the other traditionally Gaelic nations currently being occupied by the British and the same rules apply. As James Connolly so eloquently put it, “If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. Breaking the link with the UK can give the progressive forces in Scotland a real chance to set in motion real revolutionary change and not just change the currency but change the entire nations relationship with capital...

Just like in Ireland, eh?

The fact is that the proposals mean Scotland in the EU, in NATO and with the monarchy. How progressive is that?


...
2. Scotland is more than capable of building up its own military if needs be. Essentially it will mean less Scottish youths being killed in imperialist wars for the UKs neo- imperialist aspirations. And it will mean a serious weakening of UK imperialist forces and Trident being relocated to the south. Making Scotland less of a target for the enemies of UK imperialism...

Except Scotland will still be in NATO, so even if fewer Scottish youths are dying for British imperialism, they'll still be dying for American imperialism, so is that any better?



...

Under independence the nation of Scotland has the opportunity to create a situation in which it becomes the supreme arbiter of its own destiny free from imperil bondage and free to make its own mistakes and maybe even lead the way. Yes it may be a nationalist issue and the SNP is probably not the best political movement about but all other progressive forces including the Scottish Republican Socialist Party support independence as a stepping stone towards something not associated with the old degenerating Cleptocracey that is the UK.

There's only one Scot who's offered an opinion on this thread, and they were opposed.

I think claiming 'all other progressive forces' is somewhere between a mistake and a lie. I'm pretty sure the SPGB don't support independeence, I'm pretty sure the CBG and Internationalist Perspectives don't support independence... unless of course you define 'progressive' as 'pro-independence' in which case what you mean is 'all of the pro-independence forces are pro-independence'. In which case... yeah.

[Narcissus]

@Irish Worker

Good points, and I can now see that we are simply seeing this from different perspectives.

I have been attempting to show that the Scottish working class will be worse off financially under an independent Scottish Capitalist government, than a UK Capitalist government.

I agree that an independent Scotland is far better positioned to move left, than a Scotland under UK. The problem is that the Scotland that I see does NOT WANT to move left. Most Scots are fairly apathetic/mildly scathing of/or supporting on Chauvinistic grounds of Salmond's proposed Independence.

My question is, is an independence where The British monarchy remains really going to be the tear away from the Auld British Empire that we call Scottish Independence? Why not just go for devolution max, and then in 15 years when the people are DEMANDING that we ditch the monarchy, that the reams of old English money that own half of the highlands give the land back, that the doors are opened for immigrants, and the people begin to own the means of production; then we call for ALL ties with England to be severed - and a true independent Scotland will have been achieved.

Right now though, no-one knows that socialism is in their best interests, and may be contented by the illusion of an independence that really gives only Salmond more power.

I wish it were as I described, I really do, but the desire just really isn't there from others, and until it is why puff out our chests with a false sense of pride at a really poor imitation of independence?

[Geiseric]

If I were saying california should go independent, the things to demand would be no military at all, a nationalization of the major industries, along with a series of other demands that drectly benefit the working class, I don't see the advantage of supporting independence like the southern irish got fucked over on, still under the thumb of the Euro an the investments from germany, just like the situation greece is in, it needs to be a complete independence from the EU, NATO, and the UK. If at least a few of those things can't be completed, it would be a waste of time.

[China studen]

Support Scottish Independence！

[Blake's Baby]

What about Tibetan independence? Are we supposed to support that too?

[Leftsolidarity]

What about Tibetan independence? Are we supposed to support that too?

But we know that that case is one of an old feudal/capitalist ruling class trying to regain power. Not the same as Scotland as far as I'm aware of.

[Aurora]

It's a difficult question but i think Danielle is right on the first page, if the Scottish working class wants self-determination it should have it, because today the national question stands as a smoke-screen to advancement of Scottish workers, as soon as Scotland is independent it will be clear that the economic and political problems are caused at home by capital and it's representatives not from westminster.
The myths of Scottish economic prosperity or collapse by independence are just nonsense from both sides, an independent Scotland would be completely integrated into world capitalism just as it is today.

Of course what we desire is the greatest possible unity of peoples but this isn't achieved by forcing people into unwanted union the only basis for unity must be voluntary.
When there is a desire for self determination this should be accepted into our program, when there is no such desire it is not necessary to raise it.

[Blake's Baby]

But we know that that case is one of an old feudal/capitalist ruling class trying to regain power. Not the same as Scotland as far as I'm aware of.

Shall I repeat, "Scotland is keeping the Pound Sterling, staying in the EU, keeping the monarchy, and staying in NATO"? So, in fact, it's the old capitalist (with a bit of feudalist) ruling class hanging on to power. How is it different?

[l'Enfermé]

Actually, who would Tibetan independence, since it would be a considerable blow to the world's second most powerful capitalist state?

[Art Vandelay]

If the Scottish working class wants independence, let it do its best to achieve it; however no leftists should have any illusions and spend no effort making it a reality.

[Blake's Baby]

If the Scottish working class wants independence, let it do its best to achieve it; however no leftists should have any illusions and spend no effort making it a reality.

I really think that's the only reasonable position.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Other than it being more democratic?

Is there any communist reason to oppose it?

National Self-Determination movements within the historical context of decadent Capitalism are reactionary. We do not wish to reform the national lines of bourgeois society, that's a distraction and only perpetuates the present state of things.
Also, don't romanticize bourgeois democracy.

[Blake's Baby]

Hey, Pez, you mean 'we do not wish...' not 'we do now wish...'.

Goddam typos.

[l'Enfermé]

National Self-Determination movements within the historical context of decadent Capitalism are reactionary. We do now wish to reform the national lines of bourgeois society, that's a distraction and only perpetuates the present state of things.
Also, don't romanticize bourgeois democracy.
I don't know what you mean by "decadent capitalism". This whole "decadent capitalism"/"moribund capitalism" thing was somewhat justified during the years following 1914 but after the post-WWII boom it's just ridiculous, capitalism is neither decadent nor decaying, capitalism is currently at it's peak and never before has it been such a progressive force in human society as before, just look at all the accomplishments of feminism, the gay movement, anti-racism and all that, just look at how in countries with an advanced capitalist system most people are afforded historically unparalleled quality of life, just look at all the medical and technological advances of the last decades, etc., etc.

As for "reforming the national lines of bourgeois society", that doesn't mean shit either. Take, for example the most famous national-liberation movement of the 20th century, Vietnam. Vietnam was at least 80 percent rural, an overwhelming majority of those people being peasants. The Vietnamese bourgeois wasn't even half-formed and entirely dependent on foreign countries for its existence. Bourgeois society didn't have shit to do with Vietnam. Peasant countries are not part of "bourgeois society".

[Yuppie Grinder]

You don't understand what decadent capitalism is.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't know what you mean by "decadent capitalism". This whole "decadent capitalism"/"moribund capitalism" thing was somewhat justified during the years following 1914 but after the post-WWII boom it's just ridiculous, capitalism is neither decadent nor decaying, capitalism is currently at it's peak and never before has it been such a progressive force in human society as before, just look at all the accomplishments of feminism, the gay movement, anti-racism and all that, just look at how in countries with an advanced capitalist system most people are afforded historically unparalleled quality of life, just look at all the medical and technological advances of the last decades, etc., etc.

As for "reforming the national lines of bourgeois society", that doesn't mean shit either. Take, for example the most famous national-liberation movement of the 20th century, Vietnam. Vietnam was at least 80 percent rural, an overwhelming majority of those people being peasants. The Vietnamese bourgeois wasn't even half-formed and entirely dependent on foreign countries for its existence. Bourgeois society didn't have shit to do with Vietnam. Peasant countries are not part of "bourgeois society".

Do you think there is still progressive capitalism?

If you do, and there are still tasks capitalism has to accomplish, then the Russian revolution was a mistake (unless it was a bourgeois revolution, as the Council Communists claim) because we're not ready for socialism.

If you think capitalism has no progressive role to play, and socialist revolution is on the agenda (the 'objective conditions' are right) then capitalism is an obsolete (moribund, decadent) social formation.

Are there other options?