British union at risk

[ComradeR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6258089.stm

Hmm a potential "Balkanisation of Britain", i wonder how true this is.
Any thoughts on this?

[Demogorgon]

Good. The long overdue Finishing blow for the empire. I am even tempted to vote for the SNP just to ensure this. Of course I hope we remain ver close to England, but Scotland is a long way to the left of England and a lot of us are sick of having things imposed on us fromt he South that none of us approve of. We never even vaguely supported Thatcher, but still she was foisted on us. We can't let that happen ever again.

[RedGeorge]

I'm getting geared up to fight for the Federal Republic of Britain as we speak :)

[Andy Bowden]

Calling it the "Balkanisation" of Britain is just total bullshit. The idea that if Scotland became independent we'd go round ethnically cleansing the English is so fucking off the wall it's not worth responding to.

Scottish independence would be a progressive step forwards in that it would not only weaken the US's no 1 ally in Europe, the UK, but it would be a democratic reform - much like the creation of a Scottish Parliament in 1999.

Of course the likelihood is the pro-market SNP would be at the head of an Independent Scotland - who are not Socialist by any means. They are currently trying to fire the entire workforce of a council in Falkirk. So while independence is a step forward, it's by no means the end.

Theres still the wider ideological battle over what kind of Scotland you want.

[ComradeR]

The idea that if Scotland became independent we'd go round ethnically cleansing the English is so fucking off the wall it's not worth responding to.
Well technically if it followed the Balkans it would be the English that would go around ethnically cleansing the Scottish.


So while independence is a step forward, it's by no means the end.
Exactly.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 14, 2007 05:58 pm
Of course the likelihood is the pro-market SNP would be at the head of an Independent Scotland - who are not Socialist by any means. They are currently trying to fire the entire workforce of a council in Falkirk. So while independence is a step forward, it's by no means the end.

True, but the SNP have no universal viepoint except independence. Chances are the party would not survive independence as they would have noi cause to unite them anymore and would split up into many different groups.

I don't see them as a huge problem post-independence. I'd be more worried about Scotish Labour rebranding themselves ad pushing to become the biggest party again.

[RedAnarchist]

Whilst I would like to see the UK go in order to weaken the US, it won't change too much for the working classes of England, Scotland and Wales - it would just mean a different flag and a different ruling class.

However, as someone mentioned, Scotland is quite a bit to the left of England, so perhaps it may make it easier to chuck out the politicians of Scotland if they had their own country.

[Global_Justice]

good! every leftist should support the break up of britain, a country founded on the principles of imperialism, colonialism and slavery. it will be a step forward. the snp have already said they will withdraw from iraq and withdraw from nato. and a progressive centre-left government formed by the snp, the greens, the ssp (and solidarity :rolleyes: ) and some form of the liberal democrats, whilst not perfect will be a big step forward.

and hopefully, with the shake up that will be needed to brake up the union, england will finally change the electoral system to proportional representation and the tories will never get in power again :D

also, what do you think will happen to northern ireland if scotland moves to independence?

[Andy Bowden]

I doubt that either the SSP or Solidarity would be in a coalition Government with the SNP - the SSP has consistently voted against being in any government with the SNP at their Conferences and I doubt Solidarity would either.

Whats more likely is that a majority of pro-independence MSP's (if elected) from various backgrounds would push for a referendum for Scottish independence.

[Mordichai]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:09 pm
also, what do you think will happen to northern ireland if scotland moves to independence?
Reunification I'd hope -_-
I suspect theres big differences with us and Scotland though. Here theres a well entrenched Unionist community and the society is far less Left tolerant. A different story down South, which is why I think a united Ireland would be beneficial.

[Fawkes]

Maybe then proles would also start to realize that British rule is not the reason why they are poor, but that capitalism is. BTW, hey Mordichai, it's FPLA from LSF.

[Cheung Mo]

The SNP would not stoop to working with LieBlair though. So the only workable coalition may end up being something wonky like SNP-Green-LibDem or SNP-Green-SSP.

[Andy Bowden]

My money would be on a Libdem-SNP pact, with our without the Greens depending on how the % turns up. I couldn't see the SNP joining with Labour or the Tories.

Then again, it's also possible that Labour would form a minority government with unofficial backing from the Tories to keep the Union.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 16, 2007 02:31 pm
My money would be on a Libdem-SNP pact, with our without the Greens depending on how the % turns up. I couldn't see the SNP joining with Labour or the Tories.

Then again, it's also possible that Labour would form a minority government with unofficial backing from the Tories to keep the Union.
hahahaha...Labour backed by the Tories...That'll guarantee an SNP majority in 2011.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The first line of that BBC article, probably provides us with a better political analysis of the current situation than anything that has been said in this thread.The identity of the United Kingdom is threatened by an "opportunist group of nationalists", Gordon Brown has warned. (From the BBC article linked at the beginning of this thread.)What this analysis misses out, of course, is that the reason nationalist opportunism has been able to gain such a good footing, is because of the lack of a working class political alternative. That is, in a period of class recovery, petty nationalist politics have been able to temporarily step into the void left by working class radicalism.

The only moderately positive thing that can be drawn from all this, is the understanding that it's just a temporary phenomena.

But, until the working class again becomes a major factor in British politics, nationalist waffle is what we'll get. That, however, doesn't mean revolutionaries should step into the bourgeois political swamp and participate in the debate.

We've got a position on "the union" -- we want it to become a working peoples republic.

That's not a position that has been put forward by any of the contending forces in this debate, so there's really no reason to politically back any of them. Those that do back one of the contending bourgeois factions, just end up moving themselves closer to bourgeois political orthodoxy -- as is the case with the SSP, which now considers the goal of an Independent capitalist Scotland, "progressive"! :blink:

A view that Andy Bowden seems to share -- and explains with a typically "leftist" rationalisation.

But, I suppose, as always, opportunism is a lot easier than principled communist politics. And there certainly is an abundance of opportunism within the British left on this subject. For example:


Originally posted by Weekly Worker 434; Thursday May 30 2002
... Dave Reed for the Socialist Party argued that if national consciousness in Wales reached the levels attained in Scotland, then it would be perfectly permissible for socialists to advocate independence for Wales. Ignorantly he used Lenin’s alleged support for the secession of Norway from Sweden in support of his argument.

It seems to be the case for the Socialist Party that whilst Welsh nationalism is relatively weak, independence should not be advocated. However, once opinion polls indicate substantial support for this option, then socialists must adjust their programme. In reality, the Socialist Party is less concerned about Leninist orthodoxy than it is about tailing nationalist movements.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/434/nationalism.html

And the moral of the story is: don't be a Dave Reed!

[The Grey Blur]

No, the SP are saying that if a majority of Wales wanted independence then they should have independence. Self-determination and all that jazz?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Read again: "It seems to be the case for the Socialist Party that whilst Welsh nationalism is relatively weak, independence should not be advocated. However, once opinion polls indicate substantial support for this option, then socialists must adjust their programme."

That's not a position based on a certain political principle.

[Andy Bowden]

That's not a position based on a certain political principle.

I'm not familiar with the arguments made for or against independence by Welsh Socialists. But if a majority of people in Wales supported independence, or at the very least a referendum on the issue - and you did not support that demand - then you would be taking a nationalist position by effectively supporting British nationalism and the desire to keep a union together against the wishes of it's component parts.

That stands against the role of Socialists, which is to be consistent democrats whether or not we agree with the results.*


The only moderately positive thing that can be drawn from all this, is the understanding that it's just a temporary phenomena

While it's true that there have been previous "spikes" in the SNP's vote that have amounted to nothing, it should be remembered that a sizeable proportion of the Labour Party's voters (and those who don't vote) support independence.

Calling the recent surge in support for independence "temporary", a blip etc is misguided. Support for independence has usually only ever been a third to 40% of the population in Scotland. For the first time it's over 50% - with 80% in favour of a referendum to decide on the issue.

That situation doesn't exist because the SSP or whoever have hoodwinked Scottish workers, it's because a national question exists.


We've got a position on "the union" -- we want it to become a working peoples republic.

What position do you take when the majority of working people in Scotland want to end that union?

*Though there are cases where I would still support self-determination for a country even if there was not majority support for it - though obviously it would have to be won for it to be successful - in cases like Puerto Rico where pro-independence parties only get 5%.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)That stands against the role of Socialists, which is to be consistent democrats whether or not we agree with the results.[/b]

I have absolutely no desire to be a "consistent democrat" -- that is, to consistently call upon bourgeois democracy to expand its superficial features. No, I'll happily leave that task to the authentic democrats.

What I wish to do, by contrast, is to argue my politics as best I can and to tell the truth, as I know it. And the truth, in this matter, is that no matter how many referenda we have, they will all ignore the fundamental matters that affect our daily lives.

Your boss will still be your boss, independence or not.

Independence will not change this, nor will it change the general economic situation in any meaningful way. Basically, the same capitalists will still be there. All that will change, is the location in which official politics occurs -- and the number of languages official politics is conducted in.

Additionally, the whole spectacle of "independence" and the creation of a new legislative body, will likely lead to a veiled attack on our democratic rights. And it may well lead to a lowering, or at least a stalling, of the minimum wage -- that's based on a UK average, after all, and Wales is a cheaper place to live.

Plus, it could have certain repercussions for organised labour. That is, most major Unions are based in England -- and therefore an independent Wales would be outside their official remit.

And, in addition to that, it would lead to less class solidarity, by putting an official division between the Islands workers. (A teachers strike in England, for instance, won't be able to call on Welsh support.)

So, given all that, I've no real desire to see a series of referenda.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)Calling the recent surge in support for independence "temporary", a blip etc is misguided.[/b]

It's 10-15% higher than usual and only just has a majority -- that's hardly a reason to become an ardent nationalist. (Besides the obvious reasons for not becoming one, of course.)

And when the working class goes on the march again, confident and combative, we'll see whether my evaluation is "misguided". That is, if strikers are saying "if only the capitalists were Scottish", we'll know you were right.

Personally, I rather doubt the question will even be an issue.


Andy [email protected]
That situation doesn't exist because the SSP or whoever have hoodwinked Scottish workers, it's because a national question exists.

No one is doubting that "a national question exists", I'm talking about why it exists. Politics don't just exist in a vacuum, you know -- political questions have material roots, and this one is no exception.


Andy Bowden
What position do you take when the majority of working people in Scotland want to end that union?

I'd tell them to spend their day off work, meant for voting, doing something they enjoy. Get pissed, take the kids to an amusement park, go out for a nice meal, etc., etc. -- just don't fall into the trap of thinking the referendum is anything important. Because, well, it's not.

Whether the Braveheart fans have their way or not, Scotland still ain't going to be the land of the free any time soon -- and the national teams backs are still going to lack pace and innovation.

[Andy Bowden]

Additionally, the whole spectacle of "independence" and the creation of a new legislative body, will likely lead to a veiled attack on our democratic rights.

What are you basing that on? Even the bourgeois-democratic SNP has made their opposition to ID cards, anti-terror legislation known. In all probability it wouldn't be needed in a Scotland run by the SNP that would be highly unlikely to bomb Iraq, etc.

By all means attack the SNP, but attack them on the basis of reality and not fantasy, the SNP council in Falkirk sacking it's entire workforce for example.


Plus, it could have certain repercussions for organised labour. That is, most major Unions are based in England -- and therefore an independent Wales would be outside their official remit.

And, in addition to that, it would lead to less class solidarity, by putting an official division between the Islands workers. (A teachers strike in England, for instance, won't be able to call on Welsh support.)

Virtually all of the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) opposes independence (and opposed devolution as well). Why would they be opposing that if it would create a situation where they could more easily hamper strikes?

They don't support independence because the British State is tactically better for them against workers organisations, not only in terms of securing resources abroad, but maintaining a Thatcherite (and not social-democratic) consensus at
across the UK.

And if maintaining class solidarity is based upon maintaining the borders of a bourgeois state (which is opposed to by the majority of working people) then your in serious trouble.


And when the working class goes on the march again, confident and combative, we'll see whether my evaluation is "misguided". That is, if strikers are saying "if only the capitalists were Scottish", we'll know you were right.

Personally, I rather doubt the question will even be an issue.

Many of the capitalists who support the Union, are in fact Scottish. The overwhelming majority in fact.

Like I said, it's tactically better for them to be in the Union.

In that sense, a disproportionately higher number of TU officials and Socialists support the break up of the UK on that basis.


No one is doubting that "a national question exists", I'm talking about why it exists. Politics don't just exist in a vacuum, you know -- political questions have material roots, and this one is no exception.

Yes, and this national question has it roots in that the Union has made it easier to enforce a political programme that is naturally objected to by the majority of working people in Scotland.

Thats why they oppose it.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
What this analysis misses out, of course, is that the reason nationalist opportunism has been able to gain such a good footing, is because of the lack of a working class political alternative. That is, in a period of class recovery, petty nationalist politics have been able to temporarily step into the void left by working class radicalism.

Yet Scotland has a larger socialist party than England, at times capturing close to 5% of the vote.

Nah, I don't think the recent surge in nationalist sentiment is as much opportunism as the fact that the Union is no longer a useful political setup in a period of increased globalisation.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 14, 2007 06:58 pm
Scottish independence would be a progressive step forwards in that it would not only weaken the US's no 1 ally in Europe, the UK, but it would be a democratic reform - much like the creation of a Scottish Parliament in 1999.

Of course the likelihood is the pro-market SNP would be at the head of an Independent Scotland - who are not Socialist by any means. They are currently trying to fire the entire workforce of a council in Falkirk. So while independence is a step forward, it's by no means the end.

Theres still the wider ideological battle over what kind of Scotland you want.
This is it exactly. Socialists in Scotland should be pushing ahead to bring left-wing politics to the fore within the nationalist movement.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)By all means attack the SNP, but attack them on the basis of reality and not fantasy...[/b]

Do you know who the only Government Minister to order armed police against striking workers is? It's Tony Benn -- the fella' who is invited to speak at "Marxism" virtually every year.

When you listen to Benn speak, with a great deal of eloquence, about "socialism", "workers power" and so on, you'll find it hard to imagine that he could do what he did -- without any remorse. Yet he did do that, because, at that moment in time, duty called.

And, to be honest, I find it hard to imagine the SNP's policy makers being able to resist their duties as paid representatives of the capitalist class.

Sure, if they get into power, they may withdraw Scottish troops from Iraq -- but they'll still help broker deals, behind the scenes, for the Scottish capitalists looking to make money in Iraq.

And, yeah, an SNP Government may well turn their backs on ID cards -- but they'll not stop the information given on Passport applications going on to national databases, or reduce the surveillance capacities of the State, and so on.

Indeed, they may even publicly denounce "anti-terror legislation" -- but that doesn't mean that, if the Police require them, they'll pass new legislation giving the Police a larger and more repressive legal limit.

They may do all this subtly and quietly, away from the public eye, but they'll still do it. And incredibly irresponsible to take their verbal proclamations at face value and completely ignore their role and duty as the paid representatives of the capitalist class.

But, I suppose, you have to paint the SNP in a different shade of blue in order to justify your whole " a step forward" mantra. If you didn't do this, then you'd be forced to admit that, at best, this is a step sideways.


[i]Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)They don't support independence because the British State is tactically better for them against workers organisations...[/b]

Don't be silly -- "workers organisations" probably don't even factor into their thinking. After all, I doubt they see a single "workers organisation", at this point in time, as a serious threat.

They have a far less complex reason for opposing independence -- if that is what they do do, there's nothing on their website that I can find about this -- there's no point fixing what ain't broken. They are able to pursue their interests nicely within the current set-up and, therefore, there's no reason to change that.

If, however, the situation does change, they'll adapt.

Either way, they'll continue doing what they're doing -- indeed, pretty much everything will remain the same. We'll just see a bit of new rendering; which is barely worth mentioning, all things considered.

You seem to be under the impression that something will fundamentally change, that "independence" will drastically alter society. But, until you state what will change, and it stands up to scrutiny, your whole "[it's] a step forward" mantra is worthless -- an empty slogan.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Many of the capitalists who support the Union, are in fact Scottish. [...] a disproportionately higher number of TU officials and Socialists support the break up of the UK

You're still missing my point. Yes, a majority of Scottish capitalists may well support "the union" -- that's irrelevant. Either way, they're still going to bit sitting pretty.

My point, however, is that the reason "TU officials and Socialists support the break up of the UK" is because there is, at this time, no strong working class alternative to petty-nationalist politics. And when there's no strong working class alternative, all kinds of pointless guff gets discussed within mainstream politics -- and sections of the left always end up stepping in bourgeois political muck.

But their support for these causes, doesn't make these causes anything worthwhile.


Andy [email protected]
Yes, and this national question has it roots in that the Union has made it easier to enforce a political programme that is naturally objected to by the majority of working people in Scotland.

So, working people in Scotland are, generally speaking, more politically advanced than their English and Welsh brothers and sisters? That is, they are more conscious of the bourgeoisies attacks on them?

Well, if that were the case, then they'd be battling the bourgeois in the streets -- and not simply supporting a separate faction of it.

But, maybe you're right, maybe their consistent support for left-capitalist factions represents a higher consciousness. But then again, who was that Government Minister, the one who is the only Government Minister to have ordered armed police against striking workers?


PRC-UTE
Yet Scotland has a larger socialist party than England, at times capturing close to 5% of the vote.

I said "a working class political alternative" -- not a group of ****s who've managed to undermine the fundamental principles of one of the best revolutionary organisations around. Dragging the IWW into their sectarian shit-fights and breaching its fundamental principles, is something the SSP can never be forgiven for.

[Andy Bowden]

Sure, if they get into power, they may withdraw Scottish troops from Iraq -- but they'll still help broker deals, behind the scenes, for the Scottish capitalists looking to make money in Iraq.

And, yeah, an SNP Government may well turn their backs on ID cards -- but they'll not stop the information given on Passport applications going on to national databases, or reduce the surveillance capacities of the State, and so on.

Indeed, they may even publicly denounce "anti-terror legislation" -- but that doesn't mean that, if the Police require them, they'll pass new legislation giving the Police a larger and more repressive legal limit.

They may do all this subtly and quietly, away from the public eye, but they'll still do it. And incredibly irresponsible to take their verbal proclamations at face value and completely ignore their role and duty as the paid representatives of the capitalist class.

Obviously an SNP government would still seek to make money from Iraq and the occupation etc, and we should not take their promises as face value, or accept them just because they say so.

The reality is that most western governments do NOT have the levels of militarisation and secret state levels that Britain does. This isn't because they're nicer, or because Britain is ruled by satanists - it's because most capitalist states other than Britain don't need them and would not implement them because of costs.

Take Trident Nuclear weapons - the SNP has pledged to get rid of that. Do I believe them because I think Alex Salmond is a nice jolly guy who never breaks a promise? No of course not. I believe that because Nuclear weapons are an extremely expensive albatross and not much use unless your part of a superpower able to project power.


Either way, they'll continue doing what they're doing -- indeed, pretty much everything will remain the same. We'll just see a bit of new rendering; which is barely worth mentioning, all things considered.

Everything will stay the same? A few minutes ago the SNP were going to rip away all our legal rights, now nothing?

As it happens the British Establishment have NOT just kept quiet and shrugged their shoulders at possible independence. They've been all over the media, from Gordon Brown attacking the Tories for not being pro-Union enough, to John Reid telling us that if Scotland becomes independent we'll face Al Qaeda attacks :lol:

Scotland has 80% of the EU's oil and gas reserves. It serves as a staging post for the British States Nuclear weapons on the clyde. Jack Straw said that if the UK was broken up, there would be considerably less justification for Britain having a permanent seat on the UN.

Independence is by no means seen as an irrelevance by either the British establishment or their financial backers.


You're still missing my point. Yes, a majority of Scottish capitalists may well support "the union" -- that's irrelevant. Either way, they're still going to bit sitting pretty.

Then why did they all, virtually to the man, oppose devolution in '99? Why aren't they funding the SNP now, given that they look likely to form the government? It would be very good business for them to do so, to have people in their pocket come May...

The fact is the Union is a tactical advantage for them.


So, working people in Scotland are, generally speaking, more politically advanced than their English and Welsh brothers and sisters? That is, they are more conscious of the bourgeoisies attacks on them?

I think people in Scotland who are opposed to the Union oppose it because they equate it with the establishment, big business, the monarchy etc.

They oppose the Union because it's part of the symptoms of capitalism - but I don't think there is mass opposition to capitalism that is couscious in Scotland.

Mass opposition to they symptoms, but not the ideology itself. I don't think that level of cousciousness exists, no.


Dragging the IWW into their sectarian shit-fights and breaching its fundamental principles, is something the SSP can never be forgiven for.

So you support MSP's tearing up a contract unilaterally and leaving parliamentary workers high and dry?

The IWW have made their position clear with the articles on the situation; they don't want to take any position politically between the SSP or Solidarity - but this is a recognised labour dispute which has the backing of the NUJ executive.

You'd do well to give sectarian hatred of the SSP a rest for a while and support workers who are facing redundancy, regardless of what objections you have to their politics.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)The reality is that most western governments do NOT have the levels of militarisation and secret state levels that Britain does.[/b]

You know, that's not the easiest thing in the world to accurately compare. After all, the repressive machinery of each individual state has it's own individual characteristics -- based on the countries history, of course.

In America, for instance, a long history of democratic struggles means that, by comparison, the legal and political rights each citizen has, are more advanced than the legal and political rights citizens of some European countries have. The absolute right to free speech is a good example of this -- a right one is not entitled to in Germany, for instance.

Indeed, in Germany they have the Verfassungsschutz -- an intelligence agency which aims to stop threats to Germany's "free and democratic basic order". This particular organisation, spends all its time monitoring radical groups.

There's not an organisation like that in Britain. MI5, for instance, has a wider mandate -- which means German radical groups may well receive more state attention than their British counterparts.

That's one example of how things are different, and no doubt one could find other examples. What these examples would show, is that different states employ different methods of surveillance -- but that, generally speaking, similar types of state have similar levels of repression.

Basically, whilst the methods may differ, the "secret state levels" of the various bourgeois democracies, are about the same.

One particular right may be more firmly established in one country; but, overall, everything would pretty much balance out. And the reason one right is established in one state and no another, has, as I said, a lot to do with said states history.

The specific situations the bourgeoisie was able to exploit to attack democratic rights, for instance, would go some way to determining what democratic rights have been destroyed. Likewise, the public defence, or lack there of, of certain democratic rights, also goes some way to determining what democratic rights have been destroyed.

An SNP Scotland would be no different. The SNP would attack democratic rights based on all kinds of opportunistic reasoning and whether they were successful, would depend largely on the level of opposition.

If they could get away with it, they'd do it. And your carelessness on this issue, leads me to think that they would be able to get away with a great deal.

It is absolutely vital that you see the SNP for what it is -- another political party of the capitalist class. Different from the others, only in terms of rhetoric. If you see them in this light, however, your whole " a step forward" approach is severely undermined.

Yet, if you continue to delude yourself, the consequences could be a lot more severe than the realisation that you have a poor position on this subject.


[i]Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)Take Trident Nuclear weapons - the SNP has pledged to get rid of that.[/b]

So what?

A nuclear capacity is a lot like a Gucci wallet -- a nice accessory, but hardly important if you put it in the pocket of a pair of Kappa trousers.

Even Michael Portillo realises this, that a countries Imperial power doesn't rest upon its nuclear capacity. A "nuclear free Scotland" would still be protected from nuclear attack by its allies ... and, therefore, getting rid of its nuclear capacity would still mean it could pursue its Imperial ambitions, it'd just lose a significant financial overhead.

Again, this is a minor issue -- at best. And the only reason you're trying to make it a bigger issue, is to justify your flawed position on this subject. To try and make you're backing of a "less evil" capitalist faction over the working class, acceptable in some way.

At best, it's an example of personal delusion. At worst, well ...


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Everything will stay the same? A few minutes ago the SNP were going to rip away all our legal rights, now nothing?

Don't be so hyperbolic, it makes you look less intelligent than you are.

I never said the SNP would "rip away all our legal rights". I commented that they may well use the independence process as an avenue to further undermine our democratic rights. That is, it presents an opportunity for them.

And the British state has every intention of doing the same -- attacking our democratic rights, that is.

The specifics of the attack may vary depending on whether Scotland is an "independent" country, but the attacks will still happen. So, essentially, everything will stay the same.

That is, capitalism will continue operating.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
As it happens the British Establishment have NOT just kept quiet and shrugged their shoulders at possible independence.

It's somewhat strange how your view of "the British Establishment" doesn't extend beyond Westminster politicians. As if those that reside in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont are not part of that same establishment.

Maybe they're not part of that same establishment. Maybe they're "freedom fighters"? :lol:

I doubt it myself. And, in my opinion, your myopic view of what constitutes "the British Establishment", stems from your flawed approach to this question -- that is, the whole "[it's] a step forward" approach.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Then why did they all, virtually to the man, oppose devolution in '99?

I answered this in my last post. As I said, "there's no point fixing what ain't broken."


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
I think people in Scotland who are opposed to the Union oppose it because they equate it with the establishment, big business, the monarchy etc.

Well then, don't you think you should be telling them the truth? If this really is the reason those that are opposed to "the union" oppose "the union".

The truth being, of course, that union or no union, big business and "the establishment" will remain. As nasty and uncaring as ever -- possibly just a little different ethnically.

Or you can just buy into popular misconceptions, your choice.

(And "the monarchy", by the way, is an aristocratic system that has its fair share of blue Scottish blood. It's not just an "English" thing.)


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
So you support MSP's tearing up a contract unilaterally and leaving parliamentary workers high and dry?

No; but, then again, these aren't any "workers" and their dispute certainly isn't with their employers. After all, they've admitted two of they're employers, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie, into the IWW -- breaking the IWW's fundamental rules. ("Only employers are not allowed to join. (http://www.iww.org.uk/about/who/index.html)")

These "parliamentary workers" are not interested in fighting their employers; if they were, their venom would be directed at the SSP MSP's who are every bit -- if not more -- responsible for paying their wages. No, their only interested in siding with one set of employers against another -- and it's a fucking tragedy that they've dragged the IWW into all this.

But their membership of the IWW was never based on serious principled grounds, it was just a bit of revolutionary chic. And they've shown that to be true in the manner in which they've shit all over everything the IWW stands for.

If it were up to me, I'd have them all kicked out.


Andy [email protected]
The IWW have made their position clear with the articles on the situation; they don't want to take any position politically between the SSP or Solidarity...

But they have taken a "position politically" -- they're backing one employing section (the SSP) over another (Solidarity). And the blame for this lies firmly at the door of those who've treated the IWW as a sectarian plaything.


Andy Bowden
You'd do well to give sectarian hatred of the SSP a rest for a while...

My "hatred" of the SSP is not "sectarian" -- it's based on their decision to sell their soul to left-capitalism. And if it makes you feel any better, I hate Tommy Sheridan even more.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

There seems to be no reason for Scotish independance other than nationalism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

and it will further weaken an imperial power

surely thats a good thing?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Britain WAS an imperial power, now it just follows the orders or the U.S.

[More Fire for the People]

The ‘Balkanization’ of Britain is a silly middle class fear of anti-colonialism. The real issue of Scottish and Welsh independence is neither potential ethnic conflict nor nationalist utopia. Scotland, Wales, and Ireland have served as internal colonies of England for centuries. It’s where the English got their stepping-stone towards international colonialism. I would say in this process they have become English — adopting the language, the currency, the capitalists, etc. While the independence of Scotland and Wales would mark a temporary blow to English capital, the vacuum would quickly and unnecessarily be refilled by indigenous capital.

[Andy Bowden]

Don't be so hyperbolic, it makes you look less intelligent than you are.

I never said the SNP would "rip away all our legal rights". I commented that they may well use the independence process as an avenue to further undermine our democratic rights. That is, it presents an opportunity for them.

You said in your original reply,

"Additionally, the whole spectacle of "independence" and the creation of a new legislative body, will likely lead to a veiled attack on our democratic rights. And it may well lead to a lowering, or at least a stalling, of the minimum wage -- that's based on a UK average, after all, and Wales is a cheaper place to live."

So independence would, possibly lead to attacks on civil liberties and the reduction of the minimum wage. It therefore follows logically, that big business would support independence. Except they don't. Almost unanimously.

Thats because tactically, the British State is far more effective at attacking both living standards and civil liberties.


It's somewhat strange how your view of "the British Establishment" doesn't extend beyond Westminster politicians. As if those that reside in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont are not part of that same establishment.

When did I say they weren't part of that establishment? Theres plenty of Scots MP's who are pro-Union, and plenty (all of them) of Scottish capitalists who are pro-Union, and with good reason.


I answered this in my last post. As I said, "there's no point fixing what ain't broken."

Except that it was broken. Pretty severely. The poll tax and the fact that Scotland had been run by a party it overwhelmingly rejected had made devolution something neccessary to implement by New Labour, lest the SNP take control.

When something is generally popular, and makes "no difference" capitalists don't tend to oppose it with as much unanimity as they did with devolution. The simple fact is it didn't make "no difference", implementing Thatcherism in Scotland over social democracy meant a Union, meant a British state. Thats what was at stake.



Well then, don't you think you should be telling them the truth? If this really is the reason those that are opposed to "the union" oppose "the union".

There are thousands of people who were against the War in Iraq for reasons not based in an opposition to capitalism, but it didn't stop socialists from getting involved. As it happens, the SSP has consistently maintained that it will not enter any coalition government with the SNP, and has supported workers in Falkirk striking against the SNP council. Being a Socialist and being pro-Independence is not mutually exclusive.


No; but, then again, these aren't any "workers" and their dispute certainly isn't with their employers. After all, they've admitted two of they're employers, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie, into the IWW -- breaking the IWW's fundamental rules.

The set up of wages in the SSP Parliamentary Group is run on the basis of a collective. Neither Carolyn, nor Rosie nor any other SSP MSP has the power to hire, fire any parliamentary worker. They have no power to dock wages. They have no power to increase wages. Such decisions are taking collectively. As such they are not employers.


These "parliamentary workers" are not interested in fighting their employers; if they were, their venom would be directed at the SSP MSP's who are every bit -- if not more -- responsible for paying their wages.

The remaining SSP MSP's have not unilaterally withdrawn any wages. On what basis would they be attacking them on?


But they have taken a "position politically" -- they're backing one employing section (the SSP) over another (Solidarity).

The 'employing section', as I've outlined is not an 'employing section'. The parliamentary workers have as much say as their 'employers' and the 'employers' have no power to hire and fire. The IWW are not attacking Solidarity as a political organisation, they are attacking - along with the NUJ, in an official labour dispute - people who have unilaterally withdrawn wages and are threatening redundancy.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+January 16, 2007 07:51 pm--> (Amusing Scrotum @ January 16, 2007 07:51 pm)
PRC-UTE
Yet Scotland has a larger socialist party than England, at times capturing close to 5% of the vote.

I said "a working class political alternative" -- not a group of ****s who've managed to undermine the fundamental principles of one of the best revolutionary organisations around. Dragging the IWW into their sectarian shit-fights and breaching its fundamental principles, is something the SSP can never be forgiven for. [/b]
They are technically a working class alternative - whether they meet your lofty armchair standards or not. I didn't say they were ideal, but real life is more messy than theory.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+January 17, 2007 08:47 pm--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ January 17, 2007 08:47 pm)and it will further weaken an imperial power

surely thats a good thing?[/b]

Kinda' depends, doesn't it? That is, it depends on what your overall political priorities are.

If you want to see an end to imperialism carried out under the "Union Jack", then Scottish independence is definitely something you should support. If you want to see an end to world imperialism, however, it doesn't really matter what your position is on the whole independence debate.

If "the union" was abolished, imperialism would just change its banner -- from the "Union Jack" to St George's Cross and the Saint Andrew's Cross.

An independent Scotland would still be an "imperial power"; it would just have to align itself a larger imperialist bloc. That is, it would either remain in its current bloc, with the US and England, or it would join the European fraternity, with Germany and France.

So the overall amount of imperialism in the world, probably wouldn't differ all that much. Just, possibly, the relative strength of the competing factions.

Hardly a reason to break out the Champagne.


Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+--> (Hopscotch Anthill)Scotland, Wales, and Ireland have served as internal colonies of England for centuries.[/b]

Ireland was and Northern Ireland is an "internal colony" of the United Kingdom. Not just England.

Sure, England is the proverbial pack leader, but Scotland and Wales are most definitely partners -- and not "internal colonies" as you suggest. Both Scotland and Wales, as countries, benefited hugely from British imperialism -- with cities like Swansea and Dundee having their "best years" at the height of the British Empire.

Downplaying, or outright ignoring, the role Scotland and Wales played in the British Empire, is a tactic commonly employed by petty-nationalists in both these countries. A tactic that allows them to pursue their interests more effectively -- they, after all, are nice "non-imperialist" capitalists, not like those rotten English bastards.

There's no need to buy into their myths, because the Welsh and Scottish bourgeoisies are every bit as responsible for the Empires crimes as the English bourgeoisie.

But, I suppose, thieves are not known for their loyalty to each other...


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
It therefore follows logically, that big business would support independence. Except they don't. Almost unanimously.

"Almost unanimously"?

So far, the sections of the capitalist class you've said don't support independence, are the major political parties in Britain and the CBI. That's hardly "unanimous", is it?

After all, you'd agree that the SNP is a capitalist party, right? That it represents a faction of the British capitalist class. So there's one section of the capitalist class that supports independence. Well, unless you're going to contend that the SNP is not part of the capitalist class -- which is probably a bit much even for you.

Now, they do represent a different kind of capital to the major parties. Nationalist parties, like the SNP and Plaid, tend to represent smaller capital -- the businesses that tend to compete on a national scale, rather than an international one.

These businesses favour independence because they hope it will bring with it tighter regulation, allowing them to monopolise on the home market. Larger and more powerful companies, of course, know they can monopolise pretty much any market -- so the creation of smaller more clearly defined markets is potentially an obstacle.

Not a big obstacle, mind you, but enough of an obstacle. Like shit on a pavement, for instance.

Now, personally, I see little point in supporting either faction in this fight. As I said in my last post, supporting the "least evil" capitalist faction is not acceptable -- the working class is the only faction we should support.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
When did I say they weren't part of that establishment?

As it happens the British Establishment have NOT just kept quiet and shrugged their shoulders at possible independence. They've been all over the media, from Gordon Brown attacking the Tories for not being pro-Union enough, to John Reid telling us that if Scotland becomes independent we'll face Al Qaeda attacks

No mention of the establishment members in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont there. Poor wording, perhaps?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
The poll tax and the fact that Scotland had been run by a party it overwhelmingly rejected had made devolution something neccessary to implement by New Labour...

Working people all over Britain "overwhelmingly rejected" Thatcher; it twasn't just a "Scottish thing".

Aside from that, when working people are disillusioned with capitalist rule, it makes absolutely no sense to tell them to back a different capitalist faction at the ballot box. A vote for the SNP won't change anything meaningful -- meaningful change has to come in the streets.

If you want social democratic reforms, then you're going to have to do a lot more than just getting an SNP run Scotland. As I said, you'll have to win those reforms in the streets.

That's what you have to do now -- and that's what you'll have to do if Scotland is "independent".

And it makes little tactical sense to promote SNP rule, at this point in time, as "a step forward", and then, at a later point in time, ask working people to fight them as they would any other capitalist party. At best, that just promotes widespread confusion.

After all, if you pit this as a battle between "Thatcherism [and] social democracy", you're making out as if the SNP will happily grant social democratic reforms without any external pressure. Which, quite clearly, isn't the case.

So why make the SNP out to be a friend when it is in fact a foe?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
The set up of wages in the SSP Parliamentary Group is run on the basis of a collective. Neither Carolyn, nor Rosie nor any other SSP MSP has the power to hire, fire any parliamentary worker. They have no power to dock wages. They have no power to increase wages. Such decisions are taking collectively. As such they are not employers.

You what!? :blink:

The original 6 MSP's put aside a portion of their wages to employ a number of "parliamentary workers".

Not only that, but at the beginning of all this, they no doubt decided, as a collective group, what people to hire. And, it looks like they'll soon be collectively issuing redundancy notices to 1 or 2 of these "parliamentary workers" -- firing them, in other words.

Just because they do this "on the basis of a collective", does not mean they're not employers. Because, as a collective group, they have all the powers of employers.

Surely this is not that hard to understand?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
On what basis would they be attacking them on?

Maybe the basis that, as employers, they are contractually obliged to pay these people wages? After all, the "parliamentary workers" are employed by the SSP Parliamentary Group -- so it's that group that is contractually obliged to pay their wages.

It doesn't matter whether two members of that group fucked off, they still had a contract with that group. And it's that group that should pay their wages, and that group who these "parliamentary workers" should be in dispute with.

After all, to borrow what someone said on another board: "if you worked for a company with six investors, and two of them pulled out, would you be in dispute with the company, or the departing investors? I can see an argument saying that you would be in dispute with both groups, but to be in dispute only with the departing investors, and even worse whilst in alliance with the remaining ones seems a little bizarre."

As you said yourself, this is an employment collective. So, logically, it's the collective that should have to honour the contract -- and, as I said, the collective that the "parliamentary workers" should be in dispute with.


Andy [email protected]
The IWW are not attacking Solidarity as a political organisation, they are attacking - along with the NUJ, in an official labour dispute - people who have unilaterally withdrawn wages and are threatening redundancy.

Uh, no. It's the SSP Parliamentary Group that are "threatening redundancy" -- "Although the remaining SSP MSPs who make up the group may be put in the intolerable situation of issuing redundancy notices (http://libcom.org/forums/news/iwwand-nuj-dispute-with-tommy-sheridan-other-msp)". (Dunno where the articles from originally.)

Basically, the redundancy notices won't be signed T. Sheridan.

Now, there are numerous reasons why a company will need to issue redundancy notices, but whatever the reason, those who've been issued with the notices fight against the company. That is, if you worked for an Iceland store that was put out of business by Tesco, you're dispute would still be with Iceland.


PRC-UTE
I didn't say they were ideal, but real life is more messy than theory.

No doubt about that. And maybe it is "armchair standards" to expect "a working class alternative" to not sell out to left-capitalism, to not practice opportunism, populism and petty-nationalism, to not allow those who've threatened to snitch on working class militants into the party, to not drag a revolutionary union into a dispute between employers ... and so on.

Maybe it is "armchair standards". But if those are "armchair standards", then I dread to think what kind of standards you judge political groups by. Maybe just having "Socialist" in your party name is enough for you?

[Andy Bowden]

If "the union" was abolished, imperialism would just change its banner -- from the "Union Jack" to St George's Cross and the Saint Andrew's Cross.

An independent Scotland would still be an "imperial power"; it would just have to align itself a larger imperialist bloc. That is, it would either remain in its current bloc, with the US and England, or it would join the European fraternity, with Germany and France.

Come on though, you wouldn't find Scottish Soldiers in Basra backing up the British Army. Or patrolling the streets of Belfast.

Scots make up something like 25% of the British Armed forces - a disproportionate amount compared to Scotlands size, which factors into the national question again - if that was removed from Her Majesty's Finest tommorow, I'm sure the Shia slums wouldn't be that pissed off.

Thats a reason in itself good enough to support independence, at least to fuck up the Brits capacity for war.


There's no need to buy into their myths, because the Welsh and Scottish bourgeoisies are every bit as responsible for the Empires crimes as the English bourgeoisie.

Absolutely, Scots raised to the top of many of the British Empires institutions. So did the Irish however, that didn't and doesn't stop anyone for supporting Irish independence and reunification.


Working people all over Britain "overwhelmingly rejected" Thatcher; it twasn't just a "Scottish thing".

True. But there was a national element to it as well though. Scotland had overwhelmigly voted for a Labour government, and had previously more people voted for a devolved government than against (though it did not fill a limit set by the Westminster Government at the time, which claimed the turnout was too low).

Basically, the Tories ran Scotland despite coming in third(?) in the polls in Scotland - in what was known as the "democratic deficit".


"Almost unanimously"?

So far, the sections of the capitalist class you've said don't support independence, are the major political parties in Britain and the CBI. That's hardly "unanimous", is it?

Find me a company, corporation or multinational operating in Scotland that supports independence. You may get people like Tom Farmer, who donated 100k to the SNP but by and large it is unanimous.


After all, you'd agree that the SNP is a capitalist party, right? That it represents a faction of the British capitalist class. So there's one section of the capitalist class that supports independence.

Theres no question that the SNP is a capitalist party. In terms of who they represent, business wise, most of their support comes from small businesses.

But to come to the conclusion that to support independence you must either tactictly or openly back the SNP is like saying if you back reunification of Ireland your just backing the section of Irish capital Sinn Fein represent. Theres always, without exception been a section of capital that has backed independence for countries that have become independent, or are trying to.


No mention of the establishment members in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont there. Poor wording, perhaps?

Jack McConnell Scotlands First Minister has been defending our glorious union as well. Dunno if anyone in Stormont or Cardiff Bay have been saying anything. The main burden is on the Westminster and pro-union Scottish Executive naturally enough.


So why make the SNP out to be a friend when it is in fact a foe?

The SNP is a foe, but again, independence and support for the SNP are not as mutually exclusive as people think. Theres just as many people who do support independence and dont vote SNP as there are who do vote SNP and back independence.

I support independence because it's a democratic demand, and I think there is an element of national oppression to this day in Scotland*, which would be progressive and objectively pro-working class to remove.


The original 6 MSP's put aside a portion of their wages to employ a number of "parliamentary workers".

I think the parliament gives you money to employ people.


Not only that, but at the beginning of all this, they no doubt decided, as a collective group, what people to hire.

People who were hired were chosen by the SSP as a party - not cherry picked by newly elected MSP's.


And, it looks like they'll soon be collectively issuing redundancy notices to 1 or 2 of these "parliamentary workers" -- firing them, in other words.

Hopefully enough pressure can be brought on the MSPs - Sheridan and Byrne - who unilaterally withdrew wages to solve this situation, and no redundancys will take place. If they do though, then it could face up to 11 workers as the parliamentary staff are an organised TU group.


Just because they do this "on the basis of a collective", does not mean they're not employers. Because, as a collective group, they have all the powers of employers.

Surely this is not that hard to understand?

If people are made redundant, it will be because people violated the rules of the collective, which we hoped Socialists would never have sunk to, and withdrawn money unilaterally. It is the MSP's who have UNILATERALLY REMOVED THE WAGES who have created this situation, is that hard to understand?

Some anarchists in Glasgow used to own a community centre in Maryhill. I'm sure that if decisions ever needed to be taken regarding changes to the building it would have been done on a collective basis. But ultimately, because we do not live in a workers republic where the collective is enforced by a peoples millitia, someones name is going to be on the deed. Someone - or at least a few people - would have the unilateral power to sell the building.

Thankfully nothing like that ever happened, but if it did it would not have made the set up in the community centre not collectivist; it would have meant there were shites in the collective who were prepared to use bourgeois legality to screw over a collective arrangement that had been made in trust with comrades.

That is what Sheridan and Byrne have done, working with the Scottish Parliaments bueracrats to remove the wages from the workers in the collective they have now shat upon.


It doesn't matter whether two members of that group fucked off, they still had a contract with that group.

Oh but it does matter - the two members of the group that fucked off had a contract with the parliamentary workers, one that they have now broken.

None of the remaining SSP MSP's have reneged on their contracts. They continue to pay the parliamentary staff. If the parliamentary staff are made redundant, it will be because Sheridan and Byrne did not pay their wages, and did not live up to their contract.

There is no justification, and no point in taking any industrial action against people who are supporting the contract. This argument is laughable to the workers in parliament themselves, they know exactly who has withdrawn money, who has torn up a contract, who has shat upon the collective arrangement.


Basically, the redundancy notices won't be signed T. Sheridan.

But it will be pretty clear who is responsible for them.


That is, if you worked for an Iceland store that was put out of business by Tesco, you're dispute would still be with Iceland.

I don't accept the analogy of SSP MSP's with Iceland, but if it was Tesco who unilaterally withdrew funds then striking against Iceland - who have no money to pay you - would just be fucking stupid and pointless. To draw an analogy, when Farepak customers had their savings shafted they knew ultimately that it was HBOS who was pulling the strings, and it was HBOS that could give the money back.


to not allow those who've threatened to snitch on working class militants into the party

To be fair to Tommy Sheridan (something that pains me deeply these days) nobody's name was ever handed over to the police by any anti-poll tax union.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)Thats a reason in itself good enough to support independence, at least to fuck up the Brits capacity for war.[/b]

So at the last general election, you would have encouraged people to vote Liberal Democrat? After all, they were "the party of peace", and they were the only anti-war party with a realistic chance of winning or, at the very least, having a significant impact on foreign policy.

So, you wouldn't have objected to communists calling for working people to "Vote Liberal"?

After all, "at least up the Brits capacity for war" and "I'm sure the Shia slums wouldn't be that pissed off" -- so we'll just ignore the tiny little detail that they're a bosses party and that a Liberal Democrat Government would still protect the capitalist order. That stuffs irrelevant, meaningless, not worth worrying over, or is it?

You see, at some point, political principle has to come into the equation. That is, there has to be a point at which you say stop. Unless, of course, the bug of opportunism has spread from your nose to your toes, and you haven't got a single political principle left.

So far, you've just offered up an endless set of excuses for your support of the SNP -- excuses which try to justify your view that a bosses party represents "a step forward". Is there going to be a point where you say enough is enough, and view them for what they are?

Doesn't look like that's going to happen to me. The bug, it seems, has really got you.


[i]Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)So did the Irish however, that didn't and doesn't stop anyone for supporting Irish independence and reunification.[/b]

No, it doesn't. However, just about every cause will find support -- from fascism to primitivism. But just because it finds itself a support base, doesn't mean its worth supporting.

And supporting groups that want "Irish independence and reunification" on a capitalist basis, is one of those cases were the cause in question is not worth supporting. We shouldn't be supporting capitalism with Irish characteristics -- we should be supporting an independent working peoples republic on the island that is Ireland.

Communists don't support nationalist factions, from Ireland to Iraq, we support working people and their struggle for power.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Basically, the Tories ran Scotland despite coming in third(?) in the polls in Scotland - in what was known as the "democratic deficit".

Well, if the popularity of the governing party at the polls is reason enough to support independence for a region; perhaps we should do a more thorough job of this than just having Scottish independence.

We need an independent North Wales, with a Plaid Government. We need an independent South Wales, with a Labour Government. We need an independent North East England, with a Labour Government. And so on.

Basically, lets just devolve enough regions so that the citizens of said regions can feel that they've got the capitalist party of choice in office.

After all, the South of England really seems to want a Conservative Government. And an independent Scotland would lead to this. So, hey, lets have "Thatcherism" there and "social democracy" in Scotland -- it's not as the workers in the South of England matter as much as those in Scotland.

After all, the Scottish working class is more class conscious because it wants a left-capitalist Government! :lol:

Or maybe we can stop allying ourselves with capitalist parties, and start trying to build an independent working class alternative. A combative organ that means our whole approach no longer consists of fighting for the crumbs that drop off the bosses table.

Just an idea.

(By the way, devolution did work out pretty well for the bureaucrats in the British Labour Party. After all, a devolved area that is solidly Labour, means a seat for life. Self interest can certainly go a long way to shaping political views...)


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Find me a company, corporation or multinational operating in Scotland that supports independence.

Find me a company, corporation or multinational operating in Scotland that publishes a monthly magazine outlining its views on political questions.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
But to come to the conclusion that to support independence you must either tactictly or openly back the SNP is like saying if you back reunification of Ireland your just backing the section of Irish capital Sinn Fein represent.

You don't "have" to be a backer of the SNP or Sinn Fein if you support independence. Independence, after all, has two different flavours -- the strawberry surprise (a working people republic) and the chocolate truffle (a capitalist republic).

But, when you start proclaiming a capitalist republic governed by the SNP as "a step forward", you are backing the SNP over its factional rivals. That is, by politically supporting an independent capitalist Scotland or Ireland, you become a backer of those sections of capital that also support these aims.

You've folded up your communist principles, put them neatly in a drawer and become an all singing, all dancing supporter of certain capitalist factions.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
The SNP is a foe, but again, independence and support for the SNP are not as mutually exclusive as people think.

In the case of Scotland, they pretty much are "mutually exclusive".

That is, if independence, leading to an SNP Government, isn't "a step forward" -- then there's no real reason to support independence. If, however, independence is "a step forward" -- then it logically follows that you'd support a capitalist Scotland with the SNP at its head over a capitalist Britain with the Labour Party atits head.

The option of a working peoples republic isn't there at this point in time. So by supporting one faction over another in this debate, you end up supporting one set of bosses over another. No matter how many times you say you aren't supporting them.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
...and I think there is an element of national oppression to this day in Scotland*, which would be progressive and objectively pro-working class to remove.

What "element of national oppression"?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
I think the parliament gives you money to employ people.

Which makes you an employer...

To use an analogy here: I work in a Restaurant that is part of a chain of Restaurants. The Head Office of the company I work for, gives money to my boss to employ people. He employs me with this money, making him my employer -- along with the company, which he represents.

The only difference between my situation and the situation with the "parliamentary workers", is that my contract is with the company I work for -- which means my boss is just their representative in Swansea. By contrast, the "parliamentary workers" are not employed by the Scottish Parliament, they're employed by the SSP Parliamentary Group.

What all this means, is that in my case, both the larger company and my boss at work are responsible for me getting paid -- but if my boss did a runner with the wages, my dispute would be with the company.

By contrast, been as the "parliamentary workers" are employed by the SSP Parliamentary Group, albeit with money from Parliament, it is the SSP Parliamentary Group that is responsible for paying them. And, if someone did a runner with the wages, it would be the SSP Parliamentary Group that the "parliamentary workers" should be in dispute with.

Certain individuals may well have caused the situation, but it is the organisation that you are contracted with that should pay your wages. In my case, the Restaurant company -- in the case of the "parliamentary workers", the SSP Parliamentary Group.


Andy [email protected]
It is the MSP's who have UNILATERALLY REMOVED THE WAGES who have created this situation, is that hard to understand?

But who "created this situation" is not important.

To go back to what I said above, if my boss did a runner with my wages, who should I try and get my wages off? The company or the individual? It's pretty fucking obvious who would owe me the money -- the people I'm contracted with.

After all, if the company I work for turned round and said they weren't going to pay me because my boss ran off the wages, you wouldn't find that acceptable. No worker with any sense would find that acceptable.

But the "parliamentary workers" do find that acceptable. Why? Because they've renounced their basic class antagonism with their employers, making their membership of the IWW a fucking disgrace.

For these "workers", it's party over class -- which is why they're not demanding their wages from the people they're contracted with.
_ _ _ _ _

I don't really get the whole point of the community centre story. But, still, if that particular anarchist collective employed me, then one of them did a runner with my wages, I'd still expect the collective to pay me. Whether they were my comrades, or not.


Andy Bowden
None of the remaining SSP MSP's have reneged on their contracts.

The SSP Parliamentary Group has, because it's not paying the peoples wages!

(Don't have time to respond to the rest, I'll do that tomorrow.)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:32 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6258089.stm

Hmm a potential "Balkanisation of Britain", i wonder how true this is.
Any thoughts on this?
British disintegration will be good for socialism on so many levels-

-It will fuck up the BNP NF, etc and all the rest of the 'british supremacy' groups.
-(it will also fuck up the reactionary loyalist/unionist mandate in N.Ireland)
-It will end the English imperial hegemony over celtic britain, hopefully also opening the floodgates to an independent wales.
-Scotland will be able to govern her own immigration system (hopefully with the influence of SSP MSP's it will veer to the left of England therefore more leniently).

[Andy Bowden]

You see, at some point, political principle has to come into the equation.

Where does political principle enter the equation when the majority of working people, support independence (by a slight majority), increased powers, to deal with issues like Trident, foreign policy, dawn raids (by a healthy majority) and a referendum over whether Scotland should be in the Union or not (by an overwhelming majority) and your response to those demands is to tell them to go to the amusements?

If thats what the Workers Republic of Britain looks like then maybe nothing will have changed that much.


So far, you've just offered up an endless set of excuses for your support of the SNP -- excuses which try to justify your view that a bosses party represents "a step forward". Is there going to be a point where you say enough is enough, and view them for what they are?

If I supported the SNP, then would I have been likely to attack them for firing their entire council workforce in Falkirk? :rolleyes:

The SNP are a bosses party, yes. So are Sinn Fein. This does not in anyway affect the support Socialists should give independence or reunification respectively.


Communists don't support nationalist factions, from Ireland to Iraq, we support working people and their struggle for power.

Correct. And there is no conflict between supporting a nations right to self determination, and the ensuing tactical gains for the working class that that will bring, while staying politically independent of bourgeois nationalist organisations.


After all, the South of England really seems to want a Conservative Government. And an independent Scotland would lead to this. So, hey, lets have "Thatcherism" there and "social democracy" in Scotland -- it's not as the workers in the South of England matter as much as those in Scotland.

After all, the Scottish working class is more class conscious because it wants a left-capitalist Government!

Or maybe we can stop allying ourselves with capitalist parties, and start trying to build an independent working class alternative. A combative organ that means our whole approach no longer consists of fighting for the crumbs that drop off the bosses table.

Except that every single major working class insurrection in Scotland, whether the 1820 uprising, Red Clydeside, or the resistance to the Poll Tax has, alongside many demands also raised at least the demand for some form of home rule or full independence for Scotland.

What would be your attitude if a local council was disbanded and run by dictat by Westminster because it was seen as too Left, not privatising enough etc? Would you attack any working class opposition to such a move as "regionalist"?


Find me a company, corporation or multinational operating in Scotland that publishes a monthly magazine outlining its views on political questions.

Companies, corporations, multinationals etc always make their political positions on key issues known, either through the media or direct communication with government politicians. Whether or not they produce a magazine is irrelevant, although publications such as The Scotsman, Daily Mail, Daily Record are all mouthpieces of capital which are all rabidly anti-independence.

So while no specific magazine such as "BP monthly" is produced, they do make their political positions known.


You don't "have" to be a backer of the SNP or Sinn Fein if you support independence. Independence, after all, has two different flavours -- the strawberry surprise (a working people republic) and the chocolate truffle (a capitalist republic).

Correct. Whether you like it or not, independence is now no longer a "blip". It's going to happen. And the question is whether you advocate an unashamedly Socialist Republic, or a pro-market, monarchy as head of state, and probably isn't independent but just has some half arsed fiscal autonomy a la Catalonia.

And I advocate the latter.


In the case of Scotland, they pretty much are "mutually exclusive" (independence and support for the SNP that is^)

Not according to basic Maths. Most polls show support for independence at 45%-51%.

That is blatantly not what the SNP are polling.


The option of a working peoples republic isn't there at this point in time. So by supporting one faction over another in this debate, you end up supporting one set of bosses over another. No matter how many times you say you aren't supporting them.

So you don't support Irish reunification then? Because obviously a bosses faction is going to be running that, Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail etc.


What "element of national oppression"?

The disproportionate levels of poverty, poor health, disproportionate numbers of Scots in the British Army, the fact we are a dump for nuclear waste/weapons, no power to stop dawn raids against immigrant families etc.

Now you may argue that the first few (and most important) regarding poverty, poor health are shared by the working class in England and Wales, and you'd of course be absolutely right.

But it is disproportionately higher in Scotland - and it cannot be because Scotland is more "working class", that would be a real Left-Nationalist position.

It is because there are other factors at play - namely national oppression.


But who "created this situation" is not important.

It is if your actually trying to resolve it.


To go back to what I said above, if my boss did a runner with my wages, who should I try and get my wages off? The company or the individual? It's pretty fucking obvious who would owe me the money -- the people I'm contracted with.

But I'd bet that your Boss would be breaking a contract by running off with the money. And you could be in dispute with the company for as long as you like - the point of industrial action is to pressure an employer to give in, to accept your demands.

If they physically cannot pay you then taking industrial action against them and letting your runaway boss is tactically totally fucking stupid and 100% guaranteed to see your boss keep the money he has stolen and to see you with none of it.

----

BTW, if any Comrades want to support the parliamentary workers in this dispute, then they can sign a petition to support them, or put it through their local union branch

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nujspchapel

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+January 18, 2007 05:48 pm--> (Amusing Scrotum @ January 18, 2007 05:48 pm)
PRC-UTE
I didn't say they were ideal, but real life is more messy than theory.

No doubt about that. And maybe it is "armchair standards" to expect "a working class alternative" to not sell out to left-capitalism, to not practice opportunism, populism and petty-nationalism, to not allow those who've threatened to snitch on working class militants into the party, to not drag a revolutionary union into a dispute between employers ... and so on. [/b]
I already said they were not ideal, but then why let that get in the way of your banal and long winded ranting.


Maybe just having "Socialist" in your party name is enough for you?

haha. you know yourself.

actually I judge political groups of course by what intervention they've actually made in the class struggle, ie outside just the internet. ;)

[Cheung Mo]

IF pro-independence Scots are dumb enough to continue voting for Labour, they're getting exactly what they the deserve and should shut their mouths about independence or about having their policies dictated to them by English. Scottish people are almost universally educated and literate, so they have no excuse for voting Labour if they don't want to be subservient to England.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 22, 2007 04:59 pm
IF pro-independence Scots are dumb enough to continue voting for Labour, they're getting exactly what they the deserve and should shut their mouths about independence or about having their policies dictated to them by English. Scottish people are almost universally educated and literate, so they have no excuse for voting Labour if they don't want to be subservient to England.
I don't think intelligence is really a factor. I think it has more to do with labour having a tight grip on certain wards that they would control like fiefdoms. Britain seems to be that way, it's similar to the democrats controlling certain areas in the usa.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)Where does political principle enter the equation when the majority of working people, support independence (by a slight majority), increased powers, to deal with issues like Trident, foreign policy, dawn raids (by a healthy majority) and a referendum over whether Scotland should be in the Union or not (by an overwhelming majority) and your response to those demands is to tell them to go to the amusements?[/b]

Am I meant to take this as a serious point? One worth answering. Or is it just your attempt at some clever wordplay?

As wordplay goes, you know, this ain't too bad. It's a touch obvious, and could have done with a bit more flowery language and a few full stops for easy reading; but, other than that, it's not bad. Of course, it's not even an attempt at serious political debate -- but that's a bit overrated, in my opinion.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)The SNP are a bosses party, yes. So are Sinn Fein. This does not in anyway affect the support Socialists should give independence or reunification respectively.[/b]

Uh, yes it does.

Overall, our support for something should be based on one specific thing. The thing I'm talking about, is a question. And that question is, dramatic pause, will X or Y make a positive or negative impact on the working classes struggle for power?

I don't really want to meander off into a discussion on the Irish question, partly because I've got work in a couple of hours and partly because I know that I don't have enough time at the moment to participate in this debate and one on Northern Ireland.

But, what I will say, is that there are concrete reasons why the struggle in Northern Ireland should mix both republicanism and communism.

The communist fight must come first, with the independence element a secondary factor. Meaning, of course, that the struggle in Ireland should be a struggle to gain the working classes independence from both the British and Irish bosses.

And not just a struggle for independence from the British bosses, leaving the Irish ones sitting pretty.

The British situation, however, is nowhere near as complex as the one in Northern Ireland. The working class in Britain does not have two primary enemies, it has one ... the British bourgeoisie. Which means, of course, there's no real need for a two pronged approach.

Trying to apply the two pronged approach here, inevitably leads to you viewing one capitalist faction as a nicer shade of shit.

That is, by trying to shoehorn a republican peg into this situation, where it simply doesn't fit, you resort to supporting national capital. The bosses in the SNP become less bad, not complete bastards ... "a step forward".

That is, Scottish national capitalism becomes "a step forward" and your objection to the SNP's treatment of council workers in Falkirk, becomes a matter of different policy.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Correct.

So Scottish national capitalism is no longer "a step forward"?

After all, you've not said what "tactical gains for the working class" an SNP run Scotland would have. You've just made a few semi-moral leftist inspired points about no Trident and less butchers in Iraq. So am I safe to assume that you no longer think it's "a step forward"?

Or, more likely, is it just that your argument has rather large logical holes?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
...also raised at least the demand for some form of home rule or full independence for Scotland.

Many of those who opposed the Poll Tax, also wanted a Labour Government.

The job of communists, however, is not to embrace these demands -- it's to tell our class the truth, as best we know it. And the truth is, a Scottish national capitalism will still shit on working people. After all, as you have pointed out already, look what's happening in Falkirk.

How it that "a step forward"?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Would you attack any working class opposition to such a move as "regionalist"?

I don't think I've used the word "regionalist", so I don't know who you're quoting...

Anyway, on the question itself, my "attitude" would be that working people should continue to fight. Not to get the jobs of the local councillors back, of course -- but to continue to struggle for the things they seemed to be getting when the local council was in place.

I'm not too fussed who the working class is struggling against, I'm more interested in the gains they're making and the way in which the struggle is happening.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
So while no specific magazine such as "BP monthly" is produced, they do make their political positions known.

So what's Tesco's view on Scottish independence?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Whether you like it or not, independence is now no longer a "blip". It's going to happen. And the question is whether you advocate an unashamedly Socialist Republic, or a pro-market, monarchy as head of state, and probably isn't independent but just has some half arsed fiscal autonomy a la Catalonia.

Oh, "It's going to happen." I guess I'd better book my ticket for the SSP's post-independence nationalist shindig. Then, you and I can hold hands and sing "Flower of Scotland" together.

What fun. :mellow:

Of course, it might not happen. And Flower of Scotland will remain an unofficial anthem. An outlawed tune that's sung on outlawed pipes, to paraphrase that guy with the funny eye.

Either way, I don't particularly care. As I've said, "the independence debate" is not one I think communists should be involved in -- it won't lead to the independence we want, no matter how much you delude yourself. The only thing that interests me, is when self proclaimed socialists start calling national capitalism "a step forward".

Because that, without a doubt, is what happens when you start choosing between capitalist factions.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Not according to basic Maths.

Never been a fan of maths myself, just can't get my head round it.

However, luckily for me, this is not a case of "basic Maths" -- it's a case of basic logic. I laid that logic out in my last post, but you chose to ignore, so I think I'll just Copy & Paste my previous point:

In the case of Scotland, they pretty much are "mutually exclusive".

That is, if independence, leading to an SNP Government, isn't "a step forward" -- then there's no real reason to support independence. If, however, independence is "a step forward" -- then it logically follows that you'd support a capitalist Scotland with the SNP at its head over a capitalist Britain with the Labour Party atits head.

The option of a working peoples republic isn't there at this point in time. So by supporting one faction over another in this debate, you end up supporting one set of bosses over another. No matter how many times you say you aren't supporting them.

Now, you could probably dispute the point that an independent Scotland would be run by the SNP; it may well, for instance, have a Labour-Liberal coalition Government. But what you can't dispute, is that a capitalist faction will be in Office -- that's just obvious.

So, with that in mind, if independence is "a step forward", then a "Scottish" faction is preferable to a "British" one.

You see, as I've already said, by picking a side in this particular debate, you inevitably end up supporting one set of capitalists over another. So whilst it may have been incorrect of me to say that support for independence and support for the SNP pretty much are "mutually exclusive" -- the statement that support for independence and support for one of the various capitalist factions is "mutually exclusive", is a definite truism.

After all, a Scotland governed by one of these capitalist factions, is "a step forward" in your mind. And that's a ringing endorsement for one capitalist faction over another.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
So you don't support Irish reunification then?

Not if it comes in the form of a chocolate truffle.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
The disproportionate levels of poverty, poor health...

In, say, Glasgow. Not so much in a place like, say, Edinburgh.

Scotland, as a whole, according to the statistics, is neither particularly good nor particularly bad. "Scotland is typical of Britain as a whole on many indicators. However, health indicators - including the death rate among men below retirement age - are much worse than anywhere else (including the North West, the worst English region)." [Source (http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/091203.asp).]

That's about average, as other statistics show.

This report (http://www.swan.ac.uk/welmerc/poverty%201996-2000.PDF)., for instance, shows that "Except in 1996-1997, Wales has the highest headcount, while Scotland and England swap places as second and third."

(The term "headcount" describes "the portion of the population that falls below the poverty line". And England is divided into two regions in this report -- London and the South East, and the rest of England.")

Other statistics shed more light on the levels of poverty across Britain. An article in The Guardian, for example, comments "[a report has shown] that 53% of children in [London's] core boroughs are suffering deprivation [...] The report shows child poverty in inner London is worse than in any other region of Britain. It compares with 37% in north-east England, the next highest area, and 22% in the eastern and south-eastern regions." [Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,843007,00.html); there are other relevant statistics in the piece.]

London also has the highest unemployment rate in the UK, 7.6%, according to figures from June 2006. The North East is second, with a rate of unemployment of 6.7%. Scotland, with a rate of 5.3%, is higher than average -- but not by that much, it should be said. [Source for the numbers (http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/regional_unemployment.htm).]

I could go on with the statistics, and I could also start a discussion on the reasons why different areas have different poverty levels, but I think I've made the point I wanted too. That point being, of course, that the rest of Britain is as poor as Scotland -- and certain areas, like the North East, are in a far worse state of affairs.

And, as the saying goes, baby that's capitalism!

It's not the result of "national oppression". It's just capitalism, at its finest. And the only logical reason I can think of for you not recognising this, is that you've got nationalist syndrome. That syndrome where people exaggerate the truth in order to create a persecution complex.

Maybe you've spent just a little bit too much time in the company of SNP members?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
...disproportionate numbers of Scots in the British Army

Could you provide a source for this? Preferably one that looks beyond the four obvious regions -- England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Because all I can find are these tables:

Navy enlistment numbers for financial year 2004–05

Region: Enlistments
North East: 610
North West: 740
East Central: 300
West Central: 240
South West: 620
South East: 350
London: 200
Wales: 180
Scotland: 380
Northern Ireland: 60

Army enlistment numbers for financial year 2004–05

Region: Enlistments
North East: 1,720
North West: 1,540
East: 1,360
West Midlands: 1,000
Wessex: 780
Home Counties: 470
South East: 430
London: 880
Wales: 670
Scotland: 1,140
Northern Ireland: 260
Commonwealth: 220

RAF enlistment numbers for financial year 2004–05

Region: Enlistments
North East: 330
North West and North Wales: 350
East Midlands: 380
West Midlands and South Wales: 290
London and South East: 200
South West: 230
Wales: 140
Scotland: 220
Northern Ireland: 50

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/50718w10.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050718/text/50718w10.htm)

Now, as I said, mathematics isn't my strength. But, still, I calculated that as 12,880 enlistees from England, and 1,740 from Scotland. And that means that 515.2 of every million people in England enlisted, whilst there were 348 enlistees from every million in Scotland.

My maths may be wrong, so do check the answers. But, if my calculations were right, which I think they are, they certainly don't show "disproportionate numbers of Scots in the British Army". When compared with people in England, of course -- I couldn't be arsed to do numbers for Northern Ireland and Wales.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
...no power to stop dawn raids against immigrant families etc.

Do you think in an independent capitalist Scotland you, Andy Bowden, will have any more power than you do know to stop this?


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
It is because there are other factors at play - namely national oppression.

You know, given the things you've identified as examples of "national oppression", I reckon the North of England is an oppressed nation. Certainly, based on my findings, one could make a stronger case for that position...

Additionally, there's certainly a discussion that could be had as to the reasons why you seem to be adopting the "oppressed Scotsman" as a cultural identify. In my opinion, it has a lot to do with the defeats the working class suffered in the 80's -- and it's those defeats that have paved the way for the petty-nationalism we see now.

That is, petty-nationalism has filled the temporary void left by the working class. But, as I've commented already, that void is temporary ... and thank fuck for that.


Originally posted by Andy Bowden
But I'd bet that your Boss would be breaking a contract by running off with the money.

A contract with the company, not with me. I'd still be contracted with the company, and therefore they'd be the people that owed me my wages. Likewise, the "parliamentary workers" are contracted with SSP Parliamentary Group -- so it is that group that owes them their wages.

The employers probably do have some kind of legal case against Sheridan and the other one, but that's not an excuse for them not to pay the "parliamentary workers" what they owe them.

This is really basic labour contract stuff, and that you don't get it, only shows the level of petty political loyalty you have vested in this.


Andy [email protected]
If they physically cannot pay you then taking industrial action against them and letting your runaway boss is tactically totally fucking stupid and 100% guaranteed to see your boss keep the money he has stolen and to see you with none of it.

How do you know "they physically cannot pay"? Because they said so?

The "parliamentary workers" haven't made the slightest attempt to make the SSP Parliamentary Group honour their contracts, so we don't know whether they can physically pay or not. I suspect they could though; by taking out a loan, if nothing else.


PRC-UTE
I already said they were not ideal, but then why let that get in the way of your banal and long winded ranting.

There's a huge difference between "not ideal" and the practices employed by the SSP.

You can either discuss that point, and the points I raised in my last post, or you can continue to make little snipes like some jumped up fuckwit. Your choice, really.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 25, 2007 05:22 pm
You can either discuss that point, and the points I raised in my last post, or you can continue to make little snipes like some jumped up fuckwit. Your choice, really.
haha, I wasn't really disagreeing with you mucker. I just noticed that the more someone has all the answers to Everything, the less likely they seem to want to implement them in real life.

your habit of stating the obvious and regurgitating the rumours you read in Weekly Wanker whilst passing it off as original is getting old.