Scotlands Independance

[ScottishSocialist13]

Simple question, should Scotland be allowed total independance from the UK?

Surely any country should be allowed to be ruled by its own people? Surely Edinburgh should decide wether or not we send Scottish troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? Not London.

[RNK]

Short answer? No.

Long answer? The world, and ths socialist movement, has little to gain by a capitalist country "splitting up" into two capitalist countries, unless it is a movement to emancipate one group from oppression by another.

But in that case, I know nothing about the social and cultural conflict between Scots and the English, or even if there is any.

[Demogorgon]

Well as I have said before, it has to be better than rule from London. But we should make sure to keep up good relations with the people of England and Wales. We are all in the same position at the end of the day.

But yes I favour independence or at least increased autonomy.

[bolshevik butcher]

Hello comrade i'm a fellow scot. I don't think that socialists in Scotland should give into nationalism. Recent moves towards this by much of the socialist movement are in my view just populist moves, pandering to the working class that supports the Scottish Nationalist Party and has a nationalist outlook rather than taking a principled Socialist stand for internationalism. Ultimatley nationalism just divides Scotitsh and English workers, we must stand for working class unity and work for a greater class polorisation rather than a nationalist one.

What real difference does it make if the ruling class rues from Westminster or Hollyrood. What really matters is what class is in control not where they rule from.

[apathy maybe]

I support the break up of states such as the UK. Why? Because I believe that the weakening of the state is a good thing. As I have said before, I like the idea of making it harder for the authorities to catch "criminals", and having more states does that.

Also, for those who oppose the breaking up of the UK, would you support the creation of a super state in place of the EU? It would help to get rid of nationalism in the entire EU, you wouldn't have to worry about it at all.


For another discussion on this topic, see http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62847

[welshred]

Should Wales, like someone has already said before countries should have the right to govern themselves, rather than be dictated to.

[RebelDog]

I'm also Scottish and I would welcome Scottish independance simply because it will break up the British state and weaken its role in the world, ie, Iraq, Afghanistan. However, the independence of Scotland will not improve the material conditions of the working class, in fact it could well worsen them with the SNP policy on corporation tax in mind, but our lives are insecure nomatter what state we live in these days.

I believe that Scottish independence might eventually precipitate a republican Scotland and that is a welcome blow to the monarchy. An independent Scotland is a small blow against British imperialism and that is how I square it with my own personal ideology of rejecting states. I don't specifically want a Scottish state, but I can see the damage it could do to the British one and its imperialism.

[Budapestkick]

Personally I think the best position to take towards scottish nationalism is that taken by the Communist League towards black nationalistm in the 1930s, where the official position of the league was that they recognised the black right to a nation-state, but did not advocate it. It should be recognised that the Scottish are a distinct nationality with unique language, customs, music etc. and as such are entitled to their own state but it should not be advocated as it would only divide english and scottish workers.

[Goatse]

I used to be a strong advocate of Scottish independence. However, there's no need to create barriers between the Scottish and English workers.

No nations, no borders

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:06 pm
I used to be a strong advocate of Scottish independence. However, there's no need to create barriers between the Scottish and English workers.

No nations, no borders
No nations, no borders. How could I disagree, until then lets fight imperialism and put holes in the monarchy where we can.

[bolshevik butcher]

Fighting Imperialism has nothing to do with dividing workers along national lines. Scotland is not an oppressed nation like the excolonial countries so we can hardly fight a national liberaiton struggle. All that we can hope to do is divide the British class along national lines, playing right into the hands of the ruling class.

[Fawkes]

Check out this link about national liberation struggles (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60580)

[Goatse]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+February 24, 2007 11:16 pm--> (The Dissenter @ February 24, 2007 11:16 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 11:06 pm
I used to be a strong advocate of Scottish independence. However, there's no need to create barriers between the Scottish and English workers.

No nations, no borders
No nations, no borders. How could I disagree, until then lets fight imperialism and put holes in the monarchy where we can. [/b]
The monarchy could be disposed of without creating more nations.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 24, 2007 11:18 pm
Fighting Imperialism has nothing to do with dividing workers along national lines. Scotland is not an oppressed nation like the excolonial countries so we can hardly fight a national liberaiton struggle. All that we can hope to do is divide the British class along national lines, playing right into the hands of the ruling class.
So Scottish independence will split British workers where the British state unites them? Scotland is a colonial outpost of England that just happens to be attached to it. Did the independence of India seperate Indian workers from British ones? I'm not saying Scottish independence is a great thing that will cure all Scotland's ills. I'm saying that a quarter of the British army that died in the first and second world wars were Scottish soldiers. It would stop a rich important supply of soldiers who fight for the British establishment interest and weaken their options. It would also see trident kicked from Scotland and that is blow to them. The break up of the British state is much more of a blow to the establishment than it is a victory for us.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Goatse+February 24, 2007 11:30 pm--> (Goatse @ February 24, 2007 11:30 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 24, 2007 11:16 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 11:06 pm
I used to be a strong advocate of Scottish independence. However, there's no need to create barriers between the Scottish and English workers.

No nations, no borders
No nations, no borders. How could I disagree, until then lets fight imperialism and put holes in the monarchy where we can.
The monarchy could be disposed of without creating more nations. [/b]
What is your strategy? Scottish independence is a distinct and real possibility in the near future.

[Prairie Fire]

Lenin said that every nation should have the right to self determination, up to and including the right of Secession from another state.

Of course Lenin recognized the benefits of a larger state, but still realized that Secession is the right of any nation

I can not see how Scotland breaking away from England would discourage solidarity between the English and Scottish workers. This is a chauvenist line being put forward in defence of British imperialism.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+February 24, 2007 11:38 pm--> (The Dissenter @ February 24, 2007 11:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:30 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24, 2007 11:16 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 11:06 pm
I used to be a strong advocate of Scottish independence. However, there's no need to create barriers between the Scottish and English workers.

No nations, no borders
No nations, no borders. How could I disagree, until then lets fight imperialism and put holes in the monarchy where we can.
The monarchy could be disposed of without creating more nations.
What is your strategy? Scottish independence is a distinct and real possibility in the near future. [/b]
Just making Scotland an independent nation wouldn't really benefit anyone. Also, that would leave the remainder of the United Kingdom high and dry under the monarchs. I don't really see how Scotland's independence would help.

As for my solution? You mean to the monarchs? Just cut them out of the government. Stop giving them tax money to live enjoyable lives for sod all in return and tell them to go get their own jobs. Use the money that was used to maintain Buckingham Palace and maintain the monarchs and make their lives incredibly easy to make life better for the working class - not necessarily in Britain alone.

[RebelDog]

Just making Scotland an independent nation wouldn't really benefit anyone. Also, that would leave the remainder of the United Kingdom high and dry under the monarchs. I don't really see how Scotland's independence would help.

5million more people in history would not have a monarch.


As for my solution? You mean to the monarchs? Just cut them out of the government. Stop giving them tax money to live enjoyable lives for sod all in return and tell them to go get their own jobs. Use the money that was used to maintain Buckingham Palace and maintain the monarchs and make their lives incredibly easy to make life better for the working class - not necessarily in Britain alone.

As I said, Scottish independence is achievable in the near future.

[Goatse]

5million more people in history would not have a monarch.

And abolishing the monarchs would have do this to the population of the whole UK.



As I said, Scottish independence is achievable in the near future.

Which bares no relevance to my point, but ok.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:04 am


5million more people in history would not have a monarch.

And abolishing the monarchs would have do this to the population of the whole UK.



As I said, Scottish independence is achievable in the near future.

Which bares no relevance to my point, but ok.
I would dearly love to see all monarchs throughout the world destroyed at this instant. Failing this Scottish independence could see me and my friends and my family freed from them.

What you propose will come about by which engine?

[Goatse]

How is abolishing the monarchy any less achievable than scottish independence?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:25 am
How is abolishing the monarchy any less achievable than scottish independence?
Who is going to abolish it?

[Goatse]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+February 25, 2007 12:36 am--> (The Dissenter @ February 25, 2007 12:36 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 12:25 am
How is abolishing the monarchy any less achievable than scottish independence?
Who is going to abolish it? [/b]
The people who'd make Scotland independent?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:42 pm
This is a chauvenist line being put forward in defence of British imperialism.
No it is not. I recognise the Scottish people's right to self determination I just wouldn't camapign for them to exercise it. I think the idea that Scotalnd is an outpost of British Imperialism is false. The Scottish bourgoirse played a large part in building the British empire and still plays a large part in British imperialism. Scotland wasn't brutally conquered, the emerging captialist class furthered its interests by signing that act of union.

In response to the dissenters argument about India, the Indian workers were nationally oppressed. Scottish workers are not. We are oppressed as workers, equally as those are in England but we are not oppressed for being Scottish, as the Indians were for being Indian by British Imperialism.

As for trident, what differnece does it make if British Impeiralisms nuclear missiles are stored in England or Scotland either way they will still by horrific weapons in the hands of the British ruling class. Our task is to fight for a revolution and unite the british working class. Clearly nationalism would divide the working class, by making scottish workers feelthat the solution to their problems lay not with internationalism but in fighgint for seperation. It would discourage solidarity as they wouldn't be involved in the same day today disputes, they wouldn't be in the same unions, fighting the same industrial battles. In britian there is one socialist traidition and one trade union confederation.

[apathy maybe]

To all those who argue that Scotland doesn't need or should not be independent: Do you support greater integration into the EU? If not, why not?

The same arguments apply, it will break down national boundaries between workers. No one is being oppressed on national lines. And so on.

[bolshevik butcher]

The EU is a bosses club, and yes the UK is a bourgoirse state but supporting scottish independence just supports replacing on bourgoirse state with another so there is a clear difference between the two.

[RebelDog]

The people who'd make Scotland independent?

OK, who are they then?

[bolshevik butcher]

The Scottish Nationalist Party :rolleyes:

[Andy Bowden]

The "Don't create more borders" argument can be used against just about any National Liberation or pro-Independence movement.

And its not like the British State is an enthusiastic defender of open borders...

[Question everything]

The "Don't create more borders" argument can be used against just about any National Liberation or pro-Independence movement.

And its not like the British State is an enthusiastic defender of open borders...

Why not? Tear the empires to shreds, build borders 'til every city is free!!! it is easier for a revolution that way... (but it makes Geography class a *****...)

[Radek]

One of the main arguments for Scottish independence among socialists here is that it would make advancing a socialist agenda much easier. This is for two main reasons that both centre around the idea of increased 'people power': a fairer electoral system and bringing the seat of government closer to the people.

Westminster, as you'll know, uses the First Past The Post electoral system, which is notoriously difficult to get elected under for small parties. This is in contrast to the Additional Member System used in Scotland, which is a form of proportional representation (PR). PR has historically linked to gaining stronger left-wing parties, and this is demonstrated in Scotland with the number of SSP candidates that were elected in 2003 (6 as compared to the 0 are elected in Westminster).

By 'bringing the seat of government closer to the people' I mainly mean that it increases the amount of power people and organisations have over government decisions. A Scottish parliament would, obviously, be more likely to serve the interests of the Scottish people than would a UK government. Of course, it would still be a bourgeois government, but you work with the conditions you're provided. Furthermore, bringing the seat of government geographically closer to the people, while having less obvious benefits, but it is nevertheless historically linked to allowing labour movements to make a bigger impact (largely because it decreases the stability of government thus making them more amenable to demands).

How effective these things would be under current conditions is debatable, but bringing the government closer to the people (both theoretically and geographically) should always be a primary aim of socialists, should it not?

[Marion]

A few quick comments:

I'm also Scottish and I would welcome Scottish independance simply because it will break up the British state and weaken its role in the world, ie, Iraq, Afghanistan.
I really doubt it would weaken its role that much at all. Besides, if it does weaken the British state (although you obviously couldn't speak any more of a British state) it would create a Scottish state. The main question, however, is not whether it weakens state A or creates state B but the difference it makes for capital as a whole.

I can not see how Scotland breaking away from England would discourage solidarity between the English and Scottish workers.
Because to win any referendum it would have to encourage a sizeable proportion of Scottish workers to identify with the concept of a nation, a concept that is inherently anti-class.

5million more people in history would not have a monarch.
Personally I don't really think that much about the monarchy or not. The question is how the impact of an independent Scotland would affect capital (not at all in my view).

I think the idea that Scotalnd is an outpost of British Imperialism is falseMy God, I'm agreeing with Bolshevik Butcher...

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 25, 2007 10:36 pm
The "Don't create more borders" argument can be used against just about any National Liberation or pro-Independence movement.

National libeartion movements exist in oppressed nations, clearly if a nation is nationally oppressed as socialists we should support it's national liberation struggle, we should also recognise that all people have the right to self determination. However this should not lead to socialists embracing nationalism as we have seen happen in Scotland.

Radek are you a social democrat of some degree? Surely our main struggle is not for parlimentary means but inside the workers movement and to increase class consciousness. This doesn't rule out using parliment at all but I don't think that it should be a marxists main orientation. A farier parlimentary system could easily be adopted at Westminster, this is a struggle for somehwat fairer bourgoirse democracy, this does not have as a logical conclusion the need for an independent Scotland.

It would not increase the power of Labour movements, relative to the state I'd imaginge they'd be about the same. The power of Labour movements is dteremined by numbers and miltiancy in relation to the bourgoirse state. Why would independence enhance the power of the Labour movement?

Marion is it really that bad?

[Marion]

National libeartion movements exist in oppressed nations, clearly if a nation is nationally oppressed as socialists we should support it's national liberation struggle
Surely the question is not about whether a 'nation' is 'oppressed' or not, but the position of the working class within that 'nation'? Is the working class in country A helped by replacing 'oppressed' ruling class from country B with capitalists from their own country? Or does going down this route merely encourage them to ignore class realities and class struggle?


Surely our main struggle is not for parlimentary means but inside the workers movement and to increase class consciousness.
Generally agree (although I'd reject parliamentary means completely). But how is increasing class collaboration through nationalism doing anything to increase class consciousness though? I think the historical record of NLMs is very poor indeed...


Marion is it really that bad?
Nah, just kind of novel. Liked your historical analysis, just hope I haven't ruined the love-in with my comments above!

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree that the way that the stalinist have entered national liberation movements in the past has been ridiculius. So called "popular fronts" inevitably resutlt in taking on a pro ruling class role. However clearly in excoloniol countries there was a need for national liberation movements. If communists had been preparied to lead the movement and keep the working class organisation independent of those of the national bourgoirse perhaps things would have been different.

I agree basically with what you said about national liberation movements, but when is it beneficial for a new capitalist class to come in? Obviously when a nation is ruled by colonoilaism. However, the bourgorse is incapable of leading national liberation struggles in the modern epoch, this is a task for the working class and there is no reason why the movement should stop at national liberation, it should also act as a force for socialism and not follow the stalinist stagist doctorine.


Nah, just kind of novel. Liked your historical analysis, just hope I haven't ruined the love-in with my comments above!
he he he, nah it's nice to have someone onside. Are you Scottish yourself?