YELLOW REVOLUTION

[redrogue]

Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

Why does American miltary planes fly into our airports and use our prisons and places to torture people?

Also why are we a refueling station for the yanks to transport illegal missles to Israel to drop on civillians?

Answer controlled by London and we do not have democracy Scotland.

It's the only way forward!

[spartan]

Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

Why does American miltary planes fly into our airports and use our prisons and places to torture people?

Also why are we a refueling station for the yanks to transport illegal missles to Israel to drop on civillians?

Answer controlled by London and we do not have democracy Scotland.

It's the only way forward!
Have'nt you posted this exact same message before?

Besides why do you support the dividing of the British Proletariat along petty National lines?

Are we not better facing the Bourgeoisie as one?

By supporting the independence movement you are helping the Bourgeoisie in their tactics of dividing the Proletariat on non-existent national and racial lines which stops Proletarian unity and thus scuppers any chance for revolution!

That is why all the papers make a big fuss over immigration!

Always remember that the Proletariat has no country.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

The line between nationalism, republicanism and anti-imperiaism is a fine one.

I stand with the CPB Wales on this issue:

Welsh Communists welcomed the Richard Commission's report as a generally progressive contribution to tackling the powerlessness of the people of Wales.

Although the Communist Party has been at the forefront of the fight for a Parliament for Wales since the launch of the campaign of 1950, it has always called for a parliament of a new type which actively involves people through consultation, petitioning rights, an extended franchise and a representative voting system.

We believe that the National Assembly should be given the powers and resources to control and develop the economy, to create the best framework for the provision of vital services, to protect the environment and to strengthen cultural identity.

Additional powers and resources are also needed to increase investment in public services, to stop PFI and the privatisation of our health service and local government, and to provide investment for our run-down council housing sector without requiring the sale of council houses and housing stock transfer.

To these ends economic, law-making and revenue-raising powers are inter-connected. Unfortunately, the Richard Commission refused to recognise that revenue-raising powers are essential to make the Assembly a real force for progressive change.

Nevertheless, the commission did a great service in identifying the need for the National Assembly to have law-making powers, and in proposing that it should reflect the true will of the people through the use of the Single Transferable Vote electoral system.

The Wales Labour Party, however, has failed to grasp the historic opportunity offered by the Richard Report to fundamentally shift the balance of political power towards working people in Wales. The party's failure to adopt a bold and united stance on constitutional reform has allowed the New Labour government in London and its outpost in the Welsh Office to ignore or dilute the Richard Commission's key proposals.
The Government of Wales Act 2006 represents an unstable half-way house between executive and legislative devolution.

Henceforth, the process of drafting and amending Welsh Bills for the Westminster parliament can take place at the National Assembly in Cardiff. But should the directly elected representatives of the Welsh people wish to proceed with their own measure, they must first seek the permission of the Secretary of State for Wales.

This office holder does not even have to be elected to Westminster from a constituency in Wales. He or she does not have to reflect the political will of the Welsh electorate, whether expressed in a National Assembly or a British general election. Indeed, we saw how – when the Tories were in office between 1970 and 1974 and for 18 years from 1979 – the Secretary of State for Wales rarely sat for a Welsh constituency and, in one notorious case, appeared to have only the most tenuous connection with planet Earth.

So the Secretary of State of Wales will have the power of 'first refusal' over any draft legislative measure from the National Assembly. Then, should the Secretary of State deign to approve the idea, the proposal has next to go both Houses of the Westminster parliament. There, a majority of voting MPs must express their approval in a chamber where 94 per cent of them represent English, Scottish and Northern Irish constituencies. Moreover, the proposal also has to receive the agreement of a majority in the House of Lords, who represent no constituencies at all because they are not even elected.

The procedure would have to be repeated each time Welsh AMs wish to initiate legislation in the policy areas 'devolved' to Wales (there will not, of course, be any home-grown initiatives permitted in non-devolved areas such as macro-economic planning, fiscal and financial policy, social security, employment law and foreign and military affairs).

No other elected regional, provincial or devolved body anywhere in Europe has to jump through a single hoop of these sorts, let alone jumping through three of them.

Neither the Scottish nor Northern Ireland parliaments have to beg the appointed, the unrepresentative and the unelected for permission to initiate their own legislation. The Isle of Man and Channel Island legislatures face no such obstacles. The states of Germany and the USA and the provinces of Spain have full legislative powers within spheres of jurisdiction which go far beyond those granted to Wales or even Scotland.

Nevertheless, there is a dynamic at work. Either devolution will peter out in a ditch of provincial jobbery, careerism and corruption, or it will develop to the point where the National Assembly seeks to make inroads into the prerogatives of big business and British state power. The Government of Wales Act is a rotten compromise in which the predominant centralist forces wish to encourage the former and deter the latter.

Hence the severe restrictions on its new legislative functions. Hence, too, the impediments in the Act to the achievement of primary law-making powers equivalent to those in Scotland: firstly, there must be a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly in favour of putting the proposal to a referendum in Wales; secondly, the Houses of Parliament must both endorse the referendum proposal; thirdly, the referendum must then be won.

Hence, too, the absence in the new Act of any provisions enabling the National Assembly to raise its own funds. The total dependance of the National Assembly on a block grant from Westminster and Whitehall severely limits the ability of its executive to tackle social and economic problems.

The Act contains a provision which gives an intriguing insight into the fearful mind of the British ruling class. Section 152 empowers the Secretary of State to overrule the National Assembly in matters relating to the quantity and quality of water supplied to England, thereby perpetuating the disgrace whereby a Tory government in 1973 leased the extensive water infrastructure of mid-Wales to the Severn Trent Water Authority in Birmingham for 999 years for the sum of 5 pence.

The reality is that Wales is a net supplier of not only of water but of electricity and refined oil to the rest of Britain. Our low population density in a country with bountiful natural resources including oil and gas reserves off the western coast of Wales means that we have the potential within Britain to become net exporters of vital raw materials.

The Government of Wales Act places every possible barrier in the way of greater Welsh autonomy in such matters, hoping to ensure that progress towards genuine self-government is slow where it cannot be stopped altogether. Nothing will do more to sap the self-confidence of the Welsh people and undermine the case for self-government than the weakness and failures of a powerless, supplicant National Assembly in Cardiff. This makes it all the more essential that. in keeping with the One Wales agreement, the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru adopt a joint approach to trigger a referendum on primary law-making powers by 2010 and then construct a broad-based progressive campaign to win a massive Yes vote.

Another reform in the Act will likewise increase the distance between the Welsh electorate and people on the one side and their National Assembly and its executive on the other. This is the change in constitutional status of the executive or 'Welsh Assembly Government'.

Previously, AMs had no special status as a consequence of being in the executive. They remained 'delegates' of the National Assembly. Nor did the executive have any separate constitutional status in relation to the National Assembly itself.

Now, the Act decrees that National Assembly will no longer decide simply by resolution who shall form its executive committee as the 'first among equals'; rather, the First Minister and other ministers will henceforth be appointed by Her or His Majesty on the nomination of the assembly. A separate constitutional status is thereby conferred upon the executive, setting it aside from – and by clear implication above – the body of the National Assembly as such. It also introduces another point of pressure – the monarch – through which central government interference can be brought to bear in the most fundamentally important matter, namely the composition of the Welsh government.

This brings National Assembly governance much closer to the Westminster model, where Her Majesty's Government takes it upon itself to act in secrecy, accumulating unaccountable power and exercising 'collective cabinet responsibility' to bypass, ignore or misinform the rest of the parliament.

Recent scandals and abuses of power have confirmed the gross inadequacies of this model, contributing to the contempt in which is now held by wide sections of the population. The National Assembly could still provide the opportunity to develop a distinctive Welsh model of parliamentary democracy, drawing upon best practice from around the world to strengthen the involvement of the people and their democratic organisations in the governance of their country. But to do so, it will have to acquire the power to arrange its own procedures and affairs as it sees fit.
We need processes of policy formation and implementation which are open, inclusive and consultative, not Westminster and Whitehall-style government by cabal and diktat.

[Marsella]

Err... Redrogue why does your title say 'Nationalist Socialist?' :ph34r:

Edit:

I don't pretend to know everything about Scotland, but there surely is a great difference between a country attempting to free itself from severe foreign occupation (e.g. Iraq) and a country like Scotland which, whilst it may be treated unjustly, is simply not in the same league. Spartan makes a good point.

[redrogue]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:09 pm
Have'nt you posted this exact same message before?

Besides why do you support the dividing of the British Proletariat along petty National lines?

Are we not better facing the Bourgeoisie as one?

By supporting the independence movement you are helping the Bourgeoisie in their tactics of dividing the Proletariat on non-existent national and racial lines which stops Proletarian unity and thus scuppers any chance for revolution!

That is why all the papers make a big fuss over immigration!

Always remember that the Proletariat has no country.
I have posted this before, yes!

The main agenda is pursuing an independent Scotland, governed for the benefit of Scotland and its people. Salmond has never said he wishes harm on the English he is just of the opinion we'd be better off without the pointless and detrimental layer of government that is the UK.

Immigration is not a problem in Scotland. We have a shortage of skilled workers.

I agree with some of the points you have made there.

[redrogue]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:19 pm
Err... Redrogue why does your title say 'Nationalist Socialist?' :ph34r:
Because, I couldn't write Scottish Nationalist and Socialist!

I didn't want to write National Socialist because of the Nazi stigma attached to it.

[RedAnarchist]

The following link is to a article which says that all of the native people of the British Isles are related and are virtually the same - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/...r=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/06brits.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

I don't know how accurate that is, but if its true, then there is no nationalistic basis for Scottish independance. Besides, "nationality" and "ethnicity" are superficial - most humans are genetically very similar. We should not be trying to split ourselves up into nations like we're some sort of collection owned by a small ruling class, but instead focus on our class.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:21 pm
Because, I couldn't write Scottish Nationalist and Socialist!

I didn't want to write National Socialist because of the Nazi stigma attached to it.
why not republican socialist?

[spartan]

why not republican socialist?
Or State Socialist if he believes in Socialism in one country.

Also state is another word for nation which is wear the word national derives itself from.

State Socialist wont have as much of the stigma attached to it as say National or Nationalist Socialist would.

Unless of course you are a Stalinist :P

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:48 pm
Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

Why does American miltary planes fly into our airports and use our prisons and places to torture people?

Also why are we a refueling station for the yanks to transport illegal missles to Israel to drop on civillians?

Answer controlled by London and we do not have democracy Scotland.

It's the only way forward!

Why should anyone dump their nukes anywhere?

Why should anyone decide if men and women born anywhere should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should anyone take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when it's in the people's waters?

Why should anyone decide how much fish anyone can catch and when they catch it?

Why do American military planes fly into anyone's airports and use anyone's prisons and places to torture people?

Why is anywhere a refuelling station for the Americans to transport illegal missiles to Israel to drop on civilians?

The answer? If it's controlled by anyone then we do not have a democracy anywhere!

It's the only way forward!

[Colonello Buendia]

Scotland breaking away from the rest of the UK is stupid. The fact is now that North sea Oil is disappearing Scotland simply doesn't have the ability to support itself. The only way for the worker to triumph in the British isles is is for us to unite with our english brethren and fight!

[Sam_b]

I apologise if you get offended, but this is petty nationalistic tripe. The same line keeps peddled that Scotland is such an incredibly 'oppressed' country. Yes, the worknig class of Scotland are oppressed. But GUESS WHAT?! So are the working class in Wales! Ireland! England!

Even calling this thread 'yellow revolution' is ridiculous. Does this mean you support the capitalist SNP?

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:02 am
I apologise if you get offended, but this is petty nationalistic tripe. The same line keeps peddled that Scotland is such an incredibly 'oppressed' country. Yes, the worknig class of Scotland are oppressed. But GUESS WHAT?! So are the working class in Wales! Ireland! England!

Even calling this thread 'yellow revolution' is ridiculous. Does this mean you support the capitalist SNP?
Excellent post

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:02 am
I apologise if you get offended, but this is petty nationalistic tripe. The same line keeps peddled that Scotland is such an incredibly 'oppressed' country. Yes, the worknig class of Scotland are oppressed. But GUESS WHAT?! So are the working class in Wales! Ireland! England!

Even calling this thread 'yellow revolution' is ridiculous. Does this mean you support the capitalist SNP?
If you're so dead against Scottish nationalism, how come you support Solidarity (which makes a relatively big thing of supporting Scottish independence)???

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Marion+November 03, 2007 12:12 pm--> (Marion @ November 03, 2007 12:12 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 02:02 am
I apologise if you get offended, but this is petty nationalistic tripe. The same line keeps peddled that Scotland is such an incredibly 'oppressed' country. Yes, the worknig class of Scotland are oppressed. But GUESS WHAT?! So are the working class in Wales! Ireland! England!

Even calling this thread 'yellow revolution' is ridiculous. Does this mean you support the capitalist SNP?
If you're so dead against Scottish nationalism, how come you support Solidarity (which makes a relatively big thing of supporting Scottish independence)??? [/b]
Name another socialist movement based in Scotland

[Marion]

Originally posted by Goatse+November 03, 2007 12:27 pm--> (Goatse @ November 03, 2007 12:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:12 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 02:02 am
I apologise if you get offended, but this is petty nationalistic tripe. The same line keeps peddled that Scotland is such an incredibly 'oppressed' country. Yes, the worknig class of Scotland are oppressed. But GUESS WHAT?! So are the working class in Wales! Ireland! England!

Even calling this thread 'yellow revolution' is ridiculous. Does this mean you support the capitalist SNP?
If you're so dead against Scottish nationalism, how come you support Solidarity (which makes a relatively big thing of supporting Scottish independence)???
Name another socialist movement based in Scotland[/b]
The main point is whether, if you disagree with nationalism in the UK because it is anti-class, as Sam appears to, it makes sense to support an organisation pushing the opposite point of view. The question of support for nationalism or support for working-class politics is pretty fundamental - its not like its a minor issue.

Of course there are loads of different organisations in Scotland that could be joined as I'm sure you're aware. However, the important point is that it would be better to (perhaps temporarily) not be a member of any party than to join one that was pushing what you considered to be anti-working class views as a core element of its programme.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Marion+November 03, 2007 03:09 pm--> (Marion @ November 03, 2007 03:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:27 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:12 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 02:02 am
I apologise if you get offended, but this is petty nationalistic tripe. The same line keeps peddled that Scotland is such an incredibly 'oppressed' country. Yes, the worknig class of Scotland are oppressed. But GUESS WHAT?! So are the working class in Wales! Ireland! England!

Even calling this thread 'yellow revolution' is ridiculous. Does this mean you support the capitalist SNP?
If you're so dead against Scottish nationalism, how come you support Solidarity (which makes a relatively big thing of supporting Scottish independence)???
Name another socialist movement based in Scotland
The main point is whether, if you disagree with nationalism in the UK because it is anti-class, as Sam appears to, it makes sense to support an organisation pushing the opposite point of view. The question of support for nationalism or support for working-class politics is pretty fundamental - its not like its a minor issue.

Of course there are loads of different organisations in Scotland that could be joined as I'm sure you're aware. However, the important point is that it would be better to (perhaps temporarily) not be a member of any party than to join one that was pushing what you considered to be anti-working class views as a core element of its programme. [/b]
Fair enough, I agree. But still, he can still show his support for a party even if he disagrees on one or two points.

[Colonello Buendia]

Yeah but the socialist party of great Britain is more socialist than solidarity. they are the embodiement of what we believe. Plus solidarity is a party which wishes to patch up capitalism, not abolish it.

[Sam_b]

If you're so dead against Scottish nationalism, how come you support Solidarity (which makes a relatively big thing of supporting Scottish independence)???

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a political party that you 100% agree with everything thats said, no? And out of Solidarity i've seen big things about striking workers, about supporting protests, about building a broad and open movement. There hasn't ever been, for example, a press release about the national question. Just because I don't support independance anyway doesn't mean I don't support the right of Scottish people to decide for themselves.


Plus solidarity is a party which wishes to patch up capitalism, not abolish it.
Whatever you say. Gonnae back any of that up with proof?


Yeah but the socialist party of great Britain is more socialist than solidarity.

If you judge socialism by being an obscure inward-looking movement which doesn't bother itself with working in grassroots communities and with an obsession with abolishing money, then go ahead.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:44 pm

If you're so dead against Scottish nationalism, how come you support Solidarity (which makes a relatively big thing of supporting Scottish independence)???

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a political party that you 100% agree with everything thats said, no? And out of Solidarity i've seen big things about striking workers, about supporting protests, about building a broad and open movement. There hasn't ever been, for example, a press release about the national question. Just because I don't support independance anyway doesn't mean I don't support the right of Scottish people to decide for themselves.
Except Solidarity do make a relatively big deal of supporting Scottish independence as is clear from even the most cursory glance at their website. Moreover, even if you're happy allowing the Scottish people a right to choose (a concept rather at odds with the focus in your initial post on the working class) the fact still remains that you don't support independence while your party does.

Yeah, you're right that its very difficult to find a party that you agree with completely - especially if you're supporting a party that stands for Parliament and has to come up with policies (not something I agree with, but that's a different matter). However, the question of independence is ultimately a question of whether you think that the working class has anything to gain from movements that ally itself with its native bourgeoisie and assumes they have the same goal. It's not a question of tactics but of basic principles.

[Sam_b]

the fact still remains that you don't support independence while your party does.


Oh noes! Are you actually aware of how many people in Solidarity support independence and how many don't.


However, the question of independence is ultimately a question of whether you think that the working class has anything to gain from movements that ally itself with its native bourgeoisie and assumes they have the same goal. It's not a question of tactics but of basic principles.

If Scotland is independent, will workers still get exploited like they are today? Yes.

And I don't believe for one minute that the quest for emancipation of workers would be easier within a Scottish republic.

A question of tactics? Of course it is.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:06 pm

the fact still remains that you don't support independence while your party does.


Oh noes! Are you actually aware of how many people in Solidarity support independence and how many don't.


However, the question of independence is ultimately a question of whether you think that the working class has anything to gain from movements that ally itself with its native bourgeoisie and assumes they have the same goal. It's not a question of tactics but of basic principles.

If Scotland is independent, will workers still get exploited like they are today? Yes.

And I don't believe for one minute that the quest for emancipation of workers would be easier within a Scottish republic.

A question of tactics? Of course it is.
I'm not sure why you think it is purely a matter of tactics - pushing independence suggests that the working class can benefit from alliances with the bourgeoisie. Its actually one of the most fundamental political questions there is. If Solidarity has as wide a range of views on this among members as you suggest it illustrates a complete lack of the most basic theoretical clarity.

[Dr Mindbender]

i made a thread like this a few weeks ago. I myself am not totally adverse to Scottish nationalism, as i think a change to the status quo within the UK as it stands is almost unattainable.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...=scottish&st=50 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71379&hl=scottish&st=50)

PS. Can someone tell me who and why has highlighted Scotland in this, in red and yellow everytime it is mentioned please?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:27 pm

Name another socialist movement based in Scotland
the SSP.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 10:52 pm
i made a thread like this a few weeks ago. I myself am not totally adverse to Scottish nationalism, as i think a change to the status quo within the UK as it stands is almost unattainable.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...=scottish&st=50 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71379&hl=scottish&st=50)

PS. Can someone tell me who and why has highlighted Scotland in this, in red and yellow everytime it is mentioned please?
You must have searched for that specific word, because thats how it highlights keywords used in a search.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 03, 2007 10:58 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 03, 2007 10:58 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 10:52 pm
i made a thread like this a few weeks ago. I myself am not totally adverse to Scottish nationalism, as i think a change to the status quo within the UK as it stands is almost unattainable.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...=scottish&st=50 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71379&hl=scottish&st=50)

PS. Can someone tell me who and why has highlighted Scotland in this, in red and yellow everytime it is mentioned please?
You must have searched for that specific word, because thats how it highlights keywords used in a search. [/b]
Oh yeah, that makes sense. It stops doing it half way through the thread for some reason.

EDIT: no, it does it on all but one post. Shit, im slow tonight.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Yellow Revolution? More like more neo-liberal monopoly capitalism, that is the SNP agenda for a Scottish state.

The UK splitting into neo-liberal statelets is not going to help anyone. An equal federal union of English, Scottish, and Welsh Proletarian Republics, in peaceful coexistence with an All-Ireland Proletarian Republic can only bring about the end to oppression in the Hiberno-British Isles.

[spartan]

I think that a Federation of Bristish Socialist Republics (FBSR), with the FBSR's constituent Socialist Republics (SR) being the SR of Cornwall, SR of England, SR of Ireland (Both Northern and Republic), SR of Isle of Man, SR of Scotland and the SR of Wales, is a far better alternative to complete independence for these regions of the British isles as it keeps us all together, in a Socialist Federation, which is better for us all economically than being independent.

I personally dont think that any of these regions of the UK getting independence is good as i dont think that on there own they can survive economically then we thrive, for the most part, together currently as a Union.

The Federation idea is sort of similar to Jugoslavia.

The trouble is though Jugoslavia ended in tears :(

We could always use the word Union instead of Federation if you want it to be more Soviet like :lol:

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:32 pm
The following link is to a article which says that all of the native people of the British Isles are related and are virtually the same - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/...r=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/06brits.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

I don't know how accurate that is, but if its true, then there is no nationalistic basis for Scottish independance. Besides, "nationality" and "ethnicity" are superficial - most humans are genetically very similar. We should not be trying to split ourselves up into nations like we're some sort of collection owned by a small ruling class, but instead focus on our class.
A self-identified cultural group within a fixed territory wants an imperialist power to stop imposing reactionary policies on it...I don't see how any change would be worse for Scotland than the status quo...They didn't choose to unite with England: They had it imposed on them through violence, manipulation, and blackmail. A Scotland that exists independent of the UK's reactionary framework is not a Scotland in which Scottish workers will stop fight for the liberation of all workers within the "British" Isles, throughout Europe, and throughout the world.

[spartan]

A self-identified cultural group within a fixed territory wants an imperialist power to stop imposing reactionary policies on it...
They are hardly that unique as over half of Scots can trace their ancestory back to England and vice versa for the English.

I don't see how any change would be worse for Scotland than the status quo...
It will be a Neo-Liberal Nationalist state!

Dont you think that is bad?

They didn't choose to unite with England: They had it imposed on them through violence, manipulation, and blackmail.
I see that your history is'nt that good then as the Scottish Bourgeoisie, with the support of the majority of lowland Protestant Scots, realised that it was in their best intrests to go into union with England as this would open up all of Englands colonies for exploitation.

There was never any widespread resistance to the union with England, except from the Catholic highlanders who lived in an outdated system and who stood to lose the most from a union with anti-Catholic England, as your average Scot realised that the union would be a good thing for Scotland economically (Creation of more jobs and the ability to invest into Englamds colonies etc).

If you want to talk about a country which was violently conquered and where Guerrilla resistance to the conquerors was widespread, try talking about Wales.

A Scotland that exists independent of the UK's reactionary framework is not a Scotland in which Scottish workers will stop fight for the liberation of all workers within the "British" Isles, throughout Europe, and throughout the world.
That is beside the point as your average Scottish worker will be economically worse off in an independent Scotland, which will be economically unable to preserve itself due to the dwindling of oil in the north sea, than in a Scotland that is part of a union (Whether that union be a Capitalist or Socialist one).

Why is the Proletarian wanting to divide themselves along petty and almost non-existent national and racial lines and thus do the Bourgeoisie work for them?

This Bourgeoisie's work of course is to prevent Proletarian unity, via the use of Nationalism, which will scupper any chance for a revolution!

The Proletarian has no country!

[Sam_b]

If Solidarity has as wide a range of views on this among members as you suggest it illustrates a complete lack of the most basic theoretical clarity.

Or because unlike some parties that prioritise it over socialist policies, we don't regard it as that important an issue.

Are you in any political party, Marion? Do you agree with absolutely everything it says, or are you forced to due to an iron line imposed on members by a EC?

[Andy Bowden]

I see that your history is'nt that good then as the Scottish Bourgeoisie, with the support of the majority of lowland Protestant Scots, realised that it was in their best intrests to go into union with England as this would open up all of Englands colonies for exploitation.

There was never any widespread resistance to the union with England, except from the Catholic highlanders who lived in an outdated system and who stood to lose the most from a union with anti-Catholic England, as your average Scot realised that the union would be a good thing for Scotland economically (Creation of more jobs and the ability to invest into Englamds colonies etc).

You shouldn't lecture about other peoples lack of historical knowledge if you claim there was no widespread resistance to the union; the British spy Daniel Defoe claimed that for every pro-Union Scot there was 99 against.

There were riots across Scotland against the treaty, and violence to the point the document itself had to be signed in secret.

Even most of the ardent pro-Union historians accept that the Treaty of Union was basically imposed against massive popular objection to it.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:43 pm

If Solidarity has as wide a range of views on this among members as you suggest it illustrates a complete lack of the most basic theoretical clarity.

Or because unlike some parties that prioritise it over socialist policies, we don't regard it as that important an issue.

Are you in any political party, Marion? Do you agree with absolutely everything it says, or are you forced to due to an iron line imposed on members by a EC?
Seems very strange in the slightest to try and distinguish national independence from "socialist policies".

Firstly, if its something separate from socialist policies why on earth is it one of Solidarity's key policies? Or do they advocate some policies that are socialist and some that aren't?

Secondly, do you not agree that the question of whether you advocate internationalist working-class solidarity or, through Scottish independence, alliances with the bourgeoisie is actually pretty important? I'd say it is one of the crucial questions faced by any organisation.

I'm not in a party at present (but have been in organisations), but personally I'd only join one of any sort if I agreed with their basic principles or positions. You wouldn't need to agree with everything that other members state, but you can only really join up if you agree with the basics. Given that independence is a stated area in Solidarity's founding statement (http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/1/3/) and one of the four areas highlighted on their front page (http://www.solidarityscotland.org/) I don't see how you could either join the party or be accepted into it.

I think the difficulty is that you (and, from what you say, some others in Solidarity) disagree with Solidarity over what is one of their major positions. How on earth can you be in a party which you have such a major difference with? How can you say the question of independence or not isn't a vital question for the working class? How can people expect to have any respect for a party that allows people to join who disagree with it over key areas?

Just in case anyone thinks Scottish independence is not a major part of what Solidarity stands for:

http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/262/2/
http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/320/2/
http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/81/2/
http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/14/55/

[S.O.I]

fuck yeah

fuck england mate

[spartan]

fuck yeah

fuck england mate
Whats your problem with England and the English?

Your average English Proletarian is exploited equally as much as your average Scottish Proletarian you know.

[S.O.I]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:08 pm

fuck yeah

fuck england mate
Whats your problem with England and the English?

Your average English Proletarian is exploited equally as much as your average Scottish Proletarian you know.

fuck the monarchy and the english parliament and politicians, the and upper class and the history of occupation and racism, slavery and hipocracy

scotland ftw

[redrogue]

Originally posted by S.O.I+November 05, 2007 01:13 pm--> (S.O.I @ November 05, 2007 01:13 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 01:08 pm

fuck yeah

fuck england mate
Whats your problem with England and the English?

Your average English Proletarian is exploited equally as much as your average Scottish Proletarian you know.

fuck the monarchy and the english parliament and politicians, the and upper class and the history of occupation and racism, slavery and hipocracy

scotland ftw [/b]
i'm totally with you!

[spartan]

You two are petty Nationalists :lol:

What will you do with English people living in your independent Scotland?

I would'nt be surprised if you sent them to concentration camps!

The Proletarian has no country as nationalities and race is a Bourgeoisie concept aimed at dividing, and thus preventing, Proletarian unity which is what is needed for a revolution.

This of course scuppers any chance for a revolution and keeps the Bourgeoisie in power! (So you can see why they use this tactic of division on the Proletariat).

Stop falling for the Bourgeoisie lies and doing their work for them as your remarks are just plain reactionary Nationalism.

[redrogue]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:21 pm
You two are petty Nationalists :lol:

What will you do with English people living in your independent Scotland?

I would'nt be surprised if you sent them to concentration camps!

The Proletarian has no country as nationalities and race is a Bourgeoisie concept aimed at dividing, and thus preventing, Proletarian unity which is what is needed for a revolution.

This of course scuppers any chance for a revolution and keeps the Bourgeoisie in power! (So you can see why they use this tactic of division on the Proletariat).

Stop falling for the Bourgeoisie lies and doing their work for them as your remarks are just plain reactionary Nationalism.
Civic Nationalism m8

P.S. A revolution is never going to happen, wake up!

[spartan]

P.S. A revolution is never going to happen, wake up!
I would'nt say things like that on a site called REVOLUTIONARY Left where most members, me included, believe in the revolution in one form or another.

[S.O.I]

You two are petty Nationalists :lol:

What will you do with English people living in your independent Scotland?

im not scottish, im norwegian... so dont be calling me nationalist motherfucker

n i wouldnt send them to concentration camps, i would send the pretty girls to fuck-camps, and the rest would be sold like slaves.

jk.. or am i?

and i aslo doubt there will be any revolution, especially in th US. but, i truly seriously hope im wrong.

[spartan]

im not scottish, im norwegian...
So whats your intrest in Scottish independence? :huh:

so dont be calling me nationalist motherfucker
Dont be making Nationalist statements then and i wont have grounds to call you a Nationalist anymore.

Also i dont fuck mothers (Though i would like to ;) ).

[redrogue]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:29 pm
I would'nt say things like that on a site called REVOLUTIONARY Left where most members, me included, believe in the revolution in one form or another.
I don't believe it is going to happen, I know what people are like!
The Working class read the sun, they are not going to want a revolution are they?

[S.O.I]

im not scottish, im norwegian...
So whats your intrest in Scottish independence? :huh:
justice and truth



so dont be calling me nationalist motherfucker
Dont be making Nationalist statements then and i wont have grounds to call you a Nationalist anymore.

i didnt make a nationalist statement. :ph34r: i made an anti-nationalist statement. (england)

well kinda.. just forget it. scotland > england


Also i dont fuck mothers (Thouugh i would like to ;) ).

ahh.. yeah, i can feel that one mate.. fo real hahah

[Sam_b]

How on earth can you be in a party which you have such a major difference with?

Solidarity's FIRST (yes, first) policy conference is next week.


How can you say the question of independence or not isn't a vital question for the working class?

What do you define yourself as - Scottish or working class?


How can people expect to have any respect for a party that allows people to join who disagree with it over key areas?

You evidently seem to know absolutely hee-haw about Solidarity as a broad worker's movement. Cut the petty sectarianism.

[Marion]

Solidarity was founded on the basis of independence. It repeatedly stresses the need for independence. It is one of its core beliefs. You've signed up to a party founded on the basis of Scottish nationalism despite not believing in it. In the (incredibly) likely case that this party, founded on the basis of nationalism, re-endorses this belief at the upcoming conference will you then leave the party?

Of course I define myself as working class. That's precisely why the question of nationalism or internationalism is so important.

PS I'm very aware of how broad Solidarity is. In fact, that's the exact thing I'm arguing against - a party that is so broad it allows people to join despite the fact they don't agree with the basis on which it was founded.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by redrogue+November 05, 2007 01:35 pm--> (redrogue @ November 05, 2007 01:35 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 01:29 pm
I would'nt say things like that on a site called REVOLUTIONARY Left where most members, me included, believe in the revolution in one form or another.
I don't believe it is going to happen, I know what people are like!
The Working class read the sun, they are not going to want a revolution are they? [/b]
You are joking, right?

[redrogue]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 06, 2007 09:05 am--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 06, 2007 09:05 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:35 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 01:29 pm
I would'nt say things like that on a site called REVOLUTIONARY Left where most members, me included, believe in the revolution in one form or another.
I don't believe it is going to happen, I know what people are like!
The Working class read the sun, they are not going to want a revolution are they?
You are joking, right? [/b]
No, I'm not!

C'mon, they don't exactly read the Morning Star now do they?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by redrogue+November 06, 2007 10:24 am--> (redrogue @ November 06, 2007 10:24 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:05 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:35 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 01:29 pm
I would'nt say things like that on a site called REVOLUTIONARY Left where most members, me included, believe in the revolution in one form or another.
I don't believe it is going to happen, I know what people are like!
The Working class read the sun, they are not going to want a revolution are they?
You are joking, right?
No, I'm not!

C'mon, they don't exactly read the Morning Star now do they? [/b]
Why would the circulation of newspapers correspond to the likelihood of revolution?

[redrogue]

Mainly the political climate, the working class aren't very left wing.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:33 am
Mainly the political climate, the working class aren't very left wing.
Few people nowadays actually read newspapers, so you can't judge the entire working class of a country based on who reads what newspaper.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:04 pm
fuck yeah

fuck england mate
Your solidarity with socialists in England is noted. :rolleyes:

[bolshevik butcher]

This thread is a depressing reflection of the state of much of the Scottish left today, that new young comrades feel that England is in some way the enemy and that Scotland should first function as a national bloc and then the working class should sort out its differences with the ruling class is sad to say the least, especially when the working class is written off as mearley being sun reading and unconscious. This all ignores material reality today. The British labour movement struggles generally as one. Imagine if only posties in England or Scotland had struck. We cannot be dvided along national lines and must fight for a unified workning class.

[Sam_b]

Solidarity was founded on the basis of independence.

No it wasn't.

[Marion]

I'd have thought my statement that independence was "one of its [Solidarity's] core beliefs" would have clarified that I wasn't meaning it was founded on independence alone, but I'd agree the wording wasn't totally unambiguous.

Ultimately, you can't get away with the fact that Solidarity refers in its founding statement to "SOLIDARITY FOR an independent socialist nuclear free Scotland" and for "A democratic movement – for an independent socialist Scotland". Moreover, it has repeatedly referred to the need for Scotland to be independent in a number of other statements. I don't really see how you can disagree with this analysis and the view it is one of the core beliefs on which Solidarity was founded.

Thus leaving the questions again:

1) Why would you join an organisation when you cannot endorse a main element of what it stands for?

2) What are we to think of an organisation that allows people to join it who do not agree with main elements of what it stands for?

I'm not meaning to single out yourself or Solidarity particularly as I'm sure other posters on RevLeft (given the regular calls for people to get involved with whatever nominally "revolutionary" party is in the vicinity) do the same and that other parties are equally lax.

[Sam_b]

1) Why would you join an organisation when you cannot endorse a main element of what it stands for?

The first school fo thought is that it isn't a main element at all - seeing as there is a large amount of CWI and SWP comrades who recognise that internationalism is priority, and the fact that I don't see ANYTHING about independance in the motions for this weeken's conference shows this.

And the whole concept is to build a mass worker's party in Scotland: a broad united front. I think its absolutely silly to single out individuals in that movement for their opinions on nationalism, though these are arguments that need to be had in the party. I haven't met anyone in Solidarity (I have been a member since its conception) who regards nationalism as a core belief or has put it in priority.


2) What are we to think of an organisation that allows people to join it who do not agree with main elements of what it stands for?

See the above answer. Unlike a lot of leftist parties Solidarity is an outward looking movement.

In all, I don't see your argument or what you're trying to achieve. To me it equates to unjustified slander against the party and is sectarian.

[Marion]

I think for you to argue that a) nationalism isn't a main part of what Solidarity stands for and, b) that a party's position on nationalism or internationalism isn't a priority is strange. From your statement its pretty clear that their conference will uphold (without even a debate despite people disagreeing!) their view on nationalism, it will remain one of their core arguments and you'll still disagree but remain in the party. To your mind having members who disagree with it over fundamentals shows it is "outward looking", to me it shows a lack of clarity and that they prioritise getting numbers over having even the most minimal coherence.

I'm not sure where you think I have engaged in "unjustified slander". As you know, I've repeatedly pointed out information on your own party's website to show how you disagree with your own party. Feel free to point out any "slander" though. I'm not being "sectarian" either. Perhaps you need to cut down on the hyperbole a touch...?

Saying that, I think the arguments on either side are clear now, but if you want to post anything substantial or PM me I'd be happy to reply.

[Sam_b]

(without even a debate despite people disagreeing!)

We are a broad movment - I have no problem with comrades who are pro independence and will work with them. I don't need a party to tell me how to think, and your analysis smacks of the idea that people in a party have to be slaves to the party line.

The fact that there is nothing that suggests that this is a core issue to Solidairty members and supporters, and the only person I can see that regards it as this gigantuous issue is yourself.

[Marion]

Of course you don't need a party to tell you how to think - that's not the point. The question is, whether having worked out what you think, you join a party that you agree with on its basic points or not. People in a party have to have some basic level of agreement otherwise what is the point in the party existing???

For you to suggest nationalism is not an important issue flies in the face of the repeated statements by Solidarity, including in its founding statement and in a very prominent position on its main web page. I think you're probably aware of this by now.

The main reason why it is such an important issue is because it highlights whether you think the working class should engage in "alliances" or "fronts" with the bourgeoisie or have an internationalist, rigorously class-based approach (which would equally reject UK nationalism). It also tends to be linked to a reformist attitude to the state.

The fact that you (and others in your party with similar views) are seemingly unable to see the importance of this says much about Solidarity and what passes for radical politics in the UK.

PS I think we're going in circles now...

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Sam_b+November 06, 2007 07:39 pm--> (Sam_b @ November 06, 2007 07:39 pm)
1) Why would you join an organisation when you cannot endorse a main element of what it stands for?

The first school fo thought is that it isn't a main element at all - seeing as there is a large amount of CWI and SWP comrades who recognise that internationalism is priority, and the fact that I don't see ANYTHING about independance in the motions for this weeken's conference shows this.
[/b]
Obviously it is there clearly in your founding statement (http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/1/3/), as you consider it to have no importance whatsoever:


Solidarity
for an independent socialist Scotland,

Devrim

[Sam_b]

People in a party have to have some basic level of agreement

Exactly: and you've been going on for a while now about this, a single issue that I have contention with.


For you to suggest nationalism is not an important issue flies in the face of the repeated statements by Solidarity, including in its founding statement and in a very prominent position on its main web page. I think you're probably aware of this by now.

Yes. It is not an important issue to members of Solidarity who don't believe in Scottish nationalism. You make it sound like its discussed in Braveheart fashion at every single public meeting and forum. It doesn't. At the end of the day, as I member I know more about what is important in Solidarity and what isn't. When was the last statement about nationalism? I can't even remember, if we did have one anyway. Right now our activists are busy planning for our policy conference 9where again, not one motion concerning nationalism has been tabled - reflecting that our members feel there are more important things to debate) in supporting the Glasgow day care workers strike, and building a grassroots movement from below.


The fact that you (and others in your party with similar views) are seemingly unable to see the importance of this says much about Solidarity and what passes for radical politics in the UK.


How many working class people are seriously going to come on side if we spend all day going on about communist theory and imminent revolutionary statuses, for example? Didnae think so.

Its a fine lot of good making jibes at Solidarity, making exaggerated claims about its policies and 'what passes for radical politics'. So tell us Marion: what are you doing in the 'radical' movement that we're not then?

[Marion]

You haven't really engaged with my arguments. You repeatedly state that nationalism isn't a big issue in Solidarity despite the numerous statements I've drawn your attention to - e.g. in your founding statement, for goodness sake. The more you state that other people in Solidarity share your view on nationalism the more you are proving that people in your party don't give a damn about agreeing with one of the bases on which the party was founded. Can you tell me what the point is in having a party that anyone can join regardless of whether they agree with its basic positions or not? If its not an important part of your approach why was I easily able to find so many statements? Why is it in your founding statement? Why is it so prominently positioned on the front page of your web site?

To move quickly to your other points...

1) Where did I say that you should spend all day "going on about communist theory and immanent revolution"? If you mean that I'd argue on the basics of internationalism rather than for Scottish (or UK) nationalism you'd be correct. I'm not sure, though, why one counts as "going on about communist theory" and the other one doesn't. Can you explain?

2) Where have I made "exaggerated claims" about Solidarity's policies or made any "jibes" at them? Moreover, I asked you relatively politely earlier to back up your claim that I gave "unjustified slander" and you haven't yet. It's not really a very satisfactory way of discussing things.

Edited to add a very minor point: The only thing I can think of that might have caused the slightest offence was my reference to "what passes for radical politics". It wasn't a "jibe" at Solidarity in particular, but a comment on most of the organisations on the left in Scotland who are in favour of one form of nationalism or another and focus on reforming the state. Obviously you'll disagree, but I think its fairly accurate. There's nothing else to get even remotely upset about, no "exaggerated claims" and no "unjustified slander".

[Sam_b]

You haven't really engaged with my arguments. You repeatedly state that nationalism isn't a big issue in Solidarity despite the numerous statements I've drawn your attention to - e.g. in your founding statement, for goodness sake. The more you state that other people in Solidarity share your view on nationalism the more you are proving that people in your party don't give a damn about agreeing with one of the bases on which the party was founded.

To be blunt, you border on the pathetic. I have dealt with these arguments easily already: do you define a party by what something on a website says, or by the action and practice it takes? You're now merely obsessing over this point. You also completely ignore what I am saying about our policy conference over the weekend. It appears to me that you simply advocate splitting up socialists dependant on their views of nationalism.


Where did I say that you should spend all day "going on about communist theory and immanent revolution"?

That was an interpretation of your pathetic 'parties on the left' statement. So what exactly are you doing about it?


Where have I made "exaggerated claims" about Solidarity's policies or made any "jibes" at them?

You keep pitching Solidarity as a party obsessed with nationalism.

So again Marion...what exactly are you doing about bucking this trend you see in leftist parties? I'd be very interested to hear.

[Marion]

I have dealt with these arguments easily already: do you define a party by what something on a website says, or by the action and practice it takes? You're now merely obsessing over this point. You also completely ignore what I am saying about our policy conference over the weekend. It appears to me that you simply advocate splitting up socialists dependant on their views of nationalism.
This doesn't make any sense at all. You seem to be saying that Solidarity's repeated calls for independence do not amount to "action and practice"? Since when is trying to persuade people of a point of view not action? Are you honestly telling me that if Solidarity were part of a succesful push for independence that they would not claim this was a succesful "action"?

To deal with it in another way, your statement

do you define a party by what something on a website says, or by the action and practice it takes?
rather strangely seems to be claiming that there is a difference between what Solidarity says on its website and the "action and practice" it takes. If there is no connection what is the point of its website? I'm not meaning to be rude, but I think you're tying yourself in knots here.


You keep pitching Solidarity as a party obsessed with nationalism.
Actually I don't think Solidarity as a whole can be categorised as being obsessed with nationalism. As I thought was clear, my views are: 1) it is clearly something Solidarity as an institution (probably its founders) think is sufficiently important to repeatedly stress and include in its founding statement, 2) its something that some individual members clearly aren't too bothered about.

My criticisms are therefore that 1) Solidarity as an organisation can't be bothered ensuring its own members adhere to its vision as outlined in its founding statement and as prominently displayed elsewhere, 2) many members have a similarly lax view, and 3) the lack of any desire to deal with this issue suggests that neither the organisation or members understand the importance of the question of nationalism (Uk or Scottish) or internationalism.

As to whether my claims are exaggerated or not, you are fully aware that I have referred repeatedly to your own parties website. Please explain to me how this can be "exaggerated"?

Anyway, I'm rapidly running out of time at present. Suffice it to say that I'm not a member of any political party at present and don't consider being an "activist" and "doing things" necessarily a good in itself. Obviously, however, I argue for what I believe in where and when I can. I'm not sure, though, how its relevant to the question of whether it is sensible or not to join a party whose founding statement you could not in all honesty sign.

Actually, that's a good question. If asked to sign the founding statement, would you lie and sign it, or be honest, say you could not sign it and accept being asked to leave?

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:42 pm
To be blunt, you border on the pathetic. I have dealt with these arguments easily already: do you define a party by what something on a website says, or by the action and practice it takes?
Just to point out. As you know, I was not judging Solidarity by "something on a website" I was judging Solidarity by what Solidarity say their aims are on their OWN website.

As you now seem to be arguing I can't judge Solidarity by what they say about themselves in their own media can you tell me exactly what the hell the point would be in anyone either reading their website or listening to anything they say about anything?

[Sam_b]

You seem to be saying that Solidarity's repeated calls for independence

Have you ever heard any of these 'repeated calls' outwith the website? Or have you only seen Solidarity doing other things like supporting Trade Unionists? This action in itself would indicate that it is clearly not on the top priority list.

I've already stated that there are no independance motions for tomorrow's conference, showing that again it is not a top priority or a 'core belief' However, you haven't even bothered yourself to aknowledge this.

If it was a core principle of the party, why are so many people in Solidarity who are not in favour of an independant Scotland?


1) it is clearly something Solidarity as an institution (probably its founders) think is sufficiently important to repeatedly stress and include in its founding statement

Yet nothing has ever come of this in the real world;


My criticisms are therefore that 1) Solidarity as an organisation can't be bothered ensuring its own members adhere to its vision as outlined in its founding statement and as prominently displayed elsewhere, 2) many members have a similarly lax view, and 3) the lack of any desire to deal with this issue suggests that neither the organisation or members understand the importance of the question of nationalism (Uk or Scottish) or internationalism.


Solidarity's success is that it is a broad worker's party - if you were to advocate a frankly ridiculous line about nationalism this would significantly reduce.

Yes, I have a 'lax' view on independance as it's nowhere near as important as other issues.

Do you think that striking workers give much of a toss about Scottish independance when their livelihoods and wages are at stake? What about soldiers posted in Iraq and Afghanistan who are threatened with death and maiming on a daily basis? Or our ethnic communities who are hassled by the state and portrayed as fundamentalists? Do you seriously think this is one of the most important things for them?

In short, I honestly think you're merely a cyber-activist thats removed from the struggle with a complex about nationalism. End of story.

[Marion]

Generally I do think the question of nationalism is very important as it says a lot about whether someone believes the working class can benefit from cross-class alliances or not. The whole question of cross-class alliances is absolutely vital in the other questions that you note in your e-mail (e.g. anti-war). You don't seem to think its a significant question at all, in line with your apparent rejection of theory in favour of practice as if one has no connection with the other.

However, for much of this discussion what has become important is not so much nationalism per se but whether you can be a member of a party where you cannot honestly sign up to its founding statement. I have actually acknowledged that nationalism isn't tabled for discussion tomorrow - as I suggested, this reflects the fact that despite a reasonable number (from what you have said) of Solidarity members disagreeing with this element of their founding statement they don't see it as important to clarify the position. This speaks volumes for the party - if I was a member I'd at least want to make sure that the party didn't constantly highlight an issue and include it in our founding statement if a significant section of the party disagreed. Does that not make sense?

As you repeatedly don't answer my questions (e.g. what is the point in a party where anyone can become a member regardless of whether they agree with its founding statement, what the point of Solidarity's website is we can't judge them by what they say on it etc) I think we're going round in circles even more than we were before.

I'm not intending this as having a go at you, but if a party gets formed and you disagree with its basic platform how can you sign up to it??? Like I say, we're going round in circles though...

[Colonello Buendia]

My opinion is that SOLIDARITY do not plan to abolish the current system<spits> they want to improve the conditions for the worker but they aren&#39;t planning enough. and quite frankly I agree with Marion. SOLIDARITY is a party in name only. Nationalism is a major issue, whether it&#39;s mentioned in the conference, nationalism is a crucial issue. Why is it that the English are considered evil? English workers are in the same boat as us comrades. As a political newbie so to speak I&#39;m not sure about the SPGB but from what I&#39;ve read I think they seem to be more in touch with me.



And not to bash SOLIDARITY, but I&#39;ve never held a high opinion of Tommy Sheridan.

[Sam_b]

I&#39;m not intending this as having a go at you, but if a party gets formed and you disagree with its basic platform how can you sign up to it???

To sum up on the one point you continually push, despite me saying so much about...

We are a broad worker&#39;s party. We want to attract as many comrades as possible, and our founding statement reflects this. Its OK to have disagreements with a party&#39;s statement - there is no &#39;idea type&#39; for a party. As long as we are united on the main issues - an end to capitalism, an end to war, effective Trade Unionism and to speak out against increasing infringement on our civil liberties. The broadness of Solidarity is summed up when you consider both SWP and CWI comrades are in it - tendencies with significant differences on tactics, but will unite in the spirit of united front and a party for working class people.


My opinion is that SOLIDARITY do not plan to abolish the current system<spits> they want to improve the conditions for the worker but they aren&#39;t planning enough

How so? You&#39;re going to have to back that up.

And the <spits> part is totally unnecessary.



English workers are in the same boat as us comrades.

I agree. Whats your point? And despite not being in favour of it, I think that it is too simple and insulting to say that nationalism is solely fuelled by a hatred of the English.


I&#39;m not sure about the SPGB but from what I&#39;ve read I think they seem to be more in touch with me.


They are a small, inward-looking group who do not take part in any united front action. I certainly don&#39;t see them in Stop the War.

[Cheung Mo]

Anything that weakens the UK is worth supporting.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 13, 2007 04:02 am
Anything that weakens the UK is worth supporting.
That&#39;s a bit simplistic. Is the UK the only capitalist government? What kind of government would an independent Scotland have?

[Colonello Buendia]

Ok sorry about the spits, but even looking at the Solidarity site , I didn&#39;t see anything about the complete abolition of capitalism<spits> (I need to clean my mouth out after saying capitalism you see)So I have drawn the conclusion that they are reformists but I shall keep my ming open. As for nationalism... well I think that any logical Scot would realise that the sums just don&#39;t add up. There is no way to sustain an independent Scotland. I may have been over simplistic but The fact is many nationalists I&#39;ve spoken to have unmitigated hatred for the english as their main reason for nationalism.

[Sam_b]

So I have drawn the conclusion that they are reformists

Well first off, I would say that almost everyone in the party is anti-capitalist, I can assure you of this especially after our conference last weekend, where we passed a motion on the economy calling for an anti-capitalist alternative.

However, what is terribly wrong with reformism in the short term? Obviously, capitalism is a system that much be destroyed, but we should support any policies which will be of benefit - for example we should support the SNP&#39;s scrapping of student graduation tax.



As for nationalism... well I think that any logical Scot would realise that the sums just don&#39;t add up. There is no way to sustain an independent Scotland.

My point would be there would be enough, especially for an independant capitalist Scotland, but there are many sound reasons from a socialist perspective against independance. However, I would definitely support the right of the Scottish people to have a referendum on the issue.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:07 pm

So I have drawn the conclusion that they are reformists

Well first off, I would say that almost everyone in the party is anti-capitalist, I can assure you of this especially after our conference last weekend, where we passed a motion on the economy calling for an anti-capitalist alternative.

However, what is terribly wrong with reformism in the short term?
The fact that is has been and will be ineffective.


Obviously, capitalism is a system that much be destroyed, but we should support any policies which will be of benefit - for example we should support the SNP&#39;s scrapping of student graduation tax.



As for nationalism... well I think that any logical Scot would realise that the sums just don&#39;t add up. There is no way to sustain an independent Scotland.

My point would be there would be enough, especially for an independant capitalist Scotland, but there are many sound reasons from a socialist perspective against independance. However, I would definitely support the right of the Scottish people to have a referendum on the issue.
I don&#39;t see why that would do anything for a Socialist UK or Europe. Even if Scotland does secede and does become a Socialist state it will probably falter and fail due to isolation.

[Sam_b]

The fact that is has been and will be ineffective.

So you wouldn&#39;t support an increase of the minimum wage, for example?


Even if Scotland does secede and does become a Socialist state it will probably falter and fail due to isolation.

[Colonello Buendia]

reformism is basically Labour with more "leftists" it is ineffective. Though certain aspects of socialism can&#39;t be established immediately (abolition of currency for example) other things such as immediate abolition of capitalism have to be established immeditately.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:18 pm

The fact that is has been and will be ineffective.

So you wouldn&#39;t support an increase of the minimum wage, for example?


Even if Scotland does secede and does become a Socialist state it will probably falter and fail due to isolation.
I think an increase in the minimum wage, although something like a secession is an establishment of a new government.

I think if we are going to work for the establishment of a new government--it had better be socialist.

[Sam_b]

reformism is basically Labour with more "leftists" it is ineffective. Though certain aspects of socialism can&#39;t be established immediately (abolition of currency for example) other things such as immediate abolition of capitalism have to be established immeditately.

Inneffective in what way? Yes, ineffective in the grand scheme of abolishing capitalism; no socialist should seriously believe that there is a parliamentary road to equality; but at the same time any progressive measures should be supported in the meantime.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:56 pm
Yes, ineffective in the grand scheme of abolishing capitalism; no socialist should seriously believe that there is a parliamentary road to equality; but at the same time any progressive measures should be supported in the meantime.
I don&#39;t see why, you are merely doing the capitalists&#39; reformist work for them.

I&#39;m all in favor in certain reforms, so long as they don&#39;t drain resources from vital revolutionary work&#33;

[50cal_words]

Why cant anybody on that island work together??? Sure, the english dominated scotland
brutally for years but cant they just forget about it??? Its like the jewish people still saying that the assyrians are savage killers...that was *years* ago. It would be easier to work together than to ***** about eachother forever&#33;

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:16 am
Sure, the english dominated scotland
brutally for years but cant they just forget about it???
Just forget about it? Are you serious?

[Colonello Buendia]

we really really should, it happened ages ago. we fought back. it should be consigned to the annals of history where it belongs.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:16 am
Why cant anybody on that island work together??? Sure, the english dominated scotland
brutally for years but cant they just forget about it??? Its like the jewish people still saying that the assyrians are savage killers...that was *years* ago. It would be easier to work together than to ***** about eachother forever&#33;
Even now, the English are oppressing people in the North of Ireland and exploiting Wales and Scotland for the benefit of the Union, so it wasn&#39;t "years ago", because its still happening.

[spartan]

Though i believe that the Proletariat on the British isles should stick together i have always been sympathetic to the independence of the Celtic nations as i am Welsh.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:35 pm
Though i believe that the Proletariat on the British isles should stick together i have always been sympathetic to the independence of the Celtic nations as i am Welsh.
Nationalism much?

[spartan]

Nationalism much?
I could always call it "standing up to centuries of English Imperialism" if you want?

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:26 pm

Nationalism much?
I could always call it "standing up to centuries of English Imperialism" if you want?
Call it what you want, it still comes down to the same thing in the end.

[Sam_b]

"standing up to centuries of English Imperialism"

However it should be notted that it wasn&#39;t just England that gleefully participated in one of the biggest acts of imperialism in the last few centuries: The British Empire.

[MT5678]

Whats the difference between Scotlanders and Englishmen?
(I&#39;m an Indian, and a product of the American educational system. Except for my Marxist studies)

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:34 am
Whats the difference between Scotlanders and Englishmen?
(I&#39;m an Indian, and a product of the American educational system. Except for my Marxist studies)
Its mostly cultural and some linguistic differences.

[anti-authoritarian]

It&#39;s a political difference:

England votes Conservative; Scotland votes Labour.

All this crap about &#39;historical differences&#39; is exactly that - bullshit. The more realistic way of achieving socialism (for the Scots) is independence from the UK. As long as we remain part of that union we will always be governed by a capitalist party and we will always have nuclear weapons in faslane. I would love for socialism to work within the union but with the current sociological trends in England, it&#39;s not going to happen. I support independence not because of &#39;nationalism&#39; or &#39;patriotism&#39; but because I believe it&#39;s necessary for the implimentation of proper left wing economics.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:06 am
It&#39;s a political difference:

England votes Conservative; Scotland votes Labour.
Where did you pull that out of? In England, the North mostly supports Labour and the Lib Dems have quite a presence in many regions -

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:06 am
It&#39;s a political difference:

England votes Conservative; Scotland votes Labour.

All this crap about &#39;historical differences&#39; is exactly that - bullshit. The more realistic way of achieving socialism (for the Scots) is independence from the UK. As long as we remain part of that union we will always be governed by a capitalist party and we will always have nuclear weapons in faslane. I would love for socialism to work within the union but with the current sociological trends in England, it&#39;s not going to happen. I support independence not because of &#39;nationalism&#39; or &#39;patriotism&#39; but because I believe it&#39;s necessary for the implimentation of proper left wing economics.
So basically you don&#39;t believe in solidarity with England?

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:24 pm
Even now, the English are oppressing people in the North of Ireland and exploiting Wales and Scotland for the benefit of the Union, so it wasn&#39;t "years ago", because its still happening.
In what way does the capitalist class exploit the Scots and Welsh workers that is any different than how it exploits English workers?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Philosophical Materialist+December 10, 2007 12:48 pm--> (Philosophical Materialist @ December 10, 2007 12:48 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 01:24 pm
Even now, the English are oppressing people in the North of Ireland and exploiting Wales and Scotland for the benefit of the Union, so it wasn&#39;t "years ago", because its still happening.
In what way does the capitalist class exploit the Scots and Welsh workers that is any different than how it exploits English workers? [/b]
None, I was answering someone who said that Scotland et al should "get over it".

[Colonello Buendia]

The North of the Uk has always been more to the left. However, the success of the socialists has been small because of limited organisation. The SSP obviously didn&#39;t work cross-border and there was never much of a unified front. how could further dividing these workers help the cause?

[Marion]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+December 10, 2007 08:57 am--> (Red_Anarchist &#064; December 10, 2007 08:57 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 06:34 am
Whats the difference between Scotlanders and Englishmen?
(I&#39;m an Indian, and a product of the American educational system. Except for my Marxist studies)
Its mostly cultural and some linguistic differences.[/b]
And what exactly do these cultural differences consist of?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by Dr [email protected] 10, 2007 01:30 pm
The North of the Uk has always been more to the left.
As has Wales

[spartan]

And what exactly do these cultural differences consist of?
Wales and Scotland are considered to be apart of the Celtic nations as they have their own Celtic cultures and languages.

Now the English, who established England, were the descendants of the invading Saxons (A Germanic people who originated from what is now modern day Germany) who are considered a non-Celtic Germanic people who are seperate culturally from the Celtic Bretons (Who inhabit Breton in north western France), Cornish (Who inhabit Cornwall in south eastern England), Irish (Who inhabit Ireland), Manx (Who inhabit the Isle of Man), Scottish (Who inhabit Scotland) and Welsh (Who inhabit Wales).

Basically when the Romans left Celtic Britain for good in the fifth century the Saxons, who had been raiding Britain for decades, now decided that it was time to launch a simultaneous invasion and migration of most of there people to Celtic Britain as the Romans, who were successful in holding back the Saxon raiders, were now gone for good.

Now this is where the legend of King Arthur begins as King Arthur was a Celtic British King in one of the many Kingdoms that sprung up in Britain after the Romans left.

The legend goes that he tried to defend Celtic Britain from the invading Saxons but ultimately failed but on his deathbed said that whenever Britain is in peril that he will return to help defend her (Some people think that Queen Elizabeth, of the Spanish armada fame, and Winston Churchill were reincarnations of King Arthur as they were both leaders who saw Britain through times when they it was faced with oblivion and they were both redheads :lol: ).

[spartan]

The North of the Uk has always been more to the left.
As has Wales
Yes most of Wales used to always support the old Liberal party in the nineteenth and early twentieth century until the decline of the party after Lloyd George and WW1.

Most of Wales then switched its allegiances to the new Labour party (Most Welsh people back then were a true working people who supported the Labour party as back then Labour actually were the "working mans party" until of course they formed their first government in the twenties <_< ).

[Sam_b]

All this crap about &#39;historical differences&#39; is exactly that - bullshit. The more realistic way of achieving socialism (for the Scots) is independence from the UK. As long as we remain part of that union we will always be governed by a capitalist party and we will always have nuclear weapons in faslane. I would love for socialism to work within the union but with the current sociological trends in England, it&#39;s not going to happen. I support independence not because of &#39;nationalism&#39; or &#39;patriotism&#39; but because I believe it&#39;s necessary for the implimentation of proper left wing economics.

Rubbish. First of all its succeeding to try and create socialism in one country, thinking wrongly that Scotland is &#39;more left wing&#39;. Sorry, but thats just lazy politics.

Secondly, who says that independence will stop there being government by a capitalist party? The North of England, a hell of a lot of Wales, industrial cities all across the UK consistently vote Labour (still a capitalist party anyway), so Scotland is not more inherently left wing. Scotland only whitewashes due to a disproportional electoral system anyway.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:55 pm

And what exactly do these cultural differences consist of?
Wales and Scotland are considered to be apart of the Celtic nations as they have their own Celtic cultures and languages.
So how does the culture of the average Scottish working person differ from that of the average English working person? I&#39;m really struggling to think of a single meaningful example...

PS Even if Scotland had a substantially different culture from England I don&#39;t think it would legitimise national liberation struggles, but that&#39;s besides the point.

[spartan]

So how does the culture of the average Scottish working person differ from that of the average English working person? I&#39;m really struggling to think of a single meaningful example...
Yeah they probably are the same now but what i meant to say was historically different cultures.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:55 pm
Wales and Scotland are considered to be apart of the Celtic nations as they have their own Celtic cultures and languages.
That is true, but we shouldn&#39;t forget the historical Anglo-Saxon/Celtic dynamic within Scotland. In the early middle ages, southern Scottish kingdoms were Anglo-Saxon, and their linguistic heritage is bequeathed through Scots Language. In the early-modern period, this cultural-linguistic dichotomy was played out as Scots-speaking Lowland Scots, and Gaelic-speaking Highland Scots.

[Colonello Buendia]

the only really Celtic area left is the Isle of Man though Wales and Scotland and Ireland have celtic festivals and stuff