From: "Dave Bedggood" <dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 01:50:58 +0000
Subject: M-I: Referenda in Scotland and Wales


I am forwarding this article from Workers Struggle, British section 
of the Liaison Committee of Militants for a Revolutionary Communist 
International [ LCMRCI].

A TROTSKYIST ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE SCOTTISH AND 
WELSH REFERENDA


On 11 September there will be a referendum on a national parliament in
Scotland, and a week later one on a national assembly in Wales.
Marxists should advocate a critical "Yes" at the same time rejecting
the anti-democratic nature of the referendum and the limited character
of the bourgeois institutions that are being created.  We are opposed
to any popular front with the nationalists around critical support for
 referenda.  We need to intervene in this process to campaign against
the reactionary and centralised nature of the capitalist monarchy, to
put forward social and democratic demands and to propagandise the goal
for a  workers republic and a socialist federation. 

Scotland and Wales
The United Kingdom is the only major European imperialist power
without any federal political structure. The Secretaries of Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland are appointed by the English Prime
Minister. None of these countries have any kind of elected government,
such as exists in Germany, France,  Italy and Spain or in the USA and
Canada. Northern Ireland is occupied by the British army an act of
aggression to the majority of the Irish nation.

Scotland has its own educational and judiciary system and  also prints
its own bank notes. Wales is part of the English legal and educational
system. However it has its own history, culture and tradition. In no
other place in  Britain, or even in North America or Australia, is a
native language resisted so much as the Welsh  language, which is
still widely  spoken.   

Scotland and Wales are not historically oppressed nations, unlike
Ireland or  the semi-colonial world.  However, in the recent years
many changes have happened. National feelings were exacerbated as a
response of the Conservative unionist attacks on the welfare state,
the poll tax and the closure of mines, steel plants and factories,
which were main sources of jobs and economic development in these
countries. 

The international context has also changed.  "Globalisation" combines
the expansion of multinationals  with the creation of  new mini-states
and regional economic blocks. The Scottish National Party (SNP) is in
favour of an independent Scotland as part of the European Union and
under the British Queen as head of the state. Sections of the ruling
elite believe that Wales and Scotland could  prosper economically if
they join the European union as separate, autonomous, or even
independent countries.  They point to the Catalans, Basques,
Corsicans, Bavarians or Britons which have their own autonomous
national governments, and ask why they too should not have a
self-elected national body? 

Most of the workers also want more autonomy for Scotland and Wales
because they believe that it will stop further privatisation and
attacks on education and social benefits. In a context of a
significant retreat in class consciousness and militancy, a  large
section of  workers is looking  to the national question as a solution
to the social question. Scottish and Welsh workers are very proud that
for the first time ever they managed to eject every Tory MP from their
countries.

The anger against the Conservatives was expressed  in the complete
rejection of the traditional party of the ruling class and its
neo-liberal agenda. The Welsh and Scottish nationalists realised that
the sentiments in favour of independence or autonomy have a strong
social component. The SNP and Plaid Cumry covered its pro-independence
aims with "socialist" rhetoric and, despite the fact that they are not
workers parties, their  programmes are to the left of Labour. 

Revolutionaries cannot ignore the national feelings of the majority of
Scottish and Welsh workers. On the contrary, we have to relate to
their actual consciousness and participate in their current struggles
to expose the reformist nationalist parties and to  transform those
struggles into a fight for socialism. 

Referendum
A referendum  is not a truly democratic institution. It is a manoeuvre
which  dictators or demagogues often use in order to polarise and
manipulate the population around two pre-defined alternatives. During
the campaign the media and the election process is under the control
of the ruling class. For example in the referendum workers are not
asked to vote on privatisation or the 10% unemployment rate. There is
no question about the minimum wage and how much it should be. Nor
about the presence of the British state and army in Northern Ireland,
the acceptance of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the big private
companies. The Scottish and Welsh peoples have to choose between the
status quo and  limited bourgeois assemblies,  with even  fewer powers
in the case of Wales. 

Revolutionaries are against Blair's model for the Scottish and Welsh
assemblies. These are bourgeois institutions set up with the aim of
reinforcing the capitalist state and system. None of them would
resolve the most important social problems of the workers. Blair's aim
is to try to modernise the monarchy and manipulate the legitimate
grievances of the non-English nations. Great Britain is the most
highly centralised major Atlantic power. New Labour can't make any
significant social reform. 

On the contrary, it needs to continue the Tories attacks on education
and welfare. As a diversion from its neo-liberal agenda,  making
democratic concessions at local or national levels is a good way of
achieving popular support and meeting the expectation for more
autonomy in harmony with the more liberal structures of European
Union.

The Stalinists are calling for a "people's" parliament  which would
create a big popular front with the Welsh or Scottish  bourgeoisie
under the common goal of developing these countries. Yet none of the
major problems of the Welsh and Scottish workers can be resolved under
capitalism. Unemployment, poverty, exploitation and social
polarisation cannot be eliminated if the means of production are not
socialise and the power is not in the hands of the producers.
"People's" parliaments and local governments would maintain and
protect private property and the repressive apparatus which suppresses
the workers and subjugates Ireland and many other countries. 

Scottish Militant Labour is demanding a national parliament with a
socialist majority to achieve a socialist transformation. This is
flirting with reformism. It is not possible to expropriate the ruling
class and its mighty financial and military power through a legal
parliamentary road. It is even less realistic to have a "socialist"
parliament in one third of Britain which will open the road of
socialism when the British state, police and army is intact in the
rest of the islands. Militant is incapable of achieving a 1% or 2% of
the whole Scottish or Welsh vote let alone obtain a parliamentary
majority.The only realistic way of creating this "socialist majority"
is with New Labour and the "socialists" of the SNP and PC, in other
words a  counter-revolutionary popular front with sections of the
bourgeoisie and supporters of this class. 

Despite the liberal bourgeois character of the new assemblies,
revolutionaries cannot ignore the national grievances of Scottish and
Welsh workers and advocate a "No" vote or a boycott. The achieving of
these limited reforms would give confidence to the workers to fight
for the abolition of the monarchy and the house of lords, for the
complete withdrawal of the British state and army from the six
counties, Gibraltar, Malvinas and all the colonies, and for the
restitution of the Great London Council and more power to the local
councils. By contrast, the victory of a "No", after 18 years since the
last referendum, would condemn Britain to remain the most centralised
archaic western European state. While the expansion of local democracy
would not bring socialism, it would bring more possibilities for the
left to gain more tribunes and room for anti-bourgeois propaganda,
agitation and mobilisation.

Revolutionaries need to demand that the Scottish and Welsh assemblies
be elected under Proportional Representation, that all the MPs should
have a workers wage and be recallable. The new national assemblies
should be sovereign and have the power of adopting a new constitution,
and to  decide their relationship  with  the rest of Britain including
their right to stop sending troops to Ireland, the Balkans and other
countries and to cease to recognise the monarchy. We demand that the
TV, Radio and newpapers be under the control of the workers and
community organisations, so they would reflect the opinion of the
majority and not of the Murdochs and big business. 

The struggle for local autonomy and political reform has to be linked
with a fight against the capitalist monarchy. We need to make a
vigorous campaign for full democratisation; for the elimination of the
monarchy and the House of Lords; for proportional representation all
over Britain; for full citizenship and electoral right to all
immigrants;  for the self-determination of the Irish people as a
whole; for the abolition of the quangos, for workers control over
regional and local funds and for regional assemblies. 

However, even the most democratic institutions inside capitalism would
not end peoples' misery. The only way to emancipate the working class
is through a revolution of workers militias and councils (in which all
their delegates should be elected and re-callable in workplace rank
and file assemblies). Our goal is for workers council republics in
Scotland, Wales, England and united Ireland and for a Socialist
Federation of the British Isles and Europe. 

Despite our critical support for the "Yes" we are against making any
broader front with the local bourgeoisie on this question. Scotland
Forwards is a popular front set up by the Scottish TUC and Labour with
the aim of uniting all the classes north of the border. The aim of
class conscious workers has to be to DIVIDE the workers from their
bosses, and for the unity of the proletariat against the capitalists.
We are against the adaptation of the left towards such popular fronts.
The workers' organisations must make their own campaign for a "Yes" in
a separate and opposite way to that of  the SNP, PC and the
bourgeoisie. Our critical "Yes" has to be united with demands for full
democracy and self-determination, and for better wages, jobs for all,
the defence of the welfare state, the expropriation of big business
under workers control and for a workers revolution and republic.

Boycott?
The fact that Blair's devolution is a very limited way of achieving
self-determination, does not justify a boycott. This is a tactic that
revolutionaries advocate in revolutionary crises when the masses are
mobilising each day against fraud and the bosses institutions.   The
Bolsheviks advocated the boycott to the anti-democratic Duma at the
time of the 1905 revolution, because ten of thousands of Russian
workers wanted to make direct action (general strikes, mass
demonstrations, militias, barricades and even an insurrection) to
challenge the limited and fake parliament and to struggle for a
genuine constituent assembly.  

However, after the revolutionary period was over, Lenin said it was a
mistake to advocate a boycott because the workers are participating in
the elections and it would be a crime to abandon them into the hands
of the democratic petit bourgeoisie. Trotsky advocated a boycott
during the Spanish revolution in 1931 against the monarchy and its
fake assembly. However, when the workers ceased to organised
barricades against  Berenguer's pseudo-parliament and started to vote
for the workers parties, Trotsky ceased to advocate the boycott. In
the late 1970s some far left organisations advocated a boycott against
the limited democratic transition from Francoism and the Latin
American juntas towards parliamentarian institutions. Despite the high
level of militancy, this tactic resulted in the isolation of these
radicals and a subsequent evolution to the right, as a reaction
against the left's original mistake. 

In Scotland or Wales there is not even a  pre-Revolutionary situation.
The British workers suffered a series of defeats during the 1980s and 
until now have been in retreat.  There is no move amongst the workers
or students for direct action against the referendum. On the contrary,
there is a strong feeling towards autonomy, especially in Scotland.
There is the bitter experience of 1979 when, despite the fact that
most of the votes were in favour of devolution, it was not achieved
due to the relatively low number of electors. Any organisation that
advocates a boycott in the 1997 referendum will become very isolated
in Scotland and Wales. Most workers willd think that they are helping
the conservatives and Unionists to maintain the centralised monarchy.
Their only gain would be perhaps attract  a few radicalised left-wing
activists. 

Unfortunately the CPGB is advocating such a tactic. This will put in
jeopardy the advances that they were starting to make inside the
Scottish Socialist Alliance. The problem of the CPGB is the legacy of
its stageist Stalinist past and the self-proclaimed post-Menshevik
RDG. Marxists are in favour of a socialist revolution for Britain and
for transitional demands related to the workers in order to create a
bridge for them to advance towards such a goal.

The RDG method is the opposite. They have reformist goals and
ultra-left methods. The RDG is openly against a strategy for socialist
revolution because they advocate replacing the monarchy with a
bourgeois federal republic based on a capitalist state system. Their
aim is very similar to the Labourite left as they are in favour of
creating a Labourite "Communist" party like the Italian Refundazione
Comunista, for a republican popular front government and for a
programmatic block with the SLP former general secretary inside
Scargill's party. The RDG and CPGB boycott tactic is not based on what
is happening inside workers consciousness but is based instead on the
nature of the institutions that the bourgeois state is calling for.
They are for extending bourgeois democracy as a clear minimum stage,
therefore they are boycotting the referenda because they say they are
not democratic enough!

Marxists cannot adopt a democratic petit bourgeois spirit. We cannot
call for a boycott completely divorced from the actual reality of
class consciousness and actions because we don't like the fact that
these bourgeois concessions are not more democratic.

Great Confusion  
On the far left Workers Power has the most eclectic position. In
July-August 96 they published a major article calling for a defence of
a centralised state for all Britain. Marxists, on the contrary, are
for the expansion of  local and regional democracy and for weakening
the archaic hyper-centralised character of the United Kingdom. The
disintegration of what was the main imperialist state would not at all
be a cause for sorrow on our side. Despite their acknowledgement that
the majority in Scotland voted "Yes" in the last referendum and that
this sentiment has increased, WP said they would fight "tooth and
nail" against any national assembly because this could put at risk the
unity of the United Kingdom, and for that reason, the unity of the
working class. With such a position it would be consistent to call for
the Dissolution of the Scottish and Welsh TUC!

Workers Power showed a complete adaptation to the Great-British public
opinion. National assemblies in Scotland and Wales, instead of
dividing Britain, could gave a more modern and federal structure to
the state (like Germany or the USA).  The unity of a multinational
imperialist state is not a pre-requisite for the unity of the
proletariat. On the contrary, the disintegration of such a reactionary
state and the fact that the English workers would win the trust of
their Scottish, Irish and Welsh brothers and sisters in the struggle
for national self-determination, would increase the unity of the
workers. 

In its Theses on the National Question published in Trotskyist
Bulletin 6, WP's LRCI argued that national struggles inside the
imperialist countries had no progressive element and they condemned
the ETA and the Basque National Liberation Movement as "completely
reactionary".  This is scandalous and retrograde. Consistent with this
position, the LRCI should advocate centralised states in Western
Europe and the USA and the abolition of the autonomous regions in
countries like Spain, which were partial conquests achieved with blood
and mass action through decades of  struggles. 

The LRCI has never published an article defending the ETA against the
Spanish state or advocating the freedom of the ETA and Herri Batasuna
political prisoners. Harvey, the main LRCI leader, was always against
ETA. Why should they defend a "completely reactionary" movement?  The
LRCI refuses to see the fact that the Basques, Catalans, Corsicans and
other western European nations without states,  suffered oppression,
persecution of their mother tongues, and that behind many national
aspirations there are masses of workers which are expressing
legitimate discontent. 

Instead of condemning these national grievances, abandoning these
workers to the influence of the nationalists, and  adapting to the
Great-nationalists labour bureaucracy and aristocracy, revolutionaries
have to relate to these struggles in a class independent way. The LRCI
centralist tendencies inside their own imperialist powers was in
contrast to their ultra-liberal attitude in relation to the national
question in the non-imperialist world.  They wrote that the
fragmentation of the majority of the semi-colonies, which are
multinational states, could be the starting point of permanent
revolution. However, the examples of Somalia, Rwanda, Lebanon,
India/Pakistan, Liberia and other multi-ethnic "third world" countries
showed that national fragmentation in these cases led to a
counter-revolutionary slaughter. The LRCI supported the right of every
nation or even racial-religious group to secede from a Degenerate
Workers State and to create a new semi-colonial capitalist state. 

For Marxists, the defence of the democratic right for every nation,
including separation, is not our main principle. As Marx, Lenin and
Trotsky said, we must subordinate it to the interests of the struggle
against capitalism and for workers revolution. Trotsky never sided
with The Ukrainian or Baltic bourgeois nationalists against Stalin.
Despite his rejection of the bureaucracy and its reactionary method,
the healthy Fourth International always put the accent on the defence
and extension of post-capitalist relations rather than in retreating
to the defence of bourgeois democratic rights.    

The LRCI's contradiction reflects the pressure of the liberal petit
bourgeoisie in London and the Western imperialist capitals which are
very keen on the right of every ethnic group in the "poor world" but
who also want to conserve their own imperial democracy. However, under
pressure from the LCMRCI as well as Weekly Worker and Workers News,
Workers Power decided to change its position. It didn't criticise
itself for its bad method, but only for its wrong conclusion applied
in the case of Scotland. WP could not longer ignore that around 80% of
the opinion polls north of the border were for some degree of
autonomy. They made another empirical adaptation. 

In the latest Trotskyist International, the LRCI proposed a "Yes/Yes"
vote in Scotland but a "No"in Wales. They argue that the reason why
they advocate a positive answer in Scotland and not Wales is because
only in the first case  is it clear that the majority wants such
option. If the Welsh majority was similar to that in Scotland, they
would tail it. This was a recognition that instead of trying to be at
the head of the workers, they always follow behind them. Like
opportunists they wanted to accommodate to what was the most popular
demand. They now realise that "Yes" was super-popular in Scotland
whereas "No" could be popular in Cardiff, the capital which has more
English influence.

In the Quebeq  they decided not to advocate either "Yes" or "No" in
the referendum perhaps because the difference between these two camps
was so narrow. There is a strong possibility that the Welsh
referendum, which will be held one week after a Scotland "Yes"
majority, will follow New Labour's sympathy and vote "Yes" also.  If
that happens, it is probable that WP will shift again and adapt to the
majority position. Like the Unionists and Kinockite Labour, Workers
Power is making a campaign for a "No" in Wales, which also means that
they reject any kind of national elected institution for Wales.  They
are against the extension of local bourgeois democracy. They are, in
fact, voting for the maintenance of a system which Wales is ruled by
an secretary appointed in London. With such methods, to be consistent
they should not support  the reconstitution of the Great London
Council or defend local councils attacked by Thatcher.      

Workers Power, instead of denouncing the referendum system, said that
they agreed with the SNP that there should be another question in the
referendum asking about national independence. In such a case they
would made a campaign for a "No". This is completely ridiculous. They
adapt to the anti-democratic referendum while they reject a Welsh
Assembly. They didn't want to put any questions on the monarchy, the
withdrawal from Ireland, or the minimum wage.  They only wanted a
question on independence so they could campaign for the defence of the
unity of Great Britain!

At the beginning of this century Lenin analysed the process of the
separation of Norway from Sweden. He said that in Norway Marxists
should warn against the dangers of separation,  but in Sweden they
should be the champions of the Norse national rights.  That was the
best way of trying to maintain good relations between both national
proletariats.  

WP, after 22 years in existence are incapable of developing any branch
in the country which started the anti-Poll tax rebellion.  Nor will
their retrograde conception on the national question  help them to
work among the Welsh-speakers. For a pre-dominantly English group
centred in London, it is their revolutionary duty to apply Lenin's
method and be the best champions of the national rights of Scotland
and Wales.  However, they do the opposite. They adapt to the Great
British liberal media and they lifted their veto on a Scottish
assembly only because this position was absolutely untenable. 

Revolutionary way
A "Yes" vote in the referendum would expand the national assemblies,
which are common in the European Union multinational states, into
Britain. It could create better conditions for the struggle for more
democracy and for Irish de-colonisation. It would also further weaken
the Tories. In Scotland the Conservatives are divided and some
sections are for a "Yes" and for the construction of a separate
Scottish conservative party like the Bavarian Social Christians. 
Blair will try to use the referendum to increase his popularity and
his capacity to attack the unions and the remaining working class
roots of New Labour. In advocating a "No" or a boycott, the left will
marginalise itself and play into the hands of the centralised system. 

It is necessary to mount a independent working class campaign for a
"Yes" vote without giving any support to illusions in a parliamentary
road to socialism, or in a broader national popular front, like the
Stalinists and the Militants are doing.  As Britain is about to make
one of its most remarkable political reforms ever, we need to demand a
more radical change than the previous electoral reforms: elimination
of the Queen and the House of  lords; electoral rights for immigrants
and 16 year old youth; complete freedom for Ireland; elimination of
the quangos and workers control over local investments and revenues.
British workers not only need democratic transformations but also
social changes. It is necessary to challenge Labour to re-nationalise
the privatised companies under workers control; to extend grants,
instead of cutting them; to achieve a minimum living wage no less than
=A38 per hour and a 35 hour week; to guarantee jobs for all or full
minimum wage. In that struggle we need to build a new revolutionary
party which will lead workers in the fight for Workers Council
Republics in the British Isles and for a Socialist Federation of
Europe.    


H. Rhonda and M. Hill (LCMRCI supporter in Scotland)   




Dave Bedggood


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---