Recent years have seen the emergence of several nationalist movements in Europe — Basque, Catalan, Corsican, Breton, Scottish for example. Such movements have caused not a little confusion on the left. For decades nationalist struggle has been, by and large, equated with anti-imperialist struggle, in the twenties, China, India and Ireland, in our own time Vietnam, Angola and Ireland.
Quite correctly revolutionaries, in arguing support for such movements, have stressed the (bourgeois) democratic right of nations to self-determination. Normally this has meant the independence of the countries/nationalities involved. However, as a result, certain important principles have become blurred or lost sight of altogether.
Firstly, even in the twenties, the Comintern saw support for nationalist movements as a tactic in the development of the international proletarian revolution. Secondly, and flowing from this tactical nature, the Comintern stressed the need to distinguish between communist and non-communist movements:
“A resolute struggle must be waged against the attempt to clothe the revolutionary liberation movements in the backward countries which are not genuinely communist in communist colours.” (point 11e of the Comintern Theses on the National and Colonial Question)
Nationalism ‘pure and simple’ is historically reactionary in the epoch of imperialism, it is the necessarily anti-imperialist nature of most struggles for national independence which has given them their progressive content.
Our support for specific demands for national liberation is subordinate to their role in the development of international proletarian class-consciousness, an international party and the goal of international revolution. In other words, support of the right of nations to self-determination is not totally unconditional. Thus, recognition of the right does not necessarily imply support for the goals of all nationalist movements.
In assessing the attitude of communists to particular nationalist demands, we should, as point 2 of the Comintern theses puts it:
“…undertake first of all a precise analysis of the given environment, historical and above all, economically; secondly it should specifically distinguish the interests of the oppressed classes, of the workers and exploited, from the general concept of so-called national interests, which signify, in fact, the interests of the ruling class;…”
The question of revolutionaries’ attitude to Scottish nationalism has to be determined with this in mind.
In common with many ‘peripheral’ areas of Europe, the development of Scotland has lagged behind that of more central areas where capital has tended to concentrate. With the onset of capitalist instability, such regions have been the first to feel the effects in terms of unemployment, declining industry etc. This has been accentuated in Scotland by virtue of the historic structure of Scottish industry. In the 18th and 19th centuries the union of Scotland and England and the integration of the two ruling classes into one, allowed the development of industry in Scotland which was denied to Ireland with the exception of North-East Ulster. However, the contraction of British capital in the 20th century has left Scotland with an archaic economic structure that was clearly highlighted by the collapse of UCS in 1972.
In the past the demand for Scottish independence has been the preserve of utopian and anachronistic cranks. By and large the necessity of the link with England was recognised by the Scots in general. The working class, in particular, expressed this, and at the same time, their dislike of many of the effects of the link, by a massive Labour Party vote.
Now, however, the situation appears changed. The entry of Britain into the Common Market (itself a recognition by the British bourgeoisie of the need to further concentrate European capital) the onset of the crisis and, of course, the discovery of North Sea oil, have caused this apparent change.
For the first time the nationalists can point to a supposedly realistic economic basis for separation. At the same time the violently anti-working class policies of the Labour government have turned the Scottish working class away from their traditional party allegiance.
That is one side of the new situation. There is another. The Labour government, incapable, even if it wanted to, of implementing its manifesto because its first priority is to save British capitalism, are looking for a way out of the impasse. The recent constitutional tussle with the Lords gives a hint of their solution — the Great Devolution Debate. While, as their devolution proposals show, they are not at all keen on serious devolution of power, they are still less keen on people’s minds focussing on the real problems facing the working class. The Great Debate is a fraud — a diversion.
A referendum?
Apart from the ‘debate’ itself another diversion has recently been proposed, the holding of a referendum on the government’s proposals. Support for this idea has even come from sections of the revolutionary left who, applying the principle of self-determination abstractly, see in it a way of assessing the opinion of the Scottish nation. Such abstract application serves no revolutionary purpose. A referendum on the proposals will prove precisely nothing. Those bent on full independence and those dead against any devolution would vote on the same side. Workers Power would call for a boycott of such a referendum. The only genuine question that could be asked in a referendum is, ‘Independence or not?’ Such a question would at least confront the actual issue of independence. Workers Power supports the right of the Scots to opt for independence in such a referendum. To oppose such a referendum on the grounds of the ‘sovereignty of the British parliament’ as do the Tribune group is to capitulate totally to English chauvinism. We do not believe that independence can possibly be to the advantage of the working class, Scottish or English, in a referendum on independence we would urge a ‘No’ vote. It is, however, for the Scots to decide.
Scottish nationalism does not have the progressive content of Irish nationalism. Its historic roots are not like those in Ireland where for hundreds of years the Irish people have proved time and again their wish for independence. The elections to the first Dail proved, if further proof were necessary, the determination of the Irish people to escape the yoke of British imperialism. In Ireland the necessarily anti-imperialist nature of the drive for independence produces a tendency for differentiation between the classes, particularly between the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois, the latter producing, as a result, most of the leaders of the Republican movement. On the other hand Scottish nationalism is a backward-looking reaction to problems posed by the effects of past Scottish/English capitalist development. The logic of Scottish nationalism is the welding together of the different classes rather than, as in Ireland, the clarification of different interests and the pulling apart of class alliance. Worse still, the redherring of Scottish nationalism, by dividing the working class in Scotland from its natural allies south of the border, actually weakens the ability of the class to develop its own strength, confidence and organisation. At a time when the strikes against the cuts in Glasgow have demonstrated the potential for direct action by the working class against the policies of the Labour government, the rhetoric of the nationalists can only serve to put the brake on further development in this direction. The reactionary, anti-working class nature of their politics was clearly demonstrated earlier in the year at the time of the announcement of future redundancies at Chrysler Linwood. The SNP condemned the proposals, urged the workers to oppose them and use their strength to force management to — cut the workforce at Halewood instead!
After the ‘debate’
Ironically, the Labour government’s Great Debate ploy plays into the hands of the nationalists. They too recognise the phoney nature of the proposals, but also that they are, to some extent, a concession to nationalism. The terms of the debate will bring them and their policies to the centre of the political arena. If an election were held now we can be sure that the SNP would sweep Labour out of Scotland, and, therefore, out of power. If, or more probably, when devolution goes through it will solve nothing. The SNP will then argue that this is the result of not gaining full independence — the trend will have been set, ‘progress’ will be equated with independence. For this reason it is necessary for revolutionaries to be clear on the implications of the devolution issue, we should oppose it and argue for the alternative of facing up to the problems produced by capitalism’s instability and fighting them as a united working class.
Working class support for the SNP is more a protest vote against the policies of the Labour government than one in favour of full independence. It is, in fact, a confused recognition of the fact that the answers to the problems facing the class are necessarily of a society-wide nature, involving a total change of course and a restructuring of society. Very few believe that the likes of Hugh Fraser, even if they could get their hands on the North Sea profits, would hand them over to the mass of the Scottish people.
The way forward for the Scottish working class lies, not in swapping one set of masters for another, but in fighting for a genuinely revolutionary restructuring of society in alliance with the English working class. The first step in this has to be opposition to the Labour government’s anti-working class policies of cuts and wage control. Such a fight has to be organised on the basis of an independent rank and file movement to overcome the collaborationist policies of the leaders of the trade unions. Such a movement, fighting for the interests of the working class under communist leadership can ensure that real power will devolve, not onto the careerists and opportunists of the SNP, but to the organised working class.