GEORGE GALLOWAY ‘Just say Naw’ anti independence leaflet: Some reflections

Someone writes. 

George Galloway over forty years of political campaigning has built himself a reputation as a left wing socialist outsider, certainly outside the dominant Westminster political consensus! Over the last two decades especially he has proclaimed himself as a champion of political rights of the masses of people in the middle east, especially the Palestinians against American led imperialist political strategies rising to world wide international mass media prominence with his barnstorming performance against the hypocrisies and blindness’s of American policy after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 at an American Senate hearing in 2005! In all his years of attention grabbing anti western imperialist political campaigning he has become a hero to many millions of people in the Middle East and a pariah outcast to the political establishment at Westminster leading to his expulsion from the Blairite New Labour Party and his well publicised assertions that he has remained true to his socialist principles and his more recent election victories over the Labour Party in London and Bradford for the newly established ‘Respect Party.’  (1)

Given his well established credentials as a rebel against Westminster political orthodoxies an intervention by him into the political referendum independence campaign in his native country of Scotland where the attempt is being made to break away from Westminster political orthodoxies and control after over 300 years could not help but be an intervention warmly anticipated by all those in Scotland who from a Scottish political perspective wish to break the archaic reactionary Westminster dare I say it imperialist stranglehold on Scottish political life! For just as in the old saying, ‘Charity begins at home’ I would suggest that anti Westminster imperialist campaigning should ‘begin at home’ under the adage of that old socialist battle cry that a victory for one is a victory for all and that a Scottish successful break away from Imperialist Colonial Westminster control would be a victory for all those over the world who welcome any challenge to the Western capitalist nexus where ever it arises! This has been the view taken for instance by that redoubtable socialist international campaigner of more than four decades standing Tarig Ali. (2)  George, who entirely lacks the erudite historical, theoretical background of Tarig (3) takes the opposite view as outlined in this pamphlet!

What astonishes me most indeed in reading this pamphlet is its complete lack of any serious political argument and analysis of the fundamental issues underlying this Scottish referendum campaign. All we get in fact is a decidedly peculiar, idiosyncratic, egotistical, frankly in many places incomprehensible rehashing of all the dreary, stale, reactionary idealess smoke screening negativity and sneering belittling of everything Scottish and especially Scottish Nationalist that has characterised the overall Westminster led Unionist ‘Better Together’ campaign! The venomous concentration on the alleged personal character defects and power hungry selfish proclivities of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are given full expression! I know that the tradition of modern Scottish ideological and cultural discourse has been rightly criticised as seeing matters ‘through a glass darkly’ (4) with much too emphasis on destructive, nihilistic inclined, masculine remorseless excessively theoretical negativity but George takes this withering awful tradition to unconscious levels of bizarre self parody! He first warns us what life will be like in

‘Alex Salmond’s monocratic Scotland’ (5)

Here we have a classic example of the pseudo academic theorised abuse of language, with the author attempting to sound learned! What does the word ‘monocratic’ even mean? I’ve read in my time many excessively academic theoretical works over forty years but I can’t say I can recall coming across it before! I went to my Concise Oxford dictionary and came across ‘Monocracy’ which is defined as ‘government by one person only!’ In a way this is quite unconsciously illuminating of the author himself who has become notorious over his political career as decidedly not being what you would call a team player and on running a one man band and into the bargain causing fratricidal conflict wherever he goes from Dundee Labour Party to War on Want to Hillhead Labour Party right up to more recent splits and divisions in Respect! So you would think with George there is a danger with his own monocratic tendencies in ‘calling the pot black!’ so to speak! All humour aside though just what does George think he is going to achieve by this hyperbolic style of highly personalised abuse? In this pamphlet he is quite adept in painting generalised straw men and women caricatural villains that may well exist in George’s remarkable immature playground schoolboy imagination but have no or hardly any basis at all in the actual politics of those he is attacking but does reflect the general pervading ignorance and bigotry concerning all things Scottish that dominates in that most ‘Little Englander’ Uncle Sam kowtowing parochial of political villages at Westminster! Thus George writes,

‘Nigel Farage stands red faced on the cliffs of Dover waving an Union Jack and shouting ‘boo’ at Johnny Foreigner, thinking that is going to solve all our problems, just as Alex Salmond sits in his presidential quarters at Bute House shouting boo at the English, trying to con you into thinking that this will solve all your problems.’  (6)

How embarrassing it is to read such jejune ridiculous abusive trivialities in the place of a mature political discussion of the actual questions involved in this political referendum debate! I mean it is a political commonplace for anyone who has spent five minutes studying the growth of the modern SNP, particularly since Alex Salmond became leader in 1990, to realise that the SNP is a left of centre fundamentally social democratic party that espouses a civic political nationalism that has not built itself up on anti English rhetoric! Furthermore in coupling Alex Salmond with Nigel Farage George is exhibiting the same crass political ignorance that is characteristic of major figures in the Westminster political village which you would have thought would have been anathema to an alleged Westminster long standing outsider and rebel such as George!!!

On this particular matter let me quote possibly Scotland’s most pre-eminent political journalist and commentator, the author of a major history and TV programme on the Road to the Referendum, one Iain MacWhirther, where he specifically criticises Nick Clegg for,

‘Trying to equate Alex Salmond with Nigel Farage of Ukip calling them ‘breast beating nationalists’ No one who knows anything about Scotland could possibly confuse UKIP with a social democratic , pro Europe party, that campaigns for open borders and increased immigration and is called the SNP,’ (7)

Or further on the same theme,

‘Metropolitan commentators like the Times David Aaranovitch were still trying to equate Alex Salmond with Nigel Farage, ‘peas out of the same hard pod’ As if Alex Salmond supported withdrawal from the EU, a ban on immigration, welfare cuts and scrapping green energy. For a smear to stick it has to have some basis in reality. There are many legitimate grounds for criticising Alex Salmond…but suggesting he is a right wing Ukip fellow traveller is simply daft.’(8) 

‘Simply Daft’ are you listening George? Unfortunately George goes from the politically ‘simply daft’ to the politically reactionary atrocious when he condemns Alex Salmond for not condemning those spirited anti UKIP demonstrators in Edinburgh who made clear that his reactionary anti immigrant, little Englander, right wing xenophobic anti welfare bigotries were not welcome in Scotland! Even though he is the latest darling of the BBC London TV executives and hardly off their TV screens and beginning to enjoy significant political support in England though precious little in Scotland! Here UKIP have not yet saved a political deposit and getting about 1% vote in the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections! This total lack of significant popular support in Scotland, the exact opposite of the situation in England, is hardly surprising, since the UKIP political party is in essence a brand new classic right wing English Nationalist Party which programme until just a few months ago called for the abolition of the Scottish parliament and its leadership in recent Scottish political news conferences has shown a complete ignorance of some of the most elementary facts concerning Scottish popular culture! (9) Why George any self respecting genuine anti imperialist Scottish socialist would have been part of that demonstration not condemning those who didn’t condemn it!!!

You begin to fear indeed on the basis of this incongruous strangely anachronistic little pamphlet that our ‘gorgeous George’ is beginning to lose not only his political bearings but his grip entirely on today’s actual political realities, particularly concerning Scotland! I mean what does it say about a present member of the Westminster House of Commons who is not even aware of how many Scottish MPs their now are in the House of Commons? Twice incredibly in this pamphlet he tells us that there are ’71 non – Tory Scottish MPs’ (10) when a first year secondary school child in their first modern studies lesson would be aware that after the setting up of the Scottish parliament in 1999 the number of Scottish MPs was reduced to 59! This ludicrous elementary error is surely indicative of a man strangely lost in a previous era of Scottish politics!

This whole pamphlet indeed is redolent with the Scottish Labourite rhetorical bile that used to be regularly flung at the SNP in the 1970’s and 1980’s. He even quotes that old Scottish Labourite canard of that time that the SNP are the ‘tartan Tories.’ (11) Once again the best critical dissection of such is by Iain MacWhirther when he states,

‘Labour keep going on about the Tartan Tories… I don’t know how they expect Scottish voters to believe this when it is so obvious that the Nationalists are to the left of Labour and have been for 20 years. Labour allowed the SNP to become the party of the NHS, nuclear disarmament and free education while it has become the party of the benefits cap, immigration controls and weapons of mass destruction…The rise of the SNP almost precisely mirrors the decline of Labour as a social democratic movement…The SNP landslide victory in 2011…was again built on the policies that Labour had abandoned – in particular opposition to university tuition fees. Scottish voters only avoided the restoration of tuition fees by voting SNP in 2011 and they know this perfectly well.’ (12) 

Well the Scottish political voters may ‘know this perfectly well’ but not our ‘Just say Naw’ Scotland Tour 2014 ‘Big Brother’ media celebrity vaunting George! Who is never one to report on actual Scottish political realities, never mind analyse them when he can instead do a bit of retrospective self glory advertising as when he bizarrely anachronistically boasts

‘The reason why you have free prescriptions, free care for the elderly and no tuition fees is.. because of the Barnett formula…negotiated, primarily by Labour politicians in Scotland…I did that. I’ve been their. Got the tee shirt, I negotiated that with Joel Barnett then.’ (13)

You might have thought that George would have been fully of the Scottish political earthquake which happened in May 2011 since he himself attempted to get elected to that Scottish parliament! Maybe his selective loss of memory can be explained by the fact that in these elections he got such a paltry vote that he didn’t even get close to being elected! No where in this pamphlet with all its rhetorical bluster does he face up to the essential political facts already quoted from Iain MacWhirther that rationally account for the astonishing loss of power for the Scottish Labour Party to the Scottish National Party in the 2007 and 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections! This is doubly remarkable for the very first section of this pamphlet is entitled ‘The Malaise of Scottish Labourism!’ (14) Though this pamphlet no where even begins to attempt to rationally explain the malaise of Scottish Labourism it certainly gives concrete proof of the disturbing deterioration in the political intelligence and grasp of modern Scottish political realities shown by its author! He bizarrely conflates the break up of the British State with the ‘break up of the unity of working people’ (15) Tis a very strange ‘socialist’ doctrine indeed that believes that the British State was either set up or has ever been constituted or will ever be  constituted to solidify the ‘unity of working people in this small island of ours!’ Only a purported ‘socialist movement’ that never ever in all its history acquired the most basic rudiments of socialist theory and practice could write such elementary nonsense without blushing! (15)

On the economy we get the standard ‘better together unionist message’ that there will be a colossal loss of investment, jobs and capital flight! In one paragraph we are told,

  ‘Far from Scotland becoming a Socialist country if it was independent, it would be dragged into a race to the bottom by a perpetual Tory government in England…cutting taxes, cutting wages and cutting regulations.’ (16)

Thus under this dad’s army Private Fraser ‘we’re all doomed scenario’ Scotland under independence would be a capitalist society of even greater exploitation, inequality and economic recession than now! Then in another paragraph, completely contradicting what he has just asserted that an independent Scotland by some iron law of economic necessity would be far more capitalist worst, he then asserts,

‘ Do you honestly think that a Uk company is going to situate in a more socialist Scotland (my emphasis) when the Tory UK government has created the perfect low tax, low regulation, low wage capitalist environment. Of course they would choose the Tory Uk over Scotland.’ (17)

So with a flicker of George’s fervid imagination Scotland becomes inevitably on the one hand more capitalist after independence and then more socialist, but no matter which imagined scenario George is happening to imagine at any given moment it makes little matter for it’s a classic case of heads you lose tails you lose, nothing but most certain unmitigated disaster awaits that horror of horrors a politically independent Scotland!!!

This kind of doom saying carping negativity as Carol Craig most cogently points out (18) is what led to the Scottish Labour Party defeats in 2007 and 2011 at the hands of the consciously accentuating the positive for Scotland campaigning tactics of the SNP, a tactic which positively changed the general atmosphere in Scotland for the better as if a most unexpected ray of sunshine had appeared after the never ending deluge of Labourite Calvinist gloom! A fundamental change in Scottish political atmospherics which has to this day seen the SNP retain a significant lead in the opinion polls for future Scottish parliamentary elections, though this has not translated into a majority for Yes in September 14! All this significant change in political mood passes George by, not surprising in a way since 2005 he has been very much an English MP and a roving international unofficial emissary for predominantly mass popular Arab discontent concerning the prevailing political situation in the Middle East! It could be indeed for all kinds of unconscious, unexamined reasons that desperately manically attempting to intervene in the Scottish political referendum brings the worst out in George! To produce the most immature, fractious frankly embarrassing, humiliating to read, never mind to write juvenile outbursts concerning the purported enormous cost of setting up Scottish embassies ‘everywhere in the world’ (19) of how Scotland if an independent country would be such a ‘minuscule member of the very same Nato alliance’ (20) so paltry and utterly insignificant that no one would listen to an independent Scottish government and indeed Trident will stay on the Clyde as long as any American president see’s fit!

It is indeed a salutary psychological lesson to read this torrent of classic self hating abasement from such a Scot who has prided himself on his international anti imperialist highly publicised campaigning! Would he write a pamphlet telling the Palestinians for example that all their aspirations for independent statehood, dignity and aspiration are utterly impossible to fulfil and will only lead to failure, gloom and disaster and that if you get anything it will only be at the whim of whoever occupies the White House! It would be interesting to see the reaction of a Palestinian audience in say occupied west bank Palestine to such a speech to such a pamphlet! It is only concerning his native country of Scotland that George has totally uncritically accepted the classic imperialist colonial message to the colonised that you are worthless insignificant uncivilised and utterly incapable of doing anything on your own and if you dare to try nothing but unmitigated disaster will ensue! Thus for George in these ‘storm tossed times’ we must remain in the ‘ocean liner’ of Westminster and not step into the ‘rowing boat’ of Scottish political independence (21) A Westminster which George as recently as December 2005 declared was now a place, ‘where only the most trivial of decisions were made like what colour to paint Whitehall!’  (22) Well it may be but it remarkably miraculously metamorphises back into a majestic ‘ocean liner’ when it comes to the political governance of Scotland. Such governance is evidently far superior to the ‘backward looking oddity’ (23) and ‘obsolescent dogma’ (24) of Scottish political independence!

But surely it is George who gives classic examples of ‘backward looking oddity’ and obsolescent dogma’ when he asserts that a ‘better option’ than an independent Scottish government negotiating the end of Trident would be, ‘a UK Labour thinking movement pushing from within Nato to have these weapons of mass destruction decommissioned altogether!’ (24)

Perhaps George could tell us where this mythical ‘UK Labour Thinking movement’ actually exists as a living growing political force? In the British Labour Party at Westminster?

In the British Trade Union Congress? Where is this body George? Can you like a miracle worker from an earlier age reawaken the dead Lazarus of British Labour Party and British Labour movement unilateral nuclear disarmament? Pray tell us how such a movement can be built when you elsewhere in this bizarre heated ludicrously self contradictory pamphlet declare that England without the Scottish connection faces a ‘perpetual Tory government…rich pickings for the Tory party and UKIP.’ (25) If England is condemned for all eternity to Tory rule then how possibly could an all British anti nuclear weaponry successful movement be built?

So I am afraid George we will just have to say naw to your Jeremiah doom laden prognosis concerning Scottish Independence which is nothing but the product of cultural, political and ideological forces built up over centuries on these islands that you have never critically examined and have indeed totally uncritically, unconsciously interiorised. No wonder the mandarins of the London BBC along with their new favourite media darling Nigel Farage are only too pleased to have you on programmes like Question Time! Your essential message is more grist to their mill. ‘Uncle Toms of whatever colour of skin are always welcome in such circles!!!

                                       M.J. STEWART    13/5/14   -   19/5/14

FOOTNOTES

1. For general biographical information I have used David Morley ‘Gorgeous George’

The Life and Adventures of George Galloway.’  Politico publishing 2007

2. Steve Biggs ‘Veteran campaigner Tarig Ali: Vote for Yes would end Decrepit

Labour Stranglehold.’   Sunday Herald 9/3/14

3. For some representative works published since the new millennium read ‘The Clash

Of Fundamentalisms.’  Verso  2003  ‘Pirates of the Carribean Axis of Hope’ Verso

2006. ‘The Obama Syndrome Surrender at Home War Abroad.’  Verso 2010

4. Carol Craig ‘The Scots Crisis of Confidence’ Chapter Two  Big thinking 2003

5  ‘Just say Naw.   Scotland Tour 2014 The Official Booklet  p1

6                           Op. Cit                                                                           p4

7. Iain MacWirther ‘Why are Yes so Confident? Because they Feel the Tide of History

Is moving their way.’   Sunday Herald  30/3/14

8  Op. Cit               ‘Yes or No, road to Referendum will lead us to a new Scotland.’

                              Herald 1/5/14

9                    Paul Hutchinson & Tom Gordon ‘Quizzed on Europe, infighting and football,

Farage and Ukip score another own goal.’ Sunday Herald  11/5/14

10 & 11        ‘Just say Naw’   p 2 & 1

12  Iain Macwhirther ‘Goodbye to Labour Complacency.’    S.H.   13/4/14

13 &14          ‘Just say Naw’   p5 & 1

15. For critical background see Tom Nairn ‘Anatomy of the Labour Party’ NLR 27/28

16 &17          ‘Just say naw’ p 2

18. Carol Craig ‘The Scots Crisis of Confidence’ Argyll publishing 2011

19, 20 &21    ‘Just say naw’ P5 &6

22  David Morley ‘Gorgeous George’    p 248 – 9

23,24 & 25    ‘Just say naw’   p4, 6 & 2

Marxist case for independence

 

 

 

 

 

A Marxist Case for an Independent Scotland

 

Introduction

Marxists have an ambivalent attitude towards the national question.  On the one hand, they are wary of the dangers of ‘bourgeois nationalism’ whereby the ruling class employ a divide and conquer strategy to split people by language, race, ethnicity, or religion, so as to distract the working class from engaging in a class struggle against their capitalist oppressors. On the other hand, Marxists defend the right of ‘oppressed’ nations to self-determination, up to and including independence, because, as Lenin explained, ‘nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice’. (The Collected Works of V I Lenin, Volume 36, pp 608-609)

On the question of Scottish independence, the Left in Scotland is similarly caught on two minds.  There are those in the Labour Party and the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) who maintain that independence would disunite the British working class and only go to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie.  However, others on the Left, most notably in the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and the Communist Party of Scotland (CPS), believe that the breakup of the British state is a precondition for securing progressive, socialist change for the peoples these islands since it would open up opportunities for the Left, both in Scotland and south of the Border, to promote a radical political agenda that otherwise would remain excluded from mainstream politics.

In this essay, the following questions will be addressed with the aim of building a Marxist case for an independent Scotland:

• What is Scotland’s current status?
• How did Scotland lose its independence?
• What support has there been for Scottish self-determination?
• What’s the Marxist perspective on the national question?
• Is there a Marxist case for Scottish independence?

Scotland’s current status

Scotland is a country (i.e. a geographical region) that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and is part of the sovereign state known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).  It has a population of just over five million, compared to 52 million for England, 3 million for Wales and 2 million for Northern Ireland, and although it lost its status as an independent nation-state over 300 years ago, few if any would deny that Scotland remains a nation.

 

Under the terms of the Acts of Union of 1707 that created the UK, Scotland's legal system constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and private law from those of England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The continued existence of legal, and also educational and religious institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the Union of Parliaments.

 

In 1999, a devolved legislature, the Scottish Parliament, was created with tax varying powers (i.e. power to vary (down or up) the basic rate of UK income tax by up to 3p in the pound) and authority over many areas of home affairs following a referendum in 1997.   However, as Enoch Powell once observed: ‘Power devolved is power retained’, and consequently the devolutionary settlement for Scotland has had only a limited impact in terms of UK government arrangements and Parliamentary business at Westminster.  There remains in place a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet, and at Westminster, Scottish Question Time, and a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and a Scottish Grand Committee, both of which have a complement of English Conservative MPs to ensure that party balance reflects the overall balance in the House of Commons.

 

Be that as it may, in 2011, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won an overall majority at the Scottish Parliament and as a result a referendum on independence is to be held in the autumn of 2014.  This will determine whether Scotland becomes once again a sovereign nation-state or remains a constituent part of the UK.

Scotland’s loss of independence

Tradition has it that Scotland emerged as a sovereign kingdom in 843 under the rule of Kenneth MacAlpin although this is now disputed by historians.  What is not disputed is that his successors during the Middle Ages ruled a unified kingdom roughly corresponding to the geographic boundaries of modern day Scotland.

 

When King Alexander III, died in 1286 he left an infant granddaughter, Margaret, Maid of Norway as the heir to the Scottish throne. However, Margaret herself died four years later in a tragic shipwreck en route to Scotland. Following the death of Margaret, an opportunity arose for Edward I of England to place a puppet king, John Balliol, on the Scottish throne. When a rebellion broke out against Edward’s suzerainty, he sent troops to subjugate Scotland.

 

The resulting Wars of Scottish Independence were fought in the late 13th and early 14^th centuries. Scotland’s ultimate victory in the Wars of Independence under the leadership of Robert the Bruce confirmed Scotland as a fully independent and sovereign kingdom.

 

In 1603, King James VI of Scotland succeeded to the English and Irish thrones when his aunt, Queen Elizabeth I, died childless. Although there was a Union of the Crowns, Scotland continued to be ruled as a separate state for the next century.

 

On 1 May 1707, however, Scotland entered into an incorporating political union with England to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain.  This union resulted from the Treaty of Union agreed in 1706 and enacted by the twin Acts of Union passed by the Parliaments of both countries, despite popular opposition and anti-union riots in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland.  Therefore, from 1707, Scotland ceased to exist as an independent sovereign state.

 

Support for Scottish self-determination

The 1787 massacre of striking weavers by British soldiers in Calton, which then was a village in the outskirts of Glasgow, is generally recognised as marking the beginning of an organised, Scottish labour movement. The Calton weavers’ banner on the day of the massacre showed Scotland’s national hero from the Wars of Scottish Independence, William Wallace, striking down the beast of tyranny.

Scots Wha Hae was written by Robert Burns in 1793, not long after the Calton Massacre and has since been adopted as the SNP party song on account of its strong patriotic sentiments.

 

 

Burns deliberately, if obliquely, with Scots Wha Hae set out to support the radical movement against the reactionary Pitt government in London and its despotic manager in Scotland, Henry Dundas, Viscount Melville.

Another indication that there has been a longstanding tradition connecting the struggle for workers’ rights with the demand for Scottish self-determination was the Radical War of 1820.  This ill-fated insurrection and general strike rallied workers behind the slogan “Scotland Free or a Desert”. 

That tradition was carried into the 20th century by the likes of the pioneering trade unionist and politician, James Keir Hardie, who managed to secure a commitment to Scottish home rule from the political parties he helped create, namely the Scottish Labour Party, Independent Labour Party and the British Labour Party.

Perhaps most notably of all, the struggle for worker’s rights and Scottish self-determination was upheld by the Red Clydeside leader and Marxist teacher, John Maclean, who called for an independent Scottish Socialist Workers’ Republic.  He believed that workers in Scotland could develop in a revolutionary direction more swiftly than their counterparts in England and Wales since Scottish society had been structured along the lines of “Celtic communism” in the past. He argued that “the communism of the clans must be re-established on a modern basis” and raised the slogan “back to communism and forward to communism”.

An upsurge of Scottish nationalism occurred in the late 1960s and 1970s. This coincided with the discovery of oil reserves in the North Sea that opened up the possibility of a prosperous future for an independent Scotland.  However, what is often forgotten is that there was a manifestation of large-scale support for the principle of Scottish self-determination prior to the 1960s.  Around two million Scottish people between 1947 and 1950 signed the Scottish Covenant which was a petition to the United Kingdom government to create a home rule Scottish parliament.

The national question

It’s a matter of historical fact that people typically based on shared culture, religion, history, language and ethnicity and living within recognised geographical boundaries have strived successfully to breakaway from the rule of perceived oppressors and form self-governing sovereign ‘nation-states’. Since World War Two, well over a hundred new independent states have joined the international community, most recently in 2011 with South Sudan.

The recognition of national struggles for independence led Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to develop a theory of the national question although it was left to Vladimir Lenin and others later on to provide detailed elaboration and development of the theory.

In the Communist Manifesto, written in late 1847, Marx and Engels explained that the coming into existence of new nation-states was the result of class struggle, specifically of the capitalist class’s attempts to overthrow the institutions of the former ruling class and establish the economic, social and political conditions most conducive to their class needs.

Marx and Engels in their writings produced three themes which were to be important for the future development of the Marxist theory of national self-determination:

 

1. Only the national liberation of the oppressed nation enables national divisions and antagonisms to be overcome, and permits the working class of both nations to unite against their common enemy, the capitalists.

 

2. The oppression of another nation helps to reinforce the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie over workers in the oppressing nation-state: ‘A nation that enslaves another forges its own chains’. (Marx & Engels Collected Works, Volume 21 p120)

 

3. The emancipation of the oppressed nation weakens the economic, political, military and ideological bases of the ruling class in the oppressor nation-state and this contributes to the revolutionary struggle of the working class of that nation-state.

 

Lenin, building on the foundations laid by Marx and Engels and applying them to the new era of imperialism in the early years of the twentieth century, put great emphasis on the right of oppressed nations to self-determination. Through defending the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, he believed, socialists in oppressor states demonstrated solidarity with workers of oppressed nations and laid the basis for an internationalist, socialist-inspired alliance between the workers of all nations against their common enemy, the capitalist class.

 

Moreover, Lenin maintained that small nations, as Scotland is, could also play a role in defeating imperialism which he regarded as the highest stage of capitalism:

 

“The dialectics of history are such that small nations, powerless as an independent factor in the struggle against imperialism, play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli, which help the real anti-imperialist force, the socialist proletariat to make its appearance on the scene.” (The Collected Works of V I Lenin, Volume 22, p357)

 

Marxists, therefore, support the proliferation of nation-states to the extent that it results in the emancipation of oppressed nations and promotes a growing awareness among workers, both in oppressor and oppressed nations, of their shared interests in opposing the capitalist system. Once capitalism is abolished and there is a transition to socialism, Marxists believe, state structures will gradually be dismantled, resulting in a stateless, classless communist world society.

Arguments for Scottish independence

Tom Nairn, arguably Scotland’s most influential left-wing intellectual of recent times and the author of The Break Up of Britain, famously claimed that the theory of nationalism is Marxism’s greatest failure.  What he meant was that although Marxist theory correctly identifies the capacity of nationalism as a divisive, reactionary force that diverts the proletariat from the class struggle against the bourgeoisie it, nevertheless, fails to recognise fully the potential nationalism also has as a progressive force.

A case in point is the issue of the ‘civic nationalism’ (aka as liberal nationalism) championed by the Scottish National Party (SNP) and others in their campaign for a Yes vote at the 2014 Independence Referendum.  Is it effectively a form of ‘bourgeois nationalism’ that would serve the purposes of the ruling class by dividing British workers and preventing the working class from uniting against them? Something Marxists would want to oppose.  Or does it open up new possibilities to create a fairer, more equal and more democratic society in Scotland that could then act as a beacon for the working class in the rest of the UK? Something Marxists would be inclined to support.

In answer to the first question posed above, if the aforementioned civic nationalism is, as critics on the Left maintain, just another form of bourgeois nationalism then one would expect the business community to be overwhelmingly in favour of Scottish independence.  That is not the case as indicated in a speech by Confederation of British Industry (CBI) director-general John Cridland when he said: ‘CBI Scotland council is not convinced of the business and economic case for Scotland seceding from the Union and judges that businesses - Scottish, English, British - would lose out from the fragmentation of our single market.’ (London Evening Standard, 06.09.2012)

In answer to the second question, all three parties (i.e. SNP, SSP and the Scottish Green Party) affiliated to the Yes campaign have a track record of supporting progressive reforms.  Moreover, both the SSP and the Greens in particular see themselves as parts of global movements dedicated to advancing progressive causes and can be said to have a broad internationalist outlook rather than a narrow (bourgeois) nationalist focus.

On the issue of Scotland breaking away from the rest of the UK, Marxists cannot argue for independence on the grounds that Scotland is an oppressed nation within the UK since there has been no systematic attempt by the British ruling class, in modern times at least, to deny Scottish people their democratic rights including the right to secede from the UK.  However, there are other reasons for supporting Scottish independence from a Marxist perspective, not least that working people in Scotland, in common with those in other parts of the UK, pay a heavy price for being ruled by the British state.  The price of remaining in the UK includes the following:

Britain has a permanent seat at the UN Security Council due in no small part to being the third highest military spender in the world with expensive nuclear weapons based on the Clyde. The tax money diverted to military spending by our political leaders to maintain the illusion that Britain remains a world power is money denied for much needed improvement of education, health and welfare provision.

Britain is a belligerent state that has been engaged in twenty-two separate wars and conflicts since the end of World War Two. British interventions in the likes of Iraq in 2003 and 2001 in Afghanistan have been largely counter-productive but nevertheless costly in terms of money and more importantly, human suffering and lives.

Successive British governments’ adherence to neo-liberal ideas that free capital flows, a deregulated financial sector and powerful private banks would be good for the economy has proved a costly mistake to the tune of £1.2 trillion. That is the amount incurred by the public purse since 2008 to bail out banks and financial institutions that were on the verge of collapse. As a result of the bailouts creating a financial black hole for the Treasury, an austerity programme has had to be implemented involving massive public spending cuts, job losses and a decline in living standards for working families.

Britain is officially described as a ‘parliamentary democracy’ but, nevertheless, has a political system which includes many features that are far from democratic. For example, we are not citizens but subjects of a hereditary monarch, a Head of State by accident of birth, who is also commander-in-chief of our armed forces; sovereignty or political power in the British state is invested in the ‘Crown in Parliament’ and not with the people; we have an unelected second chamber in the British Parliament, the House of Lords; we have an electoral system that underpins a two-party system which offers voters little real democratic choice and often results in Scotland being ruled by a party decisively rejected by the Scottish electorate. As a consequence of features like those outlined above, there is a ‘democratic deficit’ in Britain which is in addition to the other shortcomings that people living in the UK have to endure.

 

There are distinct disadvantages of Scotland remaining a part of the British state for the Scottish population as outlined above but for Marxists the vital question is would Scottish independence open up new possibilities for socialist advance not only in Scotland but in the other nations of UK as well?

 

Scotland has had its own devolved Parliament and government since 1999 and already significant divergences from the rest of the UK are apparent.  For example, unlike in England, people living in Scotland benefit from free medical prescriptions, free social care, and no tuition fees for universities as result of Scottish governments coming under stronger pressure to pursue social democratic policies than governments of the UK.  Independence would give Scottish governments increased powers to formulate the social democratic policies required to tackle more effectively the complex social and economic problems that currently beset Scotland.  The improved capacity to align Scottish government policies with Scotland’s values, needs and opportunities would be one of the greatest benefits of independence.

However, in the event of Scottish independence not only would there be a transformation of the economic, social and political contexts for Scotland but also important consequences for the rest of the UK.  For example, Trident would have to leave the Clyde and probably be scrapped on cost grounds; the UK would have a diminished status on the international stage and would likely ‘shrink’ its foreign and security policies; the severe British anti-union legislation would go north of the border, and be undermined south of the border;  the loss of the Scottish bloc of Labour MPs would initially favour the Conservatives at Westminster but, nevertheless, could provoke a significant political realignment resulting in a boost to progressive centre-left politics; Wales and Northern Ireland would become a smaller periphery to the UK's core in England and might well look to establish greater levels of autonomy or even full-scale independence in the case of Wales.

Be that as it may, it is important to note that independence is not the same as ‘separation’. We live in an increasingly interdependent world in which national independence goes hand in hand with international interdependence. An independent Scotland would continue to have close economic ties, cultural links, and bonds of kinship with the other nations of the UK no matter what new constitutional arrangements are made. Moreover, there would be no reason why the ‘unity of the British working class’ could not be maintained through existing trades unions and social movements operating across borders as happens in Ireland and North America. They would have the opportunity to show the way cooperation across national boundaries could and should be pursued to further the interests of working people and their families in the ‘globalised’ world we live in.

Lastly, a widely held misapprehension, including by many on the Left who oppose Scottish independence, needs to be cleared up.   While it is true that the SNP, a pro-capitalist party, is the main force driving the campaign for Scottish independence and that some of its policies for an independent Scotland are far from progressive (e.g. low corporate taxation, retention of the monarchy, staying in NATO, retention of the pound sterling and financial regulation from London), a Yes vote cast at the forthcoming independence referendum will NOT be an endorsement for the SNP and its vision for an independent Scotland.  It will be a vote for independence and the opening up of a range of possibilities for Scotland in the future.

In the event of a majority Yes vote in 2014, then it is likely a two year period of intense political activity and realignment will ensue, culminating in an historic election at which Scottish voters will deliver their verdict as to which of the competing visions for an independent Scotland they prefer.  There is no great certitude that the SNP by 2016 will have retained its present configuration and political identity and even less certainty that it will emerge victorious, happy and glorious after the first election to be held in an independent Scotland for over three hundred years.

Conclusion

From a Marxist point of view the most important question as regards nationalism is whether support for a specific national movement would advance the interests of the working class or not.  When a struggle for national independence weakens the forces of imperialism and brings tangible benefits in terms of improved living standards and more democracy to the working class, then socialists should support the cause; when a nationalist movement justifies imperialism and threatens the advances secured by the working class, socialists should oppose it wholeheartedly.

 

Nationalism, therefore, has to be judged concretely, on the basis of the particular effects that its actions have in a specific context.  In the case of Scotland, the choice at the forthcoming independence referendum is stark. Vote No and continue as before inside a neo-imperialist and reactionary British state that imposes legal restrictions on trade unionism, attacks the living standards of working people and provides military and diplomatic back-up for the USA to help maintain a neo-liberal world order. Or vote Yes and begin the dissolution of the UK in the name of progress and social advance and in so doing help realise the potential for the Left not only in Scotland but across Britain that has for far too long lain largely untapped.