On the national question in Scotland

As socialists in the Marxist tradition we believe in every nation’s right to self determination. This is no different when it comes to Scotland and the question of independence. We support the right for Scottish people to decide their own future. To not be dictated to by capitalist politicians from Scotland and Westminster.

As Lenin writes in his fantastic book on a nations right to self determination http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm
“, the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. The most profound economic factors drive towards this goal, and, therefore, for the whole of Western Europe, nay, for the entire civilised world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period.
Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations, not by juggling with legal definitions, or “inventing” abstract definitions, but by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. “

So as a result it is wrong we felt for David Cameron to weigh into the debate dictating how the referendum now planned for 2014 was to be held. It is not up to him.

In a country where the Tories are largely hated and have as many giant panda’s in Edinburgh zoo than Tory MP’s we feel this is very disrespectful of Tories to start calling the shots on a referendum of independence.

The UK Westminster government attempted to force the hand of the Scottish National Party (SNP) Scottish administration into holding a referendum within the next 18 months, rather than SNP First Minister Alex Salmond's preferred option of late 2014.
Crucially, the Con-Dems have insisted that a single 'yes or no' question on the issue of Scottish independence form the basis of the referendum. This is also counter to the SNP's current desire for a multi-option poll including a choice of "devolution max".
The Con-Dems also oppose the idea that 16- and 17-year olds be given a vote in the referendum, which the SNP government support. Ironically, the Lib Dem's official policy is for votes for 16- and 17-year olds.
These three sticks, or "strings" as Salmond has described them, were wrapped up in the carrot of allowing the Scottish government to carry out a "legally binding" independence referendum, rather than the consultative one that the current devolution arrangements permit.
The SNP leadership lost no time in describing Cameron's intervention as being "Thatcher-esque". The Tories were operating in a "London knows best fashion, trying to dictate the rules for a referendum for which they have no mandate".
Cameron and his Lib Dem Scottish secretary Michael Moore quickly dropped the insistence that a referendum had to be held within 18 months, but by then the damage, from their point of view, had been done.
In fact Moore's statement to the Westminster parliament described the SNP's proposals as "unlawful" and still leaves open the possibility that the Westminster government could organise an independence referendum over the heads of the Scottish parliament. Such a 'nuclear option' would result in a ratcheting-up of national tensions as well as a likely boycott of such a poll.
As it is, the crass intervention by the Con-Dems has boosted the standing of Salmond and the SNP and probably support for independence as well.
Burned deep into the Scottish national consciousness, and particularly among the working class, is the memory of the brutal anti-working class Thatcher regime. This included that government's refusal to recognise the rights of the Scottish people to self-determination and devolution, never mind independence.
As a consequence the Tories' electoral base was obliterated. Today the Tories have only one MP in Scotland, outnumbered by the two Giant Pandas currently residing in Edinburgh zoo!
The Con-Dem attempts to dictate the terms and rules for the referendum have been a gift for the nationalists in Scotland, who will have gained at least temporary credit for 'standing up' to the Tories.
Of course Salmond's refusal to bow to the pressure over the referendum does not extend to refusing to implement the Con-Dem cuts in Scotland. To a penny, all £3.7 billion of Tory/Liberal cuts have been inflicted on the people of Scotland by the self-proclaimed "Scotland's party". It's also an indication of the role the SNP will play in any future independent Scotland in defending the interests of big business.

Salmond and the SNP also understand that with independence currently supported by around one-third of the Scottish people, it is better to delay a referendum until late 2014.
They hope that the impact of the economic crisis and the savage cuts can be blamed on the Con-Dems and the lack of powers for the Scottish parliament, bolstering public support for more decisive constitutional change.
It is for this reason that the SNP are still holding out for the prospect of a multi-option referendum. In fact they are the only party in Scotland who support a question being asked on extended devolution.
They believe that even if independence was defeated, the current overwhelming public support (68% in the most recent poll) for a major extension of powers over tax, benefits, the minimum wage etc would see them in a win-win situation. "Devolution max" is a safety net for the SNP which they would claim as another step towards independence at a future stage.
Ironically, despite the insistence of Cameron, Miliband et al on a single question on independence, "devolution max" also could be a way out for the British ruling class as well. It could avoid the instability and loss of prestige that the break-up of the UK would mean for British capitalism.
If the run-up to 2014 saw a significant rise in support for independence even the Westminster parties could back a third option, to act as a lightning conductor, in an effort to avoid a majority for independence.
The SNP leadership, pro-capitalist to the core, have long accepted a 'gradualist' path to independence. They would happily settle for a form of extreme autonomy, within a newly designed federal UK state.
Salmond has already made clear that an independent Scotland would maintain the Queen as head of state and keep the pound as the Scottish currency, effectively keeping monetary policy in the hands of the Bank of England. They would also use powers over corporation tax to reduce the "burden" on big business and encourage a low tax haven for inward investment. Their vision of an independent Scotland would be a nightmare for the majority of working class people and their families.

It is essential that a working class alternative is urgently built to the capitalist and cuts consensus among Scotland's political elite, including the SNP. Any attempt to block the democratic rights of the Scottish people should be opposed, if necessary using the full power of the trade union and labour movement as witnessed on 30 November. A multi-option referendum is a genuine democratic right which the Socialist Party Scotland fully supports.
While supporting a parliament with full powers over the economy, benefits, the minimum wage etc we also need a socialist Scotland and to build a mass party of the working class to fight for it.
Central to this task is the need to stand implacably for the maximum unity of the working class across Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. We fight for a voluntary and democratic socialist federation of these states as a step to a socialist Europe. Only a socialist society can end the nightmare of austerity, cuts and capitalism once and for all.

Attitudes towards racism and why it shouldn’t be taken lightly

As socialists we fight against all injustices and discriminations on a clear class basis. This is no different when it comes to racism and racial divides in society.

We in the socialist party take accusations of racism and the whole idea of racism very seriously indeed.
We have been on countless anti EDL and anti nazi demonstrations over the years and have lead the way on many anti racial movements and been at the fore front on combating racism and attempts to divide people.

But at the same time we will not shy away from the subject if we can’t win over our own members with our ideas of how to combat racism how are we supposed to convince the wider class out there about its dangers of divide and rule.
We also unlike others on the left call for “open borders” on a capitalist basis this would be a big mistake and due to the way the capitalist system woks we could find some countries being flooded with people and other countries being emptied out. This is clearly what we would stand for under a socialist society a free and open society wheel national borders didn’t matter but under the present system it would be wrong of us to put that slogan forward we feel.

In recent times attitudes have turned to an anti eastern European feel with lots of Pollish and eastern European coming to the UK to find work. This has of course tailed off now due to the economic crisis where there is simply few if any jobs for anyone about any longer.
The right-wing press attempts to blame immigrants for falling wages and the fact that the welfare state is falling apart. It is claimed that immigrant workers have driven down wages in the construction industry by 50%. Since when did Polish workers set the wage levels in different sectors of the economy, legislate for the minimum wage, or administer company pay-rolls? The fact is that big business will pay as little as it can get away with in the pursuit of profit. Sir Digby Jones, former head of the Confederation of British Industry, admitted as much when commenting that "you cannot blame migrants if they are prepared to come here and work for wages which, though they may seem low to us, are a lot higher than in their own country". Indeed! This is a clear admission that the blame for low wages lies with big business.
Big businesses are in competition with one another for market share and profits. If a business can cut its costs by paying lower wages and giving itself a competitive edge, then it will do just that. This forces competing businesses to follow suit. The result is the driving down of wages for all workers, which is not the fault of immigrant workers but down to the imperatives of the capitalist system itself.
Similarly, the claim that immigration is the cause of the problems with the welfare state is a fallacy. Since Thatcher's Tory government, whichever party has been in power has sought to break up and privatise the welfare state to keep their big-business friends in profit. This has resulted in the privatisation of council housing, cuts in benefits and pensions, and job losses and closures in the NHS. Yet again, it is the wilful decision of neo-liberal governments, Tory and Labour, to cut state expenditure and replace it with private, profit-driven provision that has led to the decline of the welfare state.
Wages are too low and the funding of public services inadequate. Immigration is used by big business and its representatives in government to excuse underinvestment in vital services and try and place the blame on anyone but themselves and their system. Official statistics estimate that immigrant workers contribute £2.5 billion to the economy each year. Rather than being a strain on the welfare state, most immigrant workers are aged in their 20s and 30s, and work when they get here. Less than 10% arrive with dependant family members, making them net contributors through the work they do and the taxes they pay. (The Independent, 23 August)
The main factors driving migration are also a result of the capitalist system. The restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 has been an unmitigated disaster. Unemployment in Poland and Slovakia stands officially at over 15%, pushing people to migrate to find work. As if to hammer home the way the imperatives of the capitalist system force migration, The Financial Times (29 August) reported that, because of rising skills shortages in Poland due to migration, "many Polish employers are beginning to turn to Ukrainians to fill the jobs gap"!
Other than false economic arguments, the right-wing press pushes as far as it can a racist and xenophobic line to further divide working people. It is in the interests of capitalism to sow divisions among the working people of the world. With globalisation, ownership of supposedly 'British' companies becomes more and more diffuse. Similarly, the different workforces around the world are more and more composed of different nationalities. For example, the National Farmers Union says British agriculture relies on 70,000 immigrant workers to bring in the harvest, and immigration now makes up 10% of the workforce in the construction industry, which still suffers from a lack of labourers (The Independent, 23 August).

We are often told about this so called “British interest” on the world stage and how we must protect and defend the British interest.
There is no such thing as a 'British interest'. Society is divided into different classes whose interests are at odds to one another. Capitalism's profits come from exploiting the labour of working-class people. Nationality, immigrant or indigenous, is unimportant to big business - it will pay as little as it can get away with.
At other times, the 'liberal' press attains an astonishingly similar reflection of right-wing hysteria. Jasmine Alibhai Brown, a frequent contributor to The Independent, comments that "[British] people are either too lazy or expensive to compete. Tax-paying immigrants past and present keep indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer and watching TV. We [immigrants] are despised because we seize opportunities these slobs don't want". (23 August) Competing with the right-wing press as to who can portray one group of workers as more 'lazy' than the other, does nothing to break down racism and xenophobia! No mention is made, for example, of the excessive overtime that British workers perform.
The concern of working-class people in Britain over the state of welfare provision and wage levels is totally legitimate. However, to place the blame on 'immigrants' does not address the causes of these problems or advance anything to improve the situation. The problem is the capitalist system itself

The path to beginning to solve the problem of low wages, under-funded public services and racism is workers' unity across ethnic, religious and national lines. This can only be built through the day-to-day experiences of working people. It is vital that the trade union movement makes the recruitment of migrant labour a top priority. Joint action of British-born and immigrant workers, organised in unions and based on a unity of interests, is how to stop big business using immigration as an excuse to cut wages and dismantle the welfare state.
But working people also need to be organised politically to fight for their interests in all areas of society. The need for a new mass workers' party has never been clearer. Unfortunately, many of the major unions continue to affiliate to New Labour - the principal executors of big-business, neo-liberal interests that provide such fertile ground for division and racism. Philip Stevens, commenting in The Financial Times (29 August), points out that "the erosion of old political boundaries is evident in the debate about the influx of workers from Eastern Europe... Labour MPs these days are almost as likely as their Tory counterparts to call for tougher restrictions on foreigners". In other words, Labour and the Tories try and out-compete each other in scapegoating immigrants to divert attention from the fact that both parties' policies caused these problems and will exacerbate them in the future.