SSP conference 2001
SNP first, then us
What had been a slow trot towards open nationalism at the Scottish Socialist Party conference in 2000 developed into a fully fledged gallop at this year's gathering in Glasgow's Caledonian University over February 10-11.
No longer is there any pretence that the number one priority for the SSP leadership is anything other than independence for the kingdom of Scotland. From the applause for pro-independence speeches to the venom directed against anti-nationalists, from the successful resolutions to the guidelines restricting oppositionist literature, the SSP demand for an "independent socialist Scotland" is palpably envisaged to be a two-stage affair. Independence first ... socialism some time down the track.
This quantitative shift was always just below the surface. With the SSP leadership's sights on the 2003 Holy-rood elections, Tommy Sheridan's and Alan McCombes's dreams of holding the balance of power and supporting the Scottish National Party long enough to allow a referendum on independence to be held.
While conference overwhelmingly supported a motion that opposed the possibility of entering a government in coalition with the SNP, the leadership, however, is pursuing a line which is designed to lead directly to such an outcome. When and if such a scenario is realised it will ignore all past conference resolutions and demand support for the principle of independence.
Time was at a premium, as the gathering was effectively two in one: the annual general meeting combined with a manifesto/pre-general election conference. Nevertheless, there was no doubting that Westminster 2000 is as nothing compared to Holyrood 2003 in the eyes of the leadership.
The other main theme concerned the ongoing negotiations (or rather lack of them) with the Socialist Workers Party over the possibility of the SWP membership in Scotland joining the SSP. It now looks unlikely that unity can be achieved through the SSP. While both sides publicly declare their love for each other, privately the affair seems to have gone cold. Indeed both suitors are wooing others: the SSP is sniffing after the SNP, while the SWP seems prepared to concentrate on gaining recruits from the anti-capitalist road show. Perhaps it will be content to continue to go it alone in Scotland until the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales catch up and perhaps overtake the SSP in terms of success.
Alongside the question of SWP entry were the associated issues of tightening conference and introducing "guidelines" on the public sale of factional literature.
The lack of a coherent and united opposition centre to nationalism in the SSP was obvious. The factions and groups which exist lack any real programme or vision for the party. For example the Republican Communist Network essentially remains an amateurish ginger group.
What might be called an internal opposition came in the form of the Taaffeite Committee for a Workers' International led in Scotland by Phil Stott, the SSP's North East organiser. While its reformist brand of 'nationalise the top [insert latest appropriate figure here] companies' passes in the eyes of some for socialism, it is disarmed when it comes to high politics and democratic questions; it has no answers for the working class in Scotland or anywhere else in terms of self-liberation. Yet the fact that the CWI's politics appear leftwing in the SSP says everything about the party's national-reformist road to socialism.
While the SSP has grown in terms of paper membership over the past year, its activist base seems to have remained unaltered. This conference was open to all members: around 200 attended on Saturday, but only half stayed around for the second day. While there was much rhetoric from the leadership about members in the Orkneys and Shetlands, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of active comrades are in Scotland's central belt; and mainly Glasgow.
There is an undoubted emphasis now placed on independence over and above socialism and internationalism. While socialism (albeit of a national variety - conceived of as the nationalisation of the economy and, crucially, getting hold of North Sea oil) still exists within SSP thinking and some abstract 'internationalism' remains in place, independence is now the touchstone. The prospect of winning more MSPs in 2003 has certainly focused the minds of the SSP leadership: Alan McCombes, Allan Green, Tommy Sheridan and about half a dozen others.
The Westminster election manifesto of the SSP passed at the conference says that the party "does not pretend that we are on the verge of forming a government". Nevertheless the leadership clearly hopes for a referendum on independence in the short term, perhaps immediately after the next Scottish elections. This means that the primary vehicle for independence is the SNP. It is an SNP government in Scotland that can deliver a referendum.
"The SSP bases itself upon the triple pillars of independence, socialism and internationalism," says the manifesto. Here, independence comes first. "The SSP believes that Scotland is a nation and has the right to control its own economy, its own welfare system and its own defence policy. We stand for a fully independent government in Scotland which has powers over the economy; the welfare state; taxation; employment and company law; overseas trade; interest rates; exchange rates; and defence." You could not wish for a clearer expression of unadulterated nationalism.
The successful motion from Kilmarnock opposing coalition government with the SNP needs to be seen in context. (As an aside, motions are no guarantee against future actions. We only need to remember the 1912 motion of the Second International conference in Basel calling on all socialist parties to turn the impending world war into a civil war.)
In the leading theoretical article in Frontline, the new journal from the dominant faction of the SSP, the International Socialist Movement (ex-CWI), Alan McCombes spells out his attitude to the SNP, should it emerge as the largest party in the next Holyrood parliament. He says: "Almost certainly ... pro-independence parties would command an absolute majority of votes and seats after 2003" (Frontline No1, March 2001). The pro-independence parties being the SSP, the SNP and the Greens.
Comrade McCombes continues: "At this stage, there is no significant support within the SSP for the idea of entering a future coalition government with the SNP. On the other hand, if there was a hung parliament with the SSP holding the balance of power, the issue could become much more contentious within the SSP" (ibid.).
While the SSP's leading writer dismisses out of hand any such coalition, his thinking here is clear. Yet notice the Delphic formulation - no coalition "at this stage", and the heavily pregnant "if".
On this basis he proceeds: "This doesn't mean that the SSP should refuse to collaborate with the SNP and others on specific policies that could potentially advance the interests of the working class." "Collaborate with the SNP"! What does this mean? Taking the ministry of labour? Putting the SNP into office?
Of course, socialist and communist members of bourgeois parliaments could conceivably cast their votes alongside all manner of bourgeois parties on certain issues - unless our MPs were to abstain on every issue, which would be ludicrous. However, that 'unity' or 'collaboration' is purely episodic and carries no significance.
On the other hand, what concrete example does comrade McCombes give of what he has in mind? "If the SNP were to emerge as the biggest party in 2003, they would almost certainly seek the backing of minority parties to introduce legislation for a referendum on independence."
A slight problem here for comrade McCombes. For the SNP to be in such a position, they would need to form the government. If no government could form, new elections would be needed. And no referendum. Coalition may have been formally ruled out (but remember that comrade McCombes has foreshadowed coalition becoming more "contentious" with the SSP holding the balance of power).
In any case, there is nothing to stop the SSP shoring up a minority SNP government - without forming part of the executive - in order for a referendum to go ahead. This seems to be the unspoken plan of comrades McCombes, Green and Sheridan. Such an action would clearly cross class lines.
An indication of this trajectory, though by no means definitive, came during the debate around coalition with the SNP. Comrade Tommy Sheridan had quietly absented himself from the hall. But his mother had not. She spoke vociferously against the motion. "Who has ever advocated coalition?" asked comrade Alice Sheridan. She said the motion was confusing. Did it refer to coalition or coalescence? Opposing coalition was not necessary, she concluded. While Alice Sheridan's politics are her own, we need but only remember the role she played at the 2000 conference, arguing for the 'line change' to support "socialist" Cuba.
In the course of the debate, another comrade claimed that "most SNPers are socialists at heart". While only around 20 comrades opposed the motion, the logic is obvious: 'First the SNP, then us.'
Fortunately, the attempt to entrench the slogan 'For an independent socialist Scotland' in the constitution failed this year. It was remitted, to be considered next year. What came from the executive was the proposal whereby a ballot of all party members would be necessary for the slogan to be dropped. The nutty-nat Scottish Republican Socialist Movement argued instead that a two-thirds conference majority ought to be stipulated before this "pillar" could be removed.
Central to majority thinking in the SSP is the idea that the UK state must be broken up, not overthrown by a united working class, collectively oppressed by the constitutional monarchy system operating in the interests of capital.
There were other mile posts along the nationalist road to 'socialism'. Alongside the nationalist speeches ("Scotland has to be strong on its own"; "the main issue is independence") there were clear votes opposing cooperation with the socialist forces across Britain.
The pro-unity motion from Glasgow Kelvin (minority) was clearly defeated, with only 20 or so in favour: "The SSP supports the creation of a united socialist challenge throughout Britain at the next general election and calls for socialists in Britain to come together in a common slate in order to more effectively challenge New Labour and the other pro-capitalist parties and thus aid the promotion of working class unity, self-activity and the cause of socialism."
Conference passed a resolution in favour of an "international socialist alliance". Yet as comrade Sandy McBurney pointed out, there was a glaring contradiction here. How can the SSP call for socialist unity in Europe or the world while rejecting it in Britain? Of course, this "international socialist alliance" remains platonic. No concrete activity, such as pursuing a joint electoral campaign, is proposed.
A further point on nationalism. Throughout our debates with left nationalists, the sacrosanct unity of the trade unions has never been called into question. While political organisation needs to be based on separate nationalities, say the national socialists, the unions must remain all-UK, all-British Isles even. Such an historic gain is now being questioned by none other than comrade Alan McCombes.
In his Frontline article, 'Sea change in Scottish politics', comrade McCombes accepts that "movements such as the miners' strike of 1984-85 tended to marginalise the national question". He accepts that "during most of the 20th century, there was a trend towards the unification of the trade union movement on an all-Britain scale".
But, he says, all-Britain employment structures are breaking down. Socialists should not try to 'turn back the clock'. We have to face up to change, asserts comrade McCombes: "In particular, we should support moves towards increased autonomy for Scotland within unions such as Unison as part of the general struggle for greater rank and file control over the apparatus of the trade union movement."
Comrade McCombes says he rejects the break-up of trade unions along national lines. However, readers will remember that what began as a call for "increased autonomy" within Militant Labour and the Committee for a Workers' International ended up in separation and then divorce. Weekly Worker predictions of a split were at the time rejected out of hand as 'mischief-making' by comrade McCombes and co.
Marcus Larsen
