SSP conference 2001

SWP unity bid falters

I represented the London Socialist Alliance at the Scottish Socialist Party conference. Other guests were from the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark, the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (France), the Democratic Socialist Party (Australia), the Socialist Party (Ireland), the Committee for a Workers' International, the Scottish Left Review and Socialist Alliance (England). Amazingly, of all these I was the only invited guest not allowed to speak.

However, while I was denied access to the speaker's rostrum, comrade John Nicholson, representing the SA, covered most of the points I wanted to. The borders within Britain "are not our borders", he pointed out. I could not have put it better myself.

The greetings given to the conference by Shane Bentley on behalf of the Democratic Socialist Party were of interest. Clearly not his own words (he was incapable of summing up), comrade Bentley's speech - no doubt penned in Abercrombie Street, Sydney - warned that "socialism without internationalism is not socialism" and he spoke of the lessons of the last century, of the "national-reformist Stalinist dead-ends". Just who was this directed at, and why?

The speech from the Committee for a Workers' International was equally interesting, but for another reason. It included the nice touch of referring to "the dark period of the 1990s". True, but also an unwitting public criticism of Peter Taaffe's "red 90s" prediction.

Apart from the pan-nationalist agenda of the SSP majority, conference was also coloured by the related question of keeping out the Socialist Workers Party. The SSP leadership has stonewalled SWP attempts to negotiate entry into the SSP for its members in Scotland.

I had thought there was no way that the SSP could block the SWP from coming in. After all, the SSP had invited SWP members in Scotland to join and would look ridiculous if it then turned them down. I now think I was wrong. True, the SSP has taken steps at this conference towards a weekly paper (one hurdle removed for the SWP, it would seem). But, given recent developments, private conversations and public exchanges and the divergent trajectories of the SSP and SWP leaderships, unity is unlikely in the short to medium term. And the SSP does not have to say 'no' either.

In response to the SSP's headlong rush along the separatist road, the SWP has repeatedly stated that the policy of an "independent socialist Scotland" is "no problem". But that is about as much as the SWP has been prepared to say on the subject. Clearly a fudge.

Allan Green, SSP secretary, gave the report on negotiations with the SWP. He opened his remarks by noting that at times "there is nothing so divisive as a call for unity". The SWP had rejected earlier approaches and comrade Green said that the eventual change of heart had come as a bit of a surprise. Since October, it appears that negotiations have been stalled. Of course, there are significant issues which no one dares air openly.

Up until the recent "no problem" fudged position on Scottish independence, the SWP had opposed the break-up-of-Britain road to socialism. Further, the SWP is an all-Britain organisation; its comrades in Scotland would be 'run from London' and ultimately subordinate to the central committee of the SWP. Another consideration is size. Comrade Green reported an attendance of 120 at the SWP's Scotland aggregate that took place on October 22 last year. Although the SSP has 2,000 members on paper, its activist base is around 10% of that. The SWP would effectively be the largest faction.

While comrade Green recognised that ongoing competition between socialist organisations in Scotland was problematic, he knows that to have the SWP in now might, despite assurances to the contrary, lead to the overturning or watering down of the SSP's nationalist perspectives. Best to keep negotiations ongoing until a sizeable left nationalist membership has been built up as a guarantee.

This is what lay behind the executive's attempts to entrench independence in the constitution of the SSP (for the moment unsuccessful) and to move to a delegate structure (successful). Comrade Green concluded his report by stating that the "sticking points" remaining concerned the frequency and editorial content of Scottish Socialist Voice and the campaigning priorities of the SSP. Exactly what the differences are was not mentioned.

Julie Waterson of the SWP spoke next, pledging the SWP's unconditional support for SSP candidates in the general election, no matter what stage the negotiations. She said that she would welcome the break-up of the British state and came out with the obligatory "no problem" in relation to independence.

Yet in her speech she called for a new left in Britain. She talked of the Globalise Resistance tour "up and down the country". She mentioned the Socialist Alliance results in Marlowe ward, Lewisham (London) and the recent strike on London Underground. Comrade Waterson said that there was nothing to fear from unity "in one united organisation". Whether this was in Scotland or in Britain she did not say.

Here is the problem. The SSP leadership is toying with backing an SNP minority government in order to win a referendum on independence, yet dare not advocate such a thing in public "at this stage". The SWP clearly favours the evolution of the Socialist Alliance and SSP into what it refers to as a "new left" across Britain, yet equally does not openly declare its hand. Just as the SSP leadership will not let the SWP in before it has recruited a large enough nationalist bulwark, so the SWP is banking on the success of the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales to put unity on the agenda at an all-Britain level.

There was one positive advance in this context. In discussions with myself and Socialist Alliance convenor John Nicholson, Allan Green agreed in principle to write a letter stating that the 72 candidates of the SSP should be counted alongside those of the Socialist Alliance (England) and the Welsh Socialist Alliance to fight for an all-Britain electoral broadcast.

An area of particular controversy at the conference was around "guidelines" which frown upon the public sale of factional material. In part the guidelines state: "Platforms should not operate as a party within a party ... Platforms should not organise public campaigns in opposition to party policy... Platforms are free to distribute their own materials within the party, but the SSP paper should be sold on public activities rather than platform journals ... Party members have a right to expect open debate ... attempts by platforms to enter discussions with a predetermined line will breed hostility ... Platforms should not operate 'shadow' branch structures." Etc, etc.

The worry is that what begin as "guidelines" at this conference will become a matter of discipline at the next conference. Heseltine and Clarke publicly campaign in opposition to the Tory policy on Europe, Tribune and Labour Left Briefing are readily available Labour Party oppositional journals (ironically, as a non-SSP member - i.e., a member of the public - I was sold a copy of the ISM's Frontline, the very faction that drew up these guidelines).

Richie Venton of the ISM moved the motion. He said that the key question was whether the SSP returns to being an alliance or moves forward as a party. We know what sort of party comrade Venton has in mind.

In opposition, Phil Stott (CWI) bluntly stated that his faction would ignore the guidelines if they were passed. Fellow CWIer Harvey Duke pointed out that "party within a party" was exactly the language used by the Kinnockites to expel Militant from the Labour Party. He said that such guidelines were a clear sign that the ISM had little confidence in its own ideas. Would they lead to witch hunts? Expulsions? Why pass guidelines if you don't intend to police them? This caused uproar among his erstwhile comrades in the recently departed International Socialist Movement. Nothing like falling out amongst thieves. Each called the other a hypocrite, and of course everyone was right.

In response, comrade McCombes underlined that they were voluntary guidelines and there would be no policing. I must say that this speech of his was reminiscent of Arthur Scargill defending the witch hunts in the SLP. Repeatedly Scargill dismissed democracy campaigners as spoilers, since the SLP was apparently "the most democratic party in Britain". Comrade McCombes went one further, claiming that the SSP was the most democratic party in Europe. (Later that evening, comrade François Duval of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire told me he begged to differ). Comrade McCombes pointed out that if comrade Stott publicly sold alternative journals in his own organisation (the CWI), he would be expelled.

Comrade Green too repeated that these were merely guidelines, though he said that he would be "very disappointed" if they were breached. And breached they will be. I doubt very much if open sales of International Socialist (the new CWI paper in Scotland), Republican Communist and Workers' Liberty will end.

We in the CPGB recognise the need for SSP members to sell Scottish Socialist Voice, yet we believe it correct that they retain their right to sell, distribute and promote partisan literature.

Part and parcel of the SSP leadership's bid to shore up its own position was its proposal to end the current situation, whereby conference is constituted by an undifferentiated membership. Instead of an AGM it wants a delegate-based meeting. Taken in isolation, this would appear unproblematic, even sensible. Yet it was not isolated: the shift to a delegate conference; entrench nationalism in the constitution; 'ban' the public sale of factional journals; put off unity with the SWP and the Socialist Alliance - all were part of the same package.

However, opposition to this change was unconvincing. Mary Ward and Bob Goupillot (both Republican Communist Network) spoke in glowing terms about a conference vote available to all members, as if this was a sacred principle. Comrade Goupillot warned of the degeneration of working class parties, which apparently began with the breaching of such 'principles'. This is rubbish. While comrade Ward correctly pointed out that moving to a delegate structure would not solve the issue of under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and the disabled, she offered no vision for the SSP. An anarcho-conservatism was all that was presented as an alternative. The motion for a delegate structure was clearly carried.

This brings me to the left opposition. Frankly, it is disorganised, disunited and lacks any ambition. Building itself as an alternative leadership to McCombes, Green and Sheridan is not in its culture or vision. Central is the absence of a coherent programme against the ISM's nationalism. Given that the ISM's 'theory' is largely based on shifts in opinion polls, the lack of clarity from the opposition stands in stark relief. The RCN, Workers Unity and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty's Solidarity Tendency exist as mere ginger groups compared to the ISM faction or even the CWI.

Within the RCN, there has been an ongoing debate on nationalism in the SSP. At the recent all-Britain RCN conference, a motion was carried opposing nationalism in the abstract. Yet through continual compromise with the tiny nationalist minority in the RCN around Allan Armstrong and fear of building a programmatically hard and centralised platform, the RCN remains a blunt weapon in the fight for internationalism.

It was evident that the RCN does not operate as an anti-nationalist bloc. In the discussion on manifesto, comrade Armstrong called for the withdrawal of all Scottish regiments overseas. Leave the Welsh guards and the Lancashire regiments in Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Northern Ireland; just bring our boys home, says comrade Armstrong. By refusing to oppose nationalism and fight for internationalism in practice, the RCN remains not much more than a discussion circle.

The Workers Unity platform is also weakened by not actively advocating a positive and concrete alternative to independence. Unity is posed in the abstract or around low-level economic solidarity of the type the ruling ISM faction would have no trouble supporting. While clearly not so, it is in danger of coming across as merely unionist.

There exists an anti-nationalist core in the SSP. The motion for the abolition of the Act of Union, the abolition of the monarchy and for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland, received more than 20 votes. When such a motion was first put to an SSP conference, it received three votes. A step forward. Yet by comparison to the substantial nationalist advance it is a modest one.

A determined fight for working class unity across Britain is required. Internationalists organised in the Glasgow Marxist Forum, RCN, Workers Unity, Campaign for a Federal Republic, AWL and CPGB must come together in one platform. The slogan for a federal republic is the best weapon we have.

But the achievement of unity is a key task for socialists in England and Wales as well. We need to show that together with Scotland we are a thousand times stronger than divided up in our various separate national-based struggles. We are oppressed by one ruling class in Britain, and by one UK capitalist state machine. The duty of internationalists is to overthrow this state, not bid to weaken it - alongside bourgeois nationalists.

We in the CPGB will fight for democratic solutions on the national question to be at the fore of the Socialist Alliance general election campaign. Self-determination for Scotland and Wales up to and including the right to secede. Working class unity for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales.