Skip to main content

The Nationalist Charade

Can Scottish separatism be part of a strategy for socialism? Can a sovereign Scotland be a step forward in this struggle?

Left nationalists, those radical patriots demanding Scottish sovereignty, believe that it is necessary to achieve independence from England first, and then socialism. This kind of argument channels the efforts of progressives into support for the SNP, an openly pro-capitalist party. Socialism is put off until “later”. We have learned by bitter experience that the struggle for socialism is never to be started right away. Later...later...those nationalists on the left keep telling us. These reformists hide behind a socialist mask. The “radical” image of the independence and socialism line is nothing but a charade, putting the interests of the nation ahead of the interests of the working class. They end up supporting the SNP's independence schemes, allying directly with the Scottish elite, faithfully serving its interests.

The reality is that Scottish independence will not change conditions for the better the struggle for socialism. Such a change would in fact be nothing but a re-division of power between various groups of capitalists. The two states that would result would be just as capitalist as today’s United Kingdom. All that would be put in question is the division of power between sections of the ruling elite. But the power structure of the capitalists over the workers would be unchanged. Perhaps separatism might harm a section of Scottish business, but the capitalist system itself would not be hurt by it.

Once the capitalist class in Scotland achieved an independent state, it would be no more welcoming to a working class revolution than was the ruling class of Britain as a whole. It would be ready to suppress any workers' struggle. Today, despite a very vocal nationalist left-wing, few people still believe that separatism is a step forward in the struggle for socialism but rather as an opportunity for extracting perhaps a few more beneficial reforms. An independent Scotland would be dominated by an emboldened national bourgeoisie that would demand social harmony in the name of national interest. All opposition to exploitation will be branded as betraying the nation. In an independent Scotland the SNP would try to integrate the unions into the state apparatus. If that strategy failed, the SNP would show its true face by repressing workers’ struggles.

Independence is not in the objective interests of our fellow-workers. The Scottish working-class movement cannot stand alone in its confrontation with the employing owning class that dominate the country from Lands End to Lerwick. Who will benefit from the introduction of less unity among English, Welsh and Scottish workers? The very class we are trying to fight. The separation of Scottish workers would weaken the entire British working class. Its forces would be divided and diminished, and in facing the class enemy, its ranks disorganised. It will not be able to react to the employers' attacks with a unified fightback, and it’s exactly that class unity, rising above national barriers, which strikes the capitalists with fear.

The task of workers is to attack the root of the problem not tinker with the constitutional status. Workers must reject all compromises, all proposals of alliances with their masters for the sake of the unity of the nation. It is not the task of the Scotland's working class to unite the nation around any kind of battle for independence whatsoever. The struggle must be waged against the entire British and global bourgeoisie. It must be waged against those who have suppressed us for decade after decade. The Scottish workers will continue to carry out this task by rooting out the basic cause of national oppression – capitalism. To do so, workers must unite with the only class whose interests lie unreservedly in eliminating capitalism – the workers of all lands. It is capitalism that gives birth to national divisions and the oppression of one nation by another. By eliminating capitalism, workers create the conditions for the unity of nations. If the working class divides its forces, this can seriously retard its progress. But if it remains unified, it can triumph. This unity can only be forged in the struggle against national chauvinism and nationalism which only serve the interests of the ruling class. The separation of Scotland from the UK will not weaken the ruling class as some of the Left Nationalists claim. On the contrary, Scottish sovereignty would weaken the working class by dividing it and by binding Scots even closer to their bosses.



Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…