|
Nationalists
believe that all classes in society should hold allegiance to “The Nation”.
Socialists do not and point out how nations have always been the creation of
a ruling group having nothing to do with working-class interests.
What
is a nation? It is simply the people and the territory which have been
appropriated by a class of robbers at some point in history. It has less to
do with a common language, religion, race, culture, and all the other things
which nationalists imagine or pretend are essential ingredients in the making
of nations.
This
is certainly true of Scotland and far from having a common history or
anything else the population there are mainly the descendants of native
Picts, invaders from Ireland (the original Scots), Western Europe and
Scandinavia. After centuries of what were really tribal wars the whole land
came under one king by the middle of the ninth century and the nation was
born–by the coercion of the people and in the interests of a class of bandit
chieftains.
Right
up until the union of the Scottish and English parliaments in 1707 there were
really two distinct nations in Scotland. The Highlanders spoke Gaelic
and had a culture (way of life) very different from that of the
dialect-English speaking Lowlanders. Indeed
“In
rural districts, the Scottish dialect or dialects was barely intelligible
even to a Scot of another district” (James G. Kellas. Modern Scotland–the
Nation Since 1870. p. 7)
So the
nationalist idea of a once united Scotland is just a myth. Yet no one can
deny that despite over two hundred years of Scotland’s incorporation within
the United Kingdom most Scots feel themselves to be part of a separate
nation. This can be explained by the fact that the Act of Union allowed
Scotland to retain its own law, religion, and education system thus ensuring
the continuation of national identity.
Why,
then, has nationalism never been a strong political force until recently? The
answer is that after 1707 the Scottish bourgeoisie, the only ones who could
have provided a nationalist impetus, were far too busy building their
fortunes through the Empire trade which had hitherto been denied them by the
English Navigation Acts. Later on there was the industrial revolution and
even greater opportunity to find wealth and contentment within the Union.
Even
so, there were some malcontents and by the middle of the nineteenth century
we find some bourgeois complaining
“that
England was getting very much more out of the Union than was Scotland . . .
that during the last few years public expenditure had been largely for the
benefit of England . . . Naval expenditure was almost exclusively allocated
to English dockyards, shipyards and arsenals. (H. J. Hanham. Scottish
Nationalism, p. 76).
This
discontent resulted in the founding of the National Association for the
Vindication of Scottish Rights in 1853 and it was composed of Tory and
Liberal notables plus some aristocrats. Although the Crimean war soon killed
off the Association this didn’t prevent some Scottish propertied interests (the
Tory Marquess of Bute among them) returning again and again to the theme that
not enough time was devoted to Scottish business in the House of Commons,
that public money (their taxes) was being spent unfairly, etc.
And as
if to emphasize the propertied interests represented by nationalist ideas the
Scottish Home Rule Association was formed in 1886, again comprising Tory and
Liberal bigwigs but this time with a sprinkling of Labourites. Basically the
SHRA represented those sections of the Scottish owning class who wanted more
time spent on and more control over their affairs in a separate
parliament in Scotland but still within the United Kingdom. The movement took
its inspiration from the Irish bourgeoisie who were struggling to obtain Home
Rule for themselves, and Gladstone’s support for this fanned the flames in
Scotland.
Of
course Home Rule met with opposition from other sections of the owning class
who had different interests. Liberal business men who had trade links with
Ireland feared any kind of Home Rule, Scottish or Irish, while Liberal MPs
representing seats in west and central Scotland had to make sure they didn’t
antagonize the Orange vote. The result was a split in the Liberal Party and
the emergence of a group of Liberal-Unionists who allied themselves with the
Tories against Home Rule.
Tories
generally opposed Home Rule for the same reasons as did Liberals. Also the
landowning section opposed it because they were outraged at Liberal plans for
land reform, while the ambitious politicians were worried about how their
career prospects would be affected since there wouldn’t be the same
opportunity of landing plum jobs in “the government of Empire” if Scotland
were to have its own parliament.
So
although support for and opposition to Home Rule cut across party lines the
growing band of nationalists usually supported the Liberals who had created
the post of Secretary for Scotland and because the party in Scotland was
committed to Home Rule. Various Bills for a Scottish parliament were submitted
to Westminster until in 1913 one actually looked like succeeding but was
cynically dropped by the Liberal government because of political
complications over Ulster.
The
emergence of independent Labour politics at the turn of the century meant
that much working class support was drained from the Home Rule party, the
Liberals. By the end of world war one the Liberals were completely shattered
so Home Rule looked a lost cause to any Scottish capitalists who had been
interested. In any case, as the division between the Liberals and Tories
became more and more blurred the owning class had gradually been turning to
the Tory Party, which had strong working class support, as the guardian of
their class interests.
Nationalist
now had to look elsewhere for support and they found it in the growing Labour
Party and Trade Union movement in Scotland. John MacLean, plus James Maxton,
Tom Johnston, and other prominent Labourites were ardent Home Rulers and they
followed in Keir Hardie’s footsteps by pandering to nationalist sentiment in
their writings and speeches. Indeed Scotland is currently plastered with a
Scottish National Party poster which quotes one of Maxton’s contributions:
“I am
convinced we can do more in five years in a self-governing Scotland than
could have been done with 25 or 30 years of heart-breaking struggle in the
British House of Commons.”
Today
the Labour and Communist Parties, along with various “revolutionary” groups
continue the reactionary work of spreading nationalist ideas among the
working class.
However,
the honeymoon with Labour was soon over and eventually it dawned on the
nationalists that they could hope for nothing from the three major parties,
none of which had even included Home Rule in their 1924 general election
manifestos, so the warring groups swept their differences under the carpet
and merged in 1928 to become the National Party of Scotland.
The
presence of political nationalist ideas is an indication that some groups in
society feel its real material interests are being frustrated by forces
outside or even inside the nation. Of course the desire to achieve their aims
is never expressed in terms of their own needs only. In order to enlist the
necessary working class support such arguments as “justice”, “freedom”, and
“the nation” are used to justify the real bone of contention and to give it
an aura of sanctity. Next month we will continue to show why the workers in
Scotland should oppose nationalism.
|
We traced the development of modern nationalism in Scotland up till the
founding of the National Party of Scotland in 1928.
The
incredible hotchpotch of ideas contained in the new organisation soon became
a cause for alarm among the more sensible members and drove one, Lewis
Spence, to complain that the party was
“… a
maelstrom boiling and bubbling with the cross-currents of rival and
frequently fantastic theories, schemes and. notions we have people who wanted
all Scotland to speak the Gaelic…. some hark back to the hope of a sixteenth-century
Scotland regained … still others a Jacobite restoration. A certain group sees
in the expulsion of all the English and Irish in Scotland the country’s only
chance of survival. All is hubbub, outcry, chaos. There is no plan,. Nothing
approaching a serious, practical Scotsman-like policy in -either art or
politics. (H. J. Hanham, Scottish Nationalism. p. 154)
Poor
Spence, but he should have known. With the loss of interest in Home Rule of
the Scottish ruling class and their political sidekicks, the nationalist
cause had fallen into the hands of all sorts of cranks, literary and
otherwise, who were more concerned with “culture” than economics or social
matters. Certainly they had little idea of the history of the toilers’
conditions as could be seen by their constant harking back to a mythical time
when “our people were prosperous and contented” before the Union.
Anyway,
the party was established and membership was open to all. Tories and Liberals
as well as Labourites flocked in and even Lord Beaverbrook showed interest.
Inevitably, some of the more opportunist leaders wished to “broaden the base
of the party” and after an internal battle the party merged with a Tory
splinter group to become the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 1934. From then
until the 1950s the party endured the usual Right versus Left squabbling and
several splits occurred, the largest of which was the setting up of a rival
organisation, the Scottish Convention, in the 1940s.
Today
the SNP seems to have left the lunatic fringe behind and appears as a modern,
mass political party using the techniques of public relations and advertising
industries to give it a new slick image, and the Executive Suit has replaced
the kilt as standard dress for the party candidates. Not only does the party
have a large and youthful membership of 120,000 but they carry out their
propaganda with a style and enthusiasm which leaves the older reformist
parties gasping. At the October general election they all but demolished the
Liberals, hammered the Tories, and promise it will be Labour’s turn next
time.
So the
SNP may be poised for victory within the foreseeable future. How have they
produced this rags-to-riches transformation? Obviously, their case is an
economic one. They have taken advantage of working class discontent over
insecurity, unemployment, low living standards, low expectations, and all the
other problems which capitalism brings to workers the world over in one
degree or another. They were also helped by widespread disillusion with the
two major parties and Labour and Tory supporters have deserted to the
nationalists in their tens of thousands.
Basically,
the SNP is just another reformist party angling for support on a programme of
reforms and even styles itself on the Scandinavian social democrats. After
their first breakthrough in l968 the party went into a serious decline which
lasted until 1970. Then came the discovery of vast quantities of North Sea
oil. Now they can outbid all the others by proposing that the wealth from
this oil be divided among five million people only, instead of fifty million,
and paint a picture of how, given self-government, oil revenues will provide
a paradise in Scotland.
Predictably
the nationalists claim that their first priority is to launch a “war on
poverty” and the party’s manifesto, Scotland’s Future, gives some idea
of how they intend to do this.
For
example, pensionable couples are told their combined pension will amount to
the national minimum wage which, at today’s level, will be £25, with a single
pensioner getting £15. So after a lifetime of producing fortunes for the
parasite class worn-out wage slaves are to be “rewarded” with this ! Other
dramatic SNP proposals include spending an extra 10 per cent on education and
on health services, and just what significant difference this will make to
working class life is a mystery to us. The important thing to note is that
these are merely promises, and politicians have always found these far easier
to make than fulfil.
The
writings and utterances of SNP spokesmen present a bewildering display of
confusion and contradiction and it is difficult to say whether they are more
naïve than dishonest. William Wolfe, the party Chairman, claims the
class-struggle can be avoided by passing legislation which outlaws “undue
concentration of wealth in a few hands”. We wonder if they mentioned this to
the capitalist Sir Hugh
Fraser when he joined their ranks last year?
The
party repeats the hoary old lie “that it is a lack of communications between
management and workers that causes industrial strife”. It could not, of
course, have anything to do with a fundamental clash of interests like, for
example, the workers wanting better wages and conditions and the management,
on behalf of the owners, not willing to grant these.
Despite
the SNP’s indignant denials the idea somehow persists in some minds that the
party is “socialist”. William Wolfe in his book, Scotland Lives,
writes that he wants to give
“….the
Scottish people opportunities for their own enterprise and capital to be used
in giving their fellow Scots employment.” (p. 43)
Obviously,
by “the Scottish people” he means owners of capital like Sir Hugh Fraser.
Perhaps the latter joined the SNP on reading this passage in Wolfe’s book?
Another
leading member, Mrs. Margo
MacDonald, was asked in an interview how she reacted to the
suggestion that there’s no advantage in replacing English or American
capitalists with Scottish capitalists. She replied
“Well
there is, actually. In the strict material sense there is. The Scottish
capitalists, while still making lots of money, will be creating jobs in
Scotland. They will realise that there is a quicker return to be made by, for
instance, refining all of the oil in Scotland. So we would be slightly better
off. Of course I agree exploitation by Scots is just as immoral in the long
run. (Glasgow News, 12th March 1974)
So
there it is. For the Scottish capitalist, “lots of money” and a “quicker
return”. For the worker, the promise that he will be “slightly better off”.
The
nationalists have shown they are fast learners when it comes to political
cynicism. They pretend to the workers that should independence come then all
the oil revenues will automatically go into the Scottish exchequer and be
used mainly for the benefit of the workers. They must know that the United
Kingdom would get some of the revenue as part of any deal made over the
granting of independence, and that the capitalist class in Scotland would
insist that oil revenues be used to reduce the burden of taxation which rests
on them.
Will
the Labour government’s proposed Scottish Assembly, but still under
Westminster, outflank the SNP? This is possible since it is doubtful if the
electorate in Scotland want complete independence as various opinion polls
have shown. However, as the Assembly will have no more success in abolishing
capitalism’s problems than the SNP’s claim that only full independence can
succeed, it will probably gain more support.
Should
self-government eventually be established the SNP will discover that they
cannot will or legislate away those problems of capitalism. No country in the
world, no matter how independent or rich in resources, has yet succeeded in
eliminating poverty, unemployment, insecurity, etc. For the working class
there will be wages while they are working and pensions when they are too old
or disabled. An ominous glimpse of what leading SNP members regard as
“prosperity” can be gained from their repeated claim that “Scotland was the
wealthiest nation in the world” (Wolfe p. 12) up till the end of the 1914-18
war. How the working class lived in those days does not seem to have even
occurred to them.
The
SNP see themselves as visionaries but they cannot see beyond the narrow
confines of the nation-state, conceived in pre-medieval times and as outmoded
as the clan system it replaced. It is the Socialist Party of Great Britain
who are the true men and women of vision, who look forward to and struggle
for a new world of common ownership and democratic control of society’s
resources, and uncluttered with the frontiers and class divisions which go
hand-in-hand with “the nation”. Vic Vanni
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment