False Hope

Will “independence” make the Scottish workers better off and happier? Is it “London rule” that is responsible for the problems faced by workers in Scotland, or is it capitalism?

Independence solves none of the problems resulting from exploitation. Poverty in the midst of a potential for plenty remains, and massive disparities of wealth continue to exist. It can be seen in retrospect that independence for the vast majority of the people has simply meant the exchange of one set of exploiters for another. The realisation of " political independence " by a country leaves the workers' conditions untouched (or actually worsens them in some cases). As socialists, we don't take sides in this inter-capitalist argument. We don't support one section of the capitalist class or the other, and we don't have any illusions about the "sovereign power" of Parliaments to pass reformist legislation that can make capitalism work in the interest of the exploited class of wage and salary earners. Capitalism just cannot be reformed to work in this way; so transferring some of the powers of the House of Commons to a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh makes no difference.

Nationalist movements are not just movements to secure independence from the foreign governments that kept them in subjection, for even after achieving independence they continue to preach the same anti-foreign doctrines as before. Nationalism has been and is everywhere the form in which each capitalist group tries to carve out a place for itself in the world of warring capitalist states, where politicians who have used nationalism to gain independence from a colonial power need it just as much afterwards in order to persuade the workers to go on fighting capitalism's battles. It is an illusion to think that nations can be friendly in a capitalist world provided that they are all “independent” and it is equally an illusion to think that the Powers, great and small, could dispense with nationalism.

If the worker is to be won for socialism, it is by getting him to understand the principles of socialism. When other countries have achieved independence, little changed except the functionaries of the state machinery. National independence is good for local politicians, manufacturers and business men; it opens up careers and money-making opportunities for them, as also for local holders of government civilian posts who may have found their advancement hindered while a foreign or central administration had control. Workers have nothing to gain from the re-drawing of the border, but some regional entrepreneurs and bureaucrats certainly do have a chance of making good if only they can persuade the electorate to back them. Scotland like every other country in the world, is a class-divided country where the two classes - those who own and class and those who work and produce - have diametrically opposed interests. The bonds which bind worker with worker, irrespective of nationality, are those of class solidarity.

Yet capitalism knows no boundaries, money has no accent. Independence is just not possible within the context of globalized capitalism. Certainly, formal political independence, or sovereignty, is possible, where states have the full power to make decisions without reference to any supra-national rules or decision-making procedures. But there’s a difference between the mere legal power to do something and what can be done in practice. In practice all states, when exercising their sovereign power to make decisions, have to take into account the economic reality that there exists a single world market economy on which they are dependent. A state can exercise some degree of influence on how the world market operates in relation to it - it erect tariff walls, subsidise exports, devalue its currency - but this depends on its economic clout (such as the productivity and size of its industry and the extent of its internal market). Over the years capitalism has become more and more international, more and more globalised. This has tended to reduce the margin of manoeuvre open to states, i.e. has reduced their "sovereignty". The vital decisions affecting the local economy have little to do with Holyrood or Westminster. The inexorable process of globalisation has increasingly made redundant the question of "national sovereignty". Yet regional nationalists imagine they can buck the trend without even being against capitalism.

The nationalists emphasise a Scottish Parliament's "constitutional right" to control the economy, completely ignoring the fact that experience has shown this to be a purely paper right. The capitalist economy works according to certain economic laws which no government or legislative body can over-ride. So the argument about sovereignty is not really about what the constitution may or may not say. It's about the effective power that a capitalist state can exercise within the capitalist economy. Capitalism has always existed within a framework of competing states, none of which is strong enough to impose its will on all the others. States, as weapons in the hands of rival groups of capitalists, intervene to further the interests of the capitalists that control them. They do this by using state power to set up protected markets, raw materials sources, trade routes and investment outlets. In normal times their weapons are tariffs, taxes, quotas, export rebates and other economic measures. When they judge that their vital interest is at stake their weapons are . . . weapons. They go to war. The extent to which a capitalist state can distort the world market in favour of its capitalists depends both on its industrial strength and on the amount of armed force at its disposal. This is why all states are under pressure to acquire the most up-to-date and destructive armaments that they can afford. In the jungle world of capitalism might is right. "Sovereignty"—the margin of independent decision-making that a state has—also depends on might.

The interest of the wage and salary working class in all countries is to reject all nationalism, to reject in fact the very idea of “foreigner”, and to recognise that they have a common interest with people in other countries in the same economic situation of being obliged to sell their mental and physical energies in order to get a living. That interest lies in working together to establish a world-wide society of common ownership, democratic control and production for use not profit. Independence will not give the people of Scotland effective control over their own affairs. The only change that will do that is a change in the whole social system, replacing competitive production for profit and minority ownership by co-operative production. Neither devolution nor an independent Scotland (nor a United Kingdom, because we point out that no state today can be independent of the capitalist world market does not mean that we therefore favour the union) can achieve this. It is only feasible in a moneyless, frontierless society which, for those with vision, is the next stage in human social evolution. It is for the Scottish workers to see that their position demands that they should fight only for their class emancipation, and that nothing, constitutional reform or national independence, should draw them away from their determination to fight for the realisation of socialism. What is the “independence” some Scots yearn after, if it means being trapped inside of the bigger prison of capitalism?

“It’s a truism, but one that needs to be constantly stressed, that capitalism and democracy are ultimately quite incompatible.” - Noam Chomsky

Marx and Engels on Ireland

Marx (and Engels) supported Irish nationalism and the Socialist Party’s position on Scottish independence is often criticised by those on the Left who claim to be Marxists because we ignore that fact. But to be a Marxist means, to apply the Marxian analysis to continually changing social conditions Too many so-called socialists are reluctant to apply the Marxist materialist conception of history in their thinking.
Indeed, Marx did support Irish independence, we do not dispute it, but he did so primarily because he thought it would hasten the completion of the democratisation of the British state. At the time the bourgeois democratic victory over feudalism was far from complete even in Britain, and on the continent of Europe what progress had been made was continually threatened by three great feudal powers, Russia, Austria and Prussia. In these circumstances Marx considered it necessary to support not only direct moves to extend political democracy but also moves which he felt would weaken the feudal powers of Europe. For instance, he supported Polish independence as a means of weakening Tsarist Russia and for similar reasons he opposed Slav independence movements which he believed would strengthen backward Russia (so he simultaneously supported and opposed the right of national self-determination).

His support for Irish independence was for it would weaken the position of the English landed aristocracy. The English landed aristocracy still enjoyed considerable political power. The majority of the working class were still vote-less, there were not yet secret ballots, the House of Lords could still reject any Bill it objected to as long as it was not financial.

As he put it in a letter dated 9 April,1870:
"Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of the aristocracy’s material welfare; it is its greatest moral strength. It, in fact, represents the domination of England over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the great means by which the English aristocracy maintains its domination in England itself. If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to withdraw from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution there. But the overthrow of the English aristocracy in Ireland involves as a necessary consequence its overthrow in England. And this would fulfil the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England"

Marx may well have been right about the effect of Irish independence in 1870. Since the English landlords only retained their power to exploit the Irish peasants by force of British arms, a British withdrawal from Ireland could well have led to their expropriation. But this was never put to the test and the Irish land question was solved in quite a different way even before Ireland got independence. The series of Land Purchase Acts introduced between 1885 and 1903 enabled the government to buy out the Anglo-Irish landowners and then lend the peasants the money to buy their farms. By 1921 Ireland was largely a country of peasant proprietors. In the meantime the political power of the English landed aristocracy had finally been broken by a series of reform measures .What this meant was that by the time Ireland was about to get independence after the first world war, the changes Marx had expected it to bring—land reform in Ireland and a weakening of aristocratic power in England—had already been brought about by other means. His particular case for supporting Irish independence was thus no longer relevant. Besides, the first world war destroyed the three great European feudal powers—Russia, Austria and Prussia—so making it unnecessary for socialists to support moves to weaken them.

In fact, once industrial capitalist powers had come to dominate the world, and once a workable political democracy had been established in those states, then the task of socialists was to advocate socialism alone, rather than democratic and social reforms that might make the establishment of socialism easier. This is the position the SPGB adopted .

Marx’s strategy on Ireland was concerned with furthering the establishment of political democracy in England. Marx realised that the struggle of the Irish Nationalists for Home Rule was bound to help the evolution in Britain of political democracy because both struggles were directed against: the same class enemy, the English landed aristocracy. It was not an anticipation of the Leninist theory of imperialism according to which independence for colonies will help precipitate a socialist revolution in the imperialist countries, though it is sometimes misunderstood to be this. Marx clearly wrote of independence for Ireland helping to overthrow the remnants of feudalism not capitalism itself in England. Both he and Engels knew full well that, in the political conditions then existing, socialism was not an immediate issue either in Ireland or in England.

Engels, stated clearly that socialism was not an issue in the Irish Question:-
"A purely socialist movement cannot be expected in Ireland for a considerable time. People there want first of all to become peasants owning a plot of land, and after they have achieved that mortgages will appear on the scene and they will be ruined once more. But this should not prevent us from seeking to help them to get rid of their landlords, that is, to pass from semi-feudal conditions to capitalist conditions" (Interview, 20 September 1888, New Yorker Volkszeitung)

But as an aside, Engels did recognise the primacy of political action over insurrection.The Fenian, O’Donovan Rossa,was elected (only to be disqualified), and Engels wrote to Marx:
"The election in Tipperary is an event. It forces the Fenians out of empty conspiracy and the fabrication of plots into a path of action, which, even if legal in appearance, is still far more revolutionary than what they have been doing since the failure of their insurrection" (29 November, 1869).

Raise the Red Flag, Not the Saltire

IT DISNAE MATTER

Scotland is gearing up for the question that it will put to the Scottish people in a few months time. The SNP seek to be masters in its own house. The SNP seek to make maximum use of the state to foster the development of the Scottish capitalist class. As the various politicians whip up jingoism  to save their collapsing profit system, workers should not be fooled by sugar-coated patriotism used by the bosses to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Workers should never turn away from the advocacy of, and the fight for, socialism. For many months now, a debate has been going on within a number of left-wing organizations in Scotland. What programme will succeed in winning over  Scottish workers to socialism? What strategy and tactics will ensure victory for socialism? The economic crisis is more and more devastating in its effects on workers. The reactionary forces are on the rise on all fronts. Yet the socialist alternative remains very much a fringe phenomenon within the workers movement and emphasis placed instead upon Scotland’s  separatism. The Socialist Party proposes spoiling your ballot in the referendum. Spoiling your ballot means refusing to support the aspiring Scottish capitalist class and it means rejecting the status quo. It shows our determination to affirm an independent working class position that refuses to line up behind either of the two capitalist camps. Our alternative is to continue the battle for socialism .

In a few months the people of Scotland will be voting in the referendum. Many have been anxiously awaiting the referendum, particularly whow this is the first time in a few hundred years the Scottish people will have the opportunity to express their will on their political future. But is the referendum truly the historic moment so emotionally claimed. The question being put is to to choose one state over another. A YES vote is an vote anti-worker vote and objectively  means condoning the SNP policies To re-organise capitalism and re-distribute Scotland’s wealth  in favour of part of its ruling class, which is after their share. The SNP would use its power to  to continue to subsidise native capitalists to the tune of millions. It would use its exclusive power to make laws to repress workers. In an independent Scotland, the SNP would ask us to further tighten our belts in the interests of the “nation,” i.e. to profit the domestic economy. In an independent Scotland, exploitation will still exist, as before, and will intensify. Yet many workers and progressive people are still drawn towards a YES vote, despite that it would be “business as usual.”  Voting for the NO option is acting as an apologist for the current system.

Various left-nationalists hope to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would be a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The independence of Scotland would not mean a step forward towards socialism. It would be a step backwards. lf the Yes side wins, Scotland will not be independent. What the Socialist Party want is real independence. What we want is freedom from capitalist domination. Nationalists should stop pretending that sovereignty would be a step towards independence.

The nationalists are working overtime to convince Scottish workers not to demand too much. Thus the working class would be sacrificing its struggle for socialism, which is the only way to do away all forms of oppression and  exploitation, in return for a few meagre changes, for crumbs. The left wing Yes strategy of independence first and socialism later is utopian and suicidal that pushes the workers into support for the Scottish bosses. In other words, the working class must first follow the nationalist employers and fight at their side, until one day, in the undetermined future it will develop its own  autonomy. How much longer will so-called leftists keep on telling the  workers’ movement that is it is still too premature to act on its own. An independent working class position can and does, in fact, exist right now. It is a plague on both your houses, Yes or No. It is no support for any pro-Unionists and no alliance with any separatists.

In the fight for socialism one thing is certain that the success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class. Promoting independence does exactly the opposite. Instead of uniting the Scottish working class against the capitalist, it divides them from the rest of the working class. It delays socialist revolution and unites the Scottish  people with the Scottish capitalists. It is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into two different countries in order to accomplish this unity. They cloak their position in “Marxist” garb and pose as fierce opponents to the SNP. They say that the struggle for independence is the principal class struggle for Scottish workers, claiming this will bring them to socialism. For all the fine talk about “capitalist exploitation” it amounts to nothing but hollow words. Their attacks against the SNP are only for show as their performance can’t hide what’s at the bottom of their position – it’s  support, albeit critical, for the SNP.

Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a monumental hoax. To advance toward revolution, the working class must develop its consciousness of being a class with common interests radically opposed to those of the capitalist class. The “real” independence pushed by the nationalists is shown up for what it really is, a mirage and an illusion intended to attract Scottish workers and tie them to the interests of the national bourgeoisie. By subordinating  the class struggle for socialism to the nationalist struggle, they help keep capitalism alive.

These “national socialists” are not at all interested in destroying the capitalist system – far from it. They want to make it more efficient, all to the profit of the “national” capitalists and their well fed bureaucrats in the  public administration, council halls and universities. Nationalisation and state planning carried out by a Scottish sovereign state still in the hands of the bosses’ class!   Socialism is not a question of nationalisation but means bigger profits for the “national” parasites. Waging immediate struggles alone is not enough to bring about victories which last. We view that those struggles must be fought clearly within the framework of a conscious struggle to overthrow the entire capitalist system. Capitalism can be transformed more effectively to the extent that we properly understand the specific conditions.

Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis austerity measures imposed by the capitalists. Those groups who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists who are busily trying to fulfill their ambition to join the ranks of world capital. The left nationalists would have us believe that the demands of the Scottish people can only be met through independence. Thus, they claim, the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class and reactionary policies. Independence then socialism option is nothing but a dead-end road. It doesn’t bring us closer to socialism, only farther away from it. It maintains and reinforces the divisions within the working class – a real boon for the different sectors of the ruling class which do their best to keep us divided. Furthermore, it pushes narrow nationalism and in so doing, strengthens the SNP. And one thing is sure, we’re not going to get any closer to socialism by building up the SNP, a party that represents the interests of Scotland’s capitalists. This is pure and simple class collaboration while posing as combative, radical “left-wingers”. By isolating Scotland in a separate struggle against international capital they split the international working class before their common enemy. Separation is no stepping stone to socialism, despite what these phony “Marxist” theoreticians may say.

Some nationalists argue that the main enemy of Scottish  workers inside the country is the English ruling class. According to this theory, Scots have little to fear from our native capitalists, because they’re not part of the main enemy. But the truth of the matter is that Scottish  capitalists have been an integral part of the British  bourgeoisie ever since the Union, when the old Scottish  ruling class sold out the rights of the Scottish  people to benefit from the markets created by the soon-to-be  British Empire. Capitalists who are natives of Scotland, be they big or small, are not any less a part of the British bourgeoisie than English capitalists. Support for independence can only chain workers to the local employers and hold back the struggle for socialism. With full control of a separateScottish state, the Scottish  section of our worst enemy will have added instruments to force Scottish workers to “tighten their belts in the interests of the nation.” The Yes camp is an alliance of thieves who want to increase their part of the profits –  at the expense of the workers.
 Many say, “Wouldn’t it be a positive step on the road to socialism to gain independence for Scotland?” “Even though we know the Scot Nats is not a party for the workers couldn’t we support it in a ’critical’ way and give it our vote?” Isn’t theSNP at least more progressive than the Labour Party?” As socialists we must take a clear stand on these questions. We must answer the questions being raised in the working class from a Marxist perspective. The only way socialists can make their decision is if it in the interests of the working class. Does the separation of Scotland promote the best interests of the workers  in its struggle for socialism? We say that the answer is no. That to support separation is to support narrow nationalism and that the main problem for the working class is not national oppression but capitalist exploitation . The working class of all nations has one common and main enemy: the bourgeoisie. To struggle for independence would not bring those in Scotland any closer to getting rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation. Instead it would divide the working class against its main enemy; it would weaken the struggle for socialism all across the land; it would hold back and retard our struggle.  Unity is necessary to make revolution. This is why we say that nationalism is not in the interests of the working class. The SNP is a pro-capitalist party basically no different from the Tories or Labour.  We cannot give such a party any kind of support whatsoever, critical or uncritical, total or partial. The SNP in Holyrood has always defended capitalism. The only correct course to follow in the coming referendum is to denounce all the parties involved, to give our support to none of their solutions whether it be the “sovereignity” offered by Salmond  or the Union status quo. The working class has nothing to gain from a Yes or No which only serve to deceive and to mislead.

Independence is not in the interests of the working class. The task of workers is to attack the root of their problems. Our goal is socialism, a new social order based on common ownership of our resources and industry, cooperation, production for use and genuine democracy. Only socialism can turn the boundless potential of our class and resources to the creation of a world free from tyranny, greed, poverty and exploitation. Capitalism has failed, and so have efforts to reform it. That failure puts a campaign for the socialist alternative on the immediate agenda. The referendum question of national independence is not an important question for Scottish workers. As for workers in the rest of Britain and the world, the basic question is capitalist exploitation and the fight for socialism. Class solidarity is the necessary antidote to the nationalist poison. National  chauvinism  is a barrier to our unity in the struggle for socialism, an obstacle we must overcome.

We gain nothing from changing the government in power, from throwing out one old set of thieves and voting in a new set of bandits. It’s not the government, the First Minister becoming a Prime Minister that we must change but the capitalist system itself. The referendum is being used  to mystify the people, to cover up the really important political questions and to attempt to impose on us their false solutions.  We say participate in the struggle to build a real working class party, a mass socialist Marxist party. We say that at this time the struggle we must take up is not for independence but the struggle for the social revolution to liberate us from the chains of capitalist exploitation. The working class has every interest in building the class unity that is indispensable in overthrowing capitalism.  Socialism will put an end to this system based on exploitation, injustice and inequalities once and for all. The Socialist Party’s alternative to a Yes or No is to defend an independent position from the two pro-capitalist options in the referendum in the common interest of all workers. 

Independence is still not the way

SOCIALISTS FOR WORLD SOCIALISM

In 2014  the Scottish Independence Referendum failed by a slim margin. Nothing has been resolved, the Scottish sovereigntists and they say that they'll keep trying for a second referendum. Everywhere, it seems, people want 'their own’ sovereign country.

There are two ways to look at Scotland's independence.The first is an emotional, irrational approach that considers ideas of power as opposed to the reality of power, and uses claims (long proved false) of how the economy functions.

The other is to consider what will really change if Scotland, some day, decides in favour of sovereignty.

Both sides, YES and NO, chose the emotional and irrational approach.

The Yes side argues that the Scottish people will be inherently better off in a nation governed by Scots. They have not shown any real benefits to the Scottish working class. Nor has the history of "independence” around the world been supportive of the Yes claim.

The No side predicts the direst results for Scotland, ignoring the fact that the UK would suffer if it did not trade with a sovereign Scotland. The No side lined up an impressive list of company owners, directors and such. Some nationalists responded, without justification, that if the rich oppose “independence" then "independence" must be good for those who aren’t rich.

The necessities of life

Most sane people are more worried about the necessities of life: putting food on the table, a roof over their head, and other such mundane—and ultimately far more important—considerations, than the name of the state they happen to live in.

History has shown, without doubt, that the Yes or No choice is a choice of which politicians get to sit next to the steering wheel as the ship of state careers back and forth in the winds of economic reality.

“Independence" is a word used to stir up emotions. An "independent" Scotland will be no more independent than it is today. It will still have to conform to global economic pressures which govern how much food will be on the table of the average person. The current economic system doesn’t play favourites based on national, ethnic, or cultural sovereignty.

Capital investment and migration are based upon the likelihood of making better profits, not upon which of the largely irrelevant politicians form the government.

Nationalist, quasi-racist "issues" such as Scottish "independence" are not the issues that will solve the problems that working class people in Scotland, the UK and the rest of the world face every day. The fundamental differences are far greater between rich Scots and working class Scots than between working class Britons and working class Scots or any member of the working class anywhere. The working class will never be served by nationalism or its bed-mate, patriotism.

It is no surprise that the SWP or SPEW voiced support for Scottish "independence" just as they support most such inherently racist "independence” movements while claiming to oppose racism.

If Scotland, in the future, decides to separate, Scottish workers should not expect it to improve their lives. Capitalist economics has a very forceful way of ensuring that the world remains class-divided and that the working class is at the bottom of that division. Scots and the rest of the world's working class don’t need a change in politicians. we need an end to class division. 

No to Nationalism

The fear of ‘the others’, fear of people we don’t understand permeates the thoughts of the British nationalist Brexit voter. This fear is man-made, developed by the owning class to undermine working class solidarity. Prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, racism, hatred and xenophobia have spread like insidious contagious diseases. The media demonise and denigrating the poor while attacking the migrant worker. The interests of fellow-workers have become secondary to many people who are actually good working class people, simply blinded by unfounded fear. That is a disturbing reality.  It is suffocating the empathy and understanding of the plight of the migrant worker, the vulnerable and the poor. There are those who were in the trenches with the working class, who are now fighting against the worker, shoulder-to-shoulder with the enemy of the working class. They are openly wearing their prejudices on their sleeve. The hold a sense of belonging which brings a sense of security and protection. A belief that in the ‘protectors’ – the one’s who are loudest attacking ‘the others’ will keep us safe from harm. People must stop allowing the irrational fear of others to guide their beliefs, opinions, and decisions and, instead, notice the attacks on all workers. Otherwise, the ruling class may win and destroy everything the working class has fought for, were jailed for and died for. It should be clear that you don’t move towards the unity of the world working class movement - a unity that must be forged if we are to win any significant victory over a vicious capitalism - by dividing the actually existing unity of the working class in Britain along national lines.

Nationalism is diverting working people from their historic mission. History shows that is dangerous for socialists to flirt with nationalism. The result is usually a boost for nationalism and a defeat for socialism.  What is at stake is not merely electoral success or failure, but whether the idea of nationalism triumphs over the ideas and values of socialism. The most important division in society is not one between England and Scotland. It is between those who create the wealth and those who own it. Only by going back to first principles of workers' organisation of political education, using the collective strength of a united working class irrespective of gender, race or nationality will we be able to challenge the status quo. Socialists need to win the argument against independence within the labour movement – if we fail to do so then we will have lost for decades to come. Nationalism is the antithesis of socialism. Only by doing so will we build support for an alternative future which is much closer to the values of democratic socialism than it is to anything nationalism has to offer. Today, one of the most tragic features of the left is that many accommodate people who are utterly reactionary just because they are militant nationalists. But they are anti-working-class forces through and through. It should be obvious that any divide will weaken the potential for a working class fight back against austerity. Workers in Scotland are no longer urged to look to their comrades south of the border for solidarity and a common project to win pro-working class reforms but instead urged to look to their fellow Scots in a national movement for Scottish independence. However the fact that the independence movement is funded and supported by a significant section of the Scottish elite such as billionaire Brian Souter of Stagecoach.  This should be an indication and a warning that the Scottish independence movement is no friend of the Scottish working class. The Socialist Party understands the unity of the working class is required to transcend capitalism. Left-nationalists downplay the likelihood that the establishment of an independent Scottish state will lead to the weakening of the British working class. Support for both British and Scottish nationalism has grown in consequence of working class defeats. The fact that the labour movement in Britain has so far failed to produce any real fight back against growing inequality, food banks, benefit sanctions, zero-hour contracts, housing shortages has allowed the nationalists to gain increased traction among working people.  The SNP has been able to pose left on such matters and hides behind the excuse of Westminster control in order to justify its own austerity measures.

The SNP has a difficult balancing act to perform. It must try to win over Scottish workers to independence while reassuring companies and corporations that sovereignty will be “business friendly” and that the working class will be kept firmly quiescent. It must make promises to workers that it knows it can’t keep so it keeps the promises vague and non-specific. Workers, of course, will be encouraged to line up to support their respective bosses. Not a good environment for the development of a united fight back against austerity. Unfortunately, its reformist posturing has not been challenged by the SSP or Solidarity who have provided an important service to the SNP by echoing the SNP's claim that independence will produce a fairer society and by promoting the SNP as a party to the left of Labour. They don’t want to rock the pro-independence boat or help dispel the illusion that the SNP is a progressive party. That would harm the independence cause to which they are now irretrievably wedded so silence is their best option.

The task for socialists in all countries, whether that be Scotland or Britain is indeed independence - not of nations but of the working class. This class independence is the very foundation of the struggle for socialism. Scottish nationalism and the call for independence throws up yet another barrier to achieving a socialist society.

The Second Referendum

 

19^th October 2023 is the target date for the second independence referendum.

We believe that to hold out hopes of amelioration of the condition of the workers through nationalism and independence is delusional and nonsensical. The Socialist Party has never been in the business to win popularity contests and jump on any old band-wagon such as Scottish sovereignty for the sake of recruitment. We are internationalists, opposing the idea that the rulers and ruled within a nation have any interests in common. We are against the divisions and false choices set up by nationalism.

The illusion of nationality is yet another tool of the ruling class, intended to trick workers into thinking that this really is some kind of collective society, and to misplace their passions that could otherwise be directed into the class struggle. Nationalism is the ideology which seeks to justify the capitalist division of the world into separate “nation-states”.We utterly reject this view of the way humanity should organise itself. We condemn nationalist ideas. When countries achieved independence little changed except the personnel of the state machinery.

It is of no concern to workers in Scotland whether they are governed from London or by a separate government in Edinburgh. This is because the cause of the problems they face is the capitalist economic system of production for profit, not the form of government. And the capitalist economic system would continue to exist in a politically independent Scotland. In the end, the point at issue - independence which leaves profit-making, exploitation and all the other social problems untouched - is so irrelevant that it is not worth taking sides. We don’t see any point in diverting our energies to changing the constitution but we certainly want things to change. We want people to change the economic and social basis of society and establish socialism in place of capitalism. We don’t want or care about Scottish separatism (any more than we care or support a “United Kingdom” or the ”European Union”.)

But we do want world socialism and do know that the way to further this cause is to advocate that and that alone. So-called self-determination encourages workers to waste their efforts in chasing something which cannot be achieved. Not simply because the native capitalist class preserves their power but any newly independent nation-state immediately find itself having to come to terms with a worldwide economic system dominated by powerful blocs and integrated on a global scale. The room for manoeuvre within this framework is extremely limited. Either the dominant power relinquished direct political control but continues to exert its domination at an economic level. Or the client state frees itself entirely from the domination of one imperialist bloc only by switching to the all-embracing hold of a rival bloc. Competition between nation-states puts pressure on each state to maximise its power to avoid subordination to others. States that have little power are under pressure to ally themselves with stronger states that have major economic forces at their disposal. In neither scenario is the result any real independence for the local capitalists or any weakening of imperialism as a whole. The formation of new nation-states can no more put an end to imperialism than the formation of new businesses can put an end to capitalism.

The interest of the working class in all countries is to reject all nationalism and to recognise that they have a common interest with people in other countries in the same economic situation of being obliged to sell their mental and physical energies in order to get a living.

Will “independence” make the Scottish workers better off and happier? Is it “London rule” that is responsible for the problems faced by workers in Scotland, or is it capitalism?

It can be seen in retrospect that independence for the vast majority of the people has simply meant the exchange of one set of exploiters for another. The realisation of "political independence" by a country leaves the workers' conditions untouched (or actually worsens them in some cases). As socialists, we don't take sides in this inter-capitalist argument. We don't support one section of the capitalist class or the other, and we don't have any illusions about the "sovereign power" of Parliaments to pass reformist legislation that can make capitalism work in the interest of the exploited class of wage and salary earners. Capitalism just cannot be reformed to work in this way; so transferring the powers of the House of Commons to a Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh makes little difference.

Supporters of Scottish independence who talk about “democracy” always mean only political democracy since economic democracy - where people would democratically run the places where they work is out of the question under capitalism, because these workplaces are owned and controlled by and for the benefit of a privileged minority. You can have the most democratic constitution imaginable but this won’t make any difference to the fact that profits have to come before meeting needs under capitalism. The people’s will to have their needs met properly is frustrated all the time by the operation of the economic laws of the capitalist system which no political structure, no matter how democratic, can control.

The Socialist Party opposes both the separatist Scottish nationalism and the unionism of British nationalism. We support only working-class unity to establish a socialist society. Self-determination for "nations" just equates with self-determination for a ruling class. It must be opposed in favour of self-determination for people, their self-emancipation. It must be opposed with socialism.

What Independence?

The Left Nationalist Fantasy

“Words and illusions vanish; facts remain.”

The capitalists are good mystifiers: they want to have us believe that their interests as an oppressing class are the interests of all classes. Since the time of Marx, class conscious workers have combated the capitalists’ chauvinist appeals with appeals for the international solidarity of the working class. They have fought the attempts of the bourgeoisie to enlist the workers in their nationalist strivings with appeals for the joint class struggle of the workers of all countries against world capitalism. In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels insisted that ‘the working men have no country’. They argued that the nation state was alien to the interests of the proletariat and that in order to advance their interests workers must ‘settle matters’ with the bourgeoisie of each state, that workers must challenge the power of their ‘own’ capitalist class directly.  It implied uncompromising opposition to the local state and its dealings with the rulers of other capitalisms – other members of the ‘band of warring brothers’ that constituted the capitalists at a world level. It also implied workers should organise in mutual solidarity across national borders. This was not a mere abstraction. Marx maintained that workers must free themselves of patriotism and national superiority in their own interests, for without discarding these aspects of bourgeois ideology they would never themselves be free. Marx and Engels maintained this approach throughout their political activities.  It was also the position taken by Luxemburg.

Those of us in the Socialist Party of Great Britain are told that our critique of nationalism is resented by many supposed revolutionaries because they think that our criticism casts aspersions upon their sincerity as revolutionaries. Our duty as socialists does not permit us to spare the feelings of any particular group which directly or indirectly acts contrary to the interests of the working class. At the end of  socialist meetings it was customary  to sing “The Internationale”. It was not Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave or Scots Wha Hae. Have those “socialists” forgotten the workers of the world anthem? The patriotic fever of the Scottish referendum is so prevailing that the convener of the Scottish “Socialist" Party shares the table with a capitalist hedge fund manager to determine independence referendum strategy.  Cooperation of the classes implies an abandonment of the class struggle.

The Socialist Party are told that we should accept that nations “exist” (even though we have seen that a common race, implying the same origin and purity of blood is but a fiction) Diseases exist as well. Is it that reason not to try and eliminate them? The real fight is the struggle of the dispossessed against the possessors and it is the only fight that matters. The national prejudices deliberately fostered by the governing class has to be fought by English and Scottish workers united against their common foe. For us, the workers, our weapon is solidarity, it is the awareness that we all form, whatever the language we speak or the colour of our skin, or the land of our birth, one single class exploited by a minority of capitalist parasites who are very much in agreement, despite their national rivalries, to crush us.

Independence and “socialism” is the Scottish nationalists favorite bait for workers. At this moment in time Trotskyists are engaged in a patriotic effort to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would mark a step forward towards its own liberation, a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the conditions that prevail today in this country, the independence of Scotland  would not mean a step forward towards socialism. In all likelihoods it would be a step backwards.  The people who parade the banner of “independence and socialism” around, to catch the attention of  workers, are perpetuating a number of falsehoods.  The “Left” nationalists would have us believe  the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class.

The Independence referendum is not about independence. lf the nationalists wins, Scotland will not be independent. The SNP is a capitalist party. It works on behalf of the capitalists. That means the union of Capital, Edinburgh to Brussels to London to Wall St. The nationalist is merely trying to keep more of it “within the family”.

Are we to believe that home-grown national businesses are somehow less exploitative than foreign companies and less subject to the impact of the general capitalist crisis? Capitalist enterprises, inevitably move towards becoming monopolies, regardless of the nationality of their owners. Capitalism created nations, but, in its development, created at the same time the conditions for their disappearance by multiplying all kinds of relationships between nations, within one country or on a world-wide scale. But at the same time as capitalism  creates the objective basis for the fusion of nations, it tries desperately to erect artificial barriers between them, so as to maintain itself as a system of control. Thus, by setting nations one against the other, by inflaming national animosity, the bourgeoisie aims at consolidating national barriers in order to protect its part of the spoils of capitalist exploitation, to attack the class consciousness of workers and to sow strife in their camp. Independence means the creation of national barriers by restrictions so as to consolidate the capitalists class privileges.

 Whatever twists and turns lie down the road in the fight for socialism in Scotland, one thing is certain: the success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class, it is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into two different countries in order to accomplish this unity. It is completely absurd to justify this with the false argument, disproven many times, that the battle for socialism would be easier if it were led by a more nationally “pure” and homogeneous working class. Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis measures imposed by the capitalists. Unity is necessary to stand up against all the attacks on our democratic rights. The working class faces a powerful and aggressive enemy which is solidly united despite certain contradictions within its ranks. The people’s army  are not going to win the class war by dividing themselves according to borders. Those who dress up as “socialists” in order to push nationalism on the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists. Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a hoax. It is up to the working class to show we will not be duped by political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric. Instead fight for your own cause, for your interests – for socialism.

Karl Marx wrote:
“What then does the German philistine want? He wants to be a bourgeois, an exploiter, inside the country, but he wants also not to be exploited outside the country. He puffs himself up into being the “nation” in relation to foreign countries and says: I do not submit to the laws of competition; that is contrary to my national dignity; as the nation I am a being superior to huckstering.
The nationality of the worker is neither French, nor English, nor German, it is labour, free slavery, self-huckstering. His government is neither French, nor English, nor German, it is capital. His native air is neither French, nor German, nor English, it is factory air. The land belonging to him is neither French, nor English, nor German, it lies a few feet below the ground. Within the country, money is the fatherland of the industrialist. Thus, the German philistine wants the laws of competition, of exchange value, of huckstering, to lose their power. at the frontier barriers of his country! He is willing to recognise the power of bourgeois society only in so far as it is in accord with his interests, the interests of his class! He does not want to fall victim to a power to which he wants to sacrifice others, and to which he sacrifices himself inside his own country! Outside the country he wants to show himself and be treated as a different being from what he is within the country and how he himself behaves within the country! He wants to leave the cause in existence and to abolish one of its effects! We shall prove to him that selling oneself out inside the country has as its necessary consequence selling out outside, that competition, which gives him his power inside the country, cannot prevent him from becoming powerless outside the country; that the state, which he subordinates to bourgeois society inside the country, cannot protect him from the action of bourgeois society outside the country.
However much the individual bourgeois fights against the others, as a class the bourgeois have a common interest, and this community of interest, which is directed against the proletariat inside the country, is directed against the bourgeois of other nations outside the country. This the bourgeois calls his nationality.” -  Draft of an Article on Friedrich List’s book

Nationalist Nihilism

Socialist sympathies are with the oppressed, they relate not to emerging nationalism but to the particular plight of twice-oppressed people who face both a native and foreign ruling class.  Yet it is an illusory hope that the impoverished can improve their conditions through national independence. National self-determination has not emancipated the laboring classes in the developed nations and the developing countries in Asia and Africa. Nationalism promises little for the poor save indulging on more equal terms in national prejudices. No doubt, this means something to those who have suffered from a particularly arrogant colonial system.

The SNP is a capitalist party. It works on behalf of the capitalists. The difference between the SNP and the other capitalist parties is not that it is calling for a different social system. What’s different is that they are looking for a new sharing of constitutional powers. The sharing will just be between groups of capitalists. They are intent on keeping it in the family. What the Socialist Party wants is real independence. What we want is genuine freedom from capitalist exploitation and domination.

Whatever twists and turns lie down the road in the fight for socialism, one thing is certain: the success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class, it is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into two different countries in order to accomplish this unity. It is completely absurd to justify this with the false argument, disproven many times, that the battle for socialism would be easier if it were led by a more nationally “pure” and homogeneous working class. Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis measures imposed by the capitalists. Unity is necessary to stand up against all the attacks on our democratic rights. The working class faces a powerful and belligerent enemy which is solidly united despite disputes within its ranks. The people are not going to win by dividing themselves. Those leftists who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists who have seized the leadership of the nationalist movement and who are busily readying themselves to join the ranks of global capitalism. Capitalist enterprises, inevitably move towards becoming monopolistic corporations, regardless of the nationality of their owners.  The left-nationalists claim the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class and promoting austerity policies. This “independence leads to socialism” thesis must be thoroughly demolished in all industrialised countries. Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a monumental hoax.  It flows from the same kind of logic that leads others to preach the nationalisation as the cure for all our ills.  In this upcoming General Election, it is up to the working class to show these pretenders that it will not be duped by their political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric.

For sure the British nationalists are intent upon using the various immigrant populations living in the UK as scapegoats to mask who is the main enemy – the employing class.  The enemy of the people is not the migrants and refugees nor the “English”. The enemy of the people is the owning class. The Scots have nothing to gain from nationalism.  The Socialist Party refutes the idea that it could be in the interests of the working-class movement to support a capitalist party such as the SNP.  The left- nationalists believe that it is necessary to achieve independence first and then socialism. This is the kind of argumentation that was used to channel people into support for a capitalist party. Socialism is put off until “later”. It is never a struggle to begin right away. The SNP is no more interested in a socialist revolution than the capitalists of Scotland as a whole. Surely, fewer and fewer people still believe that independence is a step forward in the struggle for socialism.

 The way to put an end to national oppression is to attack the root of the problem. The proletariat will not win victories in either the struggle against capitalism or the struggle against national oppression if it fights in dispersed formation against the same enemy. All it will do is make a “breach” in its own ranks. Scottish workers must unite with the only class whose interests lie unreservedly in eliminating both national oppression and capitalism – the global working class.

All change for no change

NEITHER GODS NOR MASTERS

The capitalist class – national and international – being in possession of the wealth stolen from the workers, compete with each other for the control of the world's markets. This capitalist class are continually embroiled over the disposal of the spoils on the markets, but they present a solid front to the workers whenever the latter get out of hand in the endeavour to better their conditions of life.  It is a false notion of the Scottish nationalists that the Scot workers must struggle for national independence before they can tackle the problem of poverty. But the working class everywhere is under one capitalist government or another. The form of government makes no difference to the workers. Government implies subjects and under the capitalist system of society the actual government machinery, Parliament, councils and judiciary, etc., are representative of the capitalist class – the necessary machinery for ruling a subject class composed of wage-slaves. There is no essential difference between the capitalists of England and Scotland. Both are characterised by the same greed for money, the same ambition for power, the same hypocrisy and corruption.  It is of no concern to workers in Scotland whether they are governed from London or by a separate independent government in Edinburgh. This is because the cause of the problems they face is the capitalist economic system of production for profit, not the form of government. And the capitalist economic system would continue to exist in a politically independent Scotland. The only people to benefit from Scottish independence would be the local politicians, who would be able to award themselves grander titles and greater salaries.

We oppose nationalism. We, as Socialists, have no sympathy whatever with the demand for independence. We would no more assist the SNP than assist the British Government against them. A plague on both their houses! Our only interest is to try to get fellow-workers in both camps to mind their own business and leave this quarrel about the right to exploit to the people who gain from exploitation. Left-nationalists think and act, differently. Some of them are still very much the victims of the mental disorder patriotism, and their understanding of socialism is nil; others are playing a double game which they call "tactics." They argue that as the people among whom it is desired to propagate socialism are still entirely wrapped up in all kinds of antiquated illusions, then the way to clear their minds is to tack their superstitions on to the socialist case. It is hard to imagine anything less calculated to further socialism, their propaganda becomes a farce and they degenerate usually into the more or less open tools of local business interests. They talk about smashing up British imperialism as a step towards the final struggle with the capitalist class. They forget some things. First, there is no movement or combination of movements which has at the moment the power to scratch the power of Britain's hegemony, much less dismember it. Secondly, the effect of their attitude is simply to strengthen the patriotism of the British worker and make him still more ignorant of, and hostile to, socialism.

To split territories, set up new governments, or to re-establish old ones will not help Scottish workers nor even simplify the problem. Their only hope lies in the speedy establishment of socialism. They must join hands with the workers of the world, and make common cause against the ruling class. Not until the working class in Scotland clearly grip the essential fact that they are slaves to the master class no matter what nationality these latter may be; fully realise that such slavery is confined within no national boundary but is worldwide; throw off the mental shackles of "nationalism" and join their fellow-workers the world over to abolish capitalism - not until then will they be free to enjoy Nature's resources. We don’t want or care about Scottish independence any more than we care or support an “independent” Britain after Brexit,

For many people, nationalism has a bad reputation. Yet, few take issue with identifying with their home nation – they call it patriotism. Marxism explains how workers are exploited and unfree, not as individuals or particular nationalities, but as members of a class. From this perspective, identifying with a class provides a rational basis for working class political action. The objective would be a state-free world community. Given that nationalism does nothing to further this understanding, however, it is an obstruction to world socialism. The simple truth is that capitalism will be just the same as far as the working class is concerned in a “free” Scotland. What is required is another system of society, not new administrators for the old one. Independence will be merely a change of masters. Would the working class be worse or better off under London or Edinburgh? Would there be anything to choose between the two "solutions"? Surely, in both a British Union or a sovereign separate Scotland, the workers' standard of living would be much the same. So would the slums, the unemployment and the other problems of capitalist society. The only difference would be the colour of the flag that would fly over the government buildings: Union Jack or the Saltire? Independence will solve none of the problems resulting from capitalist exploitation. All governments are wedded to the same set of priorities and subject to the same constraints. What then has national independence done for the mass of the population, whether we take the European nationalist movements of the 19^th century, such as the Italian struggle against Austria or the Balkan countries’ struggles against Turkey, or the new States set up in former colonies of the European empires? We can say that independence is good for local politicians, lawyers, army officers, manufacturers and business men; it opens up careers and money-making opportunities for them, as also for those in local government posts. The disappointing results of nationalism from the worker's point of view is that when countries achieved independence, absolutely nothing changed except the personnel of the State machine. The sooner the left-nationalists give up pandering to working-class political ignorance and devote themselves to socialism, the sooner will the nationality problem be solved.

Scotching the myth of independence

Those who control the Scotch whisky industry are overwhelmingly based outside Scotland.

Diageo has more than 35% of the whisky market, and if it can secure control of India's United Distillers, including Whyte & Mackay, that will push up to 40%. Pernod Ricard in France, has around 20%. LVMH, with Glenmorangie, Remy Cointreau, which recently paid a  £58m for Bruichladdich distillery on Islay, and Japan's Suntory which has Morrison Bowmore, control another 20%.

Professor John Kay, the UK's most influential business economist writing in Scotland's Economic Future, claims a mere 2% of the global retail sales value of Scotch whisky ends up in Scottish pockets. The reason is that more than 80% of the whisky distilled in Scotland is foreign-owned and the majority of value of leading brands values is accumulated overseas.

"Value added from Scotch whisky is reported as around £3 billion – about 2.5% of Scottish GDP – but this figure reflects essentially arbitrary transfer prices and export valuations,” writes Professor Kay, “wages and salaries and purchases of goods and services used in whisky production amount to only about £400 million. To this should be added the returns to beneficial Scottish ownership of whisky-related assets. With retail sales of whisky around the world totalling perhaps £25bn, the Scottish economy appears to derive modest benefit from its most famous product."

The Scotch Whisky Association priorities are not interchangeable with Scotland's because membership is dominated by multinational giants who have no reason “to maximise Scotch for the benefit of Scotland.” Membership is dominated by multinational giants for whom whisky is one category among many, and which are answerable primarily to shareholders, mostly outside the UK. The SWA does represent 95% of the distilling capacity, with 80% of the SWA owned by just 5 companies, the largest of which also provides the Chairman.

Donnie Blair, a former head of strategic affairs for Diageo said  "The industry is neither Scottish nor a success," Blair does not trust multinationals, with more profitable spirits in their portfolios to maximize Scotch for the benefit of Scotland, and is unmoved by statistics about millions invested in new distilleries and other plant – £1bn in four years according to the SWA. "Investments in Scotland are always presented as some kind of favour or gift to the Scottish people," Blair says. "In fact they are a normal cost of doing business, designed to generate even greater profits from Scotch."

Scotland is being used as a production facility. Profits like the whisky, going overseas.

 Economic commentator Alf Young comments "It's extraordinary we're having this debate about independence, and we don't have a debate about the independence of our corporate base".

 In 2011 there were over 2,000 foreign owned companies in Scotland employing over 280,000 with a combined turnover of over £87 billion. Manufacturingaround 70% non-Scottish ownership and control: 10% rest of UK, 60% plus foreign owned.

How can Scotland become truly free? How can Scotland aspire to being a truly sovereign nation? Is Greece independent? Is Spain independent? They have their own elected Parliaments, representatives to the U. N. and other international bodies; but are also beholden to foreign banks from whom they have saddled themselves with billions of dollars of debt. Their financial and social policies is decided by the European Central Bank. All the ceremony of statehood; all the trappings and the pomp - all the form without the substance! The banking moguls understand it. The multi-nationals know it.

 Richard Leonard of the GMB union explains that “the commanding heights of the Scottish economy are externally owned and controlled”. More specifically, he points out that the ten biggest private-sector employers of GMB members in Scotland are all either UK-owned and controlled, quoted on the London Stock Exchange or highly dependent on the whole UK market.  The inevitable conclusion is that political independence will not alter the fact that strategic political, economic and corporate decisions will still be taken in London.

We can admire John MacLean's and James Connolly’s stand against the slaughter of World War One, but their nationalism we cannot accept. It would  be nice if struggles for national independance could magically result in a classless society, but that's, unfortunately, not the way societies progress. Scottish' capitalism is not only tied to the British capitalism but also to international capitalism. Any kind of Scottish state that didn't offer benefits to corporations would see capital flight and a serious drop in its economy -- the Scottish socialist economy is a myth. Nationalism just replaces one set of bosses with another, and also helps to divide the working class. As if an "independent" Scotland would be any less affected by the world slump or being sacked by a Scottish boss be more agreeable. Will a social revolution come about through consitutional moves towards independence?  No! All moves towards independence have entrenched the power of the Scottish elite. The SNP have been bank-rolled by millionaires like Tom Farmer and Brian Soutar.

National independence is a chimera.  Scottish independence is a distraction from building working class solidarity against capitalism.  Nationalism is, at best, a dead-end and, at worst, reactionary. The socialist objective is to liberate humanity, not liberate nations.

Anti-Nationalism

Scottish separation would divide the working class along national lines. Who fosters division? In whose interest is it? No one but our common enemy, the capitalist class. To advance towards socialism, the working class must develop its consciousness of being a class with common interests radically opposed to those of the capitalist class. It must understand that nationalism serve the interests of the capitalists, not the interests of the workers.

Various little bands of quasi-Trotskyists in a patriotic effort try to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would mark a step forward towards its own liberation, a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who parade the banner of independence and socialism around are perpetuating a number of falsehoods.

The SNP is a capitalist party. It works on behalf of the capitalists. The difference between the SNP and the other capitalist parties is not that it is calling for a different social system. What’s different is that they are looking for a new sharing of powers. The sharing will just be between groups of capitalists. Keep it in the family. Those left-nationalists who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class. The independence leads to socialism argument must be thoroughly demolished. Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a monumental hoax. It is up to the working class to show it will not be duped by their political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric of the nationalists and their Trotskyist bedfellows. Scottish independence is nothing but a dead-end road. It doesn’t bring us closer to socialism, only farther away from it. Whether they like it or not, the left nationalists who are pushing for Scottish sovereignty only end up supporting class collaboration. Promoting Scottish independence consolidates divisions rather than confronting and fighting them. It blocks the growth of class consciousness and instead it develops the idea among Scottish  workers that they have more in common with “their” employers than with the rest of the British working class. Instead of uniting the working class against the bourgeoisie, it divides them from the rest of the working class. It delays socialist revolution and unites the Scottish working people with the Scots bourgeoisie. Thus the working class would be sacrificing its struggle for socialism, which is the only way to do away with exploitation, in return for a few meagre changes, for crumbs.

To struggle for independence would not bring those in Scotland any closer to getting rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation. Instead it would divide the working class in the UK against its main enemy; it would weaken the struggle for socialism all across the land; it would hold back and retard the class struggle.