Tuesday, 9 February 2021

Scottish Independence 2021: The SNP, the Left and the Wider Movement

 

This article is just to provide some background on the current state of the independence movement in Scotland. I’ll keep my contribution to Saturday’s meeting to just two themes that I think come out of this. Firstly “Is there a left case for independence”. And secondly “Are there any lessons from the Scottish experience for LU Wales”. Hopefully the discussion can then focus on how the LU Wales Manifesto could be used to help shape a radical left platform within the Welsh independence movement.

Political Context

Since early 2020 there has been a significant shift in Scottish public opinion in favour of independence. 20 consecutive polls have shown support for independence above 50%, the SNP on course to win a significant majority in May’s Holyrood elections and a continued decline in electoral support for the three unionist parties. At the same time Nicola Sturgeon’s personal approval ratings have risen across all shades of political opinion.

There are probably two factors which have tipped the balance in favour of independence. Firstly Brexit reinforced the “democratic deficit” in Scotland. There is a wide perception, even among traditionally union supporting voters, that the country has been forced to leave the EU against the expressed will of two thirds of the electorate and that this will damage the economy, jobs and living standards. Secondly the Scottish Government’s handling of the pandemic.  Both these factors are contingent and quite possibly transient. Especially the later which is based largely on Nicola Sturgeon’s undoubted skills as a popular communicator, and apparent competence in contrast to Johnson’s homicidal libertarianism. Pandemic outcomes have in fact been broadly comparable to those of the UK as a whole.  Therefore it is fair to say that support for independence still remains “soft” and finely balanced.

Against this background 2021 is likely to be a crucial year for independence. Developments within the SNP, the wider independence movement outside parliament and the role of the left within it, will all be central to the outcome. As will the response of the Johnson regime to the perceived “Scottish Problem”.

The SNP: Strategy and Division

Following the 2014 referendum and the 2015 general election landslide, the SNP’s membership base expanded massively. Drawn mainly from grassroots RIC members, Yes group activists and Scottish Labour supporters disillusioned by the party’s “Better Together” alliance with an extremely reactionary Scottish Tory party. The SNP has retained much of that mass base and remains the second largest party in the UK. Its popularity is indisputable and it looks set for a massive victory in May.

However anyone following recent press commentary will know that deep divisions have emerged within the party under Sturgeon’s leadership. These are now spilling out acrimoniously into the public domain. Much press attention has focussed on the Alex Salmond affair and the heated debates around the Gender Reassignment Act and Hate Crimes Bill. Beneath this however are some long term political differences over the strategy for achieving independence and the SNP’s social and economic vision for an independent Scotland.

Despite its progressive social policies, many of which are more rhetorical than real, the SNP leadership has increasingly moved in a conservative direction. It has always been highly centralising, and increasingly it has restricted internal party democracy, marginalising its activist base and creating a tight knit group of “insiders” comprising trusted ministers and political advisers. Many with links to various strands within the Scottish business, financial and legal establishment.

The implications of this strategy are reflected in the Scottish Government’s most recent economic blue print for independence, the 2018 Growth Commission Report, written by an ex-banker and updated to embrace Covid recovery by the Duke of Buccleuch’s estate manager. It embodies a mainstream neoliberal approach albeit with a green tinge.  It openly advocates a decade of austerity to reduce an anticipated fiscal deficit. The focus is very much on placating the financial markets and meeting the EU “fiscal compact” rules. Ironically, ignoring a central requirement for joining the EU, it proposes keeping sterling as its currency and in consequence handing monetary policy to the Bank of England and the Westminster Treasury. This whole approach has been widely criticised within the party amongst grassroots activist who do not relish selling austerity on the doorstep during a covid scarred referendum campaign! Austerity politics has been widely discredited by the pandemic and even the Tories have pumped unprecedented spending into the economy. Yet recently the SNP leadership have doubled down on the Growth Commission proposals and refused to amendment them.

The second major difference within the party has emerged over the strategy for a new referendum. The party leadership have always been insistent that only a legally sanctioned referendum would provide “international legitimacy” to independence. Effectively this hands the granting of a referendum to Westminster under section 30 of the Scotland Act. Johnson has made it clear he will reject another referendum, and Labour also reject Scotland’s right to self-determination. Despite hard-line Westminster resistance, Sturgeon has always argued that a victory in May on a manifesto that proposes to organise a second referendum will be a clear expression of the democratic will of Scotland, which cannot be ignored.

Both these strategies result from a cautious and conservative desire to make independence palatable to finance capital and middle class “soft no” voters. They take for granted the majority working class support for the Party built up in 2014. They embody a vision of a future Scotland where divergence from the current political, economic and constitutional settlement is minimal. A vision correctly characterised by critics as “independence-lite” or “constitutional nationalism”. Needless to say this approach has generated enormous frustration within both the SNP activist base and the wider independence movement. Frustration that has recently resulted in a significant victory for the left inside the Party, with the Common Weal group of members winning a number of seats on the NEC behind a much more radical eco-socialist programme. The People’s Manifesto is based around 5 key demands: a “people centred economy”, housing reform, a National Care Service, “a right to food enshrined in law” and a programme of “local democracy and community empowerment”. These are immediate post pandemic demands and do not require independence for implementation. (Kerevan). The grassroots uprising within the SNP has also increased pressure on the Scottish Government to use the Holyrood elections as a plebiscite on independence rather than wait for Johnson to agree a referendum. Nicola Sturgeon and the leadership group have vigorously resisted this. Instead they have announced an 11 stage “plan B” in the event of Johnson continuing to refuse a referendum. This ultimately envisages a legal challenge and the whole question of Scotland’s future being decided in the UK Supreme Court.

The Left and the Wider Independence Movement in Scotland

The Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) played a central role in the independence campaign running up to 2014. It was instrumental in building working class support for independence through its mass canvassing of working class communities in the main urban centres. It brought activists together from across the left in a series of extremely large conferences to debate strategy and tactics and develop the 5 eco-socialist and democratic principles around which its campaigns were organised. It organised mass voter registration drives which ensured the highest turn-out in Scottish electoral history, reaching deeply into sections of society that rarely voted; especially young people and those living in the most deprived areas. In the last few months before the vote, its activism and mobilisation spilled over into the wider SNP controlled Yes Campaign. The whole independence movement started to take on the appearance of a mass social movement demanding a more democratic and equal Scotland and an end to the politics of free markets and austerity.

Since 2014 RIC has declined politically. Much of its activist base went into the SNP following its general election triumph in 2015.  An attempt was made to build a left party (RISE) out of the remnants of RIC, which failed dramatically in the 2016 Holyrood elections. A conference was held in 2019 to revive RIC which was well attended but failed to re-start the campaign. At the RIC AGM in January this year, major divisions emerged over a motion from the original leadership to wind up the organisation. Local groups of RIC activists who had continued to function supported relaunching the campaign with updated principles to meet the challenges of the new political situation. Comrades can find the substance of these debates here, here and here. In many ways the squabble over the future of RIC shows that the Scottish Left has not been immune to the general decline and weakness of the UK Left to which Steve Ryan alluded in his recent LU Wales article. The RIC debacle also reflects the legacy of Lexit within the pro-independence left, which has led some comrades to abandon internationalism except rhetorically. Instead they have espoused a left variant of economic nationalism indicated by a continued focus on the EU institutions as pillars of global neoliberal capitalism. A position which totally ignores Scottish working class opposition to Brexit.

Events in the wider Scottish independence movement have been much more positive however, and require the pro-independence left to urgently address the need for a united organisation. Following the independence referendum in 2014, “All Under One Banner” was formed by a group of grassroots activists mainly from outside the SNP. Their marches and demonstration grew rapidly and during 2018/19 attracted huge numbers (200,000 in Edinburgh in October 2019). Support took on an increasingly radical and working class complexion, including trade union involvement.  AUOB has this week launched a new membership based national independence organisation: Now Scotland.

This is based on the Catalan ANC, which has played a vital role in promoting a progressive vision of Catalan independence post-Franco. And has been instrumental in maintaining grass roots resistance to the Spanish State’s reactionary crackdown following the Catalan declaration of independence. Now Scotland is grassroots based and encourages the development of local, community and workplace goups. It will also organise national and regional assemblies, demonstrations and civil disobedience if necessary as the movement develops. It has a broadly progressive set of principles although as yet it has no detailed “programme” for independence. Importantly it allows affiliations from both existing and new pro-indy groups and organisations.

As the pandemic lifts Now Scotland is set to become the focus of the independence movement outside the SNP, and it is vital that all strands of the pro-independence left organise within it to help rebuild mass working class support and a radical alternative to the constitutional nationalism of the SNP leadership.

The Fragmentation of the British State?

Len recently posted a link on the LU Wales messenger group to an article from RS21. In it the authors claim: “It’s more than likely that the British state will fracture in the coming decade”. Undoubtedly the break-up of the British state could open up the prospect of progressive change in the UK and across Europe. It would also pose a global challenge to international imperialism. Precisely because of this the “unionist” British state will pull out all the stops to prevent it happening. This is even more the case in the era of post Brexit “global Britain”. Johnson’s reactionary nationalist project loses all coherence if the UK fragments.

Recent events indicate the Tories and the ruling class are increasingly worried but unsure how to respond to growing tensions within the UK. They are combining direct attacks on devolution (eg under the Single Market Bill and with targeted public spending such as Sunak’s free ports.) along with a Westminster campaign to raise the profile of the Union in Scotland. Examples of this include Johnson’s recent visit during lockdown, in the face of Scottish Government opposition, the revamped Downing St “Union Unit” and the increasingly worried chatter from pro-union commentators such as George Osborne. Opposition is of course not just confined to the Johnson government. Starmer’s Labour Party looks set to reprise “Better Together” unionism; combining progressive patriotism with a firm rejection of Scottish self-determination. Gordon Brown has once again been wheeled out to float his, largely discredited notions, of “federalism”, apparently following discussions with both Michael Gove and Keir Starmer. Such moves place Scottish self-determination in the hands of mainly English voters who have consistently reject federalism.

The pro-independence left must develop a firm response to these attacks. This will certainly require an eco-socialist programme that takes on board the current triple crisis of international capitalism (economic, ecological and epidemiological). A programme that stresses the centrality of international solidarity and collective action in building a fairer, more equal country embodying real advances for the working class.

But this will not be enough. Independence cannot happen and that vision will not be achieved without a clear break with the unionist British State and the atrophied democracy embodied in its constitutional structures. These have been a source of ruling class power for centuries, and will remain to undermine even the most progressive reform programmes, unless the left articulates a clear grass roots republican alternative. An alternative where sovereignty genuinely resides with the people, and democracy is deepened and strengthened within communities and workplaces.

 

Additional references:

Kerevan George: Why the Holyrood Election is not only about our independence. (The National 08/02/2021)

Anderson Perry: Ukania Perpetua? New Left Review 125 (Sept/Oct 2020)

Barnett Anthony: The Lure of Greatness (part 3 Brexitannia). Kindle Edition

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

Socialists in Wales and Scotland Should Defend Devolution
Some Background
Brexit will mean that powers reserved to the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but currently subject to EU jurisdiction will return from Brussels. Theresa May wants the most important of these to be repatriated to the UK Parliament instead, and has included this in the EU Withdrawal Bill.  Effectively this would mean that for the first time Westminster could make laws affecting devolved matters like Agriculture, Fishing, food standards and public procurement without the need for consent from Holyrood or the Senedd. A series of talks between the Westminster government and the devolved administrations has taken place aimed at reaching agreement on which powers should be returned to which level of government. The UK government claims this is all largely a technical issue about replacing EU policies like the CAP with UK “frameworks”.
However the Scottish government sees Westminster’s intentions as a “power-grab” and the Scottish Parliament has recently voted to refuse consent to the Tories’ EU Withdrawal Bill. All parties except the Scottish Tories supported the decision.  Such a refusal of consent has not happened before. According to one Scottish political commentator it has created a “full blown constitutional crisis – a question of who rules” (Iain Macwhirter, Herald May 16). SNP MP, Ian Blackford, called May’s subsequent decision to proceed with legislation restricting devolved powers, “a democratic outrage”.
Needless to say  the Westminster and Scottish Tories have denounced Holyrood’s decision as a pro-independence stunt by Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP; manufacturing discontent and stirring up anti-union sentiment over what are little more than minor administrative details. A position that has received a boost from the Welsh Labour Government’s decision to come to agreement with May on the transfer of powers to Westminster. At the same time, most of the mainstream media including the BBC has largely ignored the whole issue or parroted the Westminster line that it is a purely administrative matter of limited public interest.
The Left and the “Westminster Power-grab”
Is this really just an arcane tussle over obscure constitutional detail? Should the left be at all concerned with this wrangle over powers?
Labour appears to be split over how to deal with the issue, with Welsh Labour accepting what it claims is an improved offer from May that will allow it to support her EU Withdrawal Bill, while Scottish Labour supports the SNP, Greens and LibDems in rejecting it.  This may reflect fundamental differences within Corbyn’s party regarding the significance of devolution itself.  More likely it is electoral opportunism from the Scottish party.  Given its track record of broken “vows” during the independence referendum, it’s hard to see how Scottish Labour could ever get Corbyn’s recent pledge of enhanced “federalism” taken seriously in Scotland unless it was seen to join the SNP led fight to preserve the existing devolution settlement. Richard Leonard, the Scottish Labour leader, knows he must win a substantial increase in Labour’s Scottish vote to ensure a Corbyn victory in 2022.
On the radical left (including the pro-indy Scottish Left) there has so far been a deafening silence on devolution.  Presumably most of the left groups see it as a distraction from “genuine” class struggle politics.  Fighting austerity, privatisation and deregulation, rebuilding trade union strength, resisting the Brexit driven rise of racism and xenophobia are certainly enough to be going on with.  And then there’s Trump, illegal wars and the rise of the far right across Europe!
Neverthelss socialists must defend the existing devolution settlement. To understand why, it is important to realise that the Tories are using the question of repatriating powers to rewrite the whole devolution settlement. Lost in all the turgid debate is the fact that the EU Withdrawal Bill (original clause 11, now clause 15 for the pedantic!) alters the meaning of “consent” in the various Scotland and Wales Acts that govern devolution. The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments will be deemed to have consented to allow Westminster to legislate on devolved matters so long as they have debated a “consent motion” or chosen not to. The outcome of the vote is irrelevant. If a parliament refuses to consent it will be taken as acceptance so long as there was a debate. If it refuses debate a Westminster proposal at all, it will also be taken as acceptance. One Scottish constitutional expert has characterised this as a “rape clause” – “no” is taken to mean “yes”! It gives the Westminster government wide powers to intervene in existing devolved areas not just those currently returning from Brussels.
Scottish journalist Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp recently pointed out how significant this extension of central government power will be post Brexit.  It would give Westminster the power, “to offer ultra free-market trade deals, for example to the US, without fear of a Scottish parliamentary veto”. (The National, May 17 2018).  Post Brexit trade deals will require opening up the whole of the UK to intense free market competition and empowering unaccountable legal tribunals to challenge progressive reforms that threaten corporate profitability. The proposed Westminster powers to legislate in the devolved nations will make it far easier for an increasingly authoritarian Tory government to secure such deals by scraping offending reforms without consent from devolved parliaments.  Free HE tuition, free prescription charges, government promotion of the living wage, procurement policies aimed at developing sustainability, social enterprise and decent employment rights, along with a host of other limited but progressive reforms within the devolved nations would come under threat.
The changed devolution settlement will also make it easier for the UK government to expose key public services in Scotland and Wales to international competition.  In Scotland, successive governments have retained a fully nationalised and integrated NHS. This would be a serious “obstacle” to a US/UK trade deal that would almost certainly require the whole UK health service to be open to America’s giant health corporations.  The implications for jobs, pay and service delivery in Scotland and Wales where the public sector is the main employer would be enormous.
In short the squabble between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament has direct implications for the Left in the devolved countries.  Tory proposals to restrict devolved powers would seriously damage our ability to resist neoliberalism and the onslaught on workers’ living standards that is likely to follow any conceivable version of Brexit.  Devolution, for all its limitations, has opened up spaces for progressive politics and the articulation of dissent. It has enabled more opportunities for engagement in democratic processes and it has led to some important reforms which, while limited, have made a serious difference to the lives of working class people. Defending these are reasons enough for the radical left to oppose the Tory “power grab”.








Thursday, 1 June 2017

Resisting The Right-wing Putsch


“I feared we would never see this. I feared a wide gap between Corbyn’s rhetoric as soon as May fired the starting gun – clear, principled, uncompromising attacks on the rich and the corporations, anger about rising social inequality, about decaying public services, about grotesque greed at the top mirrored by rising poverty and despair at the base – I feared this would not be matched by a concrete programme for change. I was wrong.”
Neil Faulkner from Left Unity sums up the surprise and delight of much of the radical left in England and Wales at the Labour manifesto.  He and others have characterized it as the “rebirth of reformism”.

 The Left must Support Corbyn in England and Wales

 Quite correctly most far left groups outside Scotland have thrown their support behind the Corbyn campaign and there is no doubt that in England and Wales, Labour are doing far better in the polls than most mainstream and left commentators anticipated. Corbyn has for the first time in a generation fundamentally challenged the consensus narrative of privatization, free markets, austerity and “humanitarian” war. It is of course a reflection of the success of the neoliberal counter revolution since Thatcher that Labour’s manifesto is seen as radical at all. The proposed reforms hardly stand comparison with those of the Atlee government and they bear the hallmark of compromise and accommodation with the Blairite rightwing of the party. The manifesto has not broken with Gordon Brown’s “fiscal rectitude”. There is no repudiation of “odious debt” incurred in the 2007 banking bailout; no wholesale nationalization of the banks or threats of capital control. All necessary components of a genuine alternative economic strategy capable of facing down the inevitable ruling class offensive were Labour to come to power.  A lesson for any radical left government as the tragedy of Syriza so clearly demonstrates. 

Nevertheless policies like renationalization of rail, energy, and the post; abolition of student tuition fees; council-house building; hefty increases in funding for the NHS, education, and social care; repeal of the bedroom tax, reversal of cuts in disability benefits, and ending of the punitive sanctions regime; and a national investment bank to channel public funds into major infrastructure projects have all struck a chord with an electorate suffering the rigours of austerity and falling living standards.  So has the plan to pay for reforms largely out of taxes on the rich and on corporations.
Corbyn is currently polling higher than Milliband in 2015; a tribute to his campaign and an indication that the anger at the base of society does not inevitably have to fall prey to reactionary populism.  Even academic pollster John Curtice, whilst urging caution over Corbyn's ratings, concedes that recent poll evidence: "certainly means that, so far at least it (the Labour Party) has fought a much more effective campaign than it did the last time it was led by someone on the left of the party" (Curtice 2017)
Jeremy Corbyn may not win but he has reinvigorated the movement for a radical alternative south of the border.  If he achieves a popular vote on the scale predicted by recent polls he will be able to see off any post-election leadership challenge from the right.  His success would provide a potential platform on which to build a serious radical left movement capable of winning mass support in the battles to come.  

 A vote for Scottish Labour is not a vote for Corbyn


 Socialists in Scotland should welcome Corbyn’s success and support his anti-austerity programme. Unfortunately, as Bob Fotheringham of the Scottish SWP recently put it: “A vote for Labour in Scotland would not be a vote for Corbyn”. (Scottish Left Review, May/June 2017). 

Since the 2014 referendum most sections of the Scottish radical left and a large proportion of working class voters see independence as the only viable alternative to further austerity politics. Popular support was ebbing away from Labour in Scotland even before 2014 after years of Blair / Brown attacks on public services, privatization and illegal war. Careerism and deference to Westminster came increasingly to symbolize Scottish Labour at both Holyrood and local government level.  The Better Together campaign finally convinced Labour supporters to defect on mass to the SNP. During the recent local elections Labour lost control of all its main councils including its flagship Glasgow City council.  Latest polling puts its General Election support almost 10 percentage points behind the traditionally loathed Scottish Tories. 

Events since the local elections only confirm its political degeneration.  Labour councilors have done local deals with the Tories in places like Aberdeen and North Lanarkshire to keep out the SNP. Its only remaining Scottish MP Ian Murray has called on Labour supporters to vote tactically for the Tories where necessary; prioritizing defense of the Union over opposition to May’s ultra-rightwing Brexit plans.   (scotgoespop, Learmouth 2017).  Labour’s Election manifesto rejects a second referendum even more implacably than Ruth Davidson’s Tories.  This may reflect Corbyn’s need to compromise with the Scottish party’s Blairite leadership and activist base.  Or it may reflect that deeper tradition of British Nationalism embedded in the Labour Party (Miliband 1972). Whatever the cause, Corbyn has demonstrably failed to fully grasp the national question and seems to have abandoned his earlier “relaxed” approach to a second referendum.
A vote for Scottish Labour therefore would be a reactionary move on almost every count. It would only strengthen the Tory “surge” in Scotland discussed below. It would undermine the prospects for a second independence referendum and consequently the possibilities for a radical alternative to neoliberalism in Scotland. But on top of that it would actually strengthen Labour’s right-wing and help destabilize Corbyn’s Leadership.  It is hard to disagree with Rise’s Cat Boyd when she writes that a vote for Scottish Labour would mean: “using my vote for a narrow minded careerist who will use every opportunity to plot against Corbyn regardless of the country’s or the Labour Party’s democratic wishes”.

 No Ordinary General Election


 Unlike the English Left, the radical left in Scotland has made little direct intervention in this Election.  But before examining why this is so, it is worth briefly setting the General Election in its wider political and economic context as a warning against complacency on the Left.
 May has not gone to the polls simply to take advantage of disarray in the Labour Party.  Nor does she seriously believe that a new mandate will put pressure on the Brexit negotiations.  Much less is she trying to establish her control over the madder wing of her Brexiteers so she can orchestrate a “soft Brexit”, as some liberal commentators hopefully speculate. May has in fact thrown in her lot with the hard right of the Tory party and their media and corporate backers as part of a long term project to transform British politics and the whole structure of British democracy in the post Brexit era. We are facing no ordinary election.
 More than three decades of neoliberalism has produced massive “structural reform” in Britain and throughout western capitalism. Privatization, anti-union laws, the enforcement of precarious employment practices, de-regulation of finance and the dismantling of key aspects of the welfare state have transformed lives, destroyed communities and depressed living standards for large sections of working and middle class people. At the same time neoliberal reforms have accelerated processes of fragmentation and isolation within working class communities and hollowed out democratic control over civil society.  In turn this has alienated workers from forms of collective solidarity and resistance adding to an overall disjuncture with the political process. The end result has been to massively widen inequality of income and wealth in most western societies but especially the US and UK.  Yet neoliberal policy has failed to restore profit rates sufficiently to raise economic growth much above the historically low levels to which they sank following the long post-war boom, contributing to increasingly severe financial bubbles culminating in the Bank crisis of 2007-08. Since then the economies of Western Europe and US have been stuck in what economist Michael Roberts has called a “long depression”.  All this has created anger at the base of society, which when coupled with alienation from the political processes and the degeneration of traditional forms of working-class solidarity, has furnished fertile ground for rightwing populist ideas to take hold.  Brexit and Trump are both products of this shift to the right.  As is the collapse of social democracy across much of Western Europe and the growing support for extreme right-wing parties. (Piketty 2014, Roberts 2016, Faulkner 2017, Giroux 2017)
 May and the hard Tory right are the political representatives of a highly class conscious elite whose preferred solution to the failure of neoliberalism is a redoubled effort to drive down living standards and the social wage in order to cheapen production costs and raise profitability. Anyone who believes that May means it when she utters platitudes about representing the interests of working class people, should just look at her actions since coming to power, and her Election Manifesto commitments. Cuts in Corporation Tax, relaxing bank regulations and restarting quantitative easing all benefit the wealthy at the expense of working class living standards.  As does the new Trade Union Act by further restricting industrial action and eroding pay and conditions. In a gesture of total contempt for those “left behind”, selective grammar schools in England will be expanded while funds for existing state schools are cut. Pushing ahead with planned benefit cuts and austerity measures along with cuts to child tax credit, the odious rape clause and dementia taxes contrast with inheritance tax cuts for the wealthiest and clearly signal a continued neoliberal onslaught on working class people.  Further austerity measures like these are essential to the Tory and UKIP ultra-right vision of Brexit.  May means it when she says that no deal is better than a bad deal.  Yet British capitalism can only compete effectively following a hard Brexit by further driving down costs of production, particularly labour costs. Investment in productivity enhancing technology is precluded by low profitability within the UK economy.
This will of course deepen social discontent which must be controlled both ideologically and physically over the coming years. Already we can detect a darkening authoritarianism in British politics.  Not just the reactionary British nationalism and anti-migrant xenophobia of the referendum campaign.  Nor just the sinister emphasis on strong and stable leadership.  But more dangerously May proposes to radically overhaul civil and human rights legislation and calls for whistle-blowers to be prosecuted.  Following the Manchester bombing, rightwing Tories wasted no time in calling for new laws to control “extremism”.  It is early days, but when we combine this with a tendency to redefine democratic forms of opposition as “sabotage” a worrying trend emerges.  Removing large sections of law making from democratic scrutiny under the promised Great Repeal Act is another early warning sign of centralizing authoritarianism. Set against an international context of rising support for far right and reactionary nationalist politics across Europe and in the states, May’s rightwing “power grab”  is suggestive of the early stages of what  Neil Faulkner and others have characterized as “creeping fascism”. (Faulkner 2017, Giroux 2017)

The SNP, the General Election and the Radical Left in Scotland.


If this is the case, then the Scottish radical left must be incredibly serious about its approach to these elections and their aftermath. During the campaign, left groups in Scotland have generally contented themselves with little more than abstract propaganda.  For instance some groups are calling for a vote for the most progressive candidate likely to keep the Tories out (Solidarity and the Scottish Socialist Party).  In similar vein the SWP argue the radical left should back all “those candidates willing to mount an effective opposition to cuts, austerity, oppose racism and the scapegoating of immigrants and refugees”. But they caution against blanket support for the SNP (Fotheringham op cit).  Some on the extreme end of the Lexit spectrum in Scotland like Jim Sillars urge abstention because of SNP support for the EU.
To some extent confusion on the Scottish radical left is understandable. A vote for Scottish Labour would strengthen the unionist vote and undermine independence. But the SNP is not a socialist party and its general politics and more specifically its election campaign pose serious difficulties for the Left.

The Politics of the SNP and the “Tory Surge”


Rhetorically Nicola Sturgeon’s party has taken a firm stand against austerity and there is no doubt that it has introduced or maintained progressive social policies over its years in government.  It has made significant attempts to mitigate the effect of Westminster imposed benefit cuts such as off-setting the impact of the bedroom tax. It has, to its credit, stood out against racism, xenophobia and the politics of scapegoating.  However the SNP has failed to lead a serious campaign against austerity, preferring the “dented shield” excuse of other devolved administrations like the Welsh Assembly. At both national and local authority level the Scottish government has implemented cuts. The Unite union in Scotland estimates that in the last year £600m has been cut from local authority budgets (6.5% of local authority spending). 40,000 council jobs have gone since 2009 and another 15,000 redundancies are in the pipeline. Its pro-business economic policies mean that it has not seriously challenged privatization, outsourcing or used its enhanced tax powers to tax the rich.
The SNP General Election strategy has been timid to say the least.  Despite passing a Holyrood motion calling for a second referendum and polls showing substantial (62%) support even among No voters for holding one, the SNP have not challenged May’s refusal to do so. It’s recently launched manifesto attacks Tory Brexit plans and continues to urge a special deal for Scotland in the negotiations and an SNP seat at the table. But May has persistently ignored such demands and rejected a second referendum. The manifesto is silent on how the SNP will confront this anti-democratic intransigence, and barely mentions independence.  Nicola Sturgeon’s party even opposes the “All under One Banner” march in Glasgow on June 3.  It sees independence supporters on the streets during a General election as a distraction. This ultra-caution has allowed the unionist parties to structure the election debate as a fight to save the Union (Gerry Hassan 2017).  And it is starting to pay off for the Scottish Tories. 
Ruth Davidson’s vote “surge” is much overhyped by the unionist media.  Most of her local elections gains resulted from the collapse in Labour support outlined earlier, not her much eulogized “charismatic” leadership. (Guardian Editorial 20.05.17). However they are no less real for all that. The most recent Scottish poll puts support for the SNP down to 39% from nearly 50% in 2015 and the Tories around 29% up from their low of the mid-teens. Under first past the post such figures would probably not translate into the 15 seat gain some Tories currently claim but even with a gain of 5 or 6, the Tory political and media spin machine will go into overdrive. (Scotgoespop 2017)

Why the Left must lend its votes to the SNP in this election

May’s insistence on defending “our precious union” is not empty rhetoric.  Nor is it just about grabbing fishing and agriculture as bargaining chips in EU negotiations as some nationalists argue. It is a central part of the Tory right’s authoritarian restructuring of the British state outlined above. An independent or more devolved Scotland, pursuing even mildly social democratic economic and social policies, supportive of free movement, with a different EU relationship and hostile to militarism and nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated.  It would undermine the Tory right’s vision of Brexit Britain as the freebooting Singapore of Europe.  It would be a massive blow to right-wing British nationalism which is so closely entwined with the UK’s ability to project its military power on the world stage and act as an international agent of US foreign policy. (Davidson 2014)

 Following the General Election a reinvigorated Tory party with even modest Scottish gains will not just harden its stance against another referendum, it is likely to go on the offensive against the whole devolution settlement itself. (Michael Fry 1). There are already signs of this. In her Scottish Conservative Party conference speech May suggested that Brexit rendered the 1998 devolution settlement redundant.  It needed to be reviewed to “ensure that the right powers sit at the right level” to “avoid any unintended consequences for the integrity” of a post-Brexit UK.   A “review” that would be facilitated by the recent “Sewel Convention” decision, which effectively gives Westminster legislative powers in devolved areas regardless of Holyrood consent.
Clearly allowing the Tories to regain a significant foothold in Scotland will have profound consequences. It will boost May’s authoritarian putsch and be a major setback not just to the SNP but to the wider independence movement and the possibility of rebuilding a radical left campaign for independence. The pro-independence Scottish left cannot ignore this.  Bluster and fudge is inadequate. The SNP has 56 of the 59 Westminster seats. Vague propaganda slogans urging a vote for the most radical candidate will almost always take votes from the SNP to the benefit of the Tories in current political circumstances.  The left must bite the bullet and urge a vote for the SNP in this election.

 Scotland needs a unified Radical Campaigning Movement for Independence

 If the foregoing analysis is correct, after the election the stakes will be very high indeed.  There will be an urgent need to build a radical non-nationalist independence campaign.
Building such a movement is likely to be much harder than in the years before 2014.  The Lexit argument has divided the radical left across the UK and those who advocated it are continuing to argue for a “people’s Brexit” or some variant of it. Making that central to any new radical independence movement would be a major mistake. A people’s Brexit was never on offer and it is now abundantly clear that May and the ultra-right are shaping Brexit. The immediate task is how to stop them, not to sow illusions in how the process can be transformed in favour of working class people.  Objectively that would mean accommodating to the most reactionary form of British nationalism. (Phil Hearse 2017). 
In Scotland such accommodation would be particularly disastrous. 62% of the Scottish electorate voted to remain. Every local authority area including some of the most deprived working class communities in Scotland recorded “remain” majorities. This is what has triggered the Scottish Government’s decision to hold indyref2. Whether the left likes it or not Scotland’s undemocratic ejection from the EU will figure large in any future independence campaign. The Scottish economy is more dependent on EU trade than most UK regions.  EU exit will thus have a disproportionate impact on jobs, living standards and public service provision north of the border. (Michael Fry, The National 2). Some on the left may like to dismiss this as “pro-business” europhilia, but the immediate impact of Brexit will be devastating for many working class people in Scotland.  No serious left-wing case for independence can ignore this.

Of course no one on the radical left would argue for making EU membership central to a second referendum campaign.  Brexit has barely altered support for independence since last year’s referendum. There is no evidence that simply making a “business case” for Scotland remaining would win over wavering “No” voters (Craig Dalzeil 2017).  On any conceivable timescale for independence it is likely that Scotland will be outside the EU for a period. (McAlpine 2017). There is therefore adequate time and political space to forge a united radical left approach to a second independence campaign
It must be a campaign capable of challenging May’s creeping authoritarianism, resisting austerity and leading a fight-back against racism and anti-migrant scapegoating.  A campaign that can challenge the SNP to confront May’s rejection of a second referendum and stop compromising with her Brexit timetable. And most importantly of all, a campaign that can articulate a more radical vision for an independent Scotland and keep alive the idea that:
 For us independence is not an end in itself rather the route out of low pay, zero hour contracts and precarious employment, fuel poverty and the growing wealth gap that results from policies that pamper the rich. And it is the only escape route we have to avoid Tory Governments we did not vote for.” (Colin Fox, 2017)


 

References and links


Neil Faulkner (2017): Creeping Fascism: Brexit, Trump and the Rise of the Far Right, Public Reading Rooms 2017.
Ralph Miliband: Parliamentary Socialism (second edition), 1972 Merlin Press
Cat Boyd:  The National 23/05/2017.
Bob Fotheringham:  Not a terrible Troika: general election, Brexit and Scottish independence, Scottish Left Review, Issue 99, May / June 2017
Thomas Piketty:  Capital in the 21st Century, 2014, Harvard University Press
Henry Giroux: The New Authoritarianism, Znet: posted in Class, Economy, Politics/Gov, Repression/US
Phil Hearse: Right wing putsch, escalating racism, depening austerity: the real meaning of Brexit, Transform journal issue 1, May 2017, Public Reading Rooms
 Scotgoespop blog:  http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/
 Michael Fry 1, The National , Jan 26, 2017
 Michael Fry 2, The National, May 30, 2017
Andrew Learmouth:  The National, April 21, 2017


Robin McAlpine 2017: https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10240/robin-mcalpine-why-joining-efta-instead-eu-could-be-answer-scotland
 Colin Fox 2017:  SSP statement on General Election May 2017 - https://www.scottishsocialistparty.org





Saturday, 19 November 2016

Greece 2016: Tragedy and Resistance.



Since it’s near bankruptcy in 2009, EU and international creditors have subjected Greece to a relentless neoliberal experiment in forced economic restructuring.  A series of austerity packages have resulted in an economic and social collapse reflected in Depression era economic statistics.   Spend any time outside the well-known tourist areas and the reality of this becomes all too obvious. From the homeless on the streets of Athens to the rows of closed shops that you see as you walk round any provincial town.  Each one testimony to a small family business destroyed and lives turned upside down. Listen to the daily TV reports of crisis related suicides – 4 in the 2 day of writing this.  Talk to people even in remote mountain villages like mine and you hear stories of families separated by migration as young people leave driven by lack of hope. Or of the elderly and sick struggling to get essential medicines and treatment. Our local hospital recently put out an appeal for sheets and blankets.  Worse still watch in horror TV reports of the eviction of a care home forced into bankruptcy by the new foreclosure law.  The elderly and frail carried out on to the street of an Athens’ suburb and left dazed and confused amidst relatives, as bailiffs seize the property and medical equipment.


 How has a government of the radical left, elected on a clear anti-austerity programme found itself the agent of such economic and social devastation? Only two days after winning a massive 60% vote of confidence in last July’s referendum, Alexis Tsipras capitulated and accepted all the so called “reforms” demanded by Greece’s Troika of creditor institutions (EU, ECB and IMF) in return for a third tranche of bailout funding.  The scale of its retreat was staggering. Not only did the Syriza government agree to all the tax rises, pension cuts and additional austerity measures it had resisted so powerfully for six months, it also agreed the hand-over of remaining state-owned assets to a “Privatisation Fund” overseen by Troika technocrats.  In a move that effectively undermined Greece’s status as an autonomous sovereign state Tsipras accepted a Troika veto over major aspects of Greek law making.


Tsipras’s climb down has totally transformed the political climate in Greece. I was lucky enough to witness the events leading up to last year’s magnificent “Oxi” referendum. The mass demonstration in Athens on July 3, the politicisation of everyday life as people saw first-hand the class arrogance of Europe’s political elite, debate and discussion everywhere in cafes, shops around family meal tables was all reminiscent of the Scottish Independence referendum; but sharper, more radical.  Today the radical mood has imploded. Voter apathy abounds with recent polls showing 40% would abstain.  Even among political activists there is a worrying level of disillusion and disorientation.  Syriza’s popularity has slumped to the mid-teens, right wing New Democracy has been the main beneficiary polling over 20% recently, whilst the fascist Golden Dawn still lingers in the wings as the third largest party in parliament.


Syriza’s defeat: Strategic withdrawal or sell-out?



Syriza is the only European example of a radical left government elected on a programme to directly confront the neoliberal consensus.  Understanding the reasons for its retreat is important.   It has implications for the fight against neoliberalism and right wing nationalism throughout Europe as well as the future prospects for a radical alternative in Greece.  It is simply not enough to denounce Tsipras as a class collaborator or write off Syriza as “left reformist” and consequently predestined to fail: the position of many on the UK far left.  Syriza’s climb down after the July 2015 referendum needs to be set in context.  Neither Alexis Tsipras nor Syriza were responsible for the financial crisis that overwhelmed the Greek economy and most of western capitalism!  The crisis and what Michael Roberts has called “the Long Depression” that has followed represent capitalism’s historic failure to address a long term decline in profitability. 


Nor can we blame the Syriza government for the devastation inflicted on Greece by the series of bailout programmes agreed since 2008 and championed by Greece’s home-grown oligarchy along with their political and media friends.  In an approach best characterised by what David Harvey calls “a process of accumulation by dispossession” Greece has been subject to a massive set of “structural reforms” aimed at  restoring profit rates and reviving Greek capitalism. These have operated at 4 levels within the Greek economy:
  • The transfer of Greek financial institutions to foreign ownership.
  • The destruction of small scale and “inefficient” private sector businesses.
  • An increase in the exploitation of labour through draconian labour discipline, mass unemployment, the dismantling of welfare provisions, and replacing workplace protections and collective bargaining rights with precarious working conditions. 
  •   The wholesale privatisation of state assets at knock down prices mainly to foreign capital. 


The bailout funds conditional on this reform programme were not used to ameliorate the resultant social and economic devastation. More than 90% went directly to German, French, American and other European banks that had indulged in a frenzy of risky lending to Greek businesses, financial and state institutions in the run up to the 2008 crisis. 


Any criticism of Syriza must accept that Tsipras’s government tried at least to resist this process of accumulation by dispossession.  It was the only Greek government to do so. And even after it gave in, it retained popular support because of that, and was re-elected for a second time.  Syriza and its supporters on the left point to this fact and generally argue there was no alternative but to retreat in the face of European ruling class intransigence, especially the ECB’s strangulation of the Greek banking system in the weeks before the July 2015 referendum. This was a strategic retreat to keep open the possibility of debt relief, whilst trying to mitigate the worst effects of the new austerity measures.  They see themselves as fighting a classic “war of manoeuvre” which will allow them to move forward with their radical agenda when the balance of class forces is more favourable.  Syriza’s advocates point to the fact that, within the austerity programme, Tsipras’s government has been able to implement some mildly progressive social policies such as legalising same sex relationships, citizenship for migrant children and a degree of prison reform.


But this leadership narrative needs to be treated with considerable scepticism in the light of Syriza’s political trajectory over the last 18 months.  Stathis Kouvelakis , a former member of the party’s central committee argues that initially there was no “sell out”, but a wrong strategy led to a defeat and subsequently to Syriza’s political degeneration:


The retreat at the Eurogroup was not a betrayal or a sell-out. There was real confrontation. The institutions wanted to bring the Syriza government to its knees—because it is a real threat to them. But the Syriza government followed a wrong strategy—and to overcome that we need to tell the truth. And the fact that it presented its retreat almost as a success is in a way more serious than the retreat itself. It prepares the ground for further defeat.” (My emphasis)

It's hard to disagree with this analysis. Effectively the strategy involved pursuing an anti-austerity programme and demanding debt relief, whilst at the same time maintaining Eurozone membership.  It underpinned Tsipras’s election campaign and the approach taken to the subsequent bailout negotiations. To an extent this “wrong strategy” was understandable.  For historical reasons staying within the EU and the euro was massively popular amongst the Greek electorate. (It still has majority support in all recent polls).  Syriza felt its electoral strategy had to recognise this political reality. At the same time even mainstream economists had criticised the economic illiteracy of Troika demands for ever more austerity and structural reform.   Syriza’s strategy was not however just based on Greek political realities and the irrationality of Troika economics.   The leadership had a naïve faith in EU “solidarity” and in the potential to reform Eurozone policy making through strategic political alliances within the EU institutions.  This meant Tsipras’s and other leaders continually opposed calls from the left to prepare alternative plans should the negotiations go wrong.

As Kouvelakis says, none of this was the product of political degeneration or class collaboration or other far left shibboleth. Much of it did not go uncontested within Syriza at the time. Alternative strategies were possible and were discussed. Debt cancellation and leaving the euro was the most obvious.  But this would have meant breaking EU rules and risking a forced Grexit; something Tsipras and key leaders were politically unable to countenance. Those within Syriza who recognised this strategic weakness were not sufficiently united or organised to challenge the leadership strategy.


Any radical left government can expect defeats and set-backs.  But a genuinely radical left leadership should always confront the political circumstances it finds itself in, reassess the situation and, if forced to retreat, at least do so in a manner which lays the basis to take the struggle forward in the future.  Unfortunately Syriza did not do this.  It is this, more than the defeat itself that marks the beginning of its degeneration as a party of the radical left. Since then Syriza has become increasingly indistinguishable from mainstream social democracy. It has accepted its subaltern role.  It has fully and faithfully implemented policies it was elected to oppose and it has justified them on the basis that “there is no alternative” to neoliberal solutions.


Finance minister Euclid Tsakalatos’s speech to Syriza’s October conference perfectly encapsulated what his government has become.  Referring to the latest tax rises, pension cuts and reduction in minimum wages, he acknowledged that the poor would suffer most.  He confirmed that living standards for the majority of ordinary citizens would fall further and economic growth would be held back. But he argued that the debt relief that might follow:


 “will be a signal to the markets …… and so investors can invest long-term. This can offset the recessionary measures that we take”. 


Effectively a government that came to power promising a radical redistribution of wealth and power to the benefit of working class people, ends up defending the standard neoliberal consensus. Tsakalatos justifies sacrifices by those least able to pay as a price worth paying to placate financial markets, boost inward investment and restore profit rates.    


Sparks of Resistance


Lessons from the Syriza debacle have been hotly debated within the European and Greek radical left.  I would make only three main points.  Firstly a radical left government is bound to make tactical and strategic mistakes.  Dealing with these requires open and honest assessment and the widest possible democratic debate within the party and the wider social movements from which it draws its support.  


Secondly whatever else we may conclude about Syriza’s experience in government, it showed that a radical left alternative to neoliberalism can gain mass popular support. The political consensus of the last 30 years is falling apart.  The result does not have to be the reactionary populism of Brexit or Trump.


Thirdly and more importantly Greek people continue to suffer and, despite disorientation and disillusion, continue to resist.  Having declined since the mass mobilisations of 2011 – 12, there are signs that popular opposition is rising again. Workplace struggle is not yet on the scale of previous years but it has not gone away. Health workers took strike action in early October as a result of deteriorating pay and conditions and in opposition to further cuts in the health service.  Prior to that workers struck against the impact of water privatisation in Thessaloniki and Athens. In a significant escalation of opposition to Syriza’s austerity measures, the main civil servants’ union has called a general strike across the public sector for November 24 and urged private sector unions to join them.  State education has been cut to the bone prompting campaigns by teacher unions for increased staffing and restoration of funding cuts.


Outside the workplace, pensioners continue to oppose further pension cuts on top of the 40% reductions imposed over recent years. The sight of riot police teargassing them and baring their way to parliament during a demonstration in September was another indication of Syriza’s political transformation. As was the same police response to thousands of students, trade unionists and members of radical left groups who defied bans on protests outside Parliament during Obama’s recent visit.   Anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigners have linked up with trade unionists, those organising refugee support and parent groups to demand access to state education for refugee children. Local community solidarity networks providing welfare, health and community services remain a vital source of support in many working class areas devastated by the demolition of essential public services. They too are an aspect of resistance to the processes of “accumulation by dispossession”.  Just as importantly they provide “prefigurative” examples of direct democracy and alternative modes of production and distribution.


Finally campaigns opposing privatisation have re-emerged.  Most notably the one led by Zoe Constantopoulou, former Speaker of Parliament, aimed at stopping the sale of the old Athens Airport site to private developers for a huge retail and luxury residential complex.  Former Syriza MP Eleni Portaliou argues that such campaigns are not just about resisting privatisation.   They raise far more important issues about what is happening in Greece. Greek state assets are being seized and privatised to pay off “odious and illegitimate” debt. Such “confiscations” are the clearest possible indication of Greece’s status as an EU “debt colony”. As such they have the potential to rebuild a much broader social movement and help reconfigure the radical left in Greece following Syriza’s political collapse.


These and similar struggles demand and deserve international solidarity. In Scotland we can take immediate steps by getting our union branches, community campaigns and political organisations to affiliate to and work with organisations like the Greece Solidarity Campaign, the various refugee campaigns and others providing material and activist support to the people of Greece.  But the best solidarity the left can offer is to embrace the vision of collectivism and resistance represented by these struggles, and build our own mass movement against both European neoliberalism and the reactionary populism of Trump and Brexit.


The struggle of the Greek people is also our struggle. Together we can win!


Το αγονα του Ελληνικού λαού είναι και δικό μας! Μαζί θα νικήσουμε!













References

Michael Roberts:  The Long depression, Haymarket 2016

David Harvey: 17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, Profile Publishers 2015

Stathis Kouvelakis:

Clinging to Power


Syriza Rise and Fall, NLR Jan / Feb 2016

Eleni Portaliou – Greece a country for sale, Jacobin Magazine Sept 2016


Michael Neradakis – Creditors Destroy Greece, Syriza does not resist http://www.defenddemocracy.press/

Dimosthenis Papadatos Anagnostopoulos  http://rednotebook.gr/



Euclid Tsakalatos – Speech to Second syriza conference, Athens 14 Oct 2016

Alexis Tsipras – Speech to Second Syriza Conference, Athens Oct 2016

Panagiotis Sotiris – The Dream that became a nightmare – Jacobin Feb 2016

JK Galbraith (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/imf-greece-debt-restructuring-by-james-k-galbraith-2015-06?barrier=true

Panos Garganos: Socialist Worker (UK) 25/10/2016