Beyond the Biased Referendum on Scottish Independence By François Forgue and Jean-Pierre Barrois Beyond the Biased Referendum on Scottish Independence By François Forgue The British newspaper The Guardian ran a headline on September 8, ten days before Scotland’s referendum on independence, that read, “Whatever the Scots Decide, the Old Order is Dead and Buried.” And the article explained: “The mounting support for the ‘Yes’ vote cannot be explained by a nationalism of the blood or soil or by a Celtic, sentimental nostalgia. . . . No, it’s an act of defiance against the failed order built by Margaret Thatcher and consolidated by the New Labour of Tony Blair.” It is this rejection of the old order — which keeps on growing throughout what is still called the United Kingdom – that was expressed in the special conditions of Scotland through the September 18 referendum. It is a rejection that was shared by many who voted “No” to independence because they did not believe the rhetoric of the Scottish Nationalist Party. This was stated most bluntly by a trade unionist who said, “I will not choose between the plague imposed by the European Union, the European Central Bank and the IMF, on the one hand, and the cholera of an ‘independent’ Scotland still under the thumb of the Maastricht Treaty [of the European Union].” Beyond the results of a biased referendum, what needs to be underscored is that the 300-year-old institutions that constituted the framework of political domination of the British bourgeoisie, the very basis of the bourgeois State — from the era of its prodigious development, to that of a conquering imperialist power, to its decline today – while they may not be “dead and buried,” they are at the very least in an irreversible crisis. This is a crisis that will find a positive outcome only from the united action of the entire working class of Great Britain and its organizations, relying – as the chroniclers of The Guardian state — on “the common traditions of struggle forged in the fight against a common enemy.” This is a significant political development that is part and parcel of the devastating crisis that is ravaging all of Europe. * * * * * * * * * * “No” Vote Carries the Day in Scotland’s Referendum on Independence “Britain will never be the same.” The Observer (Sunday, Sept. 13) By Jean-Pierre Barrois The referendum on “independence of Scotland” was held on September 18. The turnout reached a historic high of 84%. Close to 45% of those who voted said “Yes” to Scottish independence — but more than 55% said “No.” Five days before the referendum, The Observer ran the following headline: “After Thursday, Britain will never be the same.” The fact is that in a large portion of Great Britain that has been associated with its history for more than three centuries, and where the appeal to “nationalist” sentiment had appeared to be nothing more than a nostalgic reference, close to half the voters made it clear that they see no future for themselves in the framework of the British State as it is today. Why is this? As Carolyn, a British trade unionist put it, “There is not a national question in the sense that it exists in other countries where there are oppressed nationalities. What’s happening is that people are saying let’s try the ‘Yes’ vote. After Thatcher, Blair, Brown and now Cameron — all of whom have implemented the same policies — it cannot get worse.” Mary, another unionist, explained, prior to the vote: “Suddenly, we saw people in Glasgow — including many youth — queuing to register to vote. They have nothing to do with the Scottish Nationalist Party, which is a ruling-class party. They always voted Labour, though many of them are no longer voting. They will vote ‘Yes’ because they are tired of the cuts, privatization, unemployment, and the destruction of the healthcare system.” “In Glasgow, life expectancy has fallen below 60 years of age,” Mary continued. “When we see former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who rescued the banks, campaigning for the ‘No,’ I understand why people will vote ‘Yes.’” In Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland, led by Labour, the “Yes” vote carried the majority. Glasgow is where one in five children lives below the poverty line — even one in two in the working-class neighborhoods of Calton and Springburn. More generally, Scotland is where massive plant and industrial closures have taken place since the early 1980s: the Massey Ferguson plant in Kilmarnock and the Singer plant on the River Clyde, closed in 1980; the last pit mine — in Linwood — closed in 1981; the Invergordon aluminum factory and the truck and tractor factory in Bathgate, closed in 1986; the Gatcosh Steelworks and the Caterpillar plant in Uddingston, closed in 1987; Ravenscraig, closed in 1992; Dounreay, closed in 1994 . . . and the list goes on. Beginning in 1997, this time under the leadership of Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, both elected from their home constituencies in Scotland, the destruction of industries and jobs continued in what was still a bastion of Labour. Blair and Brown introduced the “Irish model” of low-wage and deregulated jobs in the technology and service sectors, such as in “Silicon Glenn.” From 2008 to today, in order to pay for the bailout of the banks, Scotland was hit by massive budget cuts, more and more severe from one year to another, affecting public services and social benefits. It is these anti-worker policies that led to the election results in 2010, where, in the British Parliament, Labour was beaten, giving way to a majority of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, while in the elections to the Scottish Regional Assembly (known as the Scottish Parliament), which was established in 1999, the SNP (Scottish National Party) won a landslide victory in 2011 at the expense of Labour, with 45% of the vote and a majority of 69 seats. If one examines the electoral results of the SNP from 1999 to 2011 — which increased gradually from 28.7% of the vote in 1999 to 45.4 % of the vote in 20100 — one can see that they speak volumes about the depth of the political destruction of the gains of 1945 that were obtained by the then Labour government in London. It was this victory in 2011 that allowed SNP leader Alex Salmond to promise a referendum on independence. Salmond, it should be added, is a former executive of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), which largely financed the campaign for a “Yes” vote. The SNP has nothing to do with a labour or working-class party. As of 2011, when it won the majority in the Regional Assembly in the aftermath of the policies of the Labour Party, the SNP adopted an “anti-austerity” stance, using the tax revenue from oil from the North Sea to limit the cuts in public services and health, and to avoid imposing the high tuition costs that prevailed in the rest of Great Britain. This, of course, was not insignificant and helped to explain the support for the SNP. At the same time, the SNP is a fulcrum for a wing of the employers who played the independence card in order to establish direct links with the European Union, the IMF and Wall Street. But was this vote really about independence? What would have occurred had the “Yes” vote prevailed? After a recent meeting with the queen, Salmond announced that an “independent” Scotland would remain under the British crown, that it would keep the pound sterling as its currency, and that its foreign policy and diplomacy would remain in the hands of Westminster in London. This means that an “independent” Scotland would remain a full participant in NATO and, therefore, it would remain totally subservient to U.S. politics. To make things clear, the most recent argument put forward by the SNP to motivate support for the “Yes” vote was that it would be the best guarantee that Scotland would remain in the European Union should the referendum in 2017 on Britain’s membership in the EU be rejected by the British voters. The SNP, moreover, has consistently reiterated its solemn pledge to implement the various provisions in the White Paper, which provide among its many points the establishment of a “National Convention of Employment and Industrial Relations” based on a social “partnership” between the bosses and the workers aimed at co-opting the trade unions into implementing the employers’ agenda, while urging multinational corporations to move to Scotland in exchange for tax exemptions. . . . Meanwhile, in the camp of the vote “No” proponents, the Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberals jointly proposed to increase the “regionalization” process, in the event of the victory of the “No” vote. This would mean increasing the powers of the Regional Assembly in Edinburgh. As Frank, a retired member of Unite who was present at the recent TUC Congress, stated: “I will not choose between the plague imposed by the European Union, the European Central Bank and the IMF, on the one hand, and the cholera of an ‘independent’ Scotland still under the thumb of the Maastricht Treaty, the IMF and NATO, on the other. Because that is the choice we are being offered. But in any case I do not condemn those who will vote ‘Yes’ because they want to seize any opportunity, even if it is only slight, that maybe, things will change a bit.” Other labor militants, however, declared that they would vote “No,” not because they were heeding the calls by Brown and Cameron to vote “No,” but in spite of them. “How can anyone believe the promises of the nationalists,” they said. “Oil is neither English nor Scottish; it belongs to the foreign multinational oil corporations, and the SNP is not about to expropriate them.” Great Britain, indeed, will never be the same, and the Mass for Reconciliation held at the Edinburgh Saint Giles Cathedral by the Church of Scotland on September 21 is not going to change anything. British Prime Minister Cameron, in response to the “No” vote of September 18 declared that the promises he had made to expand federalism to Scotland would be kept, and that it would be accompanied by similar measures in England and Wales. This was a pledge to further use the framework of “regionalization” to destroy the workers’ gains — especially the collective rights won by the British working class — in a national framework. But by taking such measures, Cameron will only be deepening the crisis. - – - – - The Referendum in Figures Number of voters: 4.3 million. “No”: 55.3%. “Yes”: 46.5%. Participation: 84.6 percent. This was the highest turnout in a century. In Edinburgh, the administrative capital that is traditionally nationalist and that is also the seat of the Regional Assembly, the “No” vote won with 58.6%. In Glasgow, a working-class city that is the former stronghold of the Labour Party, the “Yes” won with 53.5%. A Few Historical Markers From 1606 to the Revolution of 1640, Scotland, England and Wales were united under the same crown. The Revolution of 1642, the king’s execution in 1649, followed by civil war, saw the establishment of a republic and marked the first step toward the establishment of a British domestic market necessary to the development of capitalism. The restoration of 1660 was followed by what the history books call the “glorious revolution” of 1688-89, — that is, a compromise reached between the rising bourgeoisie and part of the aristocracy to remove the Stuarts’ dynasty and establish a parliamentary monarchy, creating the institutional conditions of capitalist expansion that led to the industrial Revolution. In 1707, the Act of Union passed by the English and Scottish parliaments under the direction of capitalism and the first major agricultural producers gave birth to the largest-ever market and laid the foundations for an extraordinary development of capitalism in Great Britain, accelerating the way for the Industrial Revolution. The Act of Union thereby created the conditions that would lead to the emergence of the first working class constituted as a class through its organizations in the history of humanity.
Posted on: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 07:31:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015