đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș anarchist-federation-independent-and-free.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:55:45. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Independent and free? Author: Mike Sabot Date: April 10, 2012 Language: en Topics: Scotland, self-determination, Anarchist Federation Source: Retrieved on 20th June 2022 from https://glasgowanarchists.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/independent-and-free/
One way or another, the political landscape in Scotland and Britain as a
whole is going to change after 2014 and itâs difficult to say what
course this will take. Although polls consistently show the SNP-led
Scottish Government has a long way to gain majority support for
independence, itâs quite possible that they could bring about a swing in
opinion. But even were they to fail in achieving full independence it
seems inevitable that Scottish institutions will take on more powers and
that the process itself will have a lasting impact on Scottish society.
As committed internationalists, anarchists oppose nationalism in any
form. Rather than simply repeat long-standing principles, however, we
need to articulate some kind of an analysis and ask ourselves how
potential state reorganization will affect us and the wider class
struggle and what exactly we should be doing and arguing as the
independence debate increases in intensity. This requires collaboration
and discussion among anarchists in Scotland but also with comrades
elsewhere and so here I only offer a few of my own opinions on the
question.
We donât deny that Scotland is a nation but that nations are not
something communists can support. They are always in some way defined by
and tied to the state and are a means to bring about cohesion and
identity across classes. Although often termed the âstateless nationâ,
the different cultures, regions and classes of Scotland were given an
imposed unity by the pre-1707 state which was thereafter maintained from
above through the continuance of a number of institutions and a
semi-autonomous bourgeoisie and, contradictorily, from below by
resistance to British centralized power and cultural uniformity. When
the benefits of empire had declined after the Second World War and oil
wealth was discovered off the north east coast, there was a stronger
capitalist case for increased autonomy but also growing popular
disillusionment with centralized British state provision â underlined by
Thatcherismâs attacks on the social wage and traditional heavy
industries. Together they coalesced into a resurgence of national
feeling which culminated in devolution at the end of the
20^(th)-century. This has only increased the momentum of Scottish
national feeling and nationalism: more state power, in this case,
encouraged and required the emphasis of the national entity and vice
versa.
The SNP has been following a balancing act. Firstly, it appeals to the
working class through social democratic policies well to the left of any
Westminster party. In an independent Scotland, they claim that the
British nuclear arsenal would be removed from the country, Scottish
troops would no longer be sent to fight in places like Afghanistan, the
government would prioritize renewable energy and the welfare state would
be defended. At the same time, they pander to any businessperson willing
to back them, aim to cut corporation tax and make Scotland more
competitive (i.e. intensify the exploitation of labour) and, despite
their environmental image, fully support the expansion of the oil
industry through potentially disastrous deepwater drilling. This
contradiction is summed up by Alex Salmond posing as he listens
sympathetically to community campaigners and then hobnobbing with the
likes of Brian Souter, Rupert Murdoch or Donald Trump (before that blew
up in his face).
What should anarchists be doing? Iâve been involved in a few âdonât
vote, organizeâ campaigns in past elections but there isnât much of a
case for actively campaigning against independence â especially since
itâs unlikely that an open Scottish border would impede cross-border
solidarity. To do so would be to de facto support the Unionists and it
needs to be emphasized that each side of the debate represents a
different nationalism. In truth, I donât feel strongly about people
voting in the referendum. If they think itâs worth the chance of, for
example, finally getting rid of the nukes, rather than buying into
nationalism, then I can understand that. As anarchists, we obviously
shouldnât argue for voting but nor should we fetishize the act of not
voting. Of far more importance is that we are outside of the narrative
and critique all political managers.
The Unionists (Labour, the Tories and LibDems) already come across as a
crowd of imperial stormtroopers offering nothing but more of the same.
However, especially since the left are unequivocally backing Scottish
nationalism, thereâs been little in the way of a challenge to the
pro-independence campâs claims or rhetoric of offering a social
democratic alternative. Are we to believe the SNP will be different from
other politicians and live up to all they promise? An independent
government will have a substantial debt and still face the wider
economic crisis; it will therefore have to rationalize its budget, drop
promises and make cuts. We need only look at their current record to see
this in action: although Scotland under the SNP has frequently been
described as a safe haven for the welfare state in comparison to England
there have been considerable cuts in NHS Scotland and an appreciable
rundown in the service hospitals provide. Similarly, the SNP have been
involved in cuts to services in councils across the country. This is, of
course, what political managers have to do.
Scottish nationalists of all stripes claim that independence will
represent a dramatic extension of democracy. Needless to say, âweâ will
not have control over our own destiny if Scotland were to gain
independence. Talk of Scots ruling themselves and of self-determination
is an appealing rhetoric which masks the continuity of the class system:
the working class will not suddenly become empowered but wealth and
power will remain concentrated in the hands of a few. It is possible
that independence will allow for social movements in Scotland to have a
greater degree of influence but there will also be new opportunities for
these movements to be co-opted. The decision-making power of the
Scottish state itself will always be subject to the vagaries of global
capital, the movement of transnationals, the bullying of London and
controlling eye of the EU and IMF. More importantly, having a smaller
nation state wonât lead to ever smaller democratic units and it wonât
replace representative democracy with participative, direct democracy.
To suggest otherwise is simply naĂŻve, and misunderstands that working
class people can only gain power for themselves through struggle.
The democratic myth is a large part of leftistsâ justification for
supporting an independent state. The Scottish Socialist Party sees it as
a means for rejuvenating their brand of parliamentary socialism which,
relying as it does on electioneering and the state, is basically a
vision of Old Labour in a Scottish context: nationalization, progressive
taxation etc. Capitalism, as always, isnât actually threatened, itâs
accepted with the hope of greater state intervention and welfare. One of
their platforms, the Republican Communist Network, bends over backwards
to argue that Scottish independence is part of a strategy for
âinternationalism from belowâ. In this view, secession would be a
significant attack on British imperialism. But British imperialism is a
pale shadow of its former self, probably doesnât require Scotland and
isnât of intrinsic importance to capitalism anyway.
Simply put, there is no reason to believe that in an independent
Scotland libertarian socialist organizing would be in real terms any
easier or that because of its existence we would see an upsurge in class
struggle. Having the political class closer to home doesnât necessarily
make replacing them any less difficult. If anything, the intensification
of the nationalist project championed by all apparently âprogressiveâ
opinion could have a significant effect in mystifying power and class
relations and undermining the self-organisation of the working class in
favour of its passivity and support for new forms of failed ideas. The
best way we can put our case across is not through debate of abstract
beliefs but through our ideas being embodied in actually existing
organization and having the ability to achieve small changes through
direct action and build on them. The success of workersâ solidarity in
Scotland will be vilified equally by nationalists of both sides of the
debate but supported by militant workers in England and the rest of the
world.
Lastly, I mentioned that Scottish national identity was in part
maintained from below. What I mean by this is that the working class did
experience cultural and political oppression as well as economic
exploitation and that in Scotland they often reacted to this by relating
it to concepts of national difference. Throughout modern Scottish
history, workersâ movements have used the idea of a Scottish nation,
some form of home rule, or even a socialist republic as a means to
advocate their own power, cultures and meanings in opposition to
centralized control. For anarchists, this was an alienated resistance
which could never have challenged the real basis of their oppression in
class society. Instead of writing off these movements, however, we can
recognise that wrapped up in the rhetoric is a genuine aspiration for
self-determination. We need to argue against Scottish nationalists or
anyone who pushes state solutions from co-opting the term
âself-determinationâ because it could only ever truly mean workersâ
directly democratic control of society.