DEVOLUTION Were We Right?

Scan page 8

The 3rd International, formed to fight the betrayals of the Dear comrade editor, My respect for Socialist Press took a sharp nosedive when 1 read John Lister's article on Scotland. (January 19).

Comrade Lister's confusion, and ultra-lett posturing, stem from one central misconception, le. that the political situation in Scotland is the same as in Newcastle, Liverpool or the West Country.

These areas share similar economic problems with Scotland, but Scotland is not a city or a region of England-it is a nation; a rather complex nation which shares many common features with England, but which also displays important differences.

LARGEST Right now there is a difference in the way in which many Scottish people, (ie sections of the working class and the petit-bourgeoisie) have responded to the crisis of British capitalism; the Scottish National Party has carved out at least a third of the votes at recent elections, and nas become the largest political party in Scotland.

In response to this the government has proposed a Scottish Assembly, and this is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Labour Movement, although sections want a far greater degree of legislative power than is presently proposed at Westminister.

In the past the majority of the Scottish people have believed their interests were best served within the existing London-centred institutions of bourgeois democracy but they have nevertheless always considered Scotland to be a nation, (even their irritation at insular philistines like comrade Lister, who thought of their nation as just another region of England did not shake their faith in the Union).

Because of this national consciousness, in the course of the sixties and early seventies they came to believe that their interests were not best served by the existing structures. Comrade Lister and I would prefer them to select capitalism as the main source of their problems, but that does not alter the facts of what happened.

Comrade Lister is right in saying that Marxists should oppose separation in the current situation, Scotland does not suffer ist domination.

However, that does not finish the story; what should be the attitude of Marxists, if, despite our best efforts, the vast majority of the Scottish people (and Scotland that means the vast majority of workers as well), were to demand separation?

Lenin has given us a very concrete answer. He said of the separation of Norway from Sweden that the Norwegian workers ought to oppose separation, and preach closer unity with the Swedish working class, but that:

*Swedish Social Democrats would have betrayed the cause of Socialism and democracy if they had not fought with all their might to... demand, not only equality of nations in general... but also the right of nations to self-determination, Norway's right to secede" (The Right of Nations to Self-determination).

Comrade Lister on the other hand says that only in a situation where it is possible to set up a soviet system, would Scotland and Wales have the right to secede. were right to state that imperialist domination is not a factor in Scotland. The economic oppression of Scotland is not a national question but the impact of the crisis of British capitalism.

It is for this reason we said that the issues at stake in Scotland jobs, wages, cuts, etc) are not fundamentally different from those in depressed areas in England.

And just as we would rigorously oppose any grouping that attempted to tell workers in Cornwall or Newcastle that setting up a regional government in those areas would ease the problems they face, branding such ideas as a diversion, SO we think that to give the slightest credibility to the concept of devolution or the Bill itself is absolutely wrong.

Indeed, contrary to comrade Purdie's claim, we has 'e never said Lenin, again, has anticipated comrade Lister:

"The old polemic conducted by the Polish Social Democrats against the self-determination of nations is based entirely on the argument that it is "impracticable" under capitalism. As long ago as 1903 we Iskra supporters laughed at this argument •.. In general political democracy is merely one of the possible forms of superstructure above capitalism the facts show that both capitalism and imperialism develop within the framework of any political form and subordinate them all. It is therefore a basic theoretical error to speak of the "impracticability" of one of the forms and one of the demands of democracy." (The Discussion on Self-determination Summed Up).

DEMOCRATIC DEMAND The demand for a Scottish Assembly, with a genuine degree of legislative autonomy, is a democratic demand which is quite distinct from the demand for separation.

It is a demand with an impressive pedigree; Lenin, in the very article quoted by Comrade Lister, said:

"Far from precluding local self-government, with autonomy for regions having special economic and social conditions a distinct national composition of the population and SO forth, democratic centralism necessarily demands both." (Critical Remarks on the National And in State and Revolution he quotes Engels as saying that a federal republic:

... would be a step forward in Britain where the two islands are peopled by four nations and in spite of a single parliament three different systems of legislation already exist side by side"

NOT OPPOSED This demand is a means of extending democracy and preventing the national question from obstructing working class unity.

Comrade Lister's most bizarre argument is that the line of the IMG is to "separate the political struggles in Scotland from those of the British working class as a whole'.

The IMG has not opposed the strong organic links between the Scottish and the Welsh and English workers, and to date these have not