Scotland

A difference of degree

Mass picket of the Gap store in Glasgow on International Women's Day

In most material respects Scotland is not significantly different from England. The Scots have a high degree of national consciousness, but for the majority this has never been transformed into support for Scottish nationalism as a political movement. The reason for this, which also makes the situation still more complex, is the fact that the Scottish identity was largely shaped after the Act of Union--that is, within the context of the British state. It was only after 1707, in reality after 1746, that the divisions between the Highlands and the Lowlands were overcome, and a unified Scottish nation could emerge. But because it did so as part of another nation--Britain--the Scots inherited a dual national identity. The political implications of this are twofold.

On the one hand, most Scots have tended to see politics in a British context, not simply because the existence of the British state made this inevitable, but because in this respect the British side of their dual identity has been dominant. The British aspect of Scottish national identity has no fixed political content--it has embraced both support for British imperialism and united British working class action. On the other hand, the strength of Scottish national identity proper means that events which would be seen as straightforward class issues elsewhere in Britain, such as factory closures, are almost always treated as 'national'. Again, the implications of this are deeply contradictory. During the 1980s and 1990s, as a result of the perceived illegitimacy of Tory rule (after 1987 they only had ten out of 72 Scottish seats at Westminster, but continued to rule Scotland), national consciousness became associated with opposition to Thatcherism, and with social democratic attitudes more generally. At the same time, this often expressed itself in deeply divisive campaigns to save 'Scottish' steel, coal and textiles instead of a united British campaign.

It was into this mess of national contradictions, from which the Tories had been electorally obliterated, that New Labour took office on 2 May 1997. Part of Blair's modernisation project applied to the apparently safe and 'classless' process of changing constitutional arrangements, such as House of Lords reform, a mayor and assembly for London, and devolution for Scotland and Wales.

A strong Scottish parliament

Scottish devolution was slightly different from the rest, however. A second question was added to the referendum asking voters to say whether the parliament should have 'tax varying'--which effectively meant tax raising--powers. Blair apparently expected the hogs to vote with their wallets and against the second part, but a 61.5 percent poll produced 74 percent for the parliament and 63 percent for 'tax varying' powers. Most Scots voters seem to have treated the referendum as a continuation of the general election--a means of punishing the Tories, who campaigned for a no vote. For some it was also an opportunity to show their suspicion of New Labour--a strong Scottish parliament, they reasoned, might act as a defence against more than one political party.

Stuck with a parliament more powerful than he would have wished, Blair imposed an electoral system which supplemented the usual 'first past the post' system with 'list MSPs' elected on a proportional representation basis, albeit on the most undemocratic model available. Although this made it possible for Tommy Sheridan to be elected, it favoured the larger parties and was specifically designed to make a coalition with the Liberal Democrats virtually inevitable, thus weakening Labour's trade union and working class links (and providing a ready scapegoat for policy failures). It also allowed the electoral resurrection of several Scottish Tory MSPs after their extinction in the 1997 general election.

Following the May 1999 elections the SNP became the official opposition to the Labour/Liberal Democrat government within the parliament. This, more than any other factor, has driven New Labour policy in Scotland. In order to outmanoeuvre the SNP, to make devolution rather than independence the last stage of constitutional change, the parliament and executive must be seen to pursue their own policies. In order to defeat Scottish nationalism New Labour panders to Scottish national consciousness.

This, then, is the core reason for the Scottish difference. It has produced a series of discrete token gestures rather than the beginning of a golden age of reformism. Moreover, they also contain a inbuilt contradiction, which both the Tories and the SNP have been only too pleased to point out. For devolution to work, the Scottish parliament must show that it is independent of Blair and Westminster. But the more it demonstrates this independence, the more pressure there will be for it to go further.

Holyrood offers us a number of opportunities. Its existence provides a target for demonstrations and lobbying which is considerably easier to get to than Westminster! (And, unlike Westminster, you can actually demonstrate directly outside the parliament building.) It has already proved useful to campaigning organisations to draw on the support of locally based left wing MSPs in the Labour Party and the SNP. The form of proportional representation used in elections makes it easier for minority parties like the SSP to get candidates elected than it is for the Socialist Alliance, and the coalitions which it tends to produce means that left Labour MSPs can exercise a greater influence than they could in Westminster. On the other hand, there are reasons why a concentration on Holyrood alone is dangerous. Westminster retains final authority over a number of so called 'reserved areas' of policy on which Holyrood can comment but not intervene. Education apart, these are areas central to the operation of the state, like defence. So one of the most important campaigns currently being waged in Scotland, over the closure of the nuclear submarine base at Faslane, is not an issue over which the executive has any say.

The anti-capitalist movements which crystallised around Seattle quite consciously reject parochial concerns for the international approach embodied in the slogan 'Globalise resistance'. Socialists in Scotland cannot ignore this. We are opposed to Son of Star Wars regardless of whether Scottish bases are involved or not. It is absolutely certain that the limits of how far the Scottish Labour Party is prepared to diverge from the Blair leadership will be very quickly reached. At that point, the outcome will depend on the response of the working class in Scotland--a response whose militancy and ideological clarity will be at least partly determined by how successful the Scottish Socialist Party has been in building roots in the working class.