ANOTHER FALSE - scottishsocialistparty.org · £1 •issue 439 •30th May –12th June 2014 ... role it must play in the drive to ... Here is a public school-boy, millionaire merchant

£1 • issue 439 • 30th May–12th June 2014facebook.com/scottishsocialistvoice

Food banks: DWP directorsays people ‘welcome thejolt’ of benefit sanctions

• see page 7

facebook.com/ScottishSocialistVoice @ssv_voice

ANOTHER FALSEFARAGE CLAIMAS HE BACKSTHE NO CAMP

“I’m the only politician keepingthe flame of thatcherism alive,”says UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

No he isn’t! All the No men sing from the

same hymn sheet, and:• BACK ANtI-UNION LAWS• BACK tRIDeNt NUKeS• PAmPeR the RICh • DemONISe the POOR• CUt SeRVICeS • BACK PRIVAtISAtION• PUt PROFIt BeFORe PeOPLe

As Westminster takesanother lurch towards a newthatcherite nightmare of cuts,sackings, poverty and war, theScottish Socialist Party says: VOte YeS FOR AReAL ALteRNAtIVe!

New pamphlet: For aModern DemocraticRepublic by Colin Fox

• see pages 8&9

EDITORIALby Ken Ferguson

FIRST THE context. Across England, the right

wing populists of UKIPemerged from the Euro poll infirst place. In Scotland, theycame fourth, scraping a seatahead of the Greens.

That is not complacency,simply fact. But that is not thesame as suggesting that theUKIP surge is of noconsequence for Scottishpolitics – it is.

Puzzled commentators whoportray the UKIP rise asdemonstrating an “anti-politics”mood which is part of a widermood sweeping both the UKand Europe really are missingthe point. The truth is thatsince the rise of neoliberaleconomics, which removed allcontrols on big capital and sawde-industrialisation and massjob cuts undermining livingstandards, mainstreampoliticians have increasinglyacted as cheerleaders for thefat cats.

UKIP coverage This process, underway

since the Thatcher era andcarried on by a deeplycompromised New Labour,was masked in the era ofcheap and easy credit whichended with the 2008 crash.

Now a brutal reality offalling wages, insecure jobs,benefit cuts and zero hourscontracts faces millions andthe mainstream parties haveno coherent answer sincethey are actually part of theproblem as supporters of thesystem causing it.

This is the underlyingcause of the support for theapparently easy answersoffered by UKIP and theirEuropean counterparts.

That this was in largemeasure driven by thesaturation coverage of UKIPoffered by the mainstreammedia is part of the reasonfor their sweeping gains and

a Scottish seat where theyare a negligible presence onthe ground. However, it alsohas implications both for thebroad sweep of progressiveopinion in Scotland and therole it must play in the drive towin a Yes vote in September.

Tentative discussions lastyear about the possibilities ofa Red/Green candidate orslate came to nothing, yet thefigures indicate that such aformation might just havemobilised sufficient extravotes to win the last Euroseat and halt UKIP.

More widely it alsounderlines the urgent need forthe ideas and vision of the left

and green forces campaigningfor a Yes vote to get beyondthe pages of the broadsheetpress and present concreteproposals to voters in a clearand popular form.

Loyalty to a party or groupcannot be allowed to stand inthe way of such an approach,and talk of any one forceplaying the leading role is thistask are deeply unhelpful.

Both the SSP and theVoice have proposed that away that this can be achievedcould be through a CommonProgramme for the left,covering a range of policiesin a succinct statement ofwhat a Yes vote can deliver.

Issues in such a programmecould include workers rights,public ownership of greenenergy, ambitious targets forrented house building, actionon low pay and zero hoursamong others.

Such an approach leavesopen discussion of thecontents of such aprogramme and, crucially,does not require the buildingof new organisations orparties but the support of theexisting parts of theindependence left.

Key battleThe prospect of a No vote,

followed by a Tory/UKIPvictory, is indeed close to aDoomsday scenario not justfor Scottish democracy butour entire social fabric.

The Euro poll makes thetask of winning a Yes voteeven more urgent, and in thatkey battle the role of the leftin mobilising the workingclass majority is central.

Time to be bold inwake of Euro poll

Now a brutal reality of falling wages, insecure jobs, benefit cuts and zero hours contracts

faces millions and the mainstreamparties have no coherent answersince they are actually part of theproblem as supporters of the systemcausing it...

2 • Scottish Socialist Voice • issue 439

FOUR SHADES OF BLUE: UKIP, Labour and the ConDems offer nothing but different brands of Thatcherism

COLIN FOXby Colin Fox

AS THE polls predicted, theright wing UKIP has again dom-inated the European elections inBritain, winning more votes andmore seats than any other party. And although Farage’s party

trailed in behind the SNP, Labourand the Tories in Scotland, some140,000 Scots voted for their‘dog-whistle’ brand of racist poli-tics to elect their first representa-tive here. Why did they win? Andwhat are the likely consequencesfor the independence referendum? Incredible as it may seem,

UKIP, with its Home Countiesbase and right wing views, areregarded not just as an anti-EUand anti-immigrant party but alsoas ‘outsiders’ by the British po-litical establishment. The moreNigel Farage is attacked by thechattering classes and the metro-politan political elite, the morepopular he appears to become.

Merchant bankersThis is a remarkable achieve-

ment given he is himself part ofthat elite. Here is a public school-boy, millionaire merchant bankerand former Tory, now mas-querading as a ‘rebel’ who stickstwo fingers up to EU bureaucratsand corrupt Westminster politi-cians whilst blaming immigrantsand claimants for a crisis causeby merchant bankers! Whatever else may be said

about his odious, reactionarymessage it is clear, simple andoften repeated. UKIP dominatedthese elections with a view thatis not difficult to comprehend. Those looking for simple an-

swers, easy scapegoats and an

‘ordinary guy’ hero rushed tohim in their droves. His face wasnever off our TV screens and hismessage was sponsored by sev-eral tabloid newspapers. Millions of Britons in the mid-

dle of the worst recession in 80years have seen their wages fall17 per cent on average since2010 whilst the cost of basiccommodities like gas and elec-tricity has doubled. Yet instead ofturning to the left for answers,they have turned to the right. Whilst the turnout in Scotland

was only 33 per cent, there iswidespread revulsion at the po-litical elite who are seen as bothcorrupt and completely out oftouch with ordinary people andtheir lives. Like it or not, for mil-lions of voters immigration isnow the ‘dog whistle’ issue at thecentre of British politics.

We are asked by UKIP to ig-nore the fact that immigrantsmake this country wealthier bycoming here, that they pay farmore taxes into the UK Treasurythan they take out, that our NHSand other key services benefitenormously from their labour,that immigrants come here forwork not for paltry benefits, thatyoung workers from Poland andSpain have halted Scotland’spopulation decline, that our qual-ity of life is greatly improved bymulticulturalism and that Scotsthemselves have emigrated forcenturies in search of a better life. The right has persuaded some

people that the collapse in theirliving standards has been causedby immigrants and claimants(who either work too cheaply ornot at all) rather than the bankersand corporate capitalism. This ex-

plains why the right has done sowell in these elections and the left,such as it is, has done so badly. The left must do much better

in clarifying our message, deliv-ering it with aplomb and con-fronting the racism of UKIP andits Tory, Labour and Lib Dem‘bedfellows’ in this debate. The results of these elections

will of course be fiercely con-tested in so far as they tell us any-thing about the independencedebate. The Yes side arguedUKIP was a xenophobic, far-right, English party by and largerejected by voters here.

Grip of xenophobiaThat view is undermined

somewhat by the fact 140,000Scots voted for them. Yet Scot-land by and large does rejectracist xenophobia whilst Englandis in the grip of it. UKIP toppedthe poll in England whereas theycame fourth in Scotland. However, it would have been

much better for Yes if UKIP hadnot secured a Euro seat here. Finally the last word on these

elections goes to that ‘expert’ onScottish politics, the BradfordMP George Galloway who ap-parently suggested UKIP and theSNP were merely ‘two cheeks ofthe same arse’. This idiotic re-mark surely secures for Gal-loway the title of the biggest‘arse’ in Scottish politics today?

The prospects for a Yesvote after Euro election

issue 439 • Scottish Socialist Voice • 3

Always the bridesmaid: further disappointment for GreensTHE SCOTTISHGreens’ failure willagain disappoint thosewho felt they were thebest electoral vehiclefor halting UKIP’sdrive into Scotland. They secured 8.5 per

cent of the vote (up

from 7.5 per cent in2009). This suggeststhey lack wider appealas ‘the torchbearer ofradical andprogressive politics inScotland’ as theirelection press releasesclaimed. Writing in

Bella Caledonia, MikeSmall of the ScottishIndependenceConvention went evenfurther: “The harsh truth is

the Greens lackcharisma, popularismand bite. The SGP is

rootless and unable toreach beyond theGuardianista.” In due course, the

Greens shall reflect onwhat might have been. Had they joined a

Red/Green allianceproposed by some in

the Greens and theSSP this time last year,it could have made thedifference. And itmight also have beenthe test bed for asimilar initiative in themore fruitful Holyroodelections of 2016.

DIFFERENT COUNTRIES:Nigel the first of England,fourth of Scotland, was neveroff our TV screens and hismessage was sponsored byseveral tabloid newspapers

WORKPLACE


by Richie Venton, SSPnational workplaceorganiser

THE ELECTION of 24 UKIPMEPs; the fact they topped thepoll in England; their massivelyincreased share of the vote (up11 points since 2009 to 27.5 percent) and the open calls of someTories for a pact or coalition withthem for Westminster govern-ments, should be a loud, fright-ening wake-up call to workers inScotland who are ponderingwhat to do on 18 September.Largely buried from view by

the sycophantic media that hasconsciously built them up as ameans to siphon off the growingdisgust with the mainstreamparties that might otherwise beattracted to voices on the left –is UKIP’s rank hypocrisy andtheir viciously anti-workingclass agenda.UKIP appeals to people ru-

ined by the crisis in capitalism.The likes of small business peo-ple and sections of workers fac-ing destitution and desperationdue to the chronic shortage ofdecent jobs and housing.

UKIP corruptionUntrammeled capitalism,

deregulated under successiveTory and Labour governments,has meant a cataclysmic shockto people’s systems, their senseof stability, so some grab atUKIP’s easy sounding explana-tions: their scapegoating of im-migrants, their denunciation ofEU bureaucracy, their demoni-sation of the allegedly ‘work-shy’, and their railing againstthe corruption of the three bigpro-capitalist parties in Britain.The hypocrisy and inconsis-

tency of UKIP on these issues isnauseating – but rarely if ever ex-posed by a media which hashoisted them to prominence ratherthan risk the anger of ruinedworkers finding a voice on the so-cialist left. Whilst thunderingagainst corruption and ‘foreign-ers’, UKIP’s election strategistwas Neil Hamilton, former Tory

MP, expelled from Westminsterfor taking cash in brown en-velopes off Mohamed al Fayed.In the same vein, Farage

claimed £2million in expensesas an MEP up to the year 2009– and chose his German wifefrom amongst 400 (British) ap-plicants for the job of his parlia-mentary secretary.Two of the twelve UKIP

MEPs elected in 2004 were ex-pelled for money launderingand false accounts.Farage was recently rumbled

for his secret tax account – a taxdodge – in the Isle of Man, butthe mainstream media let it dropas an issue after a few days, instark contrast to their houndingof so-called benefit cheats, dayand daily, for years.So much for UKIP’s anti-cor-

ruption ticket – a potent weaponof appeal amongst a populationheartily sick of the corruption ofBritish politics.UKIP’s brutal anti-immigrant

propaganda has not and can notbe countered by any of the big

parties in Westminster, for thesimple reason they first createdthe platform for UKIP to pourout their bile, and because theyTory to one extent or anothershare their scapegoating of ‘for-eigners’ for the unemploymentand poor housing blighting cap-italist Britain.

Right wing claptrapNot a word from the British

establishment that contrary tothe xenophobic rants of UKIP,the NHS depends on 40 per centof its nursing staff and 30 percent of its doctors coming fromabroad, and that it would col-lapse without immigration.Not a single headline to high-

light the Manchester Universityreport that last year alone, im-migrants to the UK contributed(in taxes) over £8.8billion morethan they took back in any formof benefit.One incident sums up the fact

that UKIP is dragging the othermajor parties to the right, ratherthan Labour countering their

right wing British nationalistclaptrap: UKIP pounded the To-ries into declaring a ban on allaccess to benefits and the NHSto immigrants for their first twoyears of residence. Labour rightly denounced

this as terrible...and then saidthey would only do it for thefirst ONE year!!It’s impossible to counter

UKIP on jobs, wages, housingand immigration without advo-cating a socialist solution to theproblems causing havoc to mil-lions facing the consequencesof capitalism’s crash. We need masses of work

done, for instance, to tacklehomelessness, slum housing,overcrowding and fuel poverty.If the government funded coun-cils and local housing associa-tions to build, renovate andinsulate hundreds of thousandsof houses in Scotland in thelifespan of the first independentparliament, that would createjobs and apprenticeships, aswell as cutting poverty. And the

UKIP: nofriend toworkers

WORKPLACE


jobs could be well paid, with adecent living minimum wage,which would counter the ‘raceto the bottom’ favoured by cap-italist employers and successiveWestminster governments. Andif some of those doing the workcame from abroad, most peoplewouldn’t care, so long as therewere plenty of jobs for all. Add to that the potential

Klondike available from greenenergy in Scotland, where hun-dreds of thousands could be em-ployed to develop, build andoperate clean energy supplies,not for private profit but forpublic need.In turn these and other job-

creating measures would requirefunding from progressive taxa-tion of the obscenely rich – in-cluding the ten richest Scots whobetween them own wealth of£12billion – plus democraticpublic ownership of energy, con-struction, banking and transport.And that’s a million miles

from what UKIP offers workingclass people.

“I’m the only politician keepingthe flame of Thatcherism alive.”It wasn’t Cameron or Clegg

who said that, though it could be!Nor Ed Miliband, though inpractice it would be true of NewLabour’s devotion to the so-called ‘free market’ and capitalistinequality. It was the ‘man of thepeople’, the cheeky chap downthe pub, UKIP’s Nigel Farage.

PrivatisationUKIP has a totally contradic-

tory clutch of policies, designedto fool different people intobacking them.They openly support privati-

sation of the NHS, to permitpeople to jump the queue bybeing able to pay for it.They want to privatise big

chunks of the education system,with vouchers for parents to buyplaces in private schools.They generally want more

‘free trade’, ‘deregulation’ ofbusiness and rampant privatisa-tion – former City of Londontrader Farage is truly keeping

the flame of Thatcherism alive.UKIP want to abolish the statu-tory 5.6 weeks of paid annualholidays workers have won inthis country through genera-tions of trade union struggle.They even want to end statu-

tory redundancy pay – ‘freetrade’ capitalism means totalfreedom to exploit workers.As well as opposing women

on company boards on thegrounds that UKIP think womenare inferior players of poker,chess and bridge, they want toslash maternity pay by 50 percent to a miserly £64 a week!In the face of obscene new

levels of inequality – whichfuels the anger and disillusion-ment of millions with the tradi-tional political parties who helpcreate these conditions, whichin turn UKIP taps into with pop-ulist demagogy – they advocatea flat rate income tax. So under a UKIP (or

Tory/UKIP coalition) Westmin-ster government, low paidworkers and the middle class

would pay proportionately farmore of their incomes in taxthan the bankers, mineral-ex-ploiting capitalists, billionairesand landowners who dominateownership of wealth.

Race to the topUKIP plays on real fears and

insecurities in the face of astorm of capitalist assaults onworking class conditions. But their policies would lay

waste to all the concessionswon by past generations ofworkers; divide the workingclass and therefore undermineour ability to fight back; andwould mean an accelerated raceto the bottom for working classpeople in the jungle of primitivecapitalism UKIP favours.Workers need Scottish inde-

pendence to escape the prisonof a Tory/UKIP government;unity in struggle against capital-ist exploitation; and socialistchange to ensure a ‘race to thetop’ on jobs, wages, housingand democratic rights.

BRITANNIA WAIVES THE RULES: two of the twelve UKIP MEPs elected in 2004 were expelled for money laundering and false accounts

EUROPEAN ELECTIONS


Bill Bonnar examines theEuropean results

A DRAMATIC move to theright or a popular, if misguided,protest against the mainstreampolitical establishment. The Eu-ropean elections results were amixture of both.

In England, UKIP dominatedthe political landscape emergingas the largest party while in Scot-land they sneaked in the back doorclaiming the last seat on the list.

Much has been made in themedia about UKIP’s result inScotland but its breakthrough hasbeen overstated. UKIP remain amarginal force in Scotland whiledriving much of the politicalagenda in England.

Across Europe there were biggains for the Radical Right withits heady mixture of racism, xeno-phobia and reactionary populism.

A common theme is that theseparties have breaking the mouldof established politics although itmight be more accurate to say thatthe established political mouldwas never an accurate reflectionof political reality and sometimesreality breaks through.

EstablishmentWhat are described as the es-

tablishment parties are in fact par-ties of the Centre. These partieswant to maintain the status quoand their main appeal to the elec-torate is one of competence.Which party can best manage thesystem in order to preserve it.

They share the same aims, op-erate to the same agenda and havemore or less the same policies.

That’s why there is no real dif-ference between a Labour orConservative government inBritain, between the ChristianDemocrats and Social Democ-rats in Germany or for that matterbetween the Democrats and Re-publicans in the United States.

Part of what happened was abacklash against this manufac-tured consensus; particularly asthat consensus argued that therewas no alternative to austerityand for the need to support

those economic forces whichcaused the crash in 2008.

In Britain, the very sight ofDavid Cameron, Nick Clegg andEd Miliband – all looking andsounding identical – reinforcedthe sense that Britain was beinggoverned by a metropolitan elitecompletely divorced from thelives of ordinary people.

The most worrying aspect inBritain and much of the rest ofEurope is that this political disaf-fection has been exploited so suc-cessfully by parties of the RadicalRight with big gains by the Na-tional Front in France and similarmovements in countries as di-verse a Hungary and Denmark.

Mass anger against austerityand what are seen as out of touchpolitical elites have found easytargets in migrants and the EUpolicies which have allowedmass migration across the conti-nent. Although the term Eu-rosceptic is often used to definethese parties this is a red herring.

Most of their votes came frompeople for whom membership ofthe EU is not particularly highon their agendas. It was the overtracism and xenophobia of these

parties which allowed them tohoover up so many votes.

This process was helped by theresponse from parties of the cen-tre whether conservative or socialdemocrat. Instead of confrontingthese poisonous movements theirapproach has been one of appease-ment which has only served to le-gitimise many of their positions.

Whether it be the Conserva-tives in Hungary whose approachto the openly fascist JobbikMovement has been to borrowmany of their policies or theBritish Labour Party foreverapologising for their immigrationpolicies; their stances have onlyhelped fuel these movements.

Some left gainsIt was not all bad news. In some

countries popular discontent re-sulted in increased support for theleft most notably in Greece wherethe Syrza Movement topped thepolls and in Spain where therewere big gains for the United Left.

In Scotland too much thoughthas been given to the election ofa UKIP MEP. While this hasgone some way to spoil the nar-rative that Scotland and England

are divergent politically it is onlyup to a point. UKIP scraped in asthe sixth of six MEPs witharound 10 per cent of the vote.

There were two major reasonsfor this. One was the astonishinglevel of publicity the party re-ceived with the BBC, effectivelypouring UKIP’s English cam-paign into Scotland. In fact, UKIPreceived more publicity than allthe other Scottish parties put to-gether. Second, a tactical split inthe anti-UKIP vote with manypeople voting SNP and othersvoting for the Greens in an at-tempt to stop UKIP’s election.

If most of those tactical vot-ers had voted decisively for onerather than the other, UKIPwould not have been elected.

What cannot be denied is thatthe prospect of Labour winningthe next general election is di-minishing rapidly removingwon the of the central planks ofthe No campaign in Scotland.

The next general election willbe driven by an agenda set byUKIP with Labour and Conser-vatives running fast to catch up.

If that is not a reason to voteYes in the referendum, what is?

RIGHT GAINS ON HEADY MIXOF RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA

JOBBIK: the appeasement stance of centrist parties has fuelled a rise in far right movements across Europe

WELFARE


by Sandra Webster

THE NORMALLY publicity-seeking Tory employment min-ister Esther McVey was askedto attend the Scottish Parlia-ment’s welfare committee latelast month. She declined but in-stead sent Neil Couling, workservices director of the DWP.It really made no difference

that the minister wasn’t in atten-dance as the mandarin spokewith his master’s voice. Usingcold statistics as his weapon ofchoice, he attempted to explainthat benefit sanctions weregood for those who receivedthem, and food bank use wasnot demand but supply led. Heattributed the growth in theirusage as people “maximisingtheir economic choices”.Try telling this to the million

plus Scots who have beenforced to depend on food banksto survive this year. Coulingblamed the increase on theTrussell Trust and their “evan-gelical mission” to have a foodbank in every town. He claimedpoor people just act the sameas rich people in seeking per-sonal gain. Try telling this to ayoung man who I spoke to yes-terday who due to sanctioninghas had no electricity in hishome for the past four days. Nolight, heating or access to a hotmeal. Is his having to access afood bank an optional extra?

‘Welcome the jolt’Couling had obviously been

briefed to deny the link betweenbenefit reforms and sanctionsand food bank usage. He dis-missed academic research aspurely anecdotal. He said ben-efit sanctions were not meant tobe punitive but a “wake up call.”People “welcome the jolt”.Rather than describe the sto-

ries of individuals shared by thewelfare committee he preferredto call them cases. After allwhen you dehumanise some-one there is no need to thinkabout the impact the benefitcuts and sanctions are having

on them. Benefit sanctionshave increased 209 per centsince 2006. They silently targetpeople causing misery in every-day lives throughout Scotland. People become more isolated

and know no way to get adviceand solidarity. They may be ap-plied by job centres for trivialreasons including not applyingfor enough jobs on universal jobmatch sites to being late for ap-pointments. Those affected aregiven no benefit unless theyapply for hardship allowance.Some claim that there may

be targets for individual advis-ers. Couling claimed that jobcentres had acted in error andwere no longer applying this. It is of interest though that

when the Citizen’s Advice Bu-reau in West Dumbartonshirepublished a damning report intothe number of sanctions in theirarea, the number of sanctionsapplied decreased significantly.Like his Tory masters, Couling

refused to admit the link be-tween food bank use and ben-efit reforms it had nothing to dowith the DWP. Just an exampleof people “maximising theireconomic choices”. Sincewhen did poverty and hardshipbecome an economic choice?Like the much maligned ‘ToomTabard’, his words are emptyand without meaning.If you convert real lives to

case studies it is much easier toimplement policies that will im-pact on so many peoples’ lives. The reforms are part of a

campaign to transform the ben-efit system. It will no longer bea safety net but will provide lessthan the basics people willneed to survive. Couling wasquick to compare the amount ofpeople being fed in food banksin Canada to that of the UK. The Trussell Trust estimated

60,000 people use food banksin the UK while 700,000 peopleare fed by them in Canada.

In Canada and America theyare an essential part of the wel-fare system not an extra sup-port. Rapidly we are movingtowards the position that foodbanks become an integral partof our community. This wouldnot be acceptable in an inde-pendent Scotland.The language used by Coul-

ing shows how the thoughts ofIain Duncan Smith are beingtranslated into the every daylives of people who are on workrelated benefits. They are ac-cused of lying and using foodbanks, not out of necessity butto get extra. He compares thepoor to the rich who can manip-ulate the tax system for theirown greed but we know there isa vast chasm between their be-haviour and the very basichuman need of having enoughto feed your family and yourself.

At a crossroadsAfter the Euro results, we are

at a crossroads. We may endup with a UKIP/Tory coalition atWestminster. UKIP have beenshady about their other viewsbut for libertarian read everyman for himself with cuts toservices guaranteed, as well asthe continuing diatribe of ha-tred towards the poor.We also have the prospect of

an independent Scotland withthe opportunity for change. A place where no one is left

behind no matter their needs. In the next few crucial

months let’s campaign for aYes vote with all our strength.It is a prize worth winning. The alternative looms in the

shadows. Let’s keep it there.

Growth in food bank usejust people ‘maximisingtheir economic choices’

NEIL COULING: DWP director saidsome people‘welcome the jolt’of benefit sanctions

MONARCHY


THE SSP will shortlypublish the pamphlet For aModern Democratic Republic.Written by SSP national co-spokesperson Colin Fox, thebooklet highlights the needfor an elected, representativeand accountable head ofstate as part of the currentdebate on Scotland’sconstitutional future. Here isa taste of the pamphlet’scontents. “And is there anything more

absurd than the hereditaryprinciple? It is as absurd as thehereditary mathematician, or ahereditary poet laureate. Thevanity and presumption ofgovernment from beyond thegrave is the most ridiculousand indolent of tyrannies.” –Thomas Paine, The Rights ofMan (1792).

Higher valuesThe SSP supports an

independent socialist Scotland,a modern, democratic,republic. For socialists theentire concept of monarchy isantiquated, class ridden andanachronistic. The world todayis guided by higher values ofdemocracy, accountability andequality. This new SSPpamphlet sets out the case fora modern democratic republicand debunks many of themyths and facile argumentsoffered in its defence. Our case for a republic

stands in our nations finestdemocratic traditions.

The same spirit ofenlightenment and progressthat propelled FrancisHutcheson, AlexanderCampbell, David Hume,Adam Smith, Dugald Stewart,Thomas Reid, Robert Burns,Adam Ferguson, JohnPlayfair, Joseph Black andJames Hutton in theirrational, scientific search forprogress and improvement in18th century Scotlandpropels us today. For the SSP, feudal

institutions based on hereditaryprivileges and ‘divine rights’passed down to monarchsfrom ‘The Almighty’ have nopart to play in modern politicalstructures and democraticconstitutions let alone at theirapex. The British monarchy isclearly not modern, it is

patently not democratic and itis certainly not egalitarian. People have been making

the case for a republicthroughout the ages often inthe face of severepunishments. They posedquestions, as we do againtoday, because they ariseinevitably and because theBritish political establishmentcontinuously fails to providesatisfactory answers. Can themonarchy ever be defended ondemocratic grounds? Whatpolitical role does the Queenplay in UK society today? Isher role really as benign as herdefendants would have usbelieve? Or does she in facthold substantial ‘CrownPowers’ in reserve for futureoccasions? Supporters of monarchy

often take this debate furtherthan they intended and end updismantling their own case.Take the Tory MP NadineDorres for example. She claimed on television

recently that “The Queen’spresence on the throne hasbrought much needed order,stability and continuity to Britainfor more than 60 years”. If so,this common justification for theMonarchy exposes her tosome very serious chargesindeed. For the questioninevitably arises where did sheget those powers? After allmonarchists like Dorres like toclaim The Queen’s is merely aceremonial role? Clearly theycannot have it both ways.

SNP and monarchyA more surprising advocate

of the monarchy is AlexSalmond. The SNP leaderinsists in the recent WhitePaper on independence that“The Queen is Head of State of15 Commonwealth countriesand could easily perform thesame function in anindependent Scotland”. But our First Minister

curiously fails to mention thatthe 53 other Commonwealthcountries refuse to have theBritish monarch as their Headof State. And in Australia, forexample, which has had three

For a moderndemocraticrepublic

To subscribe to the Scottish Socialist Voice – newspaper of the Scottish SocialistParty – fill in this form and send it to: Scottish Socialist Voice, Suite 370, 4th Floor,Central Chambers, 93 Hope Street, Glasgow G2 6LD. Or telephone: 07810205747Cheques and postal orders should be made payable to ‘Scottish Socialist Voice’Find us on Facebook: facebook.com/scottishsocialistvoice & Twitter: @ssv_voiceView PDFs at: scottishsocialistparty.org/category/socialist-voice

Name. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Emai l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I enclose: g £5 for 2 issues g £10 for 4 issues g £20 for 8 issues

MONARCHY


referenda on the issue inrecent years, half the countrynow wants to end thismonarchical rule. Jamaica, another of the 15

nations Alex Salmond cites,has just voted to drop TheQueen and become a modern,democratic, republic. The NewZealand Prime Minister alsowent on record earlier this yearto say he fully expects hiscountry to be a republic by theend of the decade. And hadQuebec secured itsindependence from Canada inits recent referendum it wouldalso have replaced the Queenas Head of State forthwith. So why does the First

Minister not mention thesefacts? Could it be because heknows himself to be on veryshaky ground indeed?Because ultimately, he pitsScotland against thedemocratic tide worldwide. Whilst no one would argue

Britain’s political institutions arerun directly from BuckinghamPalace it would be equallyfoolish to suggest themonarchy plays no role inpolitical life. It is most certainlynot an institution content toamuse tourists, entertainforeign dignitaries or fill thepages of Hello magazine. Afterall The State Opening ofParliament is not yet a privilege

afforded to Posh and Becks orthe latest winner of I’m aCelebrity Get Me Out of Here! Those who would argue this

is a benign institution might liketo consider two recent articlesfrom The Daily Telegraph andThe Guardian that again revealthe Monarchy is not content tokeep out of politics, far from it. The Telegraph reported in

January that “at least 39 Billssubject to Royal Approval havebeen vetoed by senior royalsusing their power to consent orblock laws in areas such ashigher education, paternity pay,child maintenance and Iraq”.

Defying democracyThey reveal The Queen and

Prince Charles repeatedlyimpeded the passage of Billsawaiting Royal Assent in orderto press for their preferredchanges, thus defying thedemocratic will of Parliament. “Internal Whitehall papers

prepared by the Cabinet Officelawyers,” says The Telegraph,“show that the Queen vetoedthe Military Actions Against IraqBill in 1999, which aimed totransfer the power to authorisemilitary strikes against Iraqfrom the Monarch toParliament”. Meanwhile TheGuardian has been locked in anine-year legal battle with theGovernment over access to

correspondence betweenPrince Charles and successivePrime Ministers that allegedlyshow the heir to the Britishthrone repeatedly tried toimpede the will of Parliament. The Guardian has been

repeatedly thwarted by the UKAttorney General’s Office,despite winning several courtjudgements, on the grounds“that it could causeconstitutional problems thatwould seriously damage thePrince’s ability to perform hisduties when he became Kingas it casts doubt on his politicalneutrality”. The Governmentbelieves publication of thecorrespondence “mayundermine public support forthe Monarchy”. The eminent legal scholar

John Kirkhope highlights thegravity of such monarchicalinterference: “There hasalways been an implication thatthe monarchs prerogativepowers are quaint and sweetbut actually there is realinfluence and real power, albeitunaccountable.” It is clear from both these

episodes that the powers of theMonarch real and exercisedwith astonishing regularity.These episodes serve toremind us of the powers held inreserve by the monarchy forrather more profound

challenges to the constitution.The late Christopher Hitchensput it best when he wrote (inThe Monarchy: A Critique ofBritain’s Favourite Fetish,1990): “Her Majesty’s Ministersexercise the Royal Prerogativevia ‘The Crown in Parliament’avoiding the House ofCommons altogether, makeOrders in Council [Privy],declare war and make peace,recognise foreignGovernments, sign treaties,grant Royal Pardons, grantRoyal Charters, conferHonours, confer patronage,establish Royal Commissions –not an exhaustive list butneither is it a record ofimpotence.” Do people care? The polling

company MORI estimates tenmillion people in Britain want arepublic with almost half thepopulation of Scotland said toprefer that option.

Oath protestThe SSP believes is it time

for an honest and thoroughdebate. No other party hasthe our record of challengingthe monarchy and upholdingdemocracy in this country. Our MSPs protested at

having to swear an oath ofallegiance to the Queen. We drafted the Declaration

of Calton Hill – included in theindex to this pamphlet – andwe gathered with thousandsof others to repeat our call fora modern, democratic,republic rather than attendThe Queen’s official openingof the new Holyrood buildingin October 2004. Ours was the only party to

do so. No other party inScotland can hold a candle tothe SSP’s commitment to amodern, democratic republic. We believe the wise words of

Thomas Paine (from NationalIntelligence, 1802) still ring trueregarding our political rights inthe 21st century: “To elect, andto reject, is the prerogative of afree people everywhere.”

MONARCHY IN THE UK: the Queen and Prince Charles have repeatedly defied the democratic will of Parliament

WORKPLACE


PHOTO: Simon Whittle

RMT ‘deeplyconcerned’at award ofScottishsleepercontract toSERCOby Voice Reporter

RMT ACTING generalsecretary Mick Cash,commenting on the awardof the Scottish sleeperservice to SERCO on a 15-year franchise worth£800million, said: “RMT isdeeply concerned that thisimportant and prestigiousservice has been awardedto SERCO, a company witha truly shocking trackrecord in the delivery ofpublic services. “Quite frankly, with their

appalling list of failures inthe UK and globally theyshould never have evenbeen considered ascontenders for the Scottishsleeper service. The logicaloption of public ownershipwas not even looked at.

Industrial action“SERCO is a company

that has a reputation forpromising the earth anddelivering quite theopposite as they seek tomaximise profits and sweattheir assets for every singlepenny piece. This union isalso seriously concerned atreports of financialproblems at SERCO and therecent investigations intocompany practices.“RMT will be meeting with

the other rail unions but Ican make it crystal clear thatif there is any threat to thejobs and conditions of thestaff transferring acrossfrom First to SERCO it willbe met with fierce resistanceincluding the use ofindustrial action if required.”

RETAIL WORKERS’ unionGMB held a public protestwith musician and outspokensocialist Paul Heaton outsideNext’s Argyle Street store inGlasgow on 22 May. Ex-Housemartins singer

Heaton and the GMBpresented store managerswith an ASBO for “failing tomake work pay for Nextstaff”. GMB say Next shouldpay wages and enough hoursof work for people to live onand as a starting point theyshould pay £7.65 per hour. GMB is supporting the

current UK tour by Heatonand Jacqui Abbott. Paul andJacqui used to front TheBeautiful South, and havejust released a new album,

What Have We Become.Next employ 50,000 workersat over 500 stores, callcentres and warehouses inthe UK and Ireland. In March, Next reported a

12 per cent increase inannual profits to £695million. Next says it expects profits

in 2014 to rise by up to£770million. Next said inJanuary that it is generatingmore cash than can beinvested in the business, so itwill pay a special £300millionpay out to shareholders. Next currently pay £6.33

per hour to those 21 and overand £5.47 to those aged 18to 20. Many jobs are for 12.5hours per week or less insome stores.

If Next made work pay,staff wouldn’t need theirmeagre wages to be toppedup by taxpayers with familytax credits and housingbenefits so as to make endsmeet, say the GMB.That Next is over-

subscribed when it offers jobsis a reflection on the level ofyouth unemployment, not thatNext jobs are so good.Mick Rix, GMB National

Officer for retail staff, said: “That is why GMB is

protesting outside Next storesas Paul and Jacqui’s tourswings across Britain. GMBpresented an ASBO to Nextbecause it is an employer thatdoes not face up to its socialresponsibilities.”

Singer presents Next with ASBOYOU KEEP IT ALL IN (THE BANK): Heaton presented an ASBO to Next managers in Glasgow

JOHN FINNIE MSP


Highland MSP John Finniedoes a bit of time travelling...

IT’S THE summer of 2017, anda hot summer’s night in the High-land capital of the newly inde-pendent Scotland. Many of the population have

been drinking all day. The towncentre party gets out of hand andthe armed police officers intervene. The previous month an officer

who had been surrounded by ahostile crowd had fired warningshots in the air. Tonight, a group ofyoung men under the influence ofdrink and drugs are determined toget the trophy of a police gun. One of the officers is surrounded

and kicked to the ground. In fear ofhis life, he draws his side arm andfires ‘a warning shot’. That shotimbeds in a teenage boy’s chest. Anight of chaos ensues. Monday morning and the in-

evitable press enquiry is ‘howcould this happen?’ In the late spring of 2014, com-

plaints were received by a High-lands and Islands MSP aboutchanged procedures for ArmedResponse Vehicle Officers. At thattime there were only two officers,or was it four? The MSP took thematter straight to the press and adebate of sorts started.

Closed ranksThe establishment closed ranks

behind the decision, taken withoutreference to the public or theirelected representatives, which saw‘standing authorisation’ given tothose few officer to wear a side-arm at all times even attendingroad accidents, domestic incidentsand monitoring crowds leaving li-censed premises.“Yes, they’re armed and have

been for some time,” the police ca-sually advised an astonished public. That MSP sought unsuccessfully

to raise the matter in the parliamentwith the First Minister. The follow-ing week he raised the matter in theChamber with the Cabinet Secretaryfor Justice. The Cabinet Secretarywas a former firebrand left winglawyer. He had opposed a single po-lice service and was a stout defender

of Scots law requirement for corrob-orative evidence, dispensed with in2015. He told Parliament this was adecision of a now retired Chief Con-stable, taken in the final month ofthe old Northern Constabulary. Sceptical that the retired chief

constable would wish his bequestto the Highlands and Islands to bedeployment of armed officers, theMSP eventually secured a meetingwith the pleasant Assist Chief Con-stable responsible who’d failed torespond to a detailed series of writ-ten questions he’d posed. In keeping with his view that

this was a major constitutionalissue, the MSP had invited allHighlands and Islands parliamen-tary colleagues to this meeting.They accepted, police made deci-sions based of the assessed risk tothemselves and the public whilstthe police accepted that theyshould assess the impact of theirdecisions on the public. The MSPs were assured all as-

sessments had been undertaken.The police said they were “highlysensitive documents” not for publicconsumption. The MSP felt greatfrustration with this ‘catch 22’.Self-determined confidentialitymeant there was no public scrutinyof the factors giving rise to thatchanged policy. As predicted, anow less benevolent police regimesaw no reason for any consultation

before significantly bolstering thenumber of armed officers routinelypatrolling our streets.The signs had been there but few

listened. That same MSP had raisedissues about the single service using‘riot vans’ in the Highlands. He wastold the van had been there allalong. It had but it didn’t have thebig metal windscreen shield whichwas fitted after amalgamation.Community relations were furthereroded when the ‘fight against or-ganised crime’ hit landward Scot-land. The public had been toldcriminal gangs were trying to infil-trate police ranks. A firm line wasto be taken on any business operat-ing as a front for the Mr Bigs. The centrally-based squad

started ‘going in hard’ on licensedpremises and taxi operators. Com-mentators recognised that this

‘hard’ approach may be appropri-ate in isolated instances, whenbacked by a risk assessment. Theon-going campaign against ruralpubs in the Borders and taxi firmsin the Islands couldn’t be justifiedand was fuelling alienation.Police boards had been deferen-

tial and were dissolved. Those whofought hard to have a scrutiny rolefor the parliament were no longerMSPs. The parliamentary authori-ties who had opposed a PoliceCommittee in the first place sawno need for political oversight. NoPolice Committee convened forthe fifth parliamentary session. The police take delivery of a

fleet of armoured vehicles andwater cannon next week. The fu-neral of the young man killed wasan emotional affair with significantpublic disorder thereafter, an earlytest for the new full-time riot squadnow based in the Highlands. Everyone now agrees the police

need protecting. Perhaps just aswell those guns were issued with-out anyone being asked waybacked in 2013. The Cabinet Sec-retary for Justice is due to report toChief Constable next week. He will visit the new suite of of-

fices built on the ground kindly do-nated by the property developer‘with close links to the police’. That’s how it all happened.

Guns off our streets –starting with the police

Join the SSPFill in this form and send it to: Scottish Socialist Party, Suite 370, 4th Floor, Central Chambers, 93 Hope St, Glasgow G2 6LD. Or phone:07810205747. Or join the SSP online: scottishsocialistparty.org/join-usg I would like to join the Scottish Socialist Partyg I would like more info on the Scottish Socialist PartyName........................................................................................Address...........................................................................................................................................................................................Phone.........................................................................................Email...........................................................................................

CAMPAIGN NEWS


by Jim McVicar, SSPNational Treasurer

THE SCOTTISH SocialistParty has registered with theElectoral Commission as a Yescampaigner for the independencereferendum in September. The SSP, since it was formed,

has supported Scottish independ-ence and has campaigned withinthe pro-independence movementfor an independent socialist Scot-land as a way of lifting workingpeople out of the misery that pro-market governments have broughtto all our lives. In an independent Scotland,

working class people will be betteroff and Westminster-led Tory gov-ernments in Scotland will be con-signed to the dustbin of history.

The pro-independence cam-paign have been out on thestreets throughout Scotland, withstreet stalls, public activity, pub-lic meetings and door to doorcanvassing and whether as partof Yes Scotland, RIC or workingindependently as the SSP wehave received a positive responseto our campaign work and can-vassing and have received re-quests from all over Scotland for

SSP campaign material. The SSP,unlike the Tory and Labour joint-unionist campaign, have nofriends in big business tobankroll our campaign. We rely solely on the money

we raise from our members,friends and supporters to financeour campaign, and every pennywe receive to help promote oursocialist vision of Scotland ismuch appreciated. Our independ-

ence campaign appeal fund has atarget of £50,000 and though stillin its infancy, has received dona-tions from every corner of Scot-land and although £50,000 is amassive amount of money for theSSP to raise, I am confident thatwe will achieve our target withyour continuing support. That’s why I’m appealing to you

through the pages of the ScottishSocialist Voice to make a pledge ordonation to the independence ap-peal fund today.See below for details of how to

donate. Thanks for your support.

• Donate via your local SSP branch• Send a cheque to ‘SSP Independence AppealFund’ and return to Jim McVicar, SSP NationalTreasurer, Suite 307, 93 Hope St, Glasgow G2 6LD • Text 07810205747 with your pledge amount andemail address if you have one• Bank transfer: SSP Appeal Fund Account, Co-opBank, Sort Code 08-92-99 / Account No. 65094637

• Paypal: [email protected] you want to help with the appeal fund, or ifyou need any more details, contact Jim McVicaron 07810205747 or email:[email protected]

However you choose to pledge, please text Jimthe details so we can keep track of all donations.

HOW TO PLEDGE AND DONATE MONEY

Donate to SSP indy appeal

SSP national workplaceorganiser Richie Ventonspoke to two of the SSPmembers who attended therecent PCS annualconference in Brighton.

What were the main two orthree issues debated atconference?

Gerry: “The main threeissues in my view wereindustrial action strategy,independence and the mergerwith Unite.”

John: “Unite merger,Scottish independence andthe national campaign.”

What came out during thereferendum debate?

John: “The vast majority ofcomrades speaking in thedebate were Yes supporters.

“The motion to support astrategy of ‘PCS informs, youdecide’ was almostunanimously carried.

We will now be meeting toagree a plan on how toexecute this – involvinghustings events, askingquestions in writing of both

sides and publicisinganswers to all members inScotland.”

Gerry: “The indy debateagreed a motion to informmembers ahead of the vote,and also to hold events acrossScotland. Most contributionswere again pro-independence.”

What was the nature andsignificance of the debateon merging with UNITE?

Gerry: “Conference rejecteda Motion allowing the NEC toenter talks about a mergerwith UNITE withoutpreconditions. Instead amotion was carried settingpreconditions before talks cantake place. UNITE’s link toLabour was a big problem forthe conference, so were lessfrequent elections andconferences, that are part ofthe Unite rule book.”

John: “The debate – the

centrepiece of conference –involved three differentapproaches: continueddiscussions with Unite with nocaveats; continueddiscussions with caveats (onpolitical fund, structures andfrequency of elections); andbinning the talks completely.

“The first option – the NEC’spreferred method – was voteddown in favour of the secondoption (supported by the SWPand others who clearly believethat the caveats will put paid tothe merger in all but name).”

How did the SSP impact atPCS conference?

Gerry: “The SSP enjoyed avery successful conference.SSP members spoke in mostof the debates. I spoke on foodbanks, welfare reform andindustrial action strategy, JohnJamieson and John Davidsonboth spoke in the indy debate.

We sold record numbers of theVoice, and were very warmlyreceived both when speakingin debates and selling.”

John: “We’ve picked up newmembers, been prominent indebates and visible both insideand outside of the conferencecentre all week. There werealso more Yes badges inBrighton than I see inGlasgow! YesPCS – with keyinput from SSP members –held a very successfulunofficial fringe event.

“Despite the official fringes– on independence with theScottish Sec – and TaxJustice with Richard Murphy –taking place in the conferencecentre, heavily promoted withofficial PCS coloured flyersand laying on food, we hadmore attending our unofficialevent and have picked upnew activists keen to getinvolved in the campaign.”

‘There were more Yes badgesin Brighton than in Glasgow...’

CAMPAIGN NEWS


by Hugh Cullen

STIRLING HAS a long tradition ofleft wing politics dating back to thefamous heckling of the Queen in1972 on a visit to the newly builtuniversity. Indeed, former Labour MPfor Stirlingshire Dennis Canavan,speaking at a Yes event for studentsat the university last September,remembered the political spectrum ofstudents at Stirling in the eighties tohave ‘Labour on the right and theCommunist Party in the centre’. Now it is our turn to fly the flag for

socialism at Stirling.This semester was the first for the

university’s new Scottish SocialistParty Society, and what asuccessful term it has been! Wehave quickly grown to be the largestand most active political party oncampus because of the tremendousresponse we have had at weeklystalls and meetings campaigning foran Independent socialist Scotland. Sandra Webster, Jonathon Shafi

from Radical Independence, GreenParty activist Zara Kitson and JohnMcAllion spoke at a well-attended

public meeting hosted by the societyfor students to hear and question thesocialist case for independence whilethroughout the term we also ran acampaign collecting food for the localfood bank and showing the damagingeffect of austerity in our own city. We also have a close relationship

with comrades in the EdinburghUniversity SSP Society and thelocal Stirling Branch with membersinvited to attend each other’smeetings and events. Some societymembers have even adoptedleading roles in the branch and runcity centre stalls on top of our oncampus activities. The SSP society works closely with

the Yes Scotland Students societyand other pro-Yes groups to ensurethat the socialist case for a yes voteis heard. We also have a strongrelationship with the ForthvalleyPalestine Solidarity Campaign withevents planned for next semester. We’re looking forward to building

on a good start and continuing towelcome new members nextsemester with our positive vision ofa fairer Scotland.

Flying the flag in Stirling

by Angus Clark

IN KIRKINTILLOCH, close to 80 people packed into theMiners Welfare for the SSP’s public meeting on the socialistcase for independence on 30 April. Speakers Jim Sillars andColin Fox were given a fantastic reception as they outlinedtheir vision. They advanced their view that this was a historicchance to elect a government of the left which would pursuepolicies which would benefit working people such as a livingwage, abolition of the Bedroom Tax, investment in public serv-ices, repeal of anti-trade union laws and the removal of Trident.

Colin made the point that the SSP regards this as only thestart, a means to an end, with a Yes vote eventually openingthe door to a socialist government with the powers and politicalwill to tackle poverty and inequality with far reaching redistri-bution of wealth and power: “As a socialist, my view is thatour most precious asset, worth more than the oil revenue andall the whisky, is the people of Scotland who are capable ofrunning this country and making a success of it. The stakes areenormous and the consequences are enormous. This isn’t justa vote for independence but it is a vote to reject neoliberalismand warmongering. These things have held Scotland back andshould not be part of a future Scotland. It’s about creating anew Scotland based on fairness, social justice and socialdemocracy. The British establishment don’t want Scotland tobe independent because they gain financially from Scotland.”

Worst recession in 80 yearsHe continued that a Yes vote and the eventual election of a

left government would lead to improved working conditionsand employee rights, which have been constantly under attackover the last three decades by both Labour and Tories: “We aregoing through the worst recession in 80 years. A million peopleare now on zero hours contracts without any security or tradeunion rights or hope of permanent employment. The workingclass people in Scotland are held back on employment rights,held back on pensions and held back by another ten years ofausterity. We are rejecting that by voting for independence.”

Jim Sillars reflected the mood within the audience when hesaid: “What we can take from this public meeting is that thereis now a sense of self-confidence within ordinary Scottishworking people and that we no longer need to feel inadequateabout what we can achieve. One of the great tragedies of theScottish working class is that we’ve believed what they toldus, we’ve believed that we were inadequate.

“We have been caught in a great prison of the myth of ourown inadequacies. We need to convince the Scottish workingclass of their talent and their ability. This referendum is funda-mentally about the liberation of the Scottish working class.”

There were a broad range of questions from the audienceon a number of issues. Many signed up for info on joining SSPCampsie branch. Most of the people attending had never beento a political meeting before, and with massive attendances atother recent SSP meetings in Ayrshire, Govan and Pennilee itshows that more and more ordinary people are becoming moreengaged with the campaign as it progresses.

Positive reactionin Kirkintilloch

FRESHER IDEAS: Hollie Cameron and Andrew Kinnell of Stirling Uni’s SSP Society

INTERNATIONAL


by Dr Serjinder Singh,General Secretary, IndianWorkers Association,Glasgow

INDIA’S SIXTEENTH parlia-mentary elections were held over aperiod of over a month recentlyand results came out on 16 May.

This was a mammoth operationcarried out by the Election Com-mission of India and the world’slargest democratic exercise to elect543 members of parliament.

Over 800 million people wereeligible to vote, the number havingincreased by 100 million since theprevious election in 2009. BhartyaJanta Party (BJP), a right wingHindu nationalist party got anoverall majority winning 282 seats.

Although constitutionally elec-tions in India are designed onBritish pattern, this party carriedout its campaign in the Americanpresidential style for the first time.The Indian National CongressParty, the party of Gandhi, hadruled India off and on for 50 years.It is the first time that another sin-gle party BJP has won a majority.

Big businessPolitically, for half a century, In-

dian National Congress or ‘Con-gress’ in brief, has been the pocketborough of Indian big business.

The Indian economy had re-mained closed to foreign in-vestors. A few business housessuch as that of Tata (who now ownJaguar in UK and Corus Steel inEurope) and other smaller compa-nies exploited the vast Indian mar-ket for decades. If any foreigncompany was allowed in India, ithad to come as a junior partnerwith an Indian company. Underpressure from rise of China duringthe late ’80s, the ruling Congressparty began liberalising the Indianeconomy in the early ’90s.

This helped existing Indiancompanies to grow and expandrapidly. The Indian corporate sec-tor became too big to stay togetherunder the leadership of traditionalhouses such as Tata and others.

Earlier, the Federation of IndianChamber of Commerce and Indus-

try (FICCI) was the leading organ-isation of Indian big business.

However, some newcomersafter their latest growth began tofeel frustrated and split off from themain body. Such corporate groupswere in Delhi and Gujarat state.

The Congress party had beenthe political front of the traditionalFICCI group led by Tata and othertraditional houses.

The disgruntled corporatehouses such as Ambani found afavourable ruler Mr NarendraModi belonging to Hindu Nation-alist party during the first decade ofthis century in the state of Gujarat.

Mr Modi as the Chief Ministerprovided all the facilities such asland and licenses to lucrative sec-tors of the economy such as powergeneration to this disgruntledgroup. Ultimately, Tata group alsojoined in to set up a car project inModi’s Gujarat state with all the fa-cilities including cheap land.

The Ambani and a few othersbelonging to Gujarat state in co-ordination with those in Delhisupported Mr Modi and his BJPparty financially and politically.This party apparently wasprompted and promised all kind

of support by these businessgroups and it declared during lastyear to put up Mr Modi as aPrime Ministerial candidate.

Constitutionally, the parlia-mentary election system in Indiais almost identical with that in theUK except for the fact that Presi-dent of India plays same role asthe UK Queen.

As in the UK, a party is not re-quired to declare its prime minis-terial candidate in advance; it hasto be elected in the parliamenthouse after election.

However, on advice and covertfinancial support from big busi-ness an American Presidentialstyle campaign was planned andexecuted for Mr Modi.

Mr Modi in his speechesopenly declared to help big busi-ness in India in the name of‘growth’ and ‘jobs’.

Although there is a legal limit onthe amount of money a candidatecan spend in election a lot of re-sources such as helicopters, mediacontrol (Ambani house partlyowns several dozen TV channelsin India) were put at the service ofModi. Rather than focusing on BJPparty as such, like the presidential

candidates in America, focus wason Modi as a person.

In reality, we find the expansionof Indian corporate sector becom-ing larger and changing its earlierbehind the scenes support to itstraditional political arm in the In-dian National Congress, or Con-gress Party. This time it opted forsupporting Modi of the right wingHindu nationalist part. The Con-gress Party lost miserably, win-ning only 44 seats.

Modi has a terrible record ofpresiding over communal riots in2002 when over a thousand Mus-lims were killed or burnt alive byHindu mobs in the state capitalAhmedabad where he was the rul-ing Chief Minister.

His ministers had led theHindu fanatic crowds to the Mus-lim areas. As a result of this mas-sacre US authorities had refusedhim a visa. This ban is now pro-posed to be removed.

Technically the Indian constitu-tion declares that the Indian state isa Socialist, Democratic, SecularRepublic. However, the develop-ments during and prior to this elec-tion do not auger well for theimmediate future.

New realitiesIndian society, too diverse and

with huge economic disparities isin for huge shocks and may find itdifficult to adjust to the new polit-ical and economic realities.

The left in India is almost non-existent except for a few pockets inWest Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura.These too are rapidly shrinking.

Amm Aadmi Party (commonman party) a new outfit suddenlyappeared last year representingthe disappointment of the poorand middle classes at the exis-tence of huge corruption at all lev-els of government. However, inthe face of corporate support toBJP it could not face the on-slaught. India, with its economicgrowth and evil designs of corpo-rate sector, is at the crossroads.

India at the crossroads

NEW PM: Narendra Modi (left) greets his Pakistani counterpart NawazSharif after Modi took the oath of office at the presidential palace

INTERNATIONAL


After spending much ofMay in Russia, ThomasBall gives his view ofcurrent events

I ARRIVED in Russia the daybefore Victory Day, a celebra-tion of the hard-won Soviet vic-tory over fascism. On everylapel is the black and amber StGeorge’s ribbon, Russia’s vic-tory symbol. For the USSR,victory in the war came at anawful price – 27 million died,and many cities in westernRussia were destroyed. The Great Patriotic War was

an existential war, the secondtime in 130 years Russia facedinvasion from the west. Thishas been embedded in theRussian psyche since, with theSoviet anthem containing thelines: “We fought for the future,destroyed the invader, andbrought to our homeland thelaurels of fame. Our glory willlive in the memory of nations,and all generations will honourthy name.” As a result of its fear of west-

ern threat, the policy of Russiasince 1812 has been to main-tain a buffer between Russiaand the west. It is through thisprism that one must look atevents in Ukraine to under-stand Russia’s actions.

BorderlandUkrayina means “border-

land”, and in 1922, after a se-ries of upheavals and wars, theUkrainian Socialist Soviet Re-public became a foundingmember of the USSR. Ukraine did not distinguish

herself with anti-fascist resist-ance characteristic much of therest of the USSR. Whilst Kiev –later awarded Hero City sta-tus – fought bravely, theUkrainian nationalist move-ment created the Ukrainian In-surgent Army, allied withGermany and guilty of system-atic massacres of ethnic Poles. Simultaneously, the Organi-

sation of Ukrainian Nationalists(OUN) emerged, led by Stepan

Bandera. The OUN consideredUkraine’s enemies to be Poles,Russians and Jews, and per-petrated pogroms supportedby Nazi troops. One of the Nazigovernment’s early decisionswas to release Bandera fromprison. The OUN received 2.5million Reichmarks (and armsand equipment) from Berlin tofinance its operations, with theGestapo and Abwehr protect-ing Bandera and his followers. To the disappointment of

Bandera and 100,000 Ukraini-ans who fought for fascism, theUSSR crushed Germany. Toensure that the west would notbe able to launch attacks onRussia, it established satellitestates between Russia and thewest. When the USSR dis-solved in 1991, a major reasonit did not descend into civil warwas western assurance that

they would respect neutrality offormer satellites and republics. This was breached by the

west. In 1999, former satellitesCzech Republic, Hungary andPoland joined Nato. In 2004,Nato engulfed the Baltic re-publics and Bulgaria, Romaniaand Slovakia. In Russia, the price of peace-

ful withdrawal from eastern Eu-rope is viewed as Natodomination of the region. The last straw for Russia

was Ukraine. In the first roundof the 2004 election neitherViktor Yuschenko nor ViktorYanukovych won. A run-off waswon by Yanukovych, who wasimmediately ousted in a coup,the “Orange Revolution”, infavour of his pro-western rival.Yuschenko’s first decree wasto posthumously invest Ban-dera as Hero of Ukraine. This

came after near-identical revo-lutions ousted anti-Nato lead-ers of Yugoslavia (2000) andGeorgia (2003). In the next (2010) election,

Yanukovych bounced back,defeating Yulia Tymoschenkoby four points. After he rebuffedEU’s advances, he was oustedin another coup d’état. Thistime, the coup was dominatedby the fascist Right Sector,which joined the government –BNP, Golden Dawn-style fas-cists in a government in a Eu-ropean capital. Neither Moscow nor Ukraini-

ans were prepared to acceptanother perverting of democ-racy by western powers. Rus-sophone regions in Ukrainehave declared independence.The fascist junta in Kiev retali-ated by sending helicoptergunships and tanks into thesecities. Nato, audible in its indig-nation when Yanukovych sentriot police into the Maidan, isconspicuous by silence whenthe junta leader, Yatsenyuk,sends soldiers to kill civilians.

WashingtonRussia respects Ukraine’s

independence. But twice in thelast decade the Ukrainian peo-ple have chosen a pro-Moscowpresident, only to have him re-moved at gunpoint, with the re-sult that the fascists who turnedso much of Russia into rubbleare now in government and onRussia’s borders. What, Rus-sians and Ukrainians alike ask,is the point of Ukrainiandemocracy if it is to prevail onlywhen it suits Washington? And as for the commitment

in 1991 to respect the neutralityof former Soviet republics andsatellites? There are now Nato troops in

every country bordering Russiato the west with the exceptionsof Finland and Ukraine. If I wasa Finn, and I didn’t want Natotroops in my country, I’d behoping very hard that the pro-Moscow elements in easternUkraine prevail.

Ukraine andthe perversionof democracy

UKRAINE: does democracy only prevail when it suits the United States?

email: [email protected] @ssv_voice on Twitter

30th May–12th June 2014Issue 439

for Socialism, Independenceand Internationalism

by Jonathon Shafi,Radical IndependenceCampaign

THE DISCUSSION carriedout via the BBC and the rightwing press has provided NigelFarage with an unprecedentedplatform. On the run up to theelection, it was constant.Question Time appearances,Newsnights, televised de-bates, radio interviews. Youname it, he was on it. Without doubt, the BBC

made an editorial decision totransmit the immigration debatethrough the lens of UKIP. This is what you might de-

scribe as BBC ‘common sense’.It partly comes from BBC politi-cal editor Nick Robinson, whomade his views clear in Januarythis year, when he criticised thehandling of immigration dis-course on the BBC. “Theyfeared having a conversationabout immigration, they fearedthe consequence,” he claimed.

Context shunnedAnd so UKIP is now to the

BBC the pinnacle of the debateon immigration. Farage wasmade the pivot around whichwe might talk about immigra-tion. The wider context wasshunned and separated outfrom the ‘rise of Farage’.That context is one of contin-

uing economic crisis and risinginequality. The cycle of povertyis not ending or abating, it is in-tensifying. The gap betweenrich and poor is not closing, it iswidening to historic proportions. In these conditions, the far

right can capitalise. They offerup a scapegoat for the livingconditions of the majority. TheTories have been doing thisthroughout their austerityagenda. The claim that UKIPrepresent an anti-establishmentforce should be immediately re-pudiated. In truth, their politics buttress

an establishment whose failurehas led to decline. But failure bythe political class, and sectionsof the media, to point this outhas normalised a culture ofblame, on everyone but thesystem itself. That lets the rich and power-

ful continue to concentrate theirwealth and power. The inequal-ity we face now is breathtaking.The combined wealth of thelisted 1000 individuals nowstands at £518.975billion.That’s risen by 15.4 per cent injust one year.That’s a huge rise in such a

timescale. Remember, this listis composed of publicly identifi-able wealth, and does not in-clude analysis of the wealth

amassed in private bank ac-counts. In truth it is probablethat even this list of the superrich is not representative of aneven higher rung of the megawealthy. The Queen has seen her

wealth rise to £330million afterputting on an extra £10million inthe last year alone. Of coursethe wealth of the royal family isfar higher – this is only what ispublicly available to report. Joining the British elite are

104 billionaires who in combi-nation muster a total of£301billion. The number of bil-lionaires choosing London astheir playground stands at 72,the highest number of billion-aires to inhabit any city, any-

where in the world. As a resultof decades of neoliberalism,alienation and corporate dom-inance, so may voters feelalienated from formal politics.When it comes to the Euro-pean Parliament, that is fur-ther heightened. Despite these worrisome

times, there is reason to beconfident of progressivechange. In amongst the auster-ity driven crisis of living stan-dards, the development ofblame culture and the slowdecay of the Westminster es-tablishment, there is a roadmap for progress in Scotland.That is why we have to get ourmessage out to thousands ofworking class scots in commu-nities that have been left be-hind. We have had hundreds ofactivists carry out mass can-vasses, delivering a messagethat ties a Yes vote with socio-economic progress. But alsosaying to people that their votereally does count in September.

Mass canvasOn June 22 we will be carry-

ing out the first national day ofmass canvassing. We wantthousands to come out thatday, to argue for a Yes vote, tolisten to the peoples concerns,and to re-establish that cultureof solidarity that focuses theblame where it really should lie:the big banks and the Tory gov-ernment. Our message of determined

hope is much more powerfulthan the toxic politics of UKIP.Door by door we will win that ar-gument. A Yes vote has neverbeen so necessary.

A Yes vote has neverbeen so necessary

Documents

ANOTHER FALSE - scottishsocialistparty.org · £1 •issue 439 •30th May –12th June 2014 ... role it must play in the drive to ... Here is a public school-boy, millionaire merchant