[page 12]
The Labour Government White Paper on devolution is probably the most controversial constitutional reform since the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1913. Given this fact, it is remarkable how peaceful the debate has been. Not for Scotland the Carsonite rebellion and the 1916 rising. Not for Scotland the withdrawal of angry Home Rule MPs to form their own parliament, nor the tempestuous storms of the Civil War, nor even the mildest of demonstrations.
The measure of devolution proposed in the White Paper is very limited, It sets up an elected government, but that is all. In no way does it recognise the right of the Scottish people to determine their own future and relationship to the rest of the UK. The powers of the Assembly are to be settled, not by its own members or by the Scottish people, but by Westminster: and Westminster retains the right of veto over Assembly decisions.
No hint is given of any powers which could tackle the social crisis in Scotland, and no means whereby the Assembly can be made accountable to the working class. Even proportional
representation is ruled out for the present, for fear the idea might be proposed for Westminster itself.
Yet despite the proclamation of the SNP and the Scottish media of massive dissatisfaction with the scope of the White Paper, the issue has not as yet occasioned a single demonstration, strike or mass action. It is probably this fact which has led to the inability of the Labour Party and far left alike to come to grips with the growth of nationalism.
The Labout Party has reacted to nationalism as a threat to its votes and has failed to understand the rejection of its social and economic policies which is implicit in the nationalist vote. The far left has ignored it because it has never taken to the streets. The field has been left clear for the SNP to gather together all tire various strands of opposition to Labour policy without ever facing a genuine socialist challenge.
SNP INCONSISTENCY Yet the most important fact about the present debate is the inconsistencies which it has exposed in the positions of the SP. It is only the pathetic showing of the Labour leadership which has prevented it from driving a coach and horses through the SNP camp. Unfortunately, the chance for the SLP to do the same is not being exploited by SLP MPs Sillars and Robertson with their present strategy of parliamentary deals with
the SNP around changes to the Bill Any party committed to giving the Scottish people a real say in their own future would not recognise the authority of the British parliament to legislate on this question but fight to introduce legislation into the Assembly in line with its party programme regardless of the formal powers given the Assembly. This does not mean abandoning any attempt to get a better deal in Westminster. It does mean refusing to accept that Westminster has the final say in the matter - which in effect the SNP does accept, since they offer no way for the Scottish people to challenge its decision.
The first and most obvious issue is how to deal with restrictions on the powers of the Assembly. What is outstanding is that all the parties accept that these powers should be determined in Westminster. This is on the face of it an extraordinarily inconsistent stand for a party of independence like the SP. which should least of all give recognition to a British parliament. But it is also unacceptable for a socialist party which recognising the right of self-determination of all nations - must demand the right of the Scottish people to determine the Assembly's powers.
But of course the SNP. despite their radical demagogy, have no more interest in provoking a crisis around this issue than the Labour Party. What they seck is a negotiated, constitutional transfer of whatever state powers
[page 13]
they can lay hands on, to a mini- Westminster in the Royal High School. And "constitutional", whether it is pronounced with an English or a Moringside accent, means that the working class does not get a look in.
Small wonder! Most of Scotland's particular social problems do not stem from its constitutional relationship to Westminster but from the changing relation of the Scottish economy to the world economy. They cannot be tackled without the institution of proper socialist planning. But this means taking on the oil barons, the monopolies and multinationals which now dominate Scottish life. It means taking them over and instituting workers' control. And this is the last thing any of the Westminster parties - including the SNP do. If the working çlass was allowed an independent say in the debate on the Assembly, the whole issue of its social role could come to the fore and blow apart the unstable coalition which is the SNP. Far better to concentrate on constitutional bickering than tackle such issues. Far better for the Labour Party, far better for Douglas Crawford, far better for all who serve the wealthy and powerful on both sides of
For socialists on the other hand it would be far better if the debate around the Assembly's powers was taken - and finally settled - by the Labour movement.
A SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE The problem for socialists is that the parliamentary wrangling going on does not offer a choice between "internationalism' on the one hand and nationalism' on the other. The Labour Party has shown itself to be just as nationalist as the SNP, but under the Union Jack instead of the St. Andrew's Cross. And many working class people support independence who have no desire to place any more weapons in the hands of private enterprise. Rather it is a battle between two camps seeking to extract privilege for capitalists, both hiding their true aims behind their respective banners of "national sovereignty".
Socialists should not shelter behind either banner but fight for legislation and assembly powers which can help the working class meet its social needs at the expense of both. They should therefore call for an assembly with to implement a socialist programme.
For-a start, this would mean the power to nationalise. It is ludicrous to expect to deal with multinationals and oil monopolies employing over a third of Scotland's workforce without taking them over lock, stock and barrel. This job, it is true, could not be finished in Scotland, precisely because these companies are multinational. But a takeover of their Scottish operations and nationalisation of the Scottish banks would be a vital first step to real control over investment. And of course the Labour government would find it far harder to resist nationalisation demands in the rest of Britain if the Assembly was already taking such measures.
The Assembly would need powers to fight for workers control to give legislative sanction to measures taken by the workers themselves, to impose obligations on companies to open their books for inspection by the trade union movement and to uncover the real workings of the economy and lay the basis for genuinely democratic planning.
Powers would also be required to initiate a programme of public spending in housing, education, health and social services. Nowhere is there a more glaring need for a properly planned, injection of public capital than in Scotland. It is needed to overcome the disastrous effects of the cuts. It is needed to redress the appalling social deprivation Strathclyde and Tayside - which has made Scotland infamous throughout
TAXATION AND REVENUE Taxation and revenue powers have been held up by the SNP as the touchstone of "real independence'. In fact the revenue powers they argue for would be quite inadequate to deal with Scotland's social problems. Quebec, for example, has had its own Assembly with more extensive taxation powers for some years without any appreciable impact on Quebec's social
The reason the SNP is so insistent on taxation powers is that they want to be sure that the capitalist interests they represent can control the allocation of public money to private industry on a purely Scottish basis through revised regional grants and tax concessions. This is why the Scottish CBI, for example, were amongst the most stalwart of the Scottish Development Authority's more recent defenders. They see it, quite simply, as a
potential source of additional revenue from public funds which they can tur to when for political or fiscal reasons, Westminster will not cough up.
The Labour Party's answer, which is to turn its back on the problem and refuse taxation powers, is no answer at all. It provides no prospect of resolving the social crisis facing Scottish working people while sharply cutting across their democratic rights.
A more effective way to deal with the SNP agrument is to put forward revenue and taxation proposals which would benefit the working class. Money raised by taxation should be allocated to deal with social needs and not to restore ailing private firms or for financing get-rich-quick investors.
ASSEMBLY NOT ENOUGH Can these powers on their own meet the needs of Scottish workers? Clearly It is always cannot. dangerous to try and erect an island of socialism in a single country. But in Scotland it is particularly dangerous, because the Scottish economy is a very dependent one. Assembly representatives will be subject to tremendous pressures from international capital. The whole purpose of establishing a parliamentary style Assembly modelled essentially on Westminster and under its tight control is to ensure that the Scottish workers have no independent say in what the Assembly does. If these ties were broken. we can be sure that capital would find other means to keep the assembly on the straight and
The weapon which the labour
manouvres is its own strength and unity. Scottish Socialist has argued the English workers should guarantee this unity by recognising the right of Scotland to self-determination. But the Scottish workers must not lightly throw away this unity by cutting themselves off. We would not be thanked, for example, for withdrawing from Westminster and handing the. Tories a built-in majority for a generation. An SNP goverment in Edinburgh with a Tory government in England would be as fine a way to smash up the working class as any yet devised. Far better would be to fight for socialist measures in both Westminster and Edinburgh and put the weight of the whole labour movement behind both.