[page 20]
a view from the Kelvin branch
From very early in the history of the SLP there has been a considerable amount of disquiet in the Kelvin branch about various decisions taken by the National Organising Committee. Frequently, it has been felt that petty considerations of defending their own position and power have been the important factor in their decisionmaking. Certainly, as a branch, we have felt that many of their decisions and policies have been neither socialist nor democratic.
On a number of occasions we have exercised our democratic rights and stated our opposition to some of these decisions, such as: * Dissolution of the Glasgow Branch without informing the membership, and without reference to the democratic decision of the membership. *Organisation of the members in the North of Glasgow in a way opposed to the votes of those members. *Extension of the powers of members of the NOC — a body which was hardly constructed in an ideal manner beyond the remit of the founding meeting of the SIP. * Refusal to allow observers from all branches to attend NOC meetings. * Issuing policy discussion papers, through the media as if they were confirmed party policy.
This has led to us being accused of being "troublemakers", or labelled as
"trotskyists" or 'extremists". In this way, the fundamental questions we have raised have been defused and avoided. Afier all, if that is what we are, what need is there to actually examine the substance of our complaints? 1 still believe in the correctness of our arguments on these issues. In the face of the witch hunt that our complaints stirred up, the majority of the branch believed it necessary to prove our whole-hearted support to the party, apparently by forfeiting our democratic rights, and silencing ourselves. It appeared to me that the demands made of us, and the branch's interpretation of them, required blind rather than principled support of the party.
This might have been to the advantage of the NOC but it was not to the advantage of the whole party. Nevertheless at the time I was willing to accept the majority position.
THE KELVIN RESOLUTION AND THE PRESS On September 21st the Daily Record carried an unsigned article, headed 'SLP fights move to left. This report predicted a 'stormy time' at the forthcoming SLP Congress. It stated that the extreme left had proposed certain motions and identified the Kelvin and Stewarton branches. It concluded that the party leadership had made it very clear that they would oppose any bid to
turn the SLP into a front organisation for the extreme left.
I saw the report while aiding the SLP candidate in Clydebank. Both SI.P and SNP members who were present at the time believed that the press were up to their usual tactics of manufacturing a story out of nothing, that they were abusing a straighforward socialist motion, and that it was unfortunate that resolutions had been leaked before Congress.
That night 1 was disgusted to discover much fuller press reports in the same vein, and that they were reporting an official Party Press Conference. Glasgow Herald said that extremists would be 'effectively excluded by banning them, and that the leadership was opposed to the 'wilder motions' such as the Stewarton and Kelvin resolutions, that the latter meant a 'head on confrontation with the leadership, and that Jim Sillars had said that it clashed with existing policy and that he expected that the conference would come out with sensible left-wing points of view that he could 'defend and espouse"
In the Scotsman the Kelvin branch alone bore the brunt of the textrelist" attacks. As in the Herald article, Jim Sillars was reported as calling it 'unrealistic, and that it would be a pretty remarkable organisation that would emerge if it were carried by the Congress. He also distinguished between "marxists" and "pseudo-Marxists", the latter of which were unacceptable and presumably referred to the Kelvin branch. Alex Neil informed the press that the SLP would not be dominated by students or any group of left-wing extremists'.
How accurate are the press reports? There may well be detail errors, but as no disclaimer has been issued by the SLP representatives who called the press conference, presumably the articles are generally correct. All socialist organisations are rightly wary of the ability of the press to misrepresent their views, but in this instance it appears that a reasonable degree of accuracy has been achieved.
Given the SLP's journalistic connections, some suspicions arise as to whether the lobby method, well beloved of Westminster politicians, was used in order to raise certain questions, especially those surrounding the Kelvin Branch and its motions.
THE PRINCIPLES AT STAKE It would obviously require a much longer article than this to deal with every one of the points raised by Jim Sillars and Alex Neil's comments to the press.
[page 21]
Here it must suffice to consider the central questions of principle involved: 1. They suggested that respectable socialist strategies are not worthy of consideration and debate, that they are 'unrealistic*, "wild' or 'extreme' and would make the party a 'pretty remarkable organisation. 1 would then have assumed that we wanted to be a pretty remarkable organisation, the only truly socialist, and truly democratic mass party in Scotland.
The other epithets smell of hypocrisy. The Kelvin motion has many points of similarity to the pre-war policy of the ILP an organisation which the SLP has drawn parallels both at, and since, the inaugural meeting. If the Stewarton motion is "wild", then presumably the SLP will not again allow official SLP speakers to honour the memory of the man who first called for a Scottsh Workers Republic - John McLean. 2. They pre-empted Congress discussion. While no-one would deny the right of any member of the SLP to their own views abour resolutions, the place to debate and discuss them is at Congress, not to present a one-sided view, five weeks before the Congress, in the National Press. 3. They gave the impression that Congress is not the supreme policy making body, otherwise how could resolutions clash with declared policy before the first Congress. Surely they could clash with policy discussion documents. What is more, policy is not fixed, for once and for all. Congress is the place to democratically discuss and argue out policy. Even when official policies do exist, some resolutions put forward must always clash with existing policy, otherwise how could the party go forward? 4. They adopted the Labour Party's unacceptable face with a tartan tammy on its head. The Tribune Group made justified criticisms of Callaghan's similar attempt to denigrate the resolution advocating the nationalisation of the banks before the British Labour Party Conference had discussed it.
land. On October 18th, Alex Neil sent me a letter informing me that it could not be included in the next issue because of lack of space. A brief letter on page six of the Congress edition of Forward referred to the press campaign. This letter agreed with Sillars' comments but thought they were mistimed. the letter it was stated that no other correspondence was recieved on this subject. No mention was made of my article, submitted on that very subject.
In reply to Alex Neil's letter, re-submitted my article for publication in the following issue. I have received no reply. Presumably now thai l am a member of an 'expelled' branch I can expect none. Alex Neil also refused, without giving any reasons, to include supplied copies of the article in the pre-Congress mailing to the branches.
In the article 1 speculated on the use of sympathetic journalists by the SLP leadership. The press campaign continued after the article was written. On Friday, October 29th, the first day of the Congress, Stewart McLachlan warned in the Daily Record of the twin threats facing the SLP. These threats, which had to be overcome, came from the International Marxist Group (IMG), and Kelvin Resolution No. 41. Mc- Lachlan is a non-attending member of the Kelvin Branch of the SLP!
Given that the same tactic of labelling people troublemakers", in this case "disruptive elements', was used in order to expel the democratic elements from the Congress, it is not surprising that an article which exposed the leadership's use of this manoeuvre was refused publication prior to the Congress. Similarly, the events of the Congress justify the warning in my article of the dangers to the SIP from the anti-democratic practices, manoeuvring, manipulations and autocratic rule of the leadership. The Congress showed that the leadership's criticisms of the British Labour Party on these grounds amount to the sickest political joke of all time.
socialists heard this as a clarion call. Many who were disillusioned by the old Labour Party, with its bureaucratic manoeuvre, its autocratic, anti-democratic policy making, and its behind the scenes' manipulations as well as its lack of socialist commitment, answered the
Jim Sillars, himself, said at the inaugural meeting, that those who had organised the party were irrelevant, that the party would survive without any of them, that the party arose because the Scottish people needed it at this moment in its history. By the first SLP Congress, he obviously had decided that the party could do without its active membership if only it defended the position of its The interests of a party are best served by the fullest discussion throughout the party, on all matters pertaining to the party. True democracy is difficult and it is troublesome; it maximises dialogue, it increases criticism, especially of committees which the party has allowed to hold certain powers in trust, but those who wish to serve on them understand and accept through a fully democratic process can the party come to behind, policy decisions. membership of Kelvin have been branded as extremists and troublemakers for fighting for full democratic rights for all members and for democratic decision making party. Now they have been expelled. The events of the last year only go to show how necessary these rights are.
In the pursuit of them, 1, for one, will certainly remain as much of a troublemaker' and extremist" as is required.
GERRY FINN
*The original article for Forward Scotland included most of the points raised in this section. Copies are available from: Gerry Finn, 25 Highborough Road, Glasgow.