[page 16]
Dear Scorrish Socialist.
Although in general agreement with much of what he wrote, I found Chris Bambery's" article, "Behind the SLP Split" in the last Scottish Socialist' a little confused.
When will socialists in Scotland realise that there is a difference between supporting self-determination for Scotland (Le. Scottish independence) and supporting the SNP:
The SNP is not Scottish nationalism and in the last analysis the SNP. with its capitalist "nationalism' can only betray the struggle for Scottish independence. At best. what they land Sillars and his supporters, for that matter) can offer the working class of Scotland is a pathetic sham, 4 devolved Scottish toy government no more free of English capitalism than the 'Free State' in the 26 Counties of Ireland, or the "Transkel" from South Africa There can be no real Scottish freedom without socialism.
Silues crime is not his nationalism' for that is a fraud but his lack of socialism. Something which Chris Bambery never really got to grips with properly in his article.
To be real socialists we must support the right of oppressed nations, like Scotland, Ireland and formerly Angola, Vietnam, etc, to self-determination Le. to secession from their imperatist masters.
Bambery fails to do this and instead holds up the Labour "Letts" to us as an cxample Shese toothless tigers like Cunavan. all talk and ao action, whose socialism is the defence of the unity of the British imperial stute, complete with inport controls to increase unemployment.
Bumbery Implies that it is wrong to sland candidates against these people, who are about is uscless to the Scottish working class as the likes of Sillars and Robertson with their Jobs and Industry socialism and "devolved" FEC independence". / The choice is not "Nationalism or Class Struggle", as Neil Williamson put it in Red Weekly but between both or neither.
The future of Scottish socialism lies in the lang overdue reunification of the strungle for real socialism nationalisation under democratic workers control of all means of production, distribution and exchange in 1 world cconomy planned for need and not for profit together with the struggle for the fullest democratic rights including the nebt to self-determination.
It is my hope that the democratie wing of the SEP will begin to do this.
Yours fraternally: ED. ROBERTSON
Dear Comrades, Let me congratulate you on your magazine Scottish Socialist, long overdue on the Scottish political scene.
I would urge that you do nat fall into the old Left-Wing trap of using the pages of the magazine as d platform for indivi duals to vent their spleen on their own particular hang ups in relation to other progressive newspapers and parties, ie. the attacks on Tom Nairn, the SNP et al. If criticism is to be made let it be particular and accurate, not general and unfounded. Alan Freeman, in an excellent article, spoils it by repeating IS attacks on the SNP. With all its imperfections the SNP helped create the whole present storm and laid the groundwork for the formation of the SLP and the "Scottish dimension" in political le in Scotland. Let us confine our attack on the main enemy, the British Labour Party and its allies on the British Left.
You can he assured that the Security Services, British and American, will analyse the pages of your paper closely, and at a later date will be able to exploit personal differences should, nuy when, your members reuch positions of political power.
The time now is for co-operation on common ground with other parties and troups: this can be done without com promising principles Yours,
JOHN CARLYLE. Scottish Republican Socialist Club, (Glasgow Central).
Write in and tell us what you think of the views expressed in Scottish Socialist. All letters welcome. We reserve the right to cut letters over 250 words.
Dear Scottish Socialist, Alan Freeman's article in issue number two on an assembly with socialist powers was in many respects excellent; in its analysis of the maneouverings around the Devolution Bill, and in stressing that we cannot build socialism in an isolated Scotland.
However, it leaves a great deal unsaid. My first criticism is not just of this one article but of the paper as a whole. It discusses the "powers of the assembly and offers page upon page about the right of the Scottish people to self-determination. Yet little is said about the equally important and different question of whether socialists should support this particular demand (for the assembly) at this particular time.
The editorial does admit "We do not think the assembly will usher in socialism or even meet the simplest social needs of working people". This is not claborated on in the editorial and is hardly mentioned elsewhere. If the assembly is not going to meet the simplest social needs of working people, then Scottish Socialist must hammer this home loud and clear.
What makes Alan Freeman's article potentially dangerous is his failure to make clear the role Of all parliaments under capitalism.
I think it is correct to make demands of the Assembly when it eventually appears. It is correct to say that the assembly must have powers to implement socialist policies; for socinlists, "powers' are only meaningful when used for a purpose - to advance the workingclass cause.
But we must distinguish ourselves from those reformists in the labour movement who believe, or pretend, that power is created in, and dispensed by, parliaments. The sirugele for power is one fought between classes throughout the whole domain of social life; it is our job to expose parliaments - whether in Westminster or Edinburgh as the creatures and props of copitalism.
Alan Freeman's parliamentarist obsession continues into his last paragraph. I certainly don't believe that the British working class sees the highest expression of its unity as the presence of Scottish MPs in Westminster: why then does he pick the withdrawal of these MPs as his sole example of potential blows to British working class unity?
Fraternally, EUAN SHORT