The conference, organised by Conter, took place at Glasgow Caledonian University. Odd points of contention arose, but the day was characterised by overall agreement that the SNP has failed to make use of the powers of devolution, and that the radical left has so far been unable to advance a class-based analysis to a mass audience.
On the need for intellectual rigour
The opening session, ‘The 2014 Generation: Insurgents to Governing class?’, made clear that the conference would be a radical appraisal of everything since 2014 and not an exercise in nostalgic backslapping. Two points of contention came from this. Co-founder of the Radical Independence Campaign and Conter editorial board member, Cat Boyd, called for clarity and honesty: clarity of argument with regard to a radical project for independence and honesty about the consequences of independence – that a post-Independent Scotland would be prey to the same forces of neoliberal capitalism, and that it might bring market turbulence and economic hardship. Former SNP deputy leader and author, Jim Sillars, argued that Scotland, as an appendage of the ‘British state as English State’, is in a state of ‘managed, post-imperial decline’, and emphasised the need for the left in Scotland to provide an alternative to austerity based on economic nationalism and a vision of material benefit to a beleaguered working class. Sillars suggested Scotland should base its economy on oil: it is either indigenously owned or prey to the whims of US and International capital. There was overall agreement on the need for anti-imperialism to inform progressive politics, and the desire for a resurgent left working towards a common goal.
‘How do you capture institutions that have been taken over by petit-bourgeois careerists?’
‘Capitalism, Class & Power in the Nationalist Era’ began with an analysis from Jenny Morrison, lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Glasgow University, of institutional feminism in Scotland. A phenomenon borne out of a historical scepticism of devolution on behalf of feminists during the Thatcher and Reagan era. Under Sturgeon this was exemplified by a 50:50 gender-split cabinet divorced from actual feminist politics. Understanding the limitations of Sturgeon’s championing of equality embedded in a liberal market economy is the start of an honest analysis and is key to breaking with Sturgeon’s legacy.
Economist, columnist, Conter editorial member, former SNP MP, and Alba Party candidate for East Lothian George Kerevan contributed to this discussion, insisting on the reintroduction of class analysis, and arguing that power in Scotland has, since the Act of Union in 1707, been in the hands of the petit bourgeois: the Church of Scotland, lawyers, bankers, accountants. It has, he insists, been a conservative nation since its inception and is infected by a petit-bourgeois anti-statism – an anti-statism amounting to a refusal of working-class ownership. Kerevan insists that the demand for independence comes from the working class, and that rather than aligning with their interests, the SNP has opened the door to foreign capital and is guilty of subordinating working-class interests to that of the petit bourgeoisie. Kerevan suggests capturing existing institutions to build our own state.
Scottish Green activist Niall Christie spoke, self-reflectively and critically, about the way in which the Greens gained seats on the back of the independence movement as a social movement, but soon became subsumed by the SNP bureaucracy and that any radical edge existing within the party has all but vanished. He pointed to the weak historic links with trade unions and that it relied on ‘cheap cheers’ to win seats in parliament, and to the party’s lack of criticism towards the SNP. In contrast to Kerevan, Christie emphasised the need to understand how parties work and emphasised the role of social movements over the state. In the following discussion, Kerevan retorted by insisting that any struggle for independence is a struggle for state creation. Not a bourgeois state, but its capturing and subsequent dismantling and creation of a radical democracy where powers are devolved downwards to trade unions and local authorities.
The important issue of Grangemouth was raised by an XR activist from the floor, who insisted that its closure was a good thing considering the global climate crisis. All panel members refuted this and insisted on the necessity of a green, just transition, particularly in light of a possible takeover by foreign capital. The closure of Grangemouth, the panel agreed, was about offshoring, not about greening.
‘Looks like working class, sounds like working class’: Return to Marx’s Political Economy
Kicking off ‘Sovereignty, Nationalism and the Crisis of Globalization’, Professor of Economics at SOAS and author of The State of Capitalism: Economy, Society and Hegemony, Costas Lapavitsas provided a much-needed political economic rundown of the interregnum between 2007/8 and today – a period in which globalisation and financialisation reached its peak and neoliberalism lost its appeal. Pointing to the lack of growth in the 2010s, Lapavitsas reasoned that it was a lack of productivity that led to this stagnation of growth in the EU, resulting, in turn, to weak investment. It is in this interregnum that the shadow bankers of speculation, stocks and bonds are the beneficiary: rentiers and managers of rentier capital – not national banks. Speculators are, however, facilitated by the state in the form of privatisation. Predictably, this leads to domestic damage as production is contracted across borders based on domestic situations. Importantly, Lapavitsas emphasises that banks do not tell businesses what to do, but that they are in partnership, leading to a shift in productive capacities globally. In this context, and in light of the rising economic power of China, with its implicit contestation of US hegemony – imperialist conflict driven by economic conflict of interest is inevitable.
Lapavitsas notes that even Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves understands the need for industrial policy. To this he adds that the weakness of the left is critical and has been cut off from an organic working class. Although redistribution of wealth, anti-austerity, race, gender, and environment are important battlegrounds, we are defined by how we work and live, and we need to come up with a productive policy from a radical perspective in order to change the relations between labour and capital. Grangemouth, again, and its lack of investment was cited as a key issue: defend the jobs; integrate energy and industrial policy.
‘Scotland seeks to accede, not reinvent the wheel’
Dr. Scott Lavery, in ‘Independence from? Debating Britain, “Europe” And America’, continued to focus on ‘neoliberalism in flux’, the economic inheritance of Starmer, and the need for new industrial policy as opposed to a repeat of Conservative financialisation. He insisted on the need for a defensive posture against austerity after Labour’s ‘loveless landslide victory’. The devolved powers of Scotland need to be utilised, with the re-iteration of the importance of industrial policy. Given that 50% of wind is owned by foreign governments, and the other half by foreign business, robust measures need to be taken with regards to ownership. ‘The Scottish Government does not own any onshore or offshore wind farms’, the Scottish government website tells us without flinching.
Sophie Johnson from Stop the War Coalition Scotland reminded the conference that opposition to the British State and imperialism were central to the argument for Independence and that the Scottish Government has not held true to this and has instead become entrenched within NATO. The contradictory position of dismantling nuclear arms whilst trying to join NATO, was noted for the political farce that it is. The ability of the SNP to don whichever mask may suit it seems to be slipping considering the suspicious silence of SNP hierarchy since October 7th – until the secret SNP-Israeli meeting. The backlash towards this – evidenced by their failure at the recent elections – is indicative of the Scottish anti-war, pro-Palestine position. The contradictions in SNP foreign policy positions are glaring. Importantly, Swinney’s admission that independence is ‘not around the corner’, and that he does not seek to ‘reinvent the wheel’ is indicative of the SNP as status quo, and US/NATO acceptance seeking.
The growing anti-war movement is rocking the British establishment, there is a need for analysis able to challenge government foreign policy. It is us that should be setting the political programme.
‘We are the locus of democracy’
The history of nationalist movements is disruptive and revolutionary. Using the examples of China, Vietnam, Ireland, and India – to name but a few – David Jamieson, doctoral researcher on the Middle East and statehood at Glasgow Caledonian University, and Conter co-editor, points to the revolutionary character of national movements who sought to challenge the status quo and were met with a violent response in their fight for popular sovereignty and democracy. The SNP have abandoned the idea of popular sovereignty and are instead seeking legitimacy from a horizontal association of elites in the EU – a highly undemocratic structure, Jamieson argues, with a Council of Leaders. ‘The Council of the EU’ is the most powerful legislative body to which the EU parliament is subordinate. Independence by member statehood isn’t going to happen – it is fundamentally undemocratic, and there is a real need to rebuild popular sovereignty. Emphasis: ‘There is a real need for political organisation’.
‘What’s the point in liberating ourselves from Westminster to put ourselves in chains to Brussels?’
In the session ‘Public Opinion in Transition’, Professor John Curtice from the University of Strathclyde turned the attention of the conference to a statistical analysis of the way in which Brexit had influenced the course of public opinion on independence. Given the popular belief that the movement for independence has stalled but should be much stronger given the past ten years of Conservative government, Curtice points to the idea that, although Yes ‘won the argument but lost the ballot’, support for independence is not tied to SNP success. Curtice goes on to explain that the debate on EU membership was inconsequential, as most in favour of independence were also Eurosceptic. However, the Brexit and Indy referendums are intertwined, fundamentally changing the independence question, from ‘do you think Scotland should be an independent country?’, to ‘do you want to be outside of the UK but in the EU, or outside the EU but in the UK?’ The issue of being part of a larger market, or otherwise. According to Curtice, arguments worth winning are those against ‘banal unionism’ and on currency preference, i.e., own currency.
‘Why has everything been outsourced?’
In the ‘Closing debate: What is the future for Scottish Independence?’, columnist for The National, author of Independence Captured and Conter co-editor and organiser, Jonathon Shafi took on former SNP MP, MEP and Spokesperson for Europe and EU Accession Alyn Smith in a debate that summed the day up dramatically. Surprising as it was for Smith to show up and take part, his arguments were indicative of an intellectually bereft, outdated SNP.
Introducing himself as a ‘Stalinist of SNP party loyalty’, Smith believes wholeheartedly in the need to toe the party line to ‘get Indy over the line’ – a phrase he repeated on numerous occasions throughout the debate – claiming that independence would be closer if ‘we just get a grip’. These were his opening remarks to which Shafi countered with a litany of SNP failures and problems: no currency plan and consequent blocking of EU membership; inability (or unwillingness) of party to make use of powers of devolution; blocking of Brexit, agreement to freeports; subsidisation of infrastructure to foreign capital; privatised forests. If ‘Yes’ is a movement from below with the SNP at the helm – ‘why has everything been outsourced?’ As a matter of political power, Shafi insisted on the need to reconstruct the left in Scotland, on the need to reach out to persuade people against outsourcing and for land reform.
Predictably, Smith retorted that the SNP did not in fact have ‘unlimited power’, and conversely, that they have been ‘distracted by the day job’.
‘Still no plan on currency’, Shafi pointed out, and noted the cynicism of an SNP hierarchy calling for an IndyRef2 they don’t believe in. Another call for rigorous honesty.
The debate came to an end with a very distinctive, telling, discussion on foreign policy. As Smith tried to argue that Trident was British owned and operated, Shafi corrected, stating instead that it was US owned and that failure to acknowledge the rupture brought about by independence amounted to acquiescence to the prevailing order. If this is what independence means to him, ‘why not just join Starmer?’, Shafi jibes.
The delusion that Smith indulges is the existence of an ‘international rules based order’. More accurately, Shafi points out, it is a US-led international rules based order.
In conclusion
There were other sessions not included in this report, including ‘Party Transformation: Sturgeon’s SNP and its aftermath’ and ‘Identity Crisis: Race Nation & Constitution’, which, like the rest of the event, were recorded and will be made available on the Conter website.
On reflection, the conference was an invigorating if at times doom-laden appraisal of Scotland-in-Global-Capitalism. We live in dark times, and the event provided me, at least, with a better understanding of what went wrong, and dare I say it – where to go next. There were several takeaways that one would like to think may be agreed upon across ‘the Scottish left’. The need for unity, yes, but not by any means. Not at the cost of intellectual rigour, clarity on currency, and anti-imperialism. Certainly not, need it be said, under the banner of Indyref2. Independence is not around the corner. But those of us on the radical left still committed to the idea of a Radical Independent Scotland had better get organised, nonetheless. The conference provided us with a few anchors by which we might tether ourselves, reminders – it would seem – from a bygone era. It was refreshing to hear talk once again regarding ownership, control, and industrial productive capacity – with the essential emphasis of a real green and just transition.
This report first appeared here, and is republished with permission.
