Keir Hardie's anti-war stance still resonates in the UK today

By Jeremy Corbyn

On February 15, 2003, well over a million people marched through London to oppose the intended invasion of Iraq.

It was the biggest ever demonstration in British history. Six hundred other demonstrations took place all aroundthe world, on every continent.

They all knew why they were marching and, by sheer force of numbers, turned media and popular opinion around from the Government’s intended story that somehow Iraq presented a threat to us all and that only by bombing could we secure the peace of the region and,indeed, the world.

More than a decade later, billions spent, hundreds of thousands dead and more wars than ever, the sheer futility of war and its waste is there for all to see.

The victims lie dead in unmarked graves amid the rubble, or the soldiers from the West are in heroes’ graves, in well-tended cemeteries, but still dead in their youth.

As Europe goes through a strange paroxysm of mawkish memorial of the Great War and a nasty dose of xenophobic, inward-looking behaviour, we need to learn from history of those who tried to stop that war and tried to point out where it could lead.

Keir Hardie’s life, impressive by any standards, had a universal and global vision that was verydifferent from many other great labour figures of the pre-1914 period.

It seems astonishing,at this distance, that on August 2, 1914, two days before war was declared, he spoke in Trafalgar Square at a rally where a declaration was adopted, which concluded bystating: “Men and women of Britain, you now have an unexampled opportunity of showing your power, rendering magnificent service tohumanity and to the world. Proclaimfor you that the days of plunder andbutchery have gone by. Send messagesof peace and fraternity to your fellows who have less liberty than you.

“Down with class rule. Down withthe rule of brute force. Down with thewar, up with the peaceful rule of thepeople.”

Eighty-nine years later, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament that there was no alternative to going to war with Iraq, even after he and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had failed to gain a second UN resolution specifically authorising war.

The legacy of Hardie, and indeed the contradictions in the Labour Party between the ideal of national war asthe supreme form of patriotism andthe wider global tradition of peace and fraternity, is still there and self-evidently not resolved.

Hardie had an amazing global view. For someone who was born with no privileges of any kind, no opportunity to travel and very limited education, he had a thirst for learning and a deep appreciation of the unity of peoples in different circumstances all across the globe.

Hardie’s own world view came through the prism of a vast British empire which nurtured British children in the belief that somehow they benefited from the empire and were superior to the rest of the world.

The inherent racism in that message was powerful and remains so. In his early days as a trade union representative, he opposed Irish immigration into Scotland. Later, however, he went on to oppose segregation in South Africa during his visit there and went well beyond anyother opponents of the Boer War insupporting the African and Asianpeoples of South Africa.

In India, he was threatened with deportation for supporting home rule and consorting with the newly formed Congress Party.

But it was his attempts to build an international peace organisation that was his most groundbreaking work. The late 19th century saw the founding of the First Working Men’s International and, almost in parallel, the attempts by the Tsar of Russia and others to found an international treaty through the Hague Convention.

Hardie worked hard to unite all peace groups as though he knew the dreadful day would arrive when Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the Ottoman empire would all be at war with millions ofworking men lined up against each other.

As war fever intensified, Hardie stepped up his efforts and in 1913, only eight months before war was declared, hepresided over an enormous peace rallyin the Royal Albert Hall.

Hardie died two years later, essentially a broken man. All he had striven for in the sense of international working-class unity against the industrial killing machines of the Great War had been overridden by the jingoistic, crude propaganda of the Allies.

A century later, the general mood is more sanguine about World War I. A war between nations, all led by cousins and nephews and a son of Queen Victoria, it was at once a war led by a massively dysfunctional family and the huge commercial interests that were involved.

The above is an extract from a new book "What Would Keir Hardie Say?" edited by Pauline Bryan, which can be purchased here.

"Something different, something subversive…"

The following article was published by the recently launched Scottish Labour Young Socialists.

Yvette Cooper today summed up the fear and panic that has gripped the Labour Party’s establishment. Yesterday around 165,000 people signed up to either join the party or become registered supporters, taking the total electorate in the leadership election to around 610,000. That is just under 1% of the country, roughly the population of metropolitan Glasgow.

However, the predominant response from the Labour mainstream has been disquiet, shock and disbelief at the mounting support for Jeremy Corbyn which is fuelling the growth of genuine, mass Labour Party politics. There is little sign of celebration at the enthusiasm coming from young people who, we are told, have been “a-political” for so long.

Cooper railed to warn of the threats to social democracy that exist across Europe, and that the same inclinations that drove support for ‘insurgent’ forces such as UKIP and the SNP might now be finding a home in Labour:

But when times are tough, and the old answers, and the old parties don’t seem to be working, people cast around for something else. Something different. Something subversive. Something to kick out at the system, to express anger, frustration and the demand for change.

From the 2010-11 protests to the ‘Yes’ campaign, to the rise of electoral support for the Greens, there is plenty of evidence that our generation precisely craves “something different, something subversive”. In Corbyn those of us who marched and protested over the last 5 years, and many more who didn’t, finally have a voice which is shaking up what is possible in mainstream politics. This is not before time. To us the idea of a Labour Party which supports and includes social movements and seeks to empower workers and communities is far from old fashioned.

We don’t live in a time where grey policy prescriptions and technocratic niceties, the sensibilities of the ‘sensible left’, can deliver or inspire. The patronising bombasts of New Statesman and Guardian columnists have been grist to Corbyn’s mill. Those of us with no guarantee of economic security and experiences of the draconian benefit system and zero hour contracts don’t need lectures on moderation and making the market work.

We’ve been labelled extremists for supporting workers’ rights, building houses, nationalising the railways and worst of all suggesting that economic policy should be designed with full and decent employment in mind. This only confirms the death of any kind of reasonable ‘centre ground’, for good or ill.

In this age of social media and antipolitics, we are the new modernisers. The Corbyn wave has shown the mood for an outward facing socialist Labour politics. Scottish Labour Young Socialists will be a platform for those who wish to continue what the Corbyn campaign has started. Partisans of subversive politics cannot let this historic opportunity pass.

Get in touch at:

https://www.facebook.com/ScotLabYngSocialists
@SLYSocialists

CfS recommendations for NPF and CAC

As well as the UK leadership election (which is obviously dominating headlines across the UK) there is also a chance to vote for candidates to the National Policy Forum and Conference Arrangements Committee.

These internal Party institutions have a key role in shaping Party policy and structuring Conference.  How representative they are of grass-root activists and socialist opinions will depend greatly on who is elected to these potions.  

Campaign for Socialism is standing candidates who, as well as fully supporting Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader, will also acts s a strong voice for ordinary members within the Party.  Should Jeremy win the leadership election is will be more vital than ever that we have socialists within the positions of influence within the Party to support him in building a genuine anti-austerity movement. 

Members can vote for up to four candidates for the NPF section (with an extra position available for the youth section should the member be under 27) and for two positions for the CAC.

CFS recommends the following candidates:

National Policy Forum (Iona Baker, Mike Cowley, Martyn Cook, Suzi Cullinane & Lyndsay Clelland - youth)

Conference Arrangements Committee (Katy CLark and Jon Lansman)

Scottish Labour and CND

By Mark Gallagher

Scottish Labour Party activists opposed to nuclear weapons met in Glasgow on 31 May to discuss how to campaign against Trident renewal in the United Kingdom, both now and if there is a No vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The meeting was chaired by Chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (SCND) Arthur West, who said that while Scottish CND have now affiliated to Yes Scotland, “some of our members and supporters have other reasons for not making this choice and we respect that.”

Former Member of Parliament for Glasgow Maryhill Maria Fyfe, now a National Policy Forum (NPF) Representative for Scotland, said, “It is a priority that Scottish Labour also has a response to the assertions of the Scottish National Party (SNP) that independence is the only way to scrap Trident.”  She also reminded the meeting unilateral disarmament was still the policy of Scottish Labour Party Conference. George McManus, NPF Representative for Yorkshire and Humberside, further highlighted how former Labour cabinet ministers such as John Prescott, Des Browne and Nick Brown have declared opposition to Trident replacement (as planned) on the basis of cost in an age of austerity, the emergence of new threats to which nuclear weapons are not a deterrent and the bad example such a decision sets to other countries.

Alan Cowan, SCND Executive Member and meeting organiser said,  “Scottish Labour CND will be in contact with trade unions and the other National Policy Forum members representing Scotland. Most people in Scotland want to scrap Trident” and that “We will ensure that our Labour representatives are empowered to say No to Trident and No to Separation.” When it does come to the vote at the meeting of the NPF the importance of trade union support for amendments was also stressed by several activists as union abstention at previous meetings has meant support for this and other progressive issues has not been what it should be.

Writing in a personal capacity in the Morning Star on 16April, Jackson Cullinane, a political officer of Unite Scotland, stressed the importance of reminding trade unionists of Trident’s impact on cuts to services, wages and conditions, their job security and how it actually costs jobs in the defence sector. This was proven by such reports as a 2007 study conducted jointly by SCND and the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) which demonstrate whatever the referendum result urgent action is required to diversify the defence sector. The establishment of a Scottish Defence Diversification Agency which should engage with trade union representatives to make some concrete proposals for a transition to alternative but equivalently skilled and paid employment would be a good start.

The deadline for submissions to the current NPF process is the 13June and so far there have been no submissions in support of Trident and 21 CLPs have made submissions to the process on the issue. Eight other CLPs have promised to make submissions but those have not yet appeared on the Your Britain website (yourbritain.org.uk).

From Labour CND following Mark’s article:

With CLP submissions to Labour's National Policy Forum consultation now in, Trident has emerged as a key issue. Almost a third of all amendments submitted to the Britain's Global Role paper, which covers all aspects of international policy, were on Trident. Almost 50 CLPs have submitted an amendment on Trident and 90% of them want to see it scrapped.

With submissions overwhelmingly in favour of decommissioning Trident and carrying out the UK's historic nuclear disarmament commitment, it is time Labour delivered.

It is vital that CLP representatives on the NPF submit this issue and represent members by voting for decommissioning Trident and delivering disarmament.

CfS response to Jim Murphy's Resignation

When Jim Murphy announced last Saturday that he was standing down as Scottish Labour Party leader, he took it as an opportunity to lambast Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey for his supposedly “destructive behaviour” towards the Labour Party. 
 
Murphy claimed that he had been “at the centre of a campaign by the London leadership of Unite the Union, (who) blame myself or the Scottish Labour Party for the defeat of the UK Labour Party in the general election.” 
 
He continued:  
 
“Sometimes people see it as a badge of honour to have Mr. McCluskey’s support. I see it as a kiss of death to be supported by that type of politics. … We cannot have our leaders selected or deselected by the grudges and grievances of one prominent man.” 
 
“The leader of the Scottish Labour Party doesn’t serve at the grace of Len McCluskey, and the next leader of the UK Labour Party should not be picked by Len McCluskey.” 
 
Such statements are, to put it mildly, problematic in a number of respects. 
 
McCluskey has twice been elected Unite’s General Secretary – in 2010, and again in 2013 – through Unite’s democratic structures and electoral procedures.  
 
If McCluskey really is guilty of “destructive behaviour” and his politics the “kiss of death”, then the Unite members who have twice elected him their General Secretary must be either: really stupid not to have seen through him; or willing accomplices of his destructive behaviour. 
 
Either way, Murphy’s criticisms of McCluskey amount to a gross insult of the majority of Unite members who have backed McCluskey in two successive union elections. 
 
Murphy’s claim that support from McCluskey amounts to a “kiss of death” is problematic in another respect as well. 
 
In mid-2013 Ed Miliband announced the Collins Review, involving a fundamental change in the relationship between affiliated trade unions and the Labour Party, one which will lead to unions having much less of a say in the Labour Party’s decision-making processes. 
 
McCluskey backed the Collins Review from the outset. Although many Unite activists opposed it, McCluskey argued for support for the Collins Review in Unite and in the broader trade union movement. 
 
But Murphy, and those who share his politics, did not denounce McCluskey’s support for the Collins Review as “the kiss of death” and more evidence of his “destructive behaviour”. On the contrary, they welcomed his support. 
 
Murphy’s claim that who Unite decides to back in Labour Party elections is the product of “the grudges and grievances of one prominent man” is another claim that does not stand up to a moment’s scrutiny. 
 
Unite’s approach to the Labour Party, including national and regional Labour Party leadership contests, is defined by its Political Strategy, adopted by the union’s Executive Committee in December 2011.  
 
The essence of the Strategy – publicly available on the Unite website – is summed up in a single sentence: “Winning Labour for working people, and winning working people for Labour.” 
 
When Unite decides who to back in Labour Party leadership contests, it does so on the basis of which candidate best represents the union’s policies, as summed up in its Political Strategy and in resolutions adopted at the union’s biennial policy conferences 
 
This is about as far away from making decisions on the basis of “the grudges and grievances of one prominent man” as you can get. 
 
And when McCluskey stood for re-election in 2013, support for the implementation of the Political Strategy was part of his election platform – underlining the point that McCluskey has not acted on the basis of “grudges and grievances” but on the basis on which he was re-elected by Unite members. 
 
Murphy was equally wrong in claiming that in the week between the general election and last weekend’s meeting of the Scottish Labour Party Executive Committee he had been “at the centre of a campaign by the London leadership of Unite the Union.” 
 
He had certainly been at the centre of a campaign calling on him to resign. But the driving force behind that campaign were ordinary members of the Scottish Labour Party who regarded Murphy’s position as untenable after the debacle of 7th May. 
 
The campaigning was initiated, organised and conducted by ordinary Labour Party members – only a minority of whom were Unite members. And even those who were Unite members were acting at their own initiative, not under the instructions of “the London leadership of Unite the Union”. 
 
Murphy was particularly angered by what he described as McCluskey having “blamed myself or the Scottish Labour Party for the defeat of the UK Labour Party in the general election.” 
 
But McCluskey’s actual argument was straightforward.  
 
The leadership and politics of Jim Murphy, following on from the Labour-Tory-Lib-Dem ‘Better Together’ alliance, had allowed the SNP to pick up the votes – in large numbers – of traditional Labour voters.  
 
The growth in support for the SNP had then allowed the Tories in England to win votes through an appeal to English nationalism, by presenting themselves as the people who would stick up for the English against the SNP. 
 
And that argument is backed up by facts. 
 
Anyone who canvassed during the election campaign will have experienced longstanding Labour voters saying that they were switching to the SNP because of – although certainly not solely because of – ‘Better Together’ and the politics embodied by Murphy. 
 
That was the sentiment which the SNP opportunistically played to in their election material (which would have been tried and tested on multiple focus groups before being published and circulated): 
 
“Labour used to stand up to the Tories. Not any more. Labour and the Tories campaigned together in the referendum. And they voted together at Westminster for deeper spending cuts. The only way to lock out the Tories and force Labour back to its roots is to vote SNP.” 
 
The surge in SNP support was then exploited by the Tories in England. We know this for a fact because the Tories subsequently boasted of the success of that strategy to the pro-Tory press: 
 
“Under the plan set out by Crosby the Conservatives would attempt to squeeze UKIP and Lib-Dem votes by playing on fears of the SNP while highlighting David Cameron’s leadership and fears of economic ‘chaos’ under Labour. All the messages had been extensively tested on focus groups in key marginals.” 
 
Instead of insulting the messenger, Murphy would have been better off listening to, and reflecting on, the message.

Motion passed at CfS Public Meeting

Below is a the text of the motion passed by grassroots Labour Party members at a meeting hosted by Campaign for Socialism on Wednesday 13th May.  Over 100 activists were present at the meeting which was called only at two days notice and received near unanimous support.

“In light of the heavy defeat of the Scottish Labour Party in the recent General Election, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party should step down in favour of the Depute Leader. The Scottish Executive should then afford individual members and affiliates the opportunity to discuss in depth the wide ranging issues that need to be addressed in order to make the Scottish Labour Party an effective agency of social and political change in Scotland.”

What a Difference a Dispute Makes

By Mike Cowley, EIS Branch Convenor and EIS-FELA National Committee.

A few short months ago, EIS-FELA Branch officials at Edinburgh College were confronted by a management determined to diminish our terms, conditions and working patterns while increasing both our weekly FT and class contact hours. College policies we were told, were a matter for consultation only. Our role would be as passive observers, our presence only necessary during discussions as a means of conferring on the outcomes a spurious legitimacy. A Recognition and Procedures agreement worthy of the name appeared a prospect so distant as to oblige officials to reconcile themselves to a protracted and increasingly difficult schedule of negotiations.

Then came our ballot. On a 64% turnout and with almost 92% of members voting for strike action, even officials, both local and national, were taken aback by the extent of the anger articulated by this almost unprecedented result. It was a result that immediately shifted the terrain we would now be fighting on.

Members understood with absolute clarity precisely what we were fighting for. Following our first day, management tabled an offer which, though marginally improving on their initial gambit, failed to decouple pay from conditions and persisted with the misapprehension that pay was our primary concern. ‘But they called off the action at Grangemouth once negotiations begun!’ they opined.

With respect to the beleaguered UNITE members of Grangemouth, this was not an appeal likely to curry favour with officials.

As our action progressed, so the mood became more expansive, confidence escalated and the picket lines grew. We received scores of messages expressing solidarity from around the country.

Sterling support was also provided by our national officers. General Secretary Larry Flanagan attended packed out meetings, legitimising our concerns and linking our demands to the future of FE provision in Scotland as national bargaining approaches. Student reps were vocal in their support. They perhaps better than anyone understood the implications for quality of the data on staff absences which emerged from our Board in the midst of the dispute. According to these figures stress, fatigue, depression and anxiety amounts to well over half of all absences amongst academic and support staff at the College. While this may well compare favourably with other workplaces, the Board’s relativist comparisons served only to enrage staff further. UNISON support staff were also vocal in their solidarity.

On our initial strike day we lobbied the Scottish parliament. A number of Green and Labour MSPs, including CFS Convenor Elaine Smith and supporter and Red Paper Collective contributer Neil Findlay emerged to express their support. No sign of the SNP or Con-Dems, but in regards to the Tories, there’s more chance of sightseeing a Panda than bumping into one of Bevan’s lesser spotted ‘vermin’ up here.

The union’s numbers grew also; rather than be unsettled by the dispute or by the early e-mail missives from management condemning our action, staff increasingly gravitated towards us. Our numbers now stand at 501, a rise over a few short weeks from 453.

Our armoury was broad and adaptable to a fluid situation. An on-line campaign, including a members’ blog, provided a receptacle for catharsis, debate and discussion. On line petitions, films and photos recorded our action, archiving our dispute for posterity, and in the heat of struggle allowing members to visit sources of trusted and alternative narratives as the dispute developed.

This alliance – of staff and students, EIS FELA colleagues from around the country and our national officials, support colleagues and politicians – ultimately secured us a famous victory. Conditions have   not only been protected but enhanced.

We spoke to our members patiently, communicating with humour and determination in terms we were all comfortable with. Most critically, officials circulated the campuses to listen to their anxieties, channelling their ideas and building confidence not only in their potential to assert agency, but in the commitment of officials to be mandated solely by their demands. Ultimately this is what most effectively disarmed the Board’s negotiators; we were representatives only, spokespersons for a membership whose belief had been amplified by the confidence that comes from the pursuit of justice, and for whom only one outcome mattered – that the modest expectations of members were met, and met fully. 

Determined trade union fight backs can and do win disputes. Building the kind of non-sectarian alliances capable of facing down apparently intransigent employers presents us with mountains to climb, but it can be done. Sect-building, dictating strategy to members, detached FT officials, all of these undermine the essential task of establishing a belief amongst members that victories can be hewn from the most unlikely of circumstances. It’s a small example of what can be achieved, but FE staff at Edinburgh College have demonstrated what ground can be won back even in the face of a management operating against a backdrop of anti-union laws, austerity fears and high unemployment.

Pay Day Lenders: There is Another Way

By Cllr Kenny Selbie

The role of pay day lending companies within the consumer credit market continues to be a critically important issue, particularly given the findings and recommendations of the Financial Conduct Authority’s investigation into the industry published late last year and the subsequent political positioning on the matter by all parties at Westminster.

The debate within Parliament has, for the most part, focused on regulation and safeguards for consumers. The focus within the wider community has been more about developing resistance (through awareness-raising and direct campaigns against lenders with a high street presence) and emergency support (predominantly through debt advice and even food banks and other charitable measures).  Both of these approaches are positive and likely to lead to some real changes in the industry over the next few years. But in my view one key element which requires greater attention is what socially conscious alternatives can be supported, and how this support is best facilitated.

It is clear that pay day loan companies are, regardless of what is said by the industry, exploitative and prey on those with no or limited alternatives to make ends meet. The industry defends itself purely on free market grounds – these services are open to all and provide a useful service to people who require short term credit. That the real profit is generated by default charges via missed or partial payments is just one of the clear examples that show there is no free market in operation here - only exploitation and profiteering against those who have the lowest level of financial options open to them and are least able to defend themselves.

The resistance and campaigning against pay day lenders is importanct, not just in dealing with the problem at a practical level but also to aid awareness-raising and support from the wider community. Along with many others I have personally been involved in supporting the Debtbusters campaign locally, led by Kezia Dugdale MSP and the Co-operative Party.  This is just one of a number of ongoing campaigns across the UK and is creating real successes, for example:

• working with local authorities to ban access to pay day loan websites from council owned computers;
• lobbying the government for the introduction of “health warnings” for pay day loan companies;
• in collaboration with the Govan Law Centre, campaigning successfully for a freeze on debt interest when individuals apply for a Debt Arrangement Scheme.

While this work is important and needs to continue, there also needs to be a recognition that working people are not simply applying for these loans because of exploitative marketing gimmicks – there is a need for people in our communities to have access to short term credit. For many people  we would be doing more harm than good by cutting off all supply without providing a responsible, sustainable alternative.

The further development of credit unions is fundamental to offering an alternative to pay day loan companies. The ethos of the credit union movement, as community co-operatives, ensures that individuals and families are offered non-exploitative competitive financial services, where a self-help approach ensures that while people are accessing low cost loans they are also saving and investing for the future. Credit unions are now available throughout the UK but we need to do more to make this alternative accessible and credible.

The larger credit unions can and do offer short term loans which can counter what pay day loan companies currently offer. This particular service is not as widespread as the broader financial services offered by most credit unions - and this is an area which requires greater attention from government and campaigners. The key to broader success for this service via credit unions is how to manage the underwriting of risk, given financial services are run by and for the community. Creating credit union presence at a street by street level, as well as a more sophisticated UK wide online presence, will assist to combat the multi-million pound marketing and branding of the private pay day lenders, and may start to offer a realistic mainstream alternative.

The ongoing campaigns and community action on pay day loans should not be seen simply as crisis intervention. It is also about focusing on, and gaining support from our communities for, co-operative values and principles - and advancing the argument that when we are united and working in solidarity, we can improve our collective material and social conditions. Tackling the scourge of pay day lenders in our communities will not be easy. But the fight continues and we will be successful when we focus not just on the impact of these companies, but also give our support for the alternative, offering our communities another way.

There are Better Things to be doing than Playing the Patriot Games

By Stephen Low

“To these ends we work for the patriotic interest of the people of Scotland” runs part of a suggested new aims and values statement ( Clause 4 - renumbered from Clause 2 for marketing purposes) that we are being asked to endorse at Scottish Conference in March.

As a party and a movement we can do better than this, if we are allowed the chance.  And there are a number of reasons both political and practical why we should make a point of doing so. Not least, because the idea is built on a foundation of myths – and nationalist myths at that.  

More fundamentally our party should be forming our aims and values through participation and involvement from the grassroots up. Not a take it or leave it edict handed down from the top.

The world isn’t short of movements that think enforcing patriotism is more of a virtue than taking different views on board and coming to a consensus. Scottish Labour shouldn’t be one of them. At the very least CLP’s and affiliates should have the opportunity to put amendments to go to the conference this will allow real discussion and for ideas, experience and insights from around the party to enrich the process.

We should be honest with ourselves that the statement can be improved. Saying Labour will govern in “the patriotic interest” doesn’t make life easier for our party. The purpose behind it is fairly obvious (and worthwhile).The SNP are widely, but wrongly, perceived as being the people who stand up for Scotland, this is an attempt at taking some of that ground back. 

Laudable aim certainly but we’ll do better by countering nationalist myths, not buying into them.  We won’t have a distinct or compelling appealby saying that we “work for the patriotic interest”, any tax exile  or  homophobic bus monopolist can say the same. "The interests of working people and their families” that is our interest in this, and every other, nation.  

To think that we need to insert a patriot clause into our constitution necessarily involves does accepting a nationalist mythology.   The idea is Jim Murphy’s announced in a speech where alongside many worthwhile observations and aspirations our new leader stated:

“We will make it clear that we are both a democratic socialist party and a patriotic party. We are a socialist party yes, but we recognise that our political faith grew out of something deeper which is ingrained in our Scottish character...

It was there before our party in the beauty of Burns’ poetry, the economic vision of New Lanark, the actions of the highlanders who stood against brutal landlords."

Leaving aside (for now) an unease about bringing ideas about 'national character' into politics. This is fiction, not history. The idea that the labour movement arose from a sense of national rather than class identity would get you a bad fail in any history class. Whilst our  movement has had no lack of Scottish specificities, as Labour Historian (and Labour Party member) Ewan Gibbs  put it during a facebook discussion about this: 

"To be clear the Scottish labour movement and Party were largely formed out of struggles against Scottish employers and more broadly opposition to a specific Scottish set of political traditions ('Unionism' and Liberalism) within the broader British context. The idea that it was anything other than class antagonism that was behind this and especially the consolidation of the ILP and then Labour in Scotland is just nonsense. Of course specific Scottish circumstances, history and cultural facets had an influence but this is very distinct from 'patriotism' ... I'd have to fail any essays my students hand me arguing our movement was established out of patriotic sentiment, not due to some disagreement of 'opinion' but because the historical evidence just doesn't exist to substantiate that sort of wild claim." 

Our party, our movement, doesn’t have its roots in Burns poetry, or the economic vision of New Lanark (apart from anything else the vision on display in New Lanark was social and industrial, rather economic and it belonged to Robert Owen who was Welsh). These aren’t the only departures from fact in Jim’s speech; UNISON’s Dave Watson takes a wry look  at some of the others.  Jim is hardly the first person to jettison historical truth to construct a patriotic narrative. Indeed if that is the game being played it’s almost essential. But is this a game we want to play? Are we not better sticking to the reality? It is, after all, what makes us distinctively ‘Labour’

We should base what we say and do on what is true, on what happened. Not the creation of convenient or cosy myths. Hardie’s politics, and our party, arose not out of something ingrained in the Scottish character, but as a reflection of and response to poverty and exploitation amidst growing plenty. The misery of mill and mine created the desire for justice and the realisation that only by uniting as workers could better be achieved. Crying social need and awareness of the power of acting collectively was the driving force – not “something deeper” somehow derived from being Scottish. This is of course why the same movement was being brought into being, across the UK, and the industrialising world. If Keir Hardie  embodied “something deeper  ingrained our Scottish character” it  seems odd that it was the electorates of West Ham and Merthyr Tydfil who were most receptive to the man who had been blacklisted by the Scottish coal owners .

So to say that we should have a patriot clause in our aims and values to reflect our movement’s founding aims or ethos, makes no sense. That, however is merely foolish for exposing us to ridicule (just wait until the next time the history curriculum is talked about in Parliament...) It’s the buying into the myth that we have an ingrained national character that is more worrying.

The idea that a nation has some sort of ingrained character is of course hardly a new one.  But if we are to endorse the idea that our “political faith” comes from “something deeper” in the Scottish character.( Unless we are claiming a truly unique status for the Scottish Labour Party) We are also endorsing the ideathat “political faiths”  can develop out of “something deeper”  ingrained in say, the German,  Hungarian or Croatian character. These and many other countries, have movements dedicated to arguing for precisely this notion...made up of people who are not our friends.

 It is in any case a fallacy, 'national character'  insofar asit can said to exist at all, is not ingrained, there is no “something deeper” it is hugely changeable.  Scotland in my father’s lifetime has gone from voting majority Tory, to being a Labour stronghold, to seeing, the rise of nationalism. Similar big transformations( including depressingly the recent rise in nationalism) can be exampled all across Europe.  Far from being ingrained ‘national character’ changes as circumstances change, as Prof John Foster writing for the Red Paper Collectivehas outlined. 

But quite apart from the justifications offered  having no factual basis, a promise “to govern in the patriotic interest” doesn’t so much solve a problem, as create a rod for our own backs. If it is to have any practical application what can it be other than a declaration that tartanry trumps solidarity Would it mean for example that we would support an SNP Govt arguing for more money from a UKLab government in order to hold down business rates in Scotland, at the expense of social spending in the rUK? That would certainlymatch “the patriotic interest". But it hardly squares with any conception of socialist or labour values. And where is the “patriotic interest” in not devolving abortion law?  There are several reasons why doing so would be a terrible idea (and we owe a debt of gratitude to our team on the Smith commission for stopping it) but they aren’t patriotic ones. 

Nationalism has been on the rise, not just here but across Europe. Getting arguments across based on sense rather than Saltire is a challenge. No one denies it. But it is a challenge we must face. Scotland already has too many people and parties who will equate progress with patriotism, lets not add to the number endorsing this myth. We should have the courage and integrity to stand up for truth, for solidarity and what unites rather than divides people.   

The peoples flag isn’t a white cross on blue – it’s deepest red. We forget that at our peril.

Something for nothing?

By Elaine Smith MSP

When Johann Lamont uttered the words “something for nothing” she sparked a storm both within and out with the party. The phrase in itself is controversial, in that it has been long used by right-wing elements to undermine the principles of universal benefits and the welfare state. As such its use by a leading labour politician was questionable.

There has since followed much debate on what Johann actually meant by that phrase in the context of her speech. She went on to say: “This is the stark choice that Scotland has to face up to: if we wish to continue some policies as they are then they come with a cost which has to be paid for either through increased taxation, direct charges or cuts elsewhere”.

Undoubtedly her intervention was aimed at the SNP Government and this is where, although I would question her choice of words, I agree with her point that the current administration is protecting some benefits but underfunding and cutting others. Their position is not consistent.

The spending choices of the SNP do need to be put under the spotlight and their stealth cuts exposed. Also, their propensity to cut taxes evidenced by their freeze on council tax, their plans for reducing corporation tax and their removal of the ability to use the Scottish Variable Rate should be highlighted.

Johann went on to say that she would not “tolerate a country where the poorest pay for the tax breaks for the rich”. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening as income tax levels for the wealthy are less than they were under Thatcher, the better off benefit most from the council tax freeze and bankers continue to bag obscene bonuses.

However, the answer is not to remove hard won universal benefits; it is to tax fairly. As we know full well in the Labour Party, services for the poor are often poor services. That is why our party has unequivocally supported the universal provision of school education, the health service and free access to libraries, public parks and other vital services provided by local and central govt. The standards are better because we all buy in and we collectively demand improvements.

These services, along with bus travel, further and higher education, personal care, etc. are not “free”. They are paid for by redistribution of resources via taxation and fairer, more progressive taxation has always been Labour Party policy. It is time we started to restate that loud and clear.

Means testing is expensive and can result in some people losing out even when they are entitled to benefits. It also means that the working poor and the so-called squeezed middle suffer financially whilst the wealthy continue to enjoy benefits like ‘free’ medical treatment through company insurance, ‘free’ school meals for their children provided as part of their subsidised, charity status private schools and ‘free’ travel via company cars and limos.

We also know from bitter experience that when we move services away from universalism they then become easy pickings for privateers.

There are changes ahead that will allow for different tax choices to be made no matter the outcome of the referendum in 2014. But of course we have some tax choices even under the devolution settlement.

The referendum in 1998 involved two votes, one for devolution and the other for tax varying powers, and both were overwhelmingly supported, giving a tax mandate straight from the people. However, the tax varying powers have never been used and the SNP failed to maintain the administration fee that allowed this tax to be used.

The tax issue was raised recently in a debate by Jenny Marra MSP who asked why the SNP had “forfeited the Parliament’s constitutionally decided tax-varying powers”. In response Kevin Stewart MSP said “Ms Marra obviously wants to raise income tax, while the Tories want to lower it. To be frank, people are paying enough as it is…”

That was a very interesting exchange, given that at the start of the debate Alex Neil MSP said: “we should let Fred Goodwin get the bus pass as long as he pays for it through much higher taxation, which would help to pay for everybody”. I happen to agree with Alex on that point but this highlights the lack of consistency on the SNP benches.

However, the SNP, albeit a neo-liberal party occupying the centre ground, won the last two elections by presenting an image of a party in touch with the people and to the left of Labour.

No tuition fees, retaining local services like Monklands A&E, committing to no privatisation of the NHS, free prescriptions, promising free school meals, supposedly abandoning PFI and taking an anti-trident/anti-Nato stance, along with their stance against the Iraq war, won them support amongst traditional Labour voters.

The policies to provide free services and benefits have proved popular but there is a cost in providing them if taxes are not increased. The SNP government no longer provide central heating for all pensioners, bursaries have been reduced and music tuition is no longer free.

Other cuts have included withdrawing free orthodontic treatment for children and podiatry services for elderly people, and free personal care is not as comprehensive as it should be due to lack of time and resources.

The council tax freeze was electorally popular but shouldn’t feature in any debate about universal benefits as it is not a benefit. However, the services that the council tax provides should feature, and in particular those that are now being slashed because of this longstanding freeze.

Instead of slashing services, policies to add to our provisions should be under consideration such as free universal childcare which would help parents get back to work and boost our economy and the government should be fully funding free school meals to help tackle poverty and childhood obesity instead of blaming hard pressed councils for not delivering on this.

So, Johann is right to criticise the SNP Government, expose hypocrisy and demand that they be held accountable for their actions. However, if we believe in keeping the universal benefits we have gained since devolution and adding to them via fairer progressive taxation then we must argue for that in the party and across the wider labour and trade union movement.

These are principles that surely must lie at the very heart of any socialist system of Government since universality underpins the quest for a fair society. Universal benefits are fair, efficient, do not stigmatise anyone and they provide a collective benefit paid for by a system of proper progressive taxation.

That is what we should be striving for in Scotland: a redistribution of wealth in a country where there is more than enough to go round but it’s in the hands of the very rich who don’t even know there is a recession and whose wealth has reached record levels in the last year.

The Labour party, set up to represent the working class, has the moral mandate, and should have the political will, to tackle this and rebalance tax in favour of a fairer society. At the moment the reality is that the rich continue to get ever richer whilst the poor get poorer.

Rather than pursuing divisive responses to the current economic situation, such as a rush to separate from our comrades across the border, or being pushed into arguments about which benefit is better, we should be arguing for income tax powers to be devolved in the post referendum settlement if there is a ‘no’ vote. If not then we are in danger of sinking to the depths of an argument that pits the working class against each other.

Free prescriptions or free bus passes? More college places or free university education? Free personal care or reduced waiting times?

The party of the labour and trade union movement must surely recognise that the obscenity in our society is not the person who’s worked all their life, has a decent pension and gets free bus travel; it’s the wealthy few who wouldn’t dream of using public transport but who have just received a massive Tory tax cut.

Keir Hardie could not have anticipated a 21st century Scottish Labour party whimpering about reviewing spending priorities while sick and starving citizens depend on food banks, have their welfare cut and are evicted because of the bedroom tax . Undoubtedly, he would have expected the party to react with a bang and find policies and solutions to advance the interest of the working class and present clear alternatives to SNP and Tory cuts.

The austerity of 1945 did not stop Labour, in government, from introducing radical reforms to nationalise industry and create a welfare state that protected our citizens ‘from the cradle to the grave’. I believe it’s our challenge and our duty to protect our people now through universal provision and progressive taxation and re-establish our party as the mass party of labour. We could make a start by re-affirming our 1945 manifesto statement: “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it”.