Stunning Socialist victories in Scotland

by KaM - LSP (CWI) Tue May 13, 2003 00:53

Why shouldn't we stay in, we more or less took the initiative to create a workers party in Scotland. In every country we say the same thing over and over again.

Social Democrats sold out, we need a new workers party, and we will form a internatialist trotskist tendency within the party to figt for a revolutionary program etc and etc........

We just wanted to remain a internationlist and revolutionary tendency within the party. The majorty in Scotland didn't agree with that and as a result decided to leave the CWI.

I have a lot of respect for the SSP and wish them good luck in the future but that doesn't mean we should shut up and quit our fight for a internationalist and revolutionary program.

by Durutti Mon May 12, 2003 10:50

You dont want to be fragged into a debate about the SSP! You who seems to know so much of the minutae of the CWI sections worldwide.

Could it be that you are embarrassed that the vast majority of the SSP got fed up with being ruled from London by Hadden and asserted Scottish Inddependence?

You have really performed mental gymnastics in the recent Assembly Elections. Calling for a vote for Labour in Dundee East, while at the same time calling Labour a Capitalist party.

Now you seem to be implying that the SSP is not a workers party, but the CWI are happy to remain in it.

You Leninists are such a howl.

by Finghin - SP Sat May 10, 2003 20:02 finghink at hotmail dot com

Dan,
I don't really want to get dragged into an indymedia debate, it's not the ideal forum, it's better to discuss these things in person however there's a few points you made in your last post that I think are completely unjustified.

You say that "Murphy himself is to the working class what Alaska is to Mexico" how can you say this is true? Paul Murphy like all other members of the SP in UCD are active in working class communities on a regular basis.

You also seem to be saying that the SP do not have any support from the working class and are a middle class party. That is complete rubbish, a vast majority of SP members are from the working class (as you define it). The SP have a fine record in struggle in working class communities and the trade unions. You just have to look at the Dublin North, Dublin West and other areas in which we have campaigned.

Another point, most of the Murphy/Kelly campaign team did not come from Paul's law class. Most were arts students that were involved in CFE and those that were from his law class were also very active in CFE beforehand. By the way 4 of the most active people in the campaign were from Tallaght (not that it really matters).

As for Scotland SSP etc, I suggest you have a look at the www.marxist.net website where the full debate between the CWI and ISM is published.

by Dan - SA Fri May 09, 2003 20:51

KG and others think it is enough to call someone a "reformist"
to make it true. Well, if you ever read the Spartacist newspaper,
youd know that Phil the Spart and his comrades say that the SWP, the SP,
and even the WSM, are social-democratic reformist groups.
If,on the other hand, you bothered to read the detailed theoretical arguments
put forward by the ISM (especially the articles by Murray Smith), or even bothered
to read the interviews with Tommy Sheridan while paying attention, youd
see that the ISM/SSP have nothing in common with reformism in any meaningful sense of that
term. I think the real problem here is that for the SSP, socialism is not just an abstract ideology:
its about making things better for real working-class people. This is what informs their approach; this is
why they talk about what can be done now AS WELL AS talking about a democratic socialist republic.
I can deny that the ISM have adopted reformist positions til hell freezes over, because its not true, except in
some crazy spart sense of the term.

I can only concede the point that in one year of existence SA havent won the allegience of the industrial
working class. Nor, might I add, have the SWM/P after twenty years of existence. However, within UCD, the majority
of people involved in the Campaign for Free Education would probably have to leave college if fees came back, so
I suppose that makes them working class. Out of this activist group, not one found the SPs message attractive enough
to support Paul Murphys election campaign (Murphy himself is to the working class what Alaska is to Mexico). They all tended
to agree with the line SA took within the campaign, and some of them are active in our group. So I suppose thats something.
Unlike the SWP, we have a realistic sense of what we can do with finite resources, so we didnt expect to be
leading proletarian resistance to social partnership by now. But were getting there. If class composition is a guide
to radicalism, then I suggest you compare the Murphy/Dillon campaign teams. Most of Murphys campaigners came from his law class, I
believe. Most of Dillos campaigners come from Tallaght and other unfashionable addresses. I suspect that wont mean anything to you, any
more than the fact that Tommy Sheridan and his co-thinkers have made socialism into a real movement in working-class areas of
Glasgow while the SWP has spent its time explaining why Cuba is state capitalist. No doubt the plebs concerned suffer from
"false consciousness". Im sure its never occured to you that this sort of patronising drivel is why your group finds it so difficult
to retain its deposits.

Perhaps Marx might have had something to say about the view that socialist theory requires no connection with real
people and their struggles in order to be valid. Anyone can come out with slogans. Put it into practice. If you think the SSP
have failed, show us how to do it better. Youve had twenty years. Can we expect some progress anytime soon?

by Magneto Fri May 09, 2003 15:37

Wrong again my fuckwitted friend. I am not Paul.

by Curious Fri May 09, 2003 14:58

So you are now happy to remain in a party which wants capitalism with a more human face. I cant see how the SSP is different from the SLP in that case.

by Durutti Fri May 09, 2003 14:56

Paul is not the only UCD Labour Yth head to be involved in GNAW. He already denied that he was Magneto. At least three members of UCD Lab Yth have now been outed as Magneto.

by KG - SWP Fri May 09, 2003 14:42

Danny, you claim that the problem with the left is that it has no links with the working class. I note that your sectarian cliquelet have taken no turn towards the working class whatsoever and it is a rarity if you ventrue out of Belfield.

This uncritical support of Sheridan is yet another sign of your rightward drift. The Sheridanites have sold out on their previous positions, they have adopted nationalist and reformist positions. how can you deny that this is not the case?

I suggest that readers of IMC have a look at this thread linked below. It shows how 'Socialist Alternative' have completely sold out over the past year.
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=43848&start=50&sid=48581

by I know who Magneto is Thu May 08, 2003 22:31

'Magneto' is Paul Dillon. Member of the Labour General Council, Incoming UCD SU President, and aspiring Labour TD.

Dillon is the only person in LY in UCD that has done anywork with GNAW people.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Thu May 08, 2003 21:10

Re your posting the answer is no.

by Mick Wed May 07, 2003 13:18

My mate was being arrested as Joe 'scab' Higgins was calling us 'virtual warriors'. I used to respect him but he can fuck right off now. That was the wrong moment to put the knife in it will not be forgotten.

by Cato Wed May 07, 2003 10:20

"i think what higgins actaully said was
by just for clarification... Tue, May 6 2003, 6:33pm

"internet warriors tearing down virtual fences""

Joe Higgins said this while GNAW were up against a real fence and real cops and real army. He said this while ten real people were being arrested by those same real cops.

by KaM - LSP Tue May 06, 2003 20:27

Take it easy, I just said, that from a socialist Scandinavian perspective it probably sounds a little bit strange. But it is correct that Scandinavia has a much better social security system, less poor people and..... that another Scotland is possible. :)

by just for clarification... Tue May 06, 2003 19:33

"internet warriors tearing down virtual fences"

by RV Tue May 06, 2003 17:25

(taken from an article entitled "Party Building"
CWI-SP Members Bulletin No21 Feb 1997)

"As a rule our transitional demands do not in general pose that much of a problem on the doorstep. The question which creates the most angst is posed usually at the end of a conversation:
'What does socialism mean?' At the very least it would mean quality affordable housing with all mod cons, a secure well paid job, ensuring a couple of holidays abroad every year, a new car.
A fully funded health service freely available to all, proper education for our kids. This would ensure the welfare of our communities."

"This is a generalised answer which would need to be adapted to the area you are campaigning in"

by Curious Tue May 06, 2003 17:08

It was one of the SP Troika who posted the stuff about Sheridan. Was he preparing us for a CWI announcement that the IS will be leaving the SSP?

by Dan - SA Tue May 06, 2003 16:18 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

Before everyone rushes to excommunicate Tommy Sheridan from the community of true believers, perhaps you should read the interviews above properly. Sheridan states clearly that he wants to see the majority of the economy in private hands: the banks, transport, electricity, north sea oil, manufacturing and chemicals. He then says he has no problem with small business continuing to exist as long as their workers are protected by legislation, unionised, and a strict pay differential scale imposed. Forgive me if I dont collapse in horror. Once the "commanding heights" of the economy are under democratic control, there really is no need to nationalise every corner shop and pub in Scotland; the capitalist logic of the economy will have been broken without needless over-centralisation and bureaucracy. So full marks for Sheridan there -especially since hes willing to defend a programme of public ownership more extensive than anything attempted in any west European country since the year dot, while being interviewed by the bourgeois media.

Then he refers to Scandanavia. The problem all socialists have to face today is that fact that we dont have a positive example of democratic socialism in practice that we can point to. So rather than base his arguments on pure speculation, Sheridan tackles the argument that the SSP manifesto cant possibly be implemented in a globalised world, by pointing out the fact that Norway and Denmark have public ownership of many industries and a progressive tax system without bringing about economic collapse. Again, I am less than horrified. Im sure he knows perfectly well that those countries are far from ideal; he doesnt refer to them as "socialist" but as "free market". The SSP programme goes much further than anything attempted by social democrats in Scandanavia. But its a handy example to silence conservative propagandists, and he has every right to use it.

Sheridan also admits that the Scottish parliament doesnt have the power to do everything they would like, so they would concentrate on doing what they can in the here and now. Hardly a crime.

So once you look at the two interviews properly, without the filter of dogmatic marxist-leninist claptrap to obscure your view of reality, theres really nothing to be concerned about. Like any party, the SSP will always face the danger of "selling out" by compromising too much. There are two ways of countering this:
A) by having a democratic internal regime, so that leaders like Sheridan are in no position to impose shifts to the right. In this respect the SSP are head and shoulders above the Irish trots carping about their "reformist" tendencies
b) by having real links with working-class people who are the victims of capitalism. Again, the SSP can safely ignore criticism from groups with no real profile in working-class communities

I suspect that its not the "betrayals" and "compromises" of the SSP that enrages the Monthy Python Bolsheviks; its the fact that theyve been successful WITHOUT abandoning socialist principles. Maybe if our own Leninists spent less time on irrelevant carping and more time studying the positive lessons of the Scottish experience, the Irish left might be in a position to match the Scots.

Just a thought...

by KaM - LSP Tue May 06, 2003 15:48

Maybe Sheridan should have a chat with some of his ex-comrades in Sweden and Finland before he gives people in Scotland the illusion that Scandinavia is some sort of Nirvana. But ofcourse I am glad with the succes of SSP and wish them good luck.

by real worlder Tue May 06, 2003 13:41

"Sheridan has seemed to sow illusions in reformism and nationalism. He throughout the campaign put forward Scandanavian social democracy as a model for Scotland. He even went as far as saying he was in favour of the 'mixed economy'......"

This kind of swp type crap above puts real working class people off politics alltogether.

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 13:27

Petty coat I have no hatred of people to the left of me. I am happy to work with Anarchgsts and other lefties in GNAW. You might have noted that our direct actions have been attacked by the great SP and SWP.

Where have I shown sectarianism? The SP have attacked Labour Youth on numerous occasions. How is it sectarian of me to respond.

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 13:24

Do the SP answer questions by launching abusive tirades?

Why not just answer the questions listed?

If oh good is correct then they will have no problem dealing with them.

by Pettycoat Luce Tue May 06, 2003 13:13

Magneto, it seems to me that you have a very good chance of fulfilling your dream of a career as a Labour Party hack. You have that one quality all the hacks have - an almost insane hatred of anybody to the left of you. Whatever disagreements one may or may not have with the Socialist Party, they are far more genuine and worthy of far more respect than the Labour Party.

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 11:29

Are you suggesting that:

1. John Throne wasnt denied the right of appeal to the CWI World Congress?

2. The SP didnt give 3 conflicting reasons for boycotting the Anti War Lobby of the ICTU Conference?

3. Joe Higgind did not refer to GNAW as 'Virtual Warriors'?

4. The SP didnt spread scare stories to disrupt DA?

by pat c Tue May 06, 2003 10:58

It would be a disaster if this thread went. Whats this deletion I missed? Where is it stored?

The real truth is that the 101st Degree Council of the Fenian Brotherhood (of which RBB, Allen, Chekov, Aidan, McLoughlin, Justin, Oisin and I are members) really rules IMC.

The disputes are just smoke and mirrors to the distract the profane.

by Oh good Mon May 05, 2003 22:48

This is getting good now.
Please dont delete this thread, everyone should be given the chance to see it and then re consider all the other attacks on the SP that they have seen on indymedia.

by 1984 Mon May 05, 2003 19:45

Indymedia is now controlled by pro-zionist socialist party members.

Indymedia has always been controlled by pro-zionist socialist party members.

Indymedia is not controlled by anti-semites.

Indymedia has never been controlled by anti-semites.

UNTIL - the next pro-israeli article is removed, in which case the above terms will be inversed. Although, the Socialist Party may well still be involved, or maybe the anarchists will win back their rightful place at the head of the conspiracy.

It's all a big big conspiracy I tell you! All the way to the top. As big as Watergate. McLouglin, Allen, Flood, Boyd-Barret, MacSimone, Hadden, Gormley and McGuinness will all resign in shame.

And the truth will finally come out about Pat C's sordid socialist sex shenanigans.

Oh yes.

by Curious Mon May 05, 2003 16:52

A bit of satire that might have upset the SP was deleted on the Lords Army thread. But a piece of satire which (according to Janes McK) had the potential to upset millions of Palestinians was left up elsewhere.

by SP Left Opposition Mon May 05, 2003 16:08

Our warning of the SP plan to takr over the Editorial LIst and delete comments they dont like has itself been deleted!

This is sinister. Perhaps now you are only being allowed to read the news that Little Lenin MacLoughlin wants you to read.

by Frontlines Newspaper - Left Party Mon May 05, 2003 05:49

Stunning Socialist victories in Scotland
by Frontlines Newspaper - Left Party Sat, May 3 2003, 11:06pm
[email protected]

Articles on Scotland, Argentinean elections, Iraq ...
Six members of the Scottish Socialist Party elected to parliament; Balance-sheet of the April 27 Argentinean elections and the role of the left organizations; the war against Iraq is over ...is it? And other articles.

http://www.sf-frontlines.com
Frontlines, the newspaper of the left

JUST PUBLISHED!

Scotland: Stunning Socialist victories in Parliamentary elections

By Peter Cambria
GLASGOW, SCOTLAND – As the parliamentary elections in Scotland and the municipal (Council) elections in England and Assembly elections in Wales held on May Day have shown, Tony Blair's Labour Party has managed to cling to power despite criticism after Blair led Britain to become the George Bush's political poodle in the Empire building war against Iraq. The Labour Party suffered heavy losses in both elections, which were characterized by low turnouts.

But in the rebel, radical and working class Scotland, the left made significant gains, with the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) gaining six seats to the Scottish parliament, as the champion of the antiwar movement, the advocate of working class issues and a staunch challenger of both imperial Labour Party and the bourgeois independentists of the Scottish National Party (SNP) by raising the need for an independent, Socialist Republic of Scotland.

The SSP final results were 117.709 votes across all Scottish constituencies or 6.2% of the total, with 89.278 votes for the regional areas or 7.5% of the total. In Glasgow the party polled an amazing 15% across the board.

SSP candidates Rosie Kane in Glasgow, Frances Curran from the West of Scotland, Carolyn Leckie from Central Scotland, Colin Fox from Lothians and Rosemary Byrne from South Scotland were jubilant last night celebrating their joining with Tommy Sheridan (who was re-elected) at Holyrood.

Read the entire article at:
http://www.sf-frontlines.com

++++

You can also read:

* Full balance-sheet of the April 27 Argentinean presidential elections and the role of the left. Including a complete dossier with historical notes about main events of the class struggle and the left parties in Argentina.

* Balance-sheet of the first phase of the war against Iraq.

* Dossier: Life in Iraq under US occupation

Read them all at:
http://www.sf-frontlines.com

related link: www.sf-frontlines.com

add your comments
COMMENTS

Affiliated to Swedish Left Party?
by swede Sun, May 4 2003, 2:39am

The Left Party are you affiliated to the Swedish Left Part?

Left Party silent on nationalism and reformism of SSP leadership
by cagry Sun, May 4 2003, 2:48am

I've just read your article on the SSP. Why do you not critisise the SSP leadership for its reformism and its nationalism?

Why do you choose to ignore the fact that Sheridan continually put forward the mixed economies of Denmark and Sweden and solutions for Scotland. He is ialso of the view that Socialism could be built in Scotland without the revolution spreading to the rest of Britain and Europe. Why have you not raised these points in your article. There are also some other inaccuracies that are included just to endorse your own little sectarian sect.

So this is another bogus article?
by James McKenna Sun, May 4 2003, 8:42am

Looks like another space-filler. I suppose the best way to know it is not genuinely in favour of Socialism is that it has been left up so long without the usual "mob" of Zionist hecklers.

Have you noticed the sequence yet?

Tommy Sheridan. [Post and comments moved by R Isible]
by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon, May 5 2003, 4:45am

Sun, May 4 2003, 3:33pm

Moves further to the right
Two interviews in which Scottish Socialist Party MSP explains how he supports a mixed economy and policies to help big business.

No longer the one-man band
Alf Young quizzes the party leaders No.5: Tommy Sheridan. In the last of the series of special events, The Herald yesterday staged a public lunchtime conversation between Alf Young, policy editor, and the Scottish Socialists' leader at the CCA in Glasgow. DAMIEN HENDERSON records the highlights
PARTY PROSPECTS
ALF YOUNG: You must be a happy man this morning, Tommy. The polls are suggesting that you're at that point, on the second vote in particular, where you could be not a one-man party at Holyrood but possibly even a 10-man-and-woman party. There's even talk in the Sun today that you might emerge as a bigger party than the Scottish Tories . . . Why do you think people are moving to your party in numbers that really seem to be surprising everyone?
TOMMY SHERIDAN: First of all, I'm shocked that the Sun is even mentioning us. In the four weeks of the campaign, I think that's the second mention of the SSP . . . Since (we launched our manifesto) they've decided to ignore us, similar to what the Daily Distort does as well - otherwise known as the Daily Record. The point is, these papers have gone out of their way to try and demonise, denigrate, and to try and really isolate the SSP as a political force when . . . what we've been putting forward is a legitimate political message.
One of the reasons I think we've won support in this campaign is that we've taken up the issues that matter. People say there's no big issues in this election. Well, I think they're wrong and they're not in touch with the people in the street because the big issue for us is an unfair council tax which is literally hammering pensioners and low-paid workers.
AY: Tommy, you said earlier that you wanted to banish this myth of the one-man band but, in terms of the evolution of your party, a lot of it is tied up in the personality, the approach, the way in which you have projected your message personally. It is very tied up in the shape and form of Tommy Sheridan, is it not?
TS: Every movement needs its leaders. What we've got, however, is a political party which is very much a grassroots party. We started off at a conference in February 1999 and we had no members. We had big ideas, we had big visions of how we wanted to improve Scotland. We had a lot of honesty and a lot of integrity but we had very few elected positions. In those days, we had one councillor and that was me.
Since then, we won a seat at the 1999 election, we got 7.5% of the vote in Glasgow, but we only got 2% of the vote across the whole of Scotland. We were largely unknown, if the truth be spoken. Most people outside Glasgow would not have heard of the SSP. I think, four years later, people would have to conclude - regardless of whether they like us or loathe us - that we have consistently raised very important issues.
FINANCE
AY: What you're saying in the manifesto is that (public sector) workers will earn a minimum of £7.32 an hour and that none of them will have to work more than 35 hours a week. Both of these pledges in that manifesto only apply to public sector workers. Why is it OK to say that's good for public sector workers, but it doesn't apply to private sector workers?
TS: I'm really glad you raised that point because this is one of the criticisms I wanted to raise with you. We made it plain within our 56-page manifesto that this is implementable within the straitjacket of the Scotland Act. Alf, we don't have the power over the private sector.
AY: You don't have power over income tax, but you're planning to change that.
TS: That's where you're wrong, because the Scotland Act allows you to change the form of local taxation as long as the money generated is spent on local jobs and services, so our service tax is legal.
AY: If the Inland Revenue says to you "No, sorry, you're not going to carry out that tax through that system", you're going to have to set up a system to do it, aren't you?
TS: Well, the Inland Revenue have been asked to comment on our system, but they have said they have a policy where they don't comment on any political policy areas. What they have said, in the conversations I've had (with them), is that they usually do as they're told. To return to the original point, what we have done is applied the Scotland Act to the letter of the law and that means we can only change the wages and conditions of the public sector workers. Post Office workers, for instance, are excluded from this.
BUSINESS
AY: OK, let's accept that you're doing what you can do within the confines of the Scotland Act. But let's assume further that this wave of support that you get in this election were to continue and, at some stage in the future, you might actually create the free, socialist republic of Scotland that your manifesto actually talks about. If you created that, would that set of rules for public sector workers apply to the private sector?
TS: Absolutely. For goodness sakes, we couldn't have an independent, socialist Scotland where we still allowed the call centres to pay poverty pay to the workers. That's not on.
AY: If you implemented that right across the board, what would you do to stop even more companies saying: "Scotland's a too expensive place to be in; we're going too."
TS: It is important that we take up this "big business" question. All the other parties roll over and allow their tummies to be tickled by big business because they want to prostrate themselves to big business. But big business . . . if they had their way, we wouldn't have an election on Thursday because big business rejected the Scottish Parliament. Let's remember that. We wouldn't even have the pathetically low minimum wage we've got just now. If big business had their way, we'd still have Margaret Thatcher in power.
AY: What would you actually do?
TS: What we would actually do is apply, in our labour market, minimum wages that actually allow people to have a decent standard of life . . . People say that, if we get into power, people will disinvest. Well, we're not in power and people are disinvesting just now. What we're saying is that in a future independent, socialist Scotland, we want to work on training, on skills. We want to offer a very high-skilled economy, a motivated workforce for big business. If that can work in places like Germany and France, where they have higher wages, better standards, and produce better products, why can't that work here in Scotland?
AY: Another thing you would do is confiscate the assets of a lot of the businesses that threaten to go. You've said that, haven't you?
TS: Absolutely. You have a situation whereby . . . we've offered enormous enticements for companies to come and set up in Scotland. They've come here, they've taken advantage of resettlement grants to establish largely assembly plants rather than full product plants, and then, when the going gets tough and a new market opens up for cheaper labour elsewhere, they've buggered off. What they've left in their wake is social disaster. Personally, what we mean by confiscation of assets is, even if we couldn't then establish a viable alternative employment centre using the assets there, at the very least let's use it to give workers a decent pay-off and compensation package.
What you have is a situation where multinational companies leave governments and leave people to pick up the pieces. Quite frankly, I think that's wrong.
AY: Would you nationalise Tesco?
TS: I don't think there's a need to nationalise Tesco right now. What I think there's a need for is to impose on Tesco proper wages and employment conditions . . . The mark-up in the supermarket field is absolutely obscene. The idea of business control on family food production is a huge private monopoly. It's the type of monopoly that the private sector used to attack the public sector for, but they've now got that. What they do is impose a wages and conditions package, which I don't think is good enough. What we would be doing is regulating business. You don't have to own it, you just regulate it.
PENSIONS
AY: You're always talking about big business as a big ogre in the background but, in shareholder capitalism, at the end of the day, the people who own Tesco or Volvo, or any of these businesses, are the pension funds. And that's you and me. If you're going to cause that kind of change to the market system, you're also going to put into jeopardy something that's already in serious problems and that's the pension system.
TS: First of all, I don't even think you believe that. The idea that, in shareholder capitalism, ordinary people actually control these industries is just nonsense. . .
A shipyard worker I was speaking to in Govan made the point that the shipyard workers on the Clyde actually undermine their own industry . . . their pension funds are invested in South Korean shipbuilding so that at the start of the twentieth century, two-thirds of the ships that sailed the seven seas were built on the Clyde; by the end of the twentieth century, the situation is reversed so that two-thirds of the ships were made in South Korea.
What we should have been doing with pension funds is retooling our own industries. I'm fed up with people saying we can't subsidise the shipbuilding, we can't subsidise the steel industry because it's too expensive, but it's all right to subsidise nuclear arms...
I think we have to have a publicly-owned pensions industry instead of the private, casino economy that we've got just now where the pension fundholders decide a lot of unethical investment policy. You never get the pension fundholders losing out. It's the pensioners who lose out whenever disaster falls.
SOCIALISM
AY: Isn't there an ultimate condition that you're seeking to reach, one where the market has no role to play, that the state can do everything?
TS: No. We very much believe in a mixed economy.
AY: It doesn't sound like it, Tommy.
TS: Well, our mix is different from New Labour's mix. Labour would like to add a wee drop of whisky to the Atlantic ocean and say that's a mixed economy. We think that's wrong. We think there's a larger role for the public sector to play. It is worth making the point that 99.9% of business in Scotland is small business. When people say to me "Are you business-friendly?", I say "Yes, we are very small business-friendly".
AY: What would be the incentive to be enterprising in your socialist republic of Scotland?
TS: Number one, because they like to see their ideas developed. Most of the major developments in science and industry over the whole of history have not been based on the purchasing power of individuals who actually develop ideas, but on expanding human knowledge.
In relation to earning power, we want a Scotland where we have more equality. Sometimes socialism is caricatured as a grey existence. That's capitalism, that's not what I want. I want the colour of socialism. John MacLean used to say that he was out for life and all that life has to offer . . .
If we've got a minimum wage of £7.32, why don't we start with a 10 to one differential? I think that's a bit high. but let's start with that. Let's start with a maximum wage of £70 an hour. That works out roughly about £250,000 a year. If somebody's saying to me they're leaving Scotland because that's all they're allowed to earn, I've got to say: hard lines, we can survive without you . . .
I don't usually agree with George Bush, but he made a statement a couple of weeks ago when he said: "The Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people". I thought: "Brilliant, so does the Scottish oil belong to the Scottish people," and that's why we want it to be publicly owned and democratically administered.

add your comments
COMMENTS

Second Sheridan Interview
by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Sun, May 4 2003, 3:35pm

Transcript of Tommy Sheridans Interview on BBC
Scotland on 21.4.03

Interviewer Anne McKenzie

TSh

The people of Scotland can vote on the 1st of May for a fairer Scotland. Thats why the SSP is supporting the abolition of the unfair council tax. We will introduce a fairer tax based on the individuals ability to pay which would put money in the pockets of our pensioners and low paid workers. And well do that by taking more money out of the wealthy and the millionaires. The politicians of Scotland will be paying more as well. Thats what fair taxation is about. Thats what the redistribution of wealth is all about.

AMck

You have five key policy pledges which you have costed. But you also have pages and pages of other policies that you would implement if you became the largest party. (she then lists a number of policies)So how would you pay for all of that?

TSh

First of all Anne, Scotland is a very rich country.The problem is that in this rich country of ours weve got 200,000 poor pensioners. Weve got 330,000 poor children. One quarter of our population living below the breadline. The problem is our wealth is owned and controlled by a tiny section of society. The SSP is determined to redistribute the wealth. Thats why the Scottish Service Tax is so important. The Council tax makes sure that the millionaires and the wealthy pay buttons while our pensioners and low paid workers pay through the nose. Thats wrong and unfair and we want to challenge that. If we had control of our resources. Our oil, gas electricity. If we had control of these revenues not to line the pockets of the elite few but to enrich our schools, hospitals and invest in the fabric of our society then all of our policies are affordable.

AMcK

So the Service tax is the taste of things to come. If we were to get the independent socialist republic that you want you would nationalize, without compensation, the oil industry, the big banks, the finance institutions, the construction companies and manufacturing companies. Is there any country where that has worked?

TSh

Well there are a number of countries which have successful mix of public ownership and high taxation. For instance in a number of countries that wouldn't call themselves socialist, still free market countries, like Norway and Denmark they manage to combine high levels of public ownership with high taxation for the wealthy. Norway is a country that we are supposed to be envious of because they have high pensions and a high standard of living they also publicly control their oil. We want to publicly control our oil. There is nothing in our manifesto that is scientifically impossible. Its a political will thats lacking to redistribute wealth across the whole of Scotland.

AMcK

What you are talking about is nationalizing without compensation. If there was a whiff of an SSP victory then these oil companies would leave immediately.

TSh

Well eventually there going to have to go anyway. Over the last ten years companies have been leaving Scotland anyway. And its not because of socialism its because they can produce cheaper in Poland, Checkzlovakia and Eastern Europe. The rigged free market isnt working. Its not providing secure jobs, its not providing well paid jobs. We think we can do that. If big business want to invest in Scotland in the future then let them invest in a well trained workforce, well paid and well motivated. You dont get them by paying them poverty pay.

AMcK

But why would they want to invest in Scotland? If any company that attempted to leave Scotland because of cheaper labour elsewhere you would seize their assets. You would destroy inward investment at a stroke.

TSh

Well I dont know if youve noticed but inward investment has collapsed by 90% in the last five years. So lets establish that for a start. Lets take the case of seizing assets and use the example of Volvo in Irvine. A first company making first class uses and tracks. Volvo decided they could produce it cheaper in Poland and left social destruction in their wake. If that happens in an independent socialist Scotland then why dont we use the machinery to produce the goods, employ and rebuild our society.

AMcK

But you would only employ people in the public sector.You dont seem to have much interest in enterprise or business. You seem to see them as the enemy.

TSh

Well with the greatest of respect I would argue that is nonsense. If you examine our commitment to a minimum wage of 7.32 an hour. We thing its wrong that hospital domestics, those who clean and work in our hospitals are paid poverty wages. Well support our public sector workers by giving them a decent standard of pay. So what are they going to do with that? They are going to spend it. We want to put more money in the pockets of our pensioners by scrapping the unfair council tax. Pensioners under our service tax would save 50 to 60 pounds a month. They are going to spend that. So what our parties policies are about is growing our economy. The small business sector in particular is going to have a boon as far as policy is concerned because more people are going to have money in their pockets. If you have done economics, which you probably did, youll have heard of the Marginal Propensity to Consume. If you give more money to the rich theyll hoard it, If you give it to the poor theyll spend it. Thats what were going to do.

AMck

Youre talking about increasing corporation tax and the highest rate of income tax. You can alienate the wealth creaters. People have the power to leave Scotland but you dont seem interested in wealth creation. You are interested in the poor but someone has to earn the money to then spend it.

TSh

But thats my basic philosophy. The workers are the ones that create the wealth. They dont get a share in the rewards Im afraid because the CEO get away with telephone salaries while workers have to work 50 or 60 hours just to make ends meet.

AMcK

Do you see an economy that is nearly all public sector and no private sector.

TSh

No I believe clearly in a mixed economy. Its just my mix is different from the mix just now. I want a majority of our economy public. I dont think our buses, trains, electricity, water should be in private hands. It should be run collectively for the public good and the profits ploughed back into our schools. And I also believe that we pay our pensioners a decent pension rather than pay directors telephone size salaries. Thats wrong.

AMcK

See there you go. You really seem like you dont care about business at all. In fact you sound as if you rather they werent there.

TSh

I think big business is big enough and fat enough to take care of itself. We have four big-business parties that defend big business. I think its time that we had a party that stood up for the working class.

AMck

But in s Scottish socialist republic business wouldn’t stand a chance. As far as your concerned its there to be taxed and in effect wiped out.

TSh

I think thats unfair. If you create an environment for business then our environment would be better for business that the one we have right now. In our environment pensioners would have more money to spend, low paid workers would have more money to spend, average workers would have more money to spend. They would therefore be able to increase demand in relation to the supply from businesses. So we would actually create a good environment. Ive got to say to you I reject what we have just now. If you compare our country to Sweden or Denmark what they have is high taxation for the wealthy and low poverty levels. We have in Scotland is the lowest taxation of the wealthy but the highest poverty in Europe. Thats unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

AMcK

Can I ask you though is there any country where pure socialism has worked.

TSh

No. But unlike the Soviet Union, Cuba or Nicaragua we have the political will and crucially the economic wherewithall. We are a modern society we have the ability to produce. What we dont have is the political will to marry that together to create a modern society. A society that puts our pensioners before profit. All were asking is for the rich to pay fair taxes. Like they do in Denmark. Even Thatcher levied higher taxes on the rich.

a mixed economy??
by nationalise tesco now! Sun, May 4 2003, 4:25pm

- some socialist. i hope he's just saying that (thought that wouldn't make him very honest would it?)

- and whats with all the ref's to Norway and Denmark? Is that Tommy's big idea for an 'independent socialist scotland'?

Will The CWI Now Call The SSP A Bosses Party?
by curious Sun, May 4 2003, 6:19pm

Didnt you know the above details long before theelection? Why do the CWI remain in the SSP if its so bad.

reformist? - yes, a bosses party? - no
by nationalise Tesco now! Sun, May 4 2003, 9:02pm

I don't think anyone in the CWI/SP are trying to call the SSP a bosses party. A bosses party is a party run for and by capitalists. The interests of capital are the interests of a bosses party. this is patently not the case with SSP. The SSP is a working class party. And I congratulate them on their victories in the Scottish elections.

However, Tommy's comments do show a reformist shift of which i was only loosely aware. :(

by mem Sun May 04, 2003 23:24

good points hilda. question is will anyone be prepared to get involved, if so there may be some life in it.
Curious would you ever fuck off and get a life.

by Curious Sun May 04, 2003 19:24

Like the way the SP makes concessions to Loyalism and trailed the ICTU leaders in IAWM?

There was a an Irish SA. Find out about AND the reasons given by the SP as to why they wouldnt get involved.

Dont believe every fairytale from your 'leaders'.

by Hilda Robinson Sun May 04, 2003 13:50

There is no point is launching any kind of SSP-style formation in Ireland. Who would it comprise of? SWP, SP and a few other individuals on the left.

The SSP is far from a mass workers party, although it has the potential to be built into a mass party. The SSP have made dodgy consessions to nationalism. An Irish SSP would likely to be supported by the likes of the SWP who would only really use it as a front and would likely to make dodgy consessions to Nationalism and Petty Bourgeois politics (which they do enough in their own name!)

by mem Sun May 04, 2003 10:58

Results in scotland are extremly important. These results will mean that there will be a significant left reformist voice in the Scottish Assembly.
Remains to be seen what direction the SSP leadership will move in it currently appears to be moving to the right.
No doubt these results will drive forward efforts to re launch a similar party here, i understand the SWP is relaunching the SEA.
Is it time for the left in ireland to form one party/alliance? who would be in it? would it work?

by Khalid Sun May 04, 2003 02:44

Below is a link to the results of the English Socialist Party

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2003/298/election.htm

by Khalid Farouk Sun May 04, 2003 02:42

Congrats to the SSP on their breakthrough. The winning of 6 seats by the SSP together with the increased profile and the increased membership of the party will lay the basis for the SSP becoming a serious force in scottish politics and could become a real opposition to the neo liberal politics of the 4 main parties in scotland.

However I would have some critisisms of the SSP. Sheridan has seemed to sow illusions in reformism and nationalism. He throughout the campaign put forward Scandanavian social democracy as a model for Scotland. He even went as far as saying he was in favour of the 'mixed economy' and did not call for the nationalisation of key companies such as Tescos. The SSp leadership also seemed to put forward the idea that socialism could exist in Scotland without a socialist revolution elsewhere in Britain and the world.

by Fergal OB Sat May 03, 2003 23:49

Congratulations to the Stunning Socialists on their victories, but how did the Plain or even Ugly socialists get on?

by sa/sp/cp Sat May 03, 2003 22:13

From www.socialistalliance.net...

Michael Lavalette elected
We are very proud to announce the election of our first Socialist Alliance councillor in Preston where Michael Lavalette won in Preston Town Centre ward with 546 votes, trouncing the Labour candidate by 106 votes. This is an absolutely brilliant result.

We have also at this early stage in the evening had some other outstanding results with Gordon Rowntree in Middlesbrough getting 21% of the vote and coming just 100 votes behind the winning Labour candidates, Sue Wild in Barnsley in 17.7% and coming second, Urfan Akhtar in Telford with 14% again coming second and Andy Newman with 13% in Swindon.

The Socialist Alliance stood 161 candidates in the local elections in England. We had 50% more candidates standing this year compared with last and so far our percentage looks well up on last year's vote.

We still have many results to come in. Labour has done badly, suffering from the anti-war vote from which the Lib Dems have gained. In some areas it looks as though we have suffered a squeeze as the anti-Labour vote has gone to the Lib Dems.

Congratulations to all our candidates and the very many Socialist Alliance mebers who have worked extremely hard in the elections. We will have as complete a list of results as we can provide on the website tomorrow. If you have not yet phoned or sent your results in to the national office, please do so as soon as possible.

Rob Hoveman, National Secretary
----------------------------------------

from www.socialistparty.org.uk

Socialist Party election results
Thirty-one Socialist Party candidates received 7,814 votes in the local elections in England and Wales.

Socialist Party councillor Karen McKay, one of three Socialist Party councillors in Coventry, retained her seat with 1,185 votes, doubling her majority and winning 48.4% of the vote.

Pete Glover in Netherton and Orrell (Sefton) got 672 votes, 34% of the vote.

A number of the other candidates improved their percentage results compared to the previous occasions they had stood. Seven candidates got over 10% of the vote.

-------------------------------------------

from http://www.headworks.net/ (CP Britain)

Communist Party election results
North Wales
522
South Wales Central
577
Total Communist vote in Wales
1099
Thanks to all that voted communist.

-------------------------------------------

cant find anything on the SLP :(

by Eoghan Gramaisc Sat May 03, 2003 21:58

Is there a statistician-type out there who can help me find out how my comrades in the low turnout camp got on yesterday? Don't vote, it only encourages them.

by Eoin G - SWP Sat May 03, 2003 21:17

Well done, can anyone tell me about election results for the socialist alliance in England and Wales?

by Josef Sat May 03, 2003 16:28

To me it looks like turkeys voting for Christmas but I respect their decision.