Scotland’s conversation: SNP lacks answers |
 |
Terry Conway |
|
|
After his slender victory in May’s elections for the Scottish Parliament leading to the establishment of a minority administration, Scottish National Party leader and First Minister Alec Salmond has announced a ‘national conversation ’ on Scotland’s future. On August 14 he published a white paper, “Choosing Scotland’s Future” which sets out the SNP’s proposals. The Scottish Socialist Party have welcomed this opportunity to debate different visions of Scotland ’s future. The party’s statement continues: “The Scottish Socialist Party supports independence for Scotland. We believe Scotland would be economically, politically, culturally and socially better off making our own decisions and standing on our own two feet. We look forward to outlining our own unique vision, for an independent socialist Scotland.” ”In the meantime, the SSP will also support any steps to strengthen the Scottish Parliament short of full independence. We have called, for example, for Holyrood to have control over broadcasting, energy, fiscal policy, drugs and other matters that are currently reserved to Westminster. We would use fiscal autonomy, not to boost the already bloated profits of big business, but to redistribute wealth and narrow the gap between rich and poor.” Then the SSP deal with the fact that only full independence will allow Scotland to get of nuclear weapons, disentangle Scotland from Iraq and Afghanistan, allow us to welcome refugees fleeing, and enable Scotland to draw up its own democratic constitution fit for the 21st century. ”We note that the SNP’s vision for independence would involve a ‘ Union of the Crowns’. The Scottish Socialist Party, in contrast, believes in sweeping away the remnants of feudalism, inherited power and class privilege which the monarchy symbolises. We believe that neither the 300-year old Union of Parliaments, nor the 400 year old Union of Crowns meet Scotland’s needs in the new world of the 21st century”. ”In the coming national conversation, we will be arguing strongly for an independent Scottish republic. The SSP believes that the fight for independence involves confronting powerful vested interests at the heart of the British establishment”. ”We believe that the forces in favour of independence - including the SNP, the SSP, the Greens, the Independence Convention and Independence First - have a major battle on the hands to win the Scottish people decisively to the cause of Scottish independence”. The SSP is certainly correct that May’s election results, as well as opinion polls, show that many people living in Scotland don’t have a very fixed view on the question of independence – although a clear majority want more powers for Holyrood. But for the SSP, which suffered badly in May’s elections following the decision of Tommy Sheridan to drag his erstwhile comrades through the courts, a debate on visions for Scotland is reminiscent of the context in which the Scottish Socialist Alliance and then the SSP itself were first forged – around the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Meanwhile on September 5, First Minister Alec Salmond announced eleven new legislative proposals – all of which will require opposition support to get them through, together with some measures that don’t require a change in the law. Other than the proposal to scrap bridge tolls – which is popular enough to make it unlikely that anyone would vote against it, it is unclear what else will go through because of the fact that this is a minority administration. It is certainly already clear that the proposal to make it legally binding to prevent any patient having to wait more that 18 weeks for treatment on the NHS is highly controversial. Ross Finnie led the Liberal Democrats first ever opposition debate in Edinburgh arguing that the proposal was “preposterous”. “It would lead to American style litigation,” he continued. He won the vote by 77 to 48. None of what is on offer now – either from “Choosing Scotland’s future” or in these proposals suggests any change in the nature of the SNP under Salmond. The SNP’s coffers are still bulging with the money of privateer Brian Souter – they are committed not only to capitalism itself but to neoliberalism. However that doesn’t mean they will not be forced to take some progressive measures – if only to maintain their distance from the Unionist parties. For a detailed analysis of the SNP today see Nick McKerrell’s The Celtic Tigers? – The SNP in government in Frontline Vol 2 Issue 4 (www.redflag.org.uk) |
|
