International Worker No 239, Saturday, September 13, 1997 Blair's "business friendly parliament" for Scotland By Tony Hyland Devolution for Scotland was hailed as an initiative that would restore confidence in parliamentary democracy. Yet the debate surrounding the referendum has only demonstrated the gulf which separates the main political parties from the needs and concerns of working people. The proposal by the Blair Labour government to devolve power to Scotland and Wales was presented as a return to a more accountable form of government. These claims do not sit comfortably alongside Labour's reneging on even the minimal promises it made before May 1 on such issues as health and education. The opposition to devolution is largely made up of the Conservative Party under the umbrella organisation "Think Twice". Without an electoral base their opposition to this issue has also shown how they are out of favour with their traditional constituency -- big business. Leading Tory figures have broken rank and advocated a yes vote. The launch of the campaign for a Scottish parliament was restricted to the comments of famous media celebrities and film stars whose banal statements were intended to sway public opinion. However, with the referendum concerning a second question on the tax varying powers of a future Scottish parliament, the latter stage of the campaign has focused on pronouncements by leading financiers and captains of industry. The question of a Scottish parliament was defined in terms only of how it would be beneficial or detrimental to the profit drive of industry. An interview by Sir Bruce Patullo, Governor of the Bank of Scotland , in The Scotsman warned of the possibility of an increase in the uniform business rate tax. He called for a "yes, no" vote on September 11. Patullo's comments were seen largely as proof of the fact that sections of big business were beginning to sway towards the side of the "Think Twice" campaign. The response of Labour's "Scotland Forward" campaign was to publish a list of supporters which read like a role call of the Scottish wealthy. Labour's Devolution Minister, Henry McLeish, stated: "There is no way in which the Scottish business community will ever be placed at a disadvantage to that in England and Wales as a result of devolution. We have committed ourselves to a level playing field." Scotland Forward then issued a new document, The Business Case for a Scottish Parliament which states, "Business has nothing to fear from a devolved Scottish parliament and much to gain." This document was released on the same day as one by the Scottish Council Foundation, which explains that a separate parliament would be more susceptible to the lobbying of Scottish business interests. McLeish then announced that the campaign for devolution would be continued under the slogans, "A business friendly parliament " and "Opportunity Scotland". Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, promised that if anything, devolution would give Scotland a competitive edge against the rest of the UK. Later on in the week the media reported that the Scottish CBI had stated its opposition to the plans for tax varying powers, based on comments by the organisation's chairman, Iain McMillan. Major businesses such as Clydesdale Bank and Scottish Power immediately disassociated themselves from his stance. George Mathewson, Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, stated: "It appears that the proposals will not impact on two of the issues that are of concern to our business. Both financial regulation and corporation taxation will continue to be conducted on a UK basis." It transpired that the organisation had not taken a position of formal opposition to devolution, but had stated at its last meeting in October that, "no economic or business case had been made" for it. This was before the Labour government had issued its White Paper. The fact that substantial sections of big business are now in agreement with the Labour government and its proposals is proof that they are the end product of extensive collaboration between the two. Most significant of all was the backing received from the transnational corporations. Scotland Forward published a list of 16 major companies who have announced increased investment in Scotland since May 1, largely made up of electronic and computer companies from America and the Asian Pacific. It also included major British banks and building societies such as the Abbey National and the Midland as well as British Telecom. These corporations see the devolution of Scotland developing along the lines of a glorified Free Trade Zone. They are expanding their operations on the greenfield sites where the closure of traditional manufacturing industry has created a reserve army of unemployed workers who can be hired on low wages and on short-term contracts. They recognise the benefit of using regional divisions to divide the working class and pit them against one another to force down wages and conditions. Over the past two decades, Labour controlled councils have been responsible for the gutting of social services and forcing the tax burden onto the working class by hiking up the Council Tax. They have worked alongside the Scottish Development Agency and its inward investment arm, Locate in Scotland, to offer concessions to the transnationals. Mass disaffection The referendum campaign has underlined the absence of a genuine popular mandate for Labour's plans. To the extent that devolution has won support, it was based upon the naive belief that a Labour dominated parliament would reverse the huge attacks levelled against the working class over the last 18 years of Tory rule. For almost two decades Labour sought to excuse every betrayal it carried out on the pretext that they were hostages to a Tory Westminster. In the present campaign for devolution, Labour is unable to advance any real measures to ameliorate growing social inequality because it must do everything to win the approval of big business. The Herald and The Scotsman, which both support a "Yes-Yes" vote have warned of mass disaffection because of this. The August 25 editorial of The Scotsman commented: "Both sides claim to want a high turn-out on 11 September; both seem intent on preventing such a thing... the debate should be informed by a sense of vision of the future. It should connect , at every turn, with the real people in the real Scotland... Scotland should be rising to the occasion. Instead, the heart sinks as this captain of industry is wheeled out to say an irrelevant Yea or Nay, or as that artist or this pop star graces another irrelevant photo-call." Everything is being pinned on workers voting yes through a vague desire for something better, in the absence of a real understanding of what is being planned. That is why Scotland Forward has not staged a major national event. One of its organisers acknowledged that even a pop concert may be poorly attended and could back-fire. Dividing the working class The Scottish TUC is one of the main supporters of devolution. It has played a central role in offering the most favourable conditions of exploitation for the transnationals. Whilst the STUC offers to have talks with the Scottish CBI in order to work together on devolution, it presents the workers in the other regions of Britain as the rivals of the Scottish working class. This promotion of Scottish nationalism is already leading to an increase in verbal and physical attacks on English people residing in Scotland. The Commission for Racial Equality has stated that the number of such reported cases has increased over the past three years from 2% to almost 10% of "racial attacks". In the town of Brechin, a mother was forced to withdraw two of her children from school because they had been subjected to anti-English abuse. One of the leaders of the local community council had already been reported in the newspapers for their outspoken attacks on "outsiders" and referring to "the scum from Manchester" who were scapegoated for crime and the shortage of council housing. In a recent trial in the Highlands several drunken youths who attacked an English boy whilst shouting anti-English abuse were convicted on the grounds of a racist attack. In order to reach this verdict the prosecution had been able to "prove" that the English and Scottish were distinct "races"! The role of Scottish Militant Labour Whilst the Scottish National Party has been able to exploit the vacuum created by the abandonment of the working class by the Labour Party, it still remains a party with parliamentary seats only in the more rural and affluent parts of Scotland. It is left to Scottish Militant Labour to give nationalism a working class face. At first SML sought to justify concessions to nationalism as a necessary evil to counter its impact. Over the recent period, they have developed an overtly nationalist programme, claiming that socialism could be implemented within the borders of Scotland through the new parliament. To justify this it has watered down even its own minimal programme of reforms. The SML-led Scottish Socialist Alliance recently adopted a manifesto whose policies would not break the parameters being laid down for the new Edinburgh parliament. It states that any increased spending on the NHS would have to be raised through a rise in Income Tax. This is their preparation for taking seats in a Scottish parliament in order to tie the working class to this new mechanism of the capitalist state. The more SML invokes the "Scottish people" and an "independent Scotland", the more it is obliged to suppress the class issues and attack an international perspective. The August 14 issue of Scottish Socialist Voice is filled with Saltire flags. A centre page article gives an example of the class forces it is lining up with to promote nationalism: "On one side stands the trade union movement, the Labour Party, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the working class of Scotland..."

Top of page Front Page

(c) SEP, PO Box 71, Rotherham, England, S60 1SU Tel: 44 (0) 114 2438 117 Fax: 44 (0) 114 2618 424 Email: sep@dial.pipex.com