Friday, August 29, 2014

Scotland's Referendum: Some Choice

Some choice

In recent days capitalists in Scotland have been coming out in favour of a YES or a NO in the coming referendum in Scotland. The split is revealing. It's more or less the same as in the UK over the EU, with smaller capitalist concerns catering for the home market favouring breaking away and bigger concerns producing for export favouring staying. From today's Times (29 August):

"Sir Brian Souter, chairman of Stagecoach, Ralph Topping, the former chief executive of William Hill, and Paddy Crerar, the founder of Crerar Hotels, were among those prepared to swing their entrepreneurial weight behind a "yes" vote on September 18.
Their push came just a day after 130 influential businessmen, including Douglas Flint, the chairman of HSBC, and Andrew Mackenzie, who runs BHP Billiton, signed a similarly firm No missive to The Scotsman, warning that the case for independence had still not been made."

As someone from Edinburgh University's School of Business explained:

"Professor MacKay said that his research suggested that business attitudes towards independence tended to be dictated by where their customers were primarily located."

So it's buses, hotels and betting shops versus international banks and mining companies. Consumer goods industries v producer goods industries. Big capitalists v smaller capitalists. Marx's Dept I v Dept II. Some choice.

Best for workers to abstain and leave the capitalists to settle the matter amongst themselves.


Matthew Culbert said...

I have a postal vote and put a, “Neither Yes nor No but World Socialism”,sticker on my paper.You can get these at
Here is a sample one.I hope the link works OK

Anonymous said...

You can also look at it as the British Empire starting to come apart at the seams. If Scotland votes Yes, now or in the future, will the SPGB be changing their name? I think the 'Great Britain' bit sounds British nationalistic (though u will say it is only a postal code) and would an SPGB representative if elected to Westminster take an oath to the Queen in order to take up his/her seat?

ajohnstone said...

Believe it or not, in its early days the SPGB was optimistic about being successful in elections and the issue of the oath was treated seriously at conferences. The decision was that it is a bit of meaningless ritual and to avoid being excluded from Parliament, elected SPGB MPs would indeed take the oath, just as the SSP MSPs did in Scotland and the Communist Party MPs did in the past.

As to change of name, who knows? We have not debated the issue for some years. Again in our history there has been votes to change our name (some members agreeing with your own view) but they did not achieve a majority. The situation may be different after the referendum and the outcome of a party poll different. Let's just wait and see how everything develops.

Mondialiste said...

As non-believers in any god or gods any Socialist MPs would not take any "oath" only a non-religious affirtmation, with their fingers crossed of course as some Labour MPs have been said to do. But, then, as the whole thing would be a meaningless ritual why not take the "oath".

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your honest reply. I am sympathetic to the SPGB but feel that you can be a thinking abolish the wages system communist but also to simultaneously dislike the GB part of your name.Thiss might be more true for many in Scotland, some who may not even consider themselves British. And if you live in Scotland and are not British, why would you be enthusiastic about electing an SPGB MP to the British Parliament in faraway London, the first act of said SPGB mp being an oath of allegiance to the monarchy?