But all questions of self-determination have to be approached in a concrete way. The approach communists took to one concrete circumstance cannot be a template answer to every other national question.
The crisis of the United Kingdom (UK) today grows out of the increasing pressures of world depression. Regional disparities and inequalities fuel a growing nationalist agitation in Scotland, as workers search for ways to defend themselves. This has been the case in the face of previous economic crises. The difference this time around is that the ruling class is weaker than ever before, having been on a slide for the last century or so, and having seen since the last world depression the massive wave of anticolonial revolutions that liberated millions from subjection to the crown. The unstoppable advance of the Irish struggle continues to deal hammer blows to the very core of the UK. The destruction of the United Kingdom is one of the historic tasks posed for workers and farmers here along the road to taking state power. Because of everything the British Empire ever stood for, this is a task communists should revel in.
The parliament to be established in Scotland cannot be said to represent "the fullest possible regional autonomy." Strict limitations on what it can legislate (e.g. the exclusion of social security and abortion), the need for everything to be approved by the Westminster government, and its negligible financial autonomy all underline this.
Contrary to Evans's assertion, independence is the only concrete form in which Scottish self-determination is posed today - the fact that every bourgeois political party explained its stance on devolution in relation to the question of independence reflects this.
Finally, Evans says the task of communists is "to continually warn against the illusions of Scottish nationalism." It is correct of course that independence will not solve the problems of working people, but will only help to clarify the root of them. But in the immediate discussion, the dangers of English nationalism would appear to be much more pressing to confront. The fight in England to win working people to ally themselves with the fight of Scottish workers and farmers for national liberation is key to strengthening the working class throughout the UK, as is the fight for solidarity with the Irish struggle.
In his letter that appeared in the October 27 Militant, Pete Seidman questions the Communist League's stance, as reported in the Militant, "in favor of a Scottish parliament, although not in favor of granting it the right to tax workers even more," which he says is contradictory.
What has been granted to the Scottish parliament-to-be is the right to vary the basic rate of income tax by as much as 3 percent. There is no right to vary corporate tax, value- added tax, or any other kind of national tax. The tax-varying powers do not in any real sense equate to the right to levy taxes. During the run-up to the devolution vote, the opposition made much of the supposed subsidy of Scotland by England. They argued that Scotland gets more money from the central government than it pays in taxes, and that if Scotland were to vote for a devolved parliament it would be right to end this state of affairs. Looked at from the point of view of the conditions of the working class, this argument is spurious, since social statistics for Scotland show the highest mortality rate in the UK, some of the worst housing conditions, and so forth.
The Communist League rejects the argument that workers have to pay more to get what is their right. Our intention was precisely as Seidman states "to keep our eyes on how [fighters in Scotland] view the fight right now."
However the statement that Seidman quoted did confuse two separate issues. Supporting the right to levy taxes, which is, as he notes, a necessary part of any genuine self- determination, does not in any way bind communists to supporting any specific proposal of a Scottish parliament to impose tax increases.
It is also clear that fighters in Scotland, and working people as a whole, took to this power and the parliament itself, regardless of how limited, as a down payment on a "real" parliament with "real" powers. A more correct position for the Communist League to take would have been to support a Yes vote on the taxation referendum.
- IAN GRANT AND ANNE HOWIE