I DO hope reader Iain Richmond of Dumfries and Galloway will forgive me for saying I found his excellent long letter (January 2) a tad incomprehensible (my fault).
He says he is no socialist, then shows a better understanding of socialism than many who claim to be socialist, of one variety or other.
I do not wish to engage with Mr Fry’s honest opinions, for the sake of unity of purpose. Independence can be a capitalist, or socialist choice. It should be a progressive choice worthy of socialist support, as with any progressive national liberation movement against imperialism and a heartless, greedy and rapacious larger war-mongering neighbour.
READ MORE: No, Mr Fry, socialism is not my solution to problems of the gig economy
The problem is that the GB nationalist left are just that. GB nationalists, when it comes to Scotland, use the exact same arguments as the far and near right on that matter and have done since their attack on John MacLean and his advocacy of Scottish independence.
I will not insult anyone’s intelligence here by claiming that the Royal Labour Party is socialist, including Brit nat Jeremy Corbyn. If the Brit left wish to act as election agents for HM Labour Party that is fine for Engurland, but not for Scotland.
Mr Richmond says he does not believe that Scotland is better than anyone else. The SNP does not claim to be, nor do they wish to rule anyone else, unlike British/English nationalism.
READ MORE: Three questions that Progress Scotland must ask potential Yes voters
Lenin happened to define the differences between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressor. Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Stalin spoke favourably of breaking up the so-called “united” Kingdom on Scotland and Ireland specifically. Stalin produced pamphlets on national self-determination, but did not always adhere to those principles. The Brit left will cherry-pick all these, plus John MacLean and James Connolly on abstract capitalism, but will lays turn academic somersaults specifically on Scotland.
Mr Richards quotes the Brit left hoary auld chestnut on workers in Sunderland being the exact same as the workers in Dundee. Really? Workers around the globe were the same when ruled by GB? A fascist bus driver in Birmingham may be the same as a fascist welder in Liverpool etc, but certainly not the same as an anti-imperialist worker, or republican socialist worker in Bogside or Clydeside, any more than middle-class intellectuals in Strathbogie are the same as middle-class lecturers in Oxbridge.
Colin Fox in his SSP article in the Sunday National claimed that a revolution could be won in Scotland without the middle classes. Really? Russia 1919 used middle-class millionaires etc at home and abroad. The leaders were mostly educated middle-class, as were Marx, Trotsky, Engels, Stalin, Guevara, Castro, Ghandi etc.
The revolutionary Earl of Mar supported John MacLean, Jimmy Maxton etc, and spoke with them at the Declaration of Arbroath rallies and the rally committee (both were teachers from working-class backgrounds). RB Cunninghame Grahame (Duke of Montrose) and Dr Clarke were Scottish republicans, who were founder members of the short-lived Scottish Labour Party and the National Party of Scotland.
The SSP had Unionist left platforms and recruited the Socialist Workers Party against the Scottish Republican Socialist platform. This spectacularly backfired when the SWP went native and backed independence, albeit with qualifications that did not stop them working with progressive alliances. The spilt inside the militant factions led to a clique gaining bureaucratic control of the SSP, where splits were always first thing on the agenda. Talk aboot Marxist symbiosis, talk aboot Scottish duality? There is nothing more divisive than unity in the Brit left.
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel