Guntner Minnerup in his letter on Scottish nationalism (Red Weekly, 24 February) unfortunately loses touch weanly Ine centra boint or comrade Minnerup's view is summed up in his statement: 'It is hard to see how breaking up of the British imperialist state as a result of mass астоп апа, поретину, ine creation of a separate workers' state in Scotland can do anything but strengwhat is now the UK: Cause all over Indeed not! If the British bourceois sitate were coina to be oroken revolutionaries should be actively struggling for leadership of this movement. Given the scale of class confrontation involved, only revolutionaries could success Untortunately. in his rush to comrade Minnerup has leapt over the real facts of the situation action threatening to break up the state. in all cases wnere revolu tionaries take the lead in the struggle for national independence mosein country. cataloniaane quebec Minnerup will have a hard time producing such history class struggles national demands in colland. cortisn nationansm insteao nas taken ine torm of a vague cultura and sometimes electoral movement which Bob Purdie's criticism of Günter Minneruo's letter shares of the mistaken, contradictory of both Neil Williamson [Battleof Ideas no. 5] and Alan Freeman [Scottish heismistakeninnis ooinion that the Devolution Bill embodies the Scottish self-determination. Itis Bob Purdy. not Gunter, wno is beine aostract wnen ne states mar me cemano tor an Assembly.. with the principle mination for Scotland' How, concretely, can the right of Workers Republic the Scottish DeoDie determination be granted? Eiter by a referendum offering a choice of or by immediate elections to Assemory which could geermine Wiat powers itrecurred Such an Assembly is a different kettle tion Bill. For as Freeman points outine measure oT devolution proposed. is very limited. It sets is all.
"In no way does it recognise the right of the Scottish cetermine Inelr OWn Tuture relationshio to the rest of the uk... and Westminster retains the right independence that Freeman, c1e and Williamson CISD aV greatest political contusion three are supporters of the Union of three call for a Scottish Assembly win powers to im piement socials! DolIcIes Freeman spells out what powers would be required: particular social problems...
lackiea winout ine insuruton or proper socialst planning but inis means taking on the oil barons, the banks, the monopolies means taking them instituting workers control.. to impose oblicalions on companies to oven the Dooks But an Accamniu that is goine to nave obligations on companies cisposal Minnerup is therefore correct to enouire " how Scottish Assembly socialist programme if it does not nave une powers oran moependen Purcle tails to Gunther Minnerup may well reply to this that this sort of action can be But this also seems dubious Mass social struggles, vast social contradictions, do not in sonoral appcar suggeny. Mo witn me exampies • nave civen. have a tradition prolonged in some cases forcenturies.
vast social clashes would develop WILHOUL Tune immense HONS Which struggles being revealed in prior The tremendous development of national consciousness which drives torward any mass strucale tor national indeencence is not fuelled by pure ideas. Its development is based on forces and real material oppression (at least for those who believe in Marxisiano noticeansm. in order to avoid -aise denates Where are the examples of mass material forces I do not mean purely must immediately point out that by economic forces. One of the most common unredas detween mose wio reject national struggles in favour of purely economic strug who develop the thesis of struggle for national independence Hocolane niciucine minneruor!s do not between economic or social ments and specifically national Extreme economic exploitation or social deprivation is not the same lacked mass mobilisation to back as national oppression - indeed it would be nara to make out a case and For Independence policies' yet surelv the essence of inced endence is the ability of a nation to The comrades auvocale cmoly inal woule nave all me above powers out woule not be independent! How on earth is such Assembly subordinate to a British bourgeois Parliament?
The comrades positions become even more contracicor wnen they is not consistent give indications that the present conflict over the Scottish Assembly has a dynamic towards a Scottish seit- Williamson writes: "Either workLine class democracy is saunted into the form of industrial disputes.
paralysed by the higher laws of the IanO ASSEMDIY provides nity to break that practice. Our aim is to encourage and promote the using their own self-organisation, meir own conective weion. meit political organisations.
Purdie is more circumspect. the one hand he argues for political autonomy as a means or arresting the growin or bourgeois national and On the other he appears to isations of the class ano me extension or the role CUr orine assemov weich tor the ine Assembly to transcend the limited powers it will be granted; demands or soccHic porcies to exteno us powers will Dosed concretelv as the reflecting tney contradic these nat scotland WAS more deprived than, say. North East England National oppression is specific oppression or nose asoects which make a socia formation a distinct nation. Furthermore those aspects are not simply ideas but are rootec in the real material institutions and social suructure or a nation -s language, education system, state bureaucracy, etc.
Comrade Minnerup provides no evidence that present consequenty ne tans to left) ant prove nis case tor revolutionaries being the most consistent fighters for national independence. As I in dicated above, distinguish possioie mar sucn reatures would ceve loo in ne tuture practical denial of the right of the Scottish people to may be one step along that road, the actual nese nave nor develoved in ine past make Guntners perspective a diversionary one.
MICHAEL RIFF [London]
market Ass be re-opened British WICE • bareainine such national op bureaucratism although it carworkers works tions with them Assembly nationally more fully than bosses interests still importance of work. already management's ana creater broductivity.
•it is rundamentary Paul Mitchel a particular time. care cople by enter and idea in Rover stewards' wages policy There was no mention of this at nonsense. all in the 24 February issue, so l am writing to ask that this debate key to a correct Leyland management Want a corbolde.l.c. company too STUCTUrE wages, grading and differentials nail into the orive eternar stewards stewards movement ds we know As with them participation scheme they hope to build on the laboration of the leadership of the class committees ano ine tul timers) by conducting all negotiaand them alone and thus commit them role of members inne bring Simultaneously this would reand stewards on shopfloor and thus follow up ured Day Work agreements, occun ov ine meas union binding the unions hand and foot Left's ment's strategy for rationalisation Now questions ot brincide are for us.
central to the revolu- tion tionary attitude to participatior not so with corporate bargaining tactica separate v question whether to advocate corYOU! porate or plant-level bargaining a The proponents of the corporate Ine the union do claim the 'principle of trade unior unv is on men side, Dur InIs Is Revolutionaries have always asked: Whose unity? What is its class nature?
understanding of only Darcamnino structures in mis cas Regardless of the formal merits of the scheme for a national nego tiating committee elected from a comerence cach yed ano recaraoie ov inem. ine actua class meaning of proposing this at the present time is reactionary - it plays into the hands of the bosses and the Government because such a communee would be at least a craven ane class collaborationis as the plant negotiating commitIn addition they are even more removee tom me rank and nie and in a better position than ever to down the whole weight of union apparatuses on workers and stewards who attempt a fightback.
Of course abstractly speaking a area movement to the Social Contract and the trade overtur bureaucracy's and Broad domination workers' unions were successful, such a scneme coule men. as bart ot inat, nave a anterent meaning But to call tor its institustewards COTE WITCH BC ocoDie come ine came also say a few words against the Social Contract as well InIS DoInt Is no LInE only important one raised by the article 'Leyland Bosses Bloody Paul letter But in view of the overall situation in British Leyland and particularly dangerous corporate logic of the toolmakers demand: for company-wide wage negotia nions. I think it is perhaps the most important one and | hope that Red | Weekly and your suppor ters in the industry will reconsider doreement win ine move stewards' policy.
DICK BRADLEY [Longbridge, T&GWU] • Rich Palser replies:
Paul Mitchel's Rover Stewards' were course correct mar nev accept ed existing penalty clauses in the lay-off agreements and accepted pay restraint until August 1977 Instead of this policy on lay-offs we snowie veneror run stair status oran nouriv paid workers. ano the elimination of all penalty clauses. Bradley is also in Way toopcole correct. At the present time WHICH manacement are trying introduce corporate bargaining in to place all negotiations under the control the unior bureaucracy, the concentration of ine noverresoluton on necoratine structures on a national level car confuse resistance to cor bargaining centre. spread].
However we should not thereby corporate bargaining with fighting for plan bargaily • наше Dreser! ume inis snourd be derended giver that no real anternative ex/sts Comrade Bradley implies a cor porate logic to the demands of th toolmakers for separate company wide negotiating rights. Should we men oooose me roo makers dem ands? On the contrary, the toolmakers' struggle has indicated yet workers in different plants wishing united struggle even in the face of the sabotage of the union bureaucraty is precisely type of struggle which can create a new relation in me ractores orinoin negotiations under the control o the mass of workers.
The Rover resolutions however merely argue for tiating rights outside of any fight against Phase 2, and as such deal only with structures rather than the necessary make real control over negotiations by the mass of workers.
----- pull-quotes -----
around national demand truces hose no other tish gigantic
Leylands? Share that the not sur would
confuse waging