The Labour Party in
Scotland, partly in response to needing to differentiate themselves
from the UK party in the context of devolution, adopted a position
against the renewal of Trident and in favour of nuclear disarmament.
In 1999.
Yes indeed. And there
have been no debates on Trident in particular or nukes in general at
any Labour party conference, Scottish or otherwise, since. Even the
reflex of declaring a degree of “independence “ from the
Westminster party line is nothing new in and of itself. We've
already had the “New” Clause Four earlier this year...though that
seems an aeon ago now...
So while there was
nothing new in principle in the party effectively confirming what was
already “policy” in principle, there was a good deal of
difference in the context of the debate, and maybe even the meaning
of its result. And again, a reflex that has been exercised with an
immediate electral objective has an historical significance, perhaps,
that is the opposite of the intention of its shakers and movers.
First of all, as things
stand, the number of elected representatives from the party in
Scotland who will have a vote on the matter when it comes up for
actual debate in yer actual Parliament is...well..one. Secondly,
although his vote is welcome, as things stand Jeremy Corbyn is in no
position to whip the rest of UK Labour Party into the No lobby with
anything more substantial than Ken Dodd's Tickling Stick. There is
simply no doubt that when the renewal of Trident is voted on, the
vote will be an overwhelming majority “Aye” including within the
Parliamentary Labour Party.
So why does it matter?
Why is there any difference between a heavily symbolic vote in 1999
and a similar vote now? Well, first of all, there is actually going
to be a bill in the parliament of what I'm increasingly coming to
think of as The Continuity UK. Second, the SNP were in nothing like
the position they are now in either legislature in 1999. Third, the
CUK Labour Party is now (sort of) lead by a sincere unilateralist for
the first time since Michael Foot. (Though the Scottish Party, which
is about to become Unilateralist, isn't ...Confused? You won't be
after the latest episode of SLAB!)
It would be easy, under
the circumstances, to dismiss this weekends vote as an empty gesture.
I don't quite think that's true. I don't think the labour Party
(both branches) are now in the traditional policy making position of
the Liberal Democrats..that is, confident in the expectation of never
actually being able to do anything about making their high minded
policy into actual...well...policy with actual...well...consequences,
some of which are going to be hideously complicated.
And this is partly
because the SNP are themselves going to have to get themselves beyond
symbolism when it comes to “reserved” matters like welfare and
taxation as well as defence. Let's be honest, the SNP, who are never
going to be in a position to run the UK are not untainted with empty
symbolism possible with no prospect of power or responsibility. For
one thing, there are going to a package of powers, and Iain Duncan
Smith telling Mhairi Black this week that theHolyrood can
always raise taxes to offset UK cuts..is not the first or last to
come up with that particular game of “Call My Bluff.”
And he's not entirely
wrong, either. The SNP government in Holyrood are nothing if not
cushioned both by the ineptitude of their local opposition and their
doubt very irritating posture of moral superiority on questions of
little reserved matters like taxation, welfare, immigration, foreign
policy, war etc etc etc all of which would become much more tricky
and much more live issues were there to actually be a credible left
wing opposition in either polity, Not-Quite-Scotland
or the Continuity UK.
Like everything else
right now, however, I think the real meaning of the event of the
Labour Vote this morning ios historic rather than immediate, of
tectonic rather than “political” significance. Little by little,
the UK as we have known it is ceasing to exist. And it is the
emergence of a Scottish left opposition that will bring something
like the Scotland most Bella readers voted for last year, slowly,
messily, unpredictably...through a form "independence" ...into being.
There is nothing about this morning, however, that alters my conviction that in one shape or another "independence" is the predicate and not the consequence of change. And that, unfortunately, it almost certainly has to come first
No comments:
Post a Comment