Scottish Referendum
- This topic has 160 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Since Great Britain is simply an island off the coast of the European penisular of Asia on the Planet Earth perhaps if we determine our name by geography, it should be the World Socialist Party (Solar System , the Milky Way) If we retain the Great Britain i think we will be advisable to add another name to our existing list for election purposes. In a possible future independent Scotland a Socialist Party of Great Britain would be mistaken for a political party supporting the possibiity of Re- union . That would indeed be the point some would seebeing made (and why simply two states and not the whole of the EU where we do possess a different name for EU elections)Labour, Tories, LibDems, even SPEW, as it is, all have a Scottish tags to their names which they will no doubt revert to in electionsI recollect that Northern Irish and Irish Republic members were both members of the WSP of I and the SPGB despite constitutional differeces. With our current scarcity of members, making an issue out of our name is fairly counter-productive. There are more important things to focus our minds and energies upon, right now Having said that, I would actually argue for a change of name for the members in Scotland and that we were part of the WSM but more for the impetus of making ourselves known in a publicity campaign for our ideas.The No people were out in the High St in Dunfermline today and treated our sticker as a supportive symbol for their campaign since it was a non-Yes…an abstention is as good as a No, the guy answered.
Chomsky on independenceAbout 13 minutes in he is saying little will change because of international finance and an independent Scotland would still be controlled by world capitalismI still find him very erudite and clear thinking…despite a few criticisms of his political practice
gnome wrote:'Great Britain' is a geographical term for the largest Island in the British Isles. If Scotland goes 'independent', they'll simply be another country on the Island of Great Britain.The corresponding political entity, which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is known as the 'United Kingdom'.If the party's name was 'The Socialist Party of the United Kingdom' there could conceivably be a case made for a change in name should succession by Scotland take place on September 18th. As that's not the case the question simply doesn't arise.'Great Britain' is a *political* term for for the largest part of the geographical entity known as the British Isles. If Scotland goes 'independent' it will not be part of Great Britain but it will still be part of the British Isles.The 'United Kingdom' is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It does not equate with Great Britain.If Scotland does go 'independent' this will effectively end the Act of Union of 1707 which created 'Great Britain' by incorporating Scotland into a union with England. It is therefore likely that Great Britain will cease to exist.– Lew
The main point – to me anyway – is that the party remains 'invisible' in the confusion caused by the multitude of names and logos. Even if a potential socialist glances at the name 'Socialist Party of Great Britain' while on the Internet they will immediatley think 'nationalism' and maybe pass on to look for something 'international' The World Socialist Party or The World Socialist Movement(UK) WSM (Scotland) WSM(US) etc would stand out and the name itself tells a story: Look beyound nation states.
Vin,You've argued the point about the problem with the SPGB having multiple identities for some time now, and you are spot on. I also think you are spot on with the idea that Great Britain, nowadays more than ever implies nationalism. to the casual observer.Something I was thinking the other day. Consider if Scotland goes independent and GB ends up with a title change. Imagine if at a future election the party stands as SPGB, what kind of reception could be expected by the media. What would be the likely issue to attract attention on a programe such as the Daily Politics? It's hard enough for the party to get heard anyway, but sticking to an old nationalistic identity would mean one more hurdle to overcome.I hope for the sake of the SPGB, this stays a hypothetical discussion.
SP I am not sure the idea has much support within the party at the moment but as a member I intend to raise the subject with my branch this month. I can only try.The branch will also be dealing with Forms A on that day
Here's the names of those on our list in the North East for the 1999 European elections: J. Bissett, S. Colborn, S. Davison, A Pitts.I remember that election campaign and going right up to the border to Berwick to leaflet and crossing over to Jedburg (just to see a bit of Scotland) and was struck by the fact that the notices on park benches there were in English and Gaelic. Ridiculous. They won't have ever spoken Gaelic in this part of the world. Before the "English" came (and Lowland Scots which Robbie Burns wrote in is a dialect of English) the language people would have spoken there would have been more akin to Welsh than Gaelic (which came from Ireland much later).Gaelic is not going to become one of two official languages if Scotland votes yes, is it? Or is it? You never can tell how silly nationalists can be.
It would seem that a Tory British government has given the YES campaign a boost. I've read in a few articles that there is a lot of traditional anti Tory feeling in Scotland. So the combo of recession and Tory led austerity could see a YES vote win the day. If that does happen Cameron is finished politically and perhaps it could harm the Tory chances at the next general election. Although Labour and Lib' Dems couldn't capitalise on this issue as an effective election propaganda tool, as they have backed the NO campaign 100%.
Quote:Gaelic is not going to become one of two official languages if Scotland votes yes, is it? Or is it? You never can tell how silly nationalists can be.Indeed when the Irish Republic got its independence, there was hopes of a cultural/language revival, with Irish mde a compulsory school subject and a requirement for any government jobs. It failed utterly.
I don't think that, in the event of Scotland breaking away, we would need to change our full name. Maybe just adopt another name for our activity in Scotland. There's a precedent for this, in this resolution carried at 1992 Conference after the members of the Irish (All-Ireland) party transfered to the Socialist Party of Great Britain:
Quote:This Conference notes that circumstances have led to the transfer of the Irish comrades to membership of the Socialist Party of Great Britain for the time being. In view of the political work put in since 1949 under their previous name, Conference agrees that, if Belfast Branch so desires, it can continue to operate under the name of "The World Socialist Party (Ireland)".Mind you, we've not yet tried contesting elections in the Republic under our full name. But then we don't contest elections in GB under it either (We use "The Socialist Party (GB)").
alanjjohnstone wrote:Indeed when the Irish Republic got its independence, there was hopes of a cultural/language revival, with Irish mde a compulsory school subject and a requirement for any government jobs. It failed utterly.Yes, in the 1970s we had a member of the old Haringey branch who came from Ireland. Because he didn't know Gaelic he couldn't get a job in the Irish Post Office. So he came over to London and got one in the British Post Office instead.Incidentally, there's an interesting talk at Head Office this Sunday by a guest speaker on "The Strange Death of Labour Ireland 1912-1922" which should have some relevance for the Scottish referendum. iN fact, that's why we've organised it.More details here:http://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/events/176391572/
"The Strange Death of Labour Ireland 1912-1922"I have a Socialist Courier blog waiting to be posted that also touches upon this topic and relates it to the present Scot Nationalism. Great minds and all that…I'll now post it on Saturday.
Blog item here analysing from a Left Keynesian point of view (that the blogger imagines to be Marxian) the possible economic consequences of the implementation of a yes vote:http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/scotland-yes-or-no/His conclusion: (which seems fair enough) is:
Quote:At best, the majority of the Scottish people will find little difference under Holyrood than under Westminster and it could be worse if a global crisis erupts again. Scotland as a small economy, dependent on multinationals for investment, still dominated by British banks and the City of London and without control of its own currency or interest rates, could face a much bigger hit than elsewhere in terms of incomes and unemployment.So independence would not bring dramatic economic improvement to the majority of Scots; indeed, it could mean a worse situation. But then the decision on independence is not just a question of the economy and living standards. That brings us back to the issue of the Scottish and English/Welsh (and Irish) working class sticking together in the struggle against British capital. Will an independent Scottish capitalist state strengthen that in any way?Lew wrote:'Great Britain' is a *political* term for for the largest part of the geographical entity known as the British Isles. If Scotland goes 'independent' it will not be part of Great Britain but it will still be part of the British Isles.Whatever happens on 18th September, 'Great Britain', as a geographical description, will still remain an island in the North Atlantic off the north-west coast of continental Europe with an area of 229,848 km2; the largest island of the British Isles, the largest island in Europe and the ninth largest in the world. (wiki)It's fairly certain that the founding members when choosing the party's name regarded 'Great Britain' as a geographical description, its use as such predating the 1707 Act of Union by centuries. The classical writer, Ptolemy, to give one example, referred to the larger island as great Britain (megale Britannia) and to Ireland as little Britain (mikra Brettania) as long ago as 147 AD in his work, Almagest.
You live and learn. Or do you? Here's what wikipedia says about Great and Little (or Lesser) Britain:
Quote:Brittany (French: Bretagne [bʁə.taɲ] ; Breton: Breizh, pronounced [brɛjs] or [brɛχ];[1] Gallo: Bertaèyn, pronounced [bəʁ.taɛɲ]) is a cultural region in the north-west of France. Covering the western part of Armorica, as it was known during the period of Roman occupation, Brittany subsequently became an independent kingdom and then a duchy before being united to the Kingdom of France in 1532 as a province. Brittany has also been referred to as Less, Lesser or Little Britain (as opposed to Great Britain).(…)The word "Brittany", and its French, Breton, and Gallo equivalents "Bretagne", "Breizh" and "Bertaèyn" derive from the Latin Britannia, which means "Britons' land". This word has been used by the Romans since the 1st century to name Great Britain, and more specifically the Roman province of Britain. This word derives from a Greek word, Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) or Βρεττανίαι (Brettaniai), used by Pytheas, an explorer from Massalia who visited the British Islands around 320 BCE.(…)After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, many Britons settled in the Western part of Armorica, and the region started to be called Brittania. However, the name Armorica persisted for some centuries, and it had not fully disappeared until the 5th century.[10] Later, authors like Geoffrey of Monmouth used the terms Britannia minor and Britannia major to distinguish Brittany from Britain.At least this means that a revived socialist party in Ireland would not have to call itself the Socialist Party of Little Britain.The other ironic thing of course is that the present-day descendants of the Ancient Britons would be the Welsh not the English.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.