(en) Britain,Anarchist Federation (AFed) Scotland - Rhetoric of disempowerment

Last week, the date for the Scottish independence referendum was announced with at least 
an attempt at a fanfare. To mark this historic occasion, we revisit some of the arguments 
made earlier and look at some of the rhetoric both sides of the debate are using. ---- In 
representative democracies, those involved in or attempting to manage political power tend 
to divide themselves into two main camps. One is more forthright and barefaced in 
representing business interests, the other provides more of a progressive narrative and 
promise of reforms, but is ultimately just as committed to ?economic growth? ? the endless 
pursuit of profit. The camps alternate all the time, and the nature of their division 
changes, but it?s remarkable how effective this semblance of debate is in maintaining 
passive support for the smooth running of capitalism and the confusion of any genuine 
opposition to it.

This is a pretty basic socialist argument. As Chomsky puts it, ?The smart way to keep 
people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but 
allow very lively debate within that spectrum [...]?.

In Scotland, the spectrum of debate is articulated not in the usual parliamentary 
competition between parties but between the Yes and No coalitions in the Independence 
debate. Gathering support for their respective positions, the arguments they use are 
coded with the rhetoric of disempowerment: most importantly for us, discouraging and 
demobilising autonomous working class organising, the one thing that actually challenges 
capitalism.

It doesn?t take much effort to show this in the Unionists? propaganda ? for years they 
have succeeded in making sure that a large proportion of working class people are entirely 
disengaged not only from power politics but apathetic about the possibility of any change. 
Their strategy is to keep up an ongoing negative assault on the SNP government and its 
referendum plans, but also on any vision for a different, hopefully better, future. Taking 
it in turns, ConDem ministers and faceless Labour bureaucrats churn out press releases 
which the mainstream media gladly lap up and put on the front page. Scotland will be a 
nation of benefit claimants dependent on a trickle of oil. Plans for defence are a 
fantasy. You?ll lose aw yer pensions! As Iain MacWhirter puts it, ?The Unionists are 
expert at feeding the fear that Scots have of ?getting above themselves??. And this, the 
message of ?Who do you think you are, you lowly Scotch prole?? is coupled with ?If you 
think it?s bad now, you?ve seen nothing yet!?.

But disempowerment is as much a part of the arguments of the Yes camp. This isn?t to say 
that Independence doesn?t represent the more ?progressive? option in the debate. It 
offers reforms when their opponents don?t even pretend to (although they might have to, in 
the end) and this is also its ideological role. Of course, many on the left have 
excellent reasons for being involved in the Yes campaign and the Radical Independence 
Conference (RIC): demands for an end to inequality, the fight for feminism and for a 
sustainable society. An independent Scotland is more likely to grant some reforms in 
these areas than Westminster, but these will be always be most limited, threatened by 
erosion and contradicted by the the real power of the economy.

A few things crop up repeatedly in the pro-Independence narrative:

1) Deferring the future.

The referendum will be the ?most important decision you are going to make in your 
lifetime?, as one Yes commentator argues. I don?t know about you, but I think we can make 
more important decisions. History is meant to bend towards this date. Our present 
struggles are tied to it, and emptied of their threat. Change will happen, if it?s going 
to, more than eighteen months from now. ?Wait until we get rid of Westminster?. In the 
meantime this is the time of preparation and ?making the case? for the big day.

The independence-supporting left will be actively involved in grassroots campaigns. But 
whereas we see organising in these campaigns as being a source of resistance in general, 
with the potential to spread and grow, they see it as secondary to the constitutional 
process and part of its propaganda war. In some cases, were independence to be 
successful, it could remove specific Tory-style injustices, but it couldn?t remove the 
class antagonism which throws up the need for these campaigns. In an independent Scotland 
there will be new campaigns and new injustices. We should fight where we stand and make 
history now.

2) The use of ?We?.

Here?s what Alex Salmond had to say in Paliament:

On the 18th September 2014 the people will decide Scotland?s future. We take 
responsibility for our own country, when we?re able to speak with our own voice, choose 
our own direction and contribute in our own distinct way. The day we stand on our own two 
feet to claim a future.

Without this ?we? the whole independence movement would fall apart. It is the collective, 
civic national ?we?, constructed to paper over class differences. In fact, it?s exactly 
the same as the Tories? ?we?re all in this together? rhetoric, but in a Scottish context. 
This ?we? includes Scottish bosses, managers, politicians, millionaires and their 
lackies who are and will always fight for their own interests and against ours. But what 
would it mean for the working class to ?speak with our own voice, choose our own direction 
and ? stand on our own two feet to claim a future?? Well, for a start it would recognize 
that we are a class and the struggle between classes, our exploitation and need to resist 
it, happens whether we want to believe it or not. But we?d be a lot more bloody 
successful if we did believe it, rejected all cross-class ?social partnership? and 
organised for ourselves. Why wait to do this?

3) Social Democratic Realism

For those on the left the choice now seems to be ?Social Democracy or Barbarism?. Opt for 
an independent capitalist country with a commitment to state security, reasonably 
progressive taxation etc. or accept an ever worsening Tory austerity hellhole. The 
differences between the mainstream Yes Campaign and the left-wing pro-independence 
campaign aren?t great, but a difference of degree: more social democracy, and not so much 
reduced corporation tax. RIC supporters share platforms with politicians and endorse 
similar vague language of ?democracy? and ?equality?, ?self-determination? and in their 
case ?radicalism? itself. In asserting this choice, all other options are shut down and 
deemed unrealistic. Social partnership is now the only thing left. If it?s seen as only a 
step towards socialism, like all stagism it will only ever manage to create another stage 
and try to justify why we don?t actually organise directly against capitalism now.

If you think that I?m creating a false choice of my own, and that we can work for 
independence as a progressive step forward and for a future based on social needs without 
private profit, how is this possible whilst also promoting a national rather than 
class-based perspective, giving prominence to a future point of change rather than our 
class struggles here and now, and by accepting the language and ideology of social 
partnership?