Moo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yet again, the burning questions of the referendum will be:
1. Will Scotland join the EU or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), or neither?
2. What will happen to the UK’s nuclear weapons (that are based in Scotland)?
3. What will happen to the border between England and Scotland?
4. What will happen to non-Scottish Brits living in Scotland, and vice versa?
5. What currency would Scotland use?
6. Will Scotland join the Commonwealth Realm or become a republic?
Apart from number 4, the above questions are a bunch of trivialities that distract from the real problems facing the world. Although, sadly, just like Brexit, people will get very passionate about whether the workers of Scotland should be exploited by Scottish/European capitalism or British capitalism.
“Will it be seats won or votes cast for the SNP (and the Green Party)?”
I predict the SNP would win a majority of the seats, but they (and the Greens) wouldn’t win a majority of the votes.
However, the issue will likely be resolved before the general election. This is because the SNP apparently wants to hold a consultative referendum (i.e. a non-legally binding one), so if they win it they can say to Westminster: “The people have spoken and they want freeeeeedoooooom!”.
It’s confusing when people use the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ to describe social as well as economic policy.
After reading dozens of Socialist Standards, the consensus (in the SPGB) seems to be: Hard-Left = Leninists; Soft-Left = Greens, Corbynistas, the SNP; Soft-Right = Blairites, Liberal Democrats; Hard-Right = Conservatives, Reform UK.
With that in mind, Macron is a hard-right social liberal; Mélenchon is a soft-left social liberal; and Le Pen is a soft-right neo-fascist. What do they all have in common? They’re all on Team Capitalism.
Damn it! I was one month out! I said after the 2019 General Election, there would be a second Scottish independence referendum in September 2023.
Thanks for the feedback, Adam.
Another interesting article from the standard archives. This one is about the World Economic Forum; their annual meetings in Davos; and real-life Bond-villain Klaus Schwab: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2014/2010s/no-1315-march-2014/davos-elites-think-globally-act-greedily/
A very long article that goes into much more detail:
Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order
The Alliance for Green Socialism won 104 votes in B & S. I checked them out the other day, and they appear to be a cross between the Green Party and the Socialist Party (England & Wales); in that they are very reformist; believe in zero-growth capitalism (what an oxymoron!); and they want to nationalise big businesses.
Thanks, Adam, for the helpful information regarding why the SPGB didn’t advocate universal suffrage in the early 20th century.
You’ve made a good point. However, here’s a question for you:
If there was a referendum this year on extending the franchise to 16 & 17 year olds, what (do you reckon) would be the SPGB’s position?
I never wrote or implied I’m against people who don’t have the right to vote being allowed to join the Party (and participate in party affairs) as equal members.
Don’t read very much into the Chesham and Amersham by-election. Voter turnout was only 52%, whereas, it was 77% for the last two general elections. Although, it does say something about Labour’s strategy of attracting voters by copying the Conservatives.
I can’t understand why that was the Party’s position. What if the majority of voters wanted socialism, but the majority of the women and the third of men didn’t?
This: “As Alan has pointed out, what we were opposed to was the Suffragette demand for votes for women on the same terms as it then was for men. This, on the grounds that it would have meant more votes for members of the propertied class than for workers”, contradicts this: “As to universal suffrage, we weren’t against this but argued that it wasn’t necessary as enough workers already had the vote that could be used to win control of political power to bring in socialism”. How could granting voter equality (between the sexes) have ONLY increased the size of the bourgeois electorate but not the proletarian one?
The SPGB SHOULD have advocated universal suffrage because that was (and still is) the best way for the proletariat to peacefully and democratically create a free association.
