CWI statement on resignation of Sheridan as SSP convener

by John Meehan Sun Jan 23, 2005 15:44

The letter below appears in Socialist Resistance Nº21.

It highlights important political differences of opinion between George Galloway and the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP).

Problems with George Galloway’s Politics

There is a fundamental contradiction in the political positions held by George Galloway.
His resistance to the policies of the British State in the Middle East and his principled opposition to the war in Iraq has been invaluable to the anti war movement and cost him his membership of the Labour Party. Yet George is amongst the most vocal supporters within Scotland of Britain as a unified state. He is vigorous in his opposition to a separate independent Scotland.
When he uses the columns of the Sunday Mail to attack the Scottish Socialist Party and to suggest that Respect should stand in Scotland in opposition to the SSP then he puts himself in the position of defending a unified British state, otherwise why should he want to stand against the SSP ? The Scottish Socialist Party of course stands for an Independent Scottish Socialist Republic. The break up the British state can only help the fight for internationalism and socialism: the British war machine starts to break up and a nuclear free Scotland becomes a possibility. The political repercussions in England from such advancement in the class struggle can only be good for socialists.
The whole Westminster establishment, royalty and class rule becomes weakened. Bureaucracy has been a critical problem in building socialist and democratic working class organisations, especially since the time of the second international and the building of mass trade unions.
Again, George Galloway and the Scottish Socialist Party are in disagreement. The SSP has a policy of its elected representatives living on a skilled workers wage and their members elected to the Scottish Parliament adhere to this. George Galloway opposes such a policy and has been influential in stopping Respect accepting such a policy.
Such a policy is the beginnings of building a better kind of Socialist Party where elected representatives will stay part of the movement and the tendency to bureaucracy will be combatted. Members of Respect should consider this outburst from George Galloway as a serious matter, raising doubts on his basic political positions on these two critical questions.
Norman Lockhart,
Rowland Sheret, Gordon
Morgan (Innerleithen,
Stirling and Glasgow)

by pat c Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:26

Some more developments in the SSP leadership saga.Someone from the party apparatus is now challenging one of the SSPs MSPs. It will be interesting to see if any non full time politician or official of the SSP joins in the race.

pat c

******************************

Official joins SSP leader battle

Tommy Sheridan resigned as SSP leader last year

A senior Scottish Socialist Party official has put himself forward as a leadership candidate to avoid a "coronation" of his rival.
MSP Colin Fox has already announced his candidacy following the resignation of national convener Tommy Sheridan.

Alan McCombes, SSP policy co-ordinator, said he had been asked to stand by a large number of grass-roots activists.

"Some people have talked about a coronation. As a republican socialist, I don't like coronations," he said.

"I think coronations belong to 18th century feudalism, not to a vibrant, diverse, democratic, socialist party in the 21st century which needs a contest.

"People need to be given a choice."

-

"There are other things I would like to do with my life, but I felt responsibility to stand for this position "

Alan McCombs

-
Mr McCombes said that he did not think Mr Fox would be keen on a coronation either.

"I think he would recognise the advantages of having a contest, of debating and discussing ideas, of laying out where we see the party developing over the next few years."

He acknowledged that there were no "grand fault lines" between the two men, who had been friends and political allies for 20 years.

"We might have different styles," he said.

"I certainly think my style is very risk-taking, it is very prepared to be innovative."

Party conference

He added that he was not standing because of personal ambition.

"There are other things I would like to do with my life, but I felt responsibility to stand for this position.

"I think I have support within the party and the party wants choice."

The party's new leader will be chosen at the SSP's conference next month.

by John Meehan Wed Jan 19, 2005 00:34

See further news below.

Anyone interested to learn more about the politics of the Socialist Resistance magazine could follow this link :

http://www.socialistresistance.net/

or, a website run by Phil Hearse (an excellent resource) :

http://www.marxsite.com/


Galloway angers Scottish Socialists

John Lister, Respect
National Council
(personal capacity)
WHILE the previous bad blood and political
differences between Respect MP
George Galloway and the Scottish
Socialist Party had been known for some
time, it came as a shock to many activists
on both sides of the border when
Galloway was quoted extensively in a
Sunday Mail article openly attacking the
SSP and its leadership.
Of course the SSP had stood against
Galloway in the last Westminster elections,
and Galloway is noted for his opposition
to a number of key elements of the
SSP.s political programme . most notably
to any form of greater independence for
Scotland.
Nevertheless Galloway.s comments in
early December, apparently given in a telephone
interview from Beirut, in the aftermath
of the resignation of MSP Tommy
Sheridan as SSP convenor, came to many
as an unpleasant surprise.
Pronouncing himself a fan of Sheridan,
Galloway denounced other members of
the SSP leadership as .Trotskyite apparatchiks
., castigated their acceptance of
Tommy.s resignation, and suggested that
he might seek to link up with Sheridan in a
new electoral project, standing against the
SSP in Scotland.
So extreme were Galloway.s reported
statements that some leading Respect
supporters were first inclined to check
whether he actually said and stood by
them. Many in Respect,, among them
Socialist Resistance supporters, who
have worked closely with comrades in the
SSP, see it as a sister socialist organisation,
and a model for future developments
in England.
SSP leaders were understandably
angry both at the content of what had
been reported, but also at the tone in
which Galloway appeared to adopt, and
wrote to clarify whether this reflected the
policies of Respect or whether it was
simply the views of Galloway as an individual.
The initial reply, sent by Respect.s
National Secretary John Rees without
consulting members of the National
Council, failed to offer an adequate
answer to the questions that had been
raised by the SSP, and served only to trigger
a further round of correspondence.
But when the Respect National Officers
next met on December 15 it was clear that
nobody endorsed Galloway.s remarks,
least of all his suggestion of an electoral
intervention in Scotland.
Never discussed
No such enterprise has ever been discussed
by Respect: indeed far from
debating political work north of the border,
Respect.s leading committees have been
discussing a short-list of constituencies in
England where electoral resources will be
concentrated, leaving many areas uncontested.
And Respect had drawn strength from
the support given by SSP speakers who
had appeared on platforms helping to
build the organisation in England.
It was pointed out that Galloway.s disparaging
reference to some SSP members
as .Trotskyite apparatchiks. might just as
easily be seen as an insult to some members
of the Respect National Council,
including Rees himself.
But while calling on John Rees to write
a further short reply to the SSP making
clear the collective view that that
Galloway.s comments represented only
his individual opinions, the Respect officers
also noted that the organisation is not
a party, let alone a democratic centralist
party organised around a single .line. of
policy: it remains a coalition within which
different currents retain the right of free
expression.
As such, it would be no more appropriate
for the National Council publicly to
censure Galloway for views which most
found inappropriate than for it to debate
and pass opinions on potentially controversial
editorial articles in Socialist
Worker or Socialist Resistance, which
also support the Respect project while
retaining political independence.
The officers also agreed that the SSP
suggestion of a meeting to clarify matters
should be accepted in the context of seeking
to coordinate more effectively between
the two organisations in preparation for
the likely General Election for the
Westminster parliament in May.

by Verde Fri Jan 07, 2005 16:56

*Please note this is a direct response to John Meehans evasive and abusive comments above and it is not repetition.* I choose to remain anonymous but I have posted nothing which would make me into a figure worthy of satire. You however have by ignoring the fact that your own comrades are involved in RESPECT.

The Irish SWP certainly have questions to answer about the activities of their British Comrades in RESPECT. John however is in no position to ask these questions. Instead John should be answering questions about the activities of his British comrades in RESPECT. So John, what are your British comrades in RESPECT doing about Galloway and RESPECT standing in Scotland against the SSP?

by John Meehan Fri Jan 07, 2005 00:18

Brian C makes a reasonable response to my postings on the dispute generated by George Galloway’s threat to run against the SSP in a future election to the Scottish parliament.

He says I “criticised the CWI over the doings of RESPECT or George Galloway”.

My only reference to the CWI in the contributions about George Galloway’s comments was the asking of this question :

“What do CWI or SWP supporters in Ireland say about this?”

Brian’s statement is clear and welcome in the circumstances :

“The CWI in Scotland is part of the Scottish Socialist Party and certainly wouldn't support an extension of the RESPECT Coalition there.”

I accept, of course, that the CWI had nothing to do with George Galloway’s comments, and has no responsibility for the failure of the RESPECT and SWP members such as John Rees to answer straightforward questions from Allan Green of the SSP.

Perhaps my one line question could be interpreted as criticism of the CWI over the Galloway comments – that was not the intention.

Maybe a better way to have asked the question would have been to split it into two parts :

“What do SWP supporters in Ireland say about this?”
“Have CWI supporters made any comment on Galloway’s threat to run against the SSP?”

Now, I wonder would supporters of the SWP in Ireland care to comment using their own names?

As for the anonymistas/pseudonymistas…plenty of material there for satirical magazines.

On that note : over Christmas I viewed an excellent DVD “Our Left Foot” – a filmed tribute of a memorial meeting celebrating the life of Paul Foot (he died from a heart attack last July at the age of 66)

One of the most impressive features of the meeting was the wide range of political backgrounds among the people making tributes – they included Paul’s uncle, the former Labour Leader Michael Foot, the human rights campaigner and lawyer Gareth Pierce, Tariq Ali, and many others.

One of the main highlights was a tribute from the inimitable Dave Spart, read out by his creator Richard Ingrams. Even better, an audience that contained many people from the far left were able to laugh at crazy and demented polemics that pass for “debate” in some forums.

If you get some spare time Brian, I think you would enjoy the DVD – even if Paul Foot was a member of the SWP!

by Cynic Thu Jan 06, 2005 14:54

Hes the one who accused the CWI of being involved in RESPECT, reinforcing his position as the Walter Mitty of the Irish far left. I thought Brian C made it clear in his comment that he was addressing his comrades.

by Amused Thu Jan 06, 2005 14:27

Brian rebukes people for being too hard on John Meehan and it turns out to be his own comrades.
How we laughed!

by Curious Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:04

Is of course right, there was no need for me to be so acerbic but I had been provoked. The problem is that John Meehan was wrong about the involvement of the CWI in RESPECT and in fact it is his own fraternal group which is involved. But when this was pointed out to him, instead of admitting and correcting his error he accused me and others of peddling "Malicious Rubbish".

By following up a mistake with a lie, it is John Meehan who was responsible for the minutiae of USFI, ISG and other alphabet soup appearing here. John Meehan could now do the decent thing and admit that the CWI has no responsibility for the actions of RESPECT. It is of course entirely up to John Meehan himself as to whether he wants to elaborate on the involvement of his fraternal group in RESPECT.

by eeekkkk Wed Jan 05, 2005 23:47

They think they are addressing just hardened politicos who know the in's and outs of every little group out there. Meanwhile large swathes of the population look on wondering what the hell it is they are (all) on about.

The same lefties would be better off using the site for what it is essentialy designed for - putting forward alternative views of the news and current affairs / publishing news and commentary on current affairs which they regard as important which are not being covered elsewhere and also putting forward coherent and forceful political points of view.

by Brian C. Wed Jan 05, 2005 22:12

John was clearly somewhat confused when he criticised the Committee for a Workers International over the doings of RESPECT or George Galloway.

The Socialist Party (CWI in England and Wales) has been very critical of the RESPECT project, the lack of democracy involved in its establishment and its watering down of socialist politics. The CWI in Scotland is part of the Scottish Socialist Party and certainly wouldn't support an extension of the RESPECT Coalition there.

There is no need for the bitter and accusatory tone however. John got something wrong. Fine. Point that out. Don't post a series of anonymous attacks on him. You might score a few points off John but what does that profit you if it just makes us all look silly to the 99% of people who use this site who haven't a clue what the USFI is or who the ISG are. Try to keep a sense of proportion about these things.

by Verde Wed Jan 05, 2005 20:06

Socialist Resistance (ISG/USFI front) gives uncritical support to "the Iraqi Resistance ".

"Socialist Resistance supports the fight of the Iraqi Resistance against the British and American armies of occupation. We do not agree with all their methods and many of their ideas but we want them to win. "

http://www.socialistresistance.net/

Its not enough to write that you disagree with their methods and then go on to call for victory. The "Iraqi Resistance " is already killing women who refuse to wear the veil It is killing Socialists, Trade Unionists, anyone who stands up against fundamentalism is slaughtered. Opposing the US occupation does not mean you have to support this. How can Trotskyists want Islamic Fundamentalists to win? What kind of society would exist in Iraq if these armies of Allah were to triumph?

John Meehan has a lot of questions to answer.

by Curious Wed Jan 05, 2005 15:17

John Meehan is talking about malicious rubbish, well if there is any here it is peddled by him. Meehan was questioning the CWI about Respect and Galloway when in fact it is John Meehans International the USFI which is involved in Respect.

John Meehan deal with facts.

Do you accept that it is the British section of the USFI which is involved in Respect?

Well heres what the International Socialist Group British Section of the Fourth International say:

"It is clear that Respect is a major step forward from the SA. Its origins lie in the political situation created by the war and in the biggest anti-war movement ever seen in Britain. Although the conditions for a left alternative had existed for eight years or so, dramatic new opportunities have opened up. This gives Respect a resonance that the SA never had. The debate is now on its political character and how to build it.

Respect already has a bigger ex-Labour component than the SA achieved, for as well as the traditional Labour left, Respect has attracted many from the ethnic minority communities – the first time the left has managed to do this. Activists were strongly represented in the Respect candidates’ lists and are evident in Respect meetings, with new people also coming forward. But its vote is much wider than this layer. George Galloway’s expulsion for opposition to the war is the nearest thing we have had to a split in the Labour Party. With the stature and credibility of an ex-Labour MP he brings with him an important chunk of the left Labour tradition. "

More of this nauseating crawling at the ISG Website. Still say I am pandering malicious rubbish? You have been exposed as a liar!

Now as a member of the USFI please give us you opinions on the activities of the ISG.

by James Moore - None Tue Jan 04, 2005 14:46

You titled, your last post 'SSP still not getting straight answers from the SWP or RESPECT'.

Why do some people, considering all that the SWP has done in recent times, expect more.
It never ceases to amaze me.

by John Meehan Mon Jan 03, 2005 14:04

The link below contains up to date relevant correspondence on the dispute generated by George Galloway of RESPECT and the SSP.

As usual, compliments to the Weekly Worker for publishing all the relevant correspondence; no marks for the provocative and insulting headline.

It appears to me that the SSP is still not getting clear answers to its questions from the SWP, RESPECT or the English Socialist Alliance.

The defensive response of the SWP and RESPECTspokespersons is interesting - along the lines of - why didn't you phone me and we could have sorted it all out?

This is control freakery - indicating a desire to avoid public discussion of an important political dispute, when the content is embarrassing.

A reminder to the posters who have not identified themselves - I only engage with real people. I recommend the same approach to other correspondents, and look forward to a day when Indymedia in Ireland runs a discussion site without anonymistas/pseudonymistas and their malicious rubbish.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/557/ssp.htm

by Curious Sun Jan 02, 2005 21:02

As it is your version of the Fourth International - the USFI, NOT the CWI which is involved in Respect perhaps you would tell us whats going on.

by cwier Fri Dec 24, 2004 23:03

the cwi aren't part of the respect coalition and can't control what respect or george galloway does, personally i'd be much closer to a party like the ssp than one like respect.

by tintin Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:02

You are a member of the USFI. Its British section is in Respect so why dont you ask them whats up. Whats your own position on this?

by John Meehan Fri Dec 24, 2004 00:26

What do CWI or SWP supporters in ireland say about this?

Perhaps silence is eloquent.

From the current Scottish Socialist Voice :

No clear answer yet from Respect on Galloway’s election threat

Following the 5 December publication, in the Mail on Sunday, of an article entitled ‘Galloway to team up with Sheridan for assault on Labour seats in Holyrood’, SSP National Secretary Allan Green wrote to John Rees, National Secretary of Respect, to clarify a few matters.
Given that the Mail on Sunday quoted Galloway as saying that Tommy should “move on” from the SSP and stand with him on a joint ticket for the Holyrood elections of 2007, and that Respect had in fact already discussed standing in these Scottish elections, Allan - like many SSP members - was concerned that Respect were considering a move that would split the left vote in Scotland. To the detriment of all socialists.
Thus, on 7 December, Allan wrote expressing his disappointment that Galloway would “actively promote divisions within the SSP and the left in Scotland” and asked Rees to confirm or deny (a) whether Respect had discussed standing for Holyrood 2007 and (b) whether Galloway’s remarks about the SSP represented Respect’s views or were his own.
He asked for a “categorical assurance” that Respect would neither stand in the 2007 elections nor any time in the future, and that the reference to Respect standing in the Holyrood elections be removed forthwith from the Electoral Commission website.
Rees replied, on 11 December, saying: “Respect has no plans to organise or to contest elections in Scotland.”
Which is not the same as categorically assuring us that Respect will not stand either in 2007 or any time in the future.
He dismissed Galloway’s remarks as “part and parcel of the normal process of democratic debate on the left” whilst failing to indicate if they represented Respect’s views or not.
He then had a pop at the SSP for supporting the United Socialist Party (we don’t; Tommy, in a personal capacity, once shared a platform with someone who then went on to help form the United Socialist Party) and Forward Wales.
With regards to the latter, the SSP made it clear from the outset that it would support Forward Wales and urged Respect not to organise in Wales against this progressive and socialist organisation. Respect refused.
This hasn’t stopped the SSP supporting Respect in England and in the case of Wales, said Allan, “at least you have always known exactly where we stood and why.”
So far, Respect have not extended the same courtesy to us. Allan, in a letter dated 12 December, reiterated his request for clarification, otherwise “it will be difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Respect leadership are deliberately being evasive.”

by John Meehan Sat Dec 11, 2004 01:44

Could the SWP(GB) be thinking of running RESPECT candidates against the SSP in Scotland?


SSP National Secretary Allan Green would like an answer :

"Dear Comrades in the SWP and the Socialist Alliance (England)

I have been sent a report of the Socialist Alliance
(England) Executive meeting that met last night.


The report states:-

"The SWP voted against the following emergency motion put by Andy Newman to the SA exec and the motion was voted down:

'The Socialist Alliance sends it fraternal greetings
to the SSP in the current difficult period and confirms its support for the SSP in all
elections in Scotland'.

"Rob Hoveman (who is an SWP full timer in the Respect office) said ...
Respect has no intention of contesting the GENERAL
ELECTION in
Scotland.

"So, Andy asked - can you clarify whether Respect
would contest
elections
for the Scottish parliament, and Rob replied...

"Respect has no intention of contesting the GENERAL ELECTION in Scotland."


I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or
not this report is accurate. Can you please specifically confirm whether or not the
Socialist Alliance Executive voted down the above motion. If SWP members voted
against the motion, we would be grateful if the SWP could confirm whether or
not they were representing, or representative of, the SWP.

If the above report is accurate it is extremely
concerning, especially in the light of recent public comments by prominent
Respect member, George
Galloway. Both the SWP and the Socialist Alliance have previously explicitly
stated that the SSP would not be challenged in
elections by English-based left organisations.

As both the SWP and the Socialist Alliance are
actively supportive of
Respect, we would be grateful for clarification. In
particular, we would
appreciate a straightforward written statement from your organisation which
made it clear whether or not your organisation
recognises that in Scotland
there is a separate and distinct party for socialists
to join, the SSP, and
whether or not you would be willing to consider that Respect should organise
in Scotland in the future. It would be helpful if you
give us a categorical
assurance that you would not be in favour of Respect organising nor standing
in elections in Scotland at any time in the future.

We hope that you will be able to respond quickly and positively to our
requests for clarification on these matters and that
mutual positive relations between our respective organisations can be maintained and
improved in the future.

--

Allan Green
SSP National Secretary"

by John Meehan Tue Dec 07, 2004 01:38

Readers can make their own minds up :

Stott/Galloway/SWP or the SSP and Tommy Sheridan?

Who is more convincing?


Scottish Socialist Voice, issue 201, 10th-16th December 2004

In an astonishing outburst against the Scottish Socialist Party,
George Galloway has threatened to split Scottish left and stand for
the Respect Coalition in the 2007 Holyrood election.
Fresh from his court triumph over the right wing Daily Telegraph,
Galloway used the pages of another ultra-right newspaper, the Daily
Mail, to denounce the SSP and invite Tommy Sheridan to help him set
up a rival left party in Scotland.
According to the newspaper's 'exclusive' report, "the MP... said
Respect has already started to explore the best way to use the
proportional representation list system to win Holyrood seats at the
2007 elections."
Galloway told the Mail on Sunday: "Tommy and I would be a great
double act, a dream ticket, and people would vote for us."
Using the McCarthyite language beloved of the Blairites, the Respect
leader denounced the SSP's National Council and National Executive as
the "Trotskyite apparatchiks".
Tommy Sheridan has rejected Galloway's overtures, pointing out that
the whole idea is a "nonsense".
He said: "I expect to be a leading candidate of the SSP in 2007.
There is already a socialist party in Scotland, and it's called the
SSP."
Over the past three years, the SSP has been supportive of George
Galloway in his battles with Blair and the New Labour hierarchy over
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We have never hidden our differences with George on a range of
issues, including Scottish independence, which he vehemently opposes,
and abortion rights, which he also opposes.
The SSP also insists that parliamentary candidates pledge to live on
no more than the average wage of a skilled worker - a policy which
George Galloway has always resisted, both within the Labour Party and
within Respect.
Nonetheless, despite our disagreements, the SSP supported George's
moves to form a broad, left wing, anti-war party in England after his
expulsion from New Labour in 2003.
However, our backing for Respect - and for other initiatives to
create a working class socialist alternative to New Labour south of
the border - has been based on a clear recognition that there is
already a united socialist party in Scotland.
Five years before George Galloway was expelled from New Labour, the
SSP was already building a nationwide united socialist party, with
thousands of members and scores of branches across Scotland.
This culminated in the election of six Scottish Socialist MSPs in
2003, and was followed by the affiliation of the railworkers union
the RMT in early 2004.
Echoing the superficial babble of anti-socialist newspapers, George
claims that support for the SSP will collapse without Tommy Sheridan
as convenor.
This is an insult to the intelligence of tens of thousands of SSP
voters.
Opponents of socialism have always sought to portray the SSP as
a 'one man band'.
Star-struck by fame and celebrity, and swaddled in the cotton wool of
wealth and privilege, right wing commentators are unable to grasp the
fact that a sizeable chunk of the Scottish electorate vote for a
socialist party because they believe in socialist politics.
Tommy Sheridan has been an outstanding mouthpiece and figurehead for
socialism.
He has eloquently and tirelessly promoted the cause of socialism
across Scotland.
Many others have played a less visible, but similarly vital role in
developing the influence, the structures, the strategy, and the
politics of the SSP.
Moreover, Tommy Sheridan will continue to be an important figure in
the SSP as an MSP and an ambassador for socialism and independence.
But the vast majority of people who back the SSP are voting not for
the messenger, but for the message.
There is a large left wing constituency in Scotland that is anti-war,
pro-independence, in favour of public ownership and opposed to the
grotesque inequalities of wealth and power under capitalism.
That constituency is likely to grow rather than diminish in the
coming months and years.
George Galloway's comments about Tommy Sheridan's resignation suggest
that the Kelvin MP has been hopelessly misinformed.
According to the Mail on Sunday, "Mr Galloway said he had discussed
the extra-marital allegations about Mr Sheridan with the former SSP
leader, who claims never to have met the woman at the centre of the
reports."
This refers to an article which appeared in the News of the World on
November 14, some days after Tommy Sheridan's resignation.
The SSP executive had no advance knowledge of the contents of this
article.
We can state categorically that the story is a red herring and played
no part in any of the decisions that were taken by the SSP executive.
The story may have been deliberately manufactured by the News of the
World to create division and confusion among SSP supporters following
Tommy's resignation.
Moreover, even if this story was true, it would have had no bearing
on Tommy Sheridan's role as convenor.
Unfortunately, George Galloway has been duped into believing that the
SSP executive ditched Tommy Sheridan over an extra-marital affair.
Nor is he alone. Several London-based newspapers, including the
Socialist Worker and The Socialist, appear to have made the same
mistake.
The Socialist, for example, claims that the SSP executive took action
over "unproven tabloid allegations".
The SSP executive has never expressed an opinion on "unproven
allegations" - including the allegations that appeared in News of the
World on November 14
The discussions that did take place between Tommy and the SSP
executive were based, not on "unproven tabloid allegations", but on
undisputed facts.
Forces hostile to the SSP and socialism have attempted to destabilise
and divide the party, spreading fairy tales of dark plots, bitter
power struggles and palace coups.
They have also sought to demoralise the party and its supporters,
portraying Tommy Sheridan's resignation as the end of Scottish
socialism.
They are 100 per cent wrong. The SSP remains the most united
political party in Scotland, committed to peace, justice, socialism
and independence.
The party is also on course to stand in every seat in Scotland in the
coming general election - and to surpass the 70,000 votes for
socialism in the 2001 general election.
Those vultures who are today hovering on the skyline will soon
disappear into the clouds when they discover that the corpse is in
tip-top, fighting-fit condition and ready to take on all-comers.
In the meantime, the Respect Coalition should distance itself
immediately from George Galloway's threat, which can only play into
the hands of the British establishment and New Labour in London and
Edinburgh.
George may have been cleared by the courts of treason against the
British state.
But if he forges ahead with his plan to divide the forces of
socialism in Scotland, he will be guilty of treason against the
Scottish left.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Wed Nov 24, 2004 22:25

In the interests of balance I attach the editorial of the Scottish Socialist Voice, the newspaper of the SSP, on the issue of Tommy's resignation as convenor. Unusually for a left wing paper this is followed by two divergent opinion pieces on the question of leadership. As to the substantial issue I will hold my judgement until all the facts have emerged, though it is hardly surprising that the right wing tabloid media using this opportunity to attack and damage the SSP.

No coup for convenorship

editorial
comment

Tommy Sheridan's resignation as convenor last week stunned SSP members and supporters, not least because of the way most of them found out.
The Daily Record was never for a second intended to be the place that announced Tommy's resignation to the party's membership.
But for a paper that usually does its best to blank the achievements of the SSP, the Record went to extraordinary effort to force the announcement early.
They used blackmail, threatening to print a nonsense story of infighting and a leadership coup which had pushed Tommy out.
In all the jumble of stories that people might have heard, it has to be made absolutely clear that that was not the case.
There is not one particle of truth in any of the allegations of internecine battles or political manoeuvring running behind what's happened.
Other SSP MSPs have been viciously attacked and smeared in the press over the last week.
The Voice is unequivocal - there has been no leadership coup because there are no leadership contenders. There will not be until the SSP membership decide how to proceed.
The SSP's Executive Committee is recommending that the party first discuss what format any future convenorship takes before any nominations are made, and the nominations deadline can be extended if necessary for that debate to be carried out fully.
Tommy would be an awful hard act to follow, and no-one, absolutely no-one, relishes that prospect.
Tommy tendered his resignation after a meeting that was extremely difficult. Not one member of the Executive Committee voted on it without questioning themselves again and again.
But the Executive emerged from the meeting unanimous and united.
His resignation came in the wake of immense pressure on his personal life from the media.
The scrutiny of his private life would never have been so close had he not played such an outstanding role over two decades in the socialist movement.
Tommy was a huge influence in the battle against the Poll Tax, where he helped give courage and support to the millions of people who refused to pay.
Jailed in 1992 for defying a court order banning him from a warrant sale in Turnbull Street, Glasgow, he spent six months in Edinburgh's Saughton jail. While a prisoner there he was elected as councillor for Pollok, in May of 1992.
Through the course of the next 15 years, Tommy was sent to jail again for fighting the Poll Tax but also for taking part in blockades at Faslane nuclear submarine base in the fight for nuclear disarmament, a cause he believes in passionately.
Whether on striking workers' picket lines or in championing the abolition of the Council Tax, Tommy has brought to Scottish politics a unique voice that speaks up for those who could not make themselves heard in the elitist world of establishment politics.
And that's something he will continue to do as an SSP MSP for Glasgow, as an integral part of our group of six MSPs, and our party as a whole. As for the question of who takes on the role of convenor, that's one that will be answered democratically by SSP members.
Maybe we will decide we don't need to have a convenor at all, or maybe we will decide to pick someone, or some people, from the wealth of talent and experience that exists within our ranks.
Regardless of how much mud is flung by the press - who don't understand how a democratic party works because they've never seen one before - nothing could take that decision away from SSP members.
Our party is much bigger than any one person. Our battle is against war, poverty and inequality, in Scotland and throughout the world.
The past week has been a horrible one for the SSP - there's no getting away from that.
But the fight for socialism was never going to be easy. And fighting for socialism is what we do.
n The SSP can't comment publicly on allegations surrounding Tommy's personal life; as we went to press, Tommy reported that he had begun legal action.

Does the SSP really need a convenor anyway?

Yes, argues Joe Eyre

The working class needs its own party in the struggle against capitalist exploitation and to establish a socialist society in which human beings will be valued irrespective of their sex, colour, age or occupation.
It's the responsibility of us all - individually and collectively - to work consistently and enthusiastically to strengthen the party.
All our discussions and decisions need to be based on that perspective.
In my opinion, the interests of the party would be well served by the election of a new party convenor.
In the parliament, we need somebody who consistently calls the pro-capitalist coalition Executive to account.
To do that effectively, themes and lines of attack need to be developed over time.
With the best will in the world I can't see how five MSPs, each taking a turn to question McConnell, could develop that kind of long-term strategic approach.
Much more importantly, a party convenor who is regularly in contact with the branches and international comrades and organisations would be a vital link between the membership and the party leadership.
A collective leadership is most effective when it is organically linked to the political experiences of the party and the international working class and bases its decisions on a serious analysis of those experiences.
When decisions are made and policies launched without adequately involving or consulting the rank and file, problems inevitably arise.
Many of our difficulties arise from the fact that we have failed to develop a party programme.
The party convenor could be instrumental in remedying that glaring weakness.
She could act to unite the members in the branches with the leading committees of the party in a wide-ranging discussion leading to the adoption of a programme that will guide the party and the working class towards our socialist objectives.

No, argues Keef Tomkinson

When the SSP was launched it made sense to have a convenor. A new party needs to give the media something to focus on. It also helps if that individual is Tommy Sheridan.
Times have changed and so has the SSP. We now have 3000 members, six MSPs, branches across Scotland, a weekly paper, trade union affiliation and over 100,000 people voting SSP.
With Tommy's resignation, we have an opportunity to challenge established political conventions and create an even more dynamic party.
Not taking anything away from him, we should remember that behind every public meeting was a layer of activists leafleting thousands of homes.
Tommy would regularly comment on campaigns or at demonstrations. But SSP members, including Tommy, were at the heart of building them. It's us that gives the media something to notice.
Other party's leaders stamp their authority and vision on their party. The SSP decides it own internal rules and tells the leadership what our policies are. Any candidate that tried otherwise would be laughed out of conference.
The media report on us because of what we do, not for what Tommy says.
It's undeniable that we must accommodate how the media works. But rather than dance to their tune, let's just throw them a bone.
How about a parliamentary spokesperson? We have made a breakthrough for socialism in Scotland. We now need to reach out and entrench that rather than waste energy electing a new party mouthpiece.

by cop on Wed Nov 24, 2004 21:47

"Less of the CWI sectarianism please"

this statement really shows the blind anti-SP bias of a number of people using this site. The original post is not a news report announcing Sheridans resignation it was a piece giving the CWI analysis of the Sheridan resignation. How is this 'sectarian'!!?? Is sectarianism now defined by people giving their opinions and analysis?? I just hope the small minority of idiots that abuse this site will grow up.

by cwi member Wed Nov 24, 2004 19:19

I believe this article provides a different political perspective than previously detailed.

by Trotwatch Wed Nov 24, 2004 15:31

This was reported here weeks ago. (See the link.) Less of the CWI sectarianism please.