Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Rinty

Solidarity tonight declare its 100% support for our convenor Tommy Sheridan who has been charged with perjury by Lothian and Borders Police.

We have consistently stated that Tommy Sheridan has been the victim of a collossal vendetta by the Rupert Murdoch media empire. A vendetta that is rooted in Tommy Sheridan's role as a leader of the anti-poll tax movement that destroyed the career of Margaret Thatcher. As well as his uncomprinsing stand against racism, poverty, injustice and as a fighter for ordinary people against the billionaires that Murdoch and his press defends. This vendetta has increased in intensity and desperation following the defamation victory that Tommy Sheridan scored against Murdoch's paper the News of the World in 2006. The now possibility of a perjury trial is a continuation of this witch-hunt by the Murdoch empire.

Solidarity has and will continue to condemn the unprecedented and scandalous squandering of public money - running to hundreds of thousands of pounds - in pursuit of this police inquiry over the outcome of a civil defamation case. This inquiry has now culminated in nine police officers descending on Tommy and Gail Sheridan's home where Gail and their daughter were subject to an unacceptable eight hour ordeal.

Solidarity will continue to defend Tommy Sheridan and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all those fighting injustce, inequality and for the rights of ordinary working people. All those who want to see a new world free from poverty, war, discrimination and exploitation should support Tommy Sheridan.

www.solidarityscotland.org

Aventinian

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

Anthropos · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 323

Aventinian

agentmancuso

thebauer · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 8

they are out to get him for his political beliefs.

thebauer · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 8

they are out to get his wife, father in law and fellow party member for their political beliefs.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 845

Rinty sent a "statement" which included mention of "Tommy Sheridan's role as a leader of the anti-poll tax movement".

Let me make it quite clear, as somebody who was involved in the anti-poll-tax movement from beginning to end, that some of us did not accept the claim that Tommy Sheridan was our "leader" at the time, and we don't accept it now. He was the convenor of the Scottish Federation of Anti-Poll-Tax Unions, a federation of groups which was set up AFTER the movement had already been in existence for some time, and, in any case, it was made quite clear at the founding meeting of the federation that the position of "convenor" was not intended to imply "leader".

Aventinian asked "Do you really think Rupert Murdoch even knows who Tommy Sheridan is?"

Well, I'm not a member of the Tommy Sheridan Fan Club, but if you or anybody else is prepared to stake some money on Rupert not knowing who Tommy is, I'd be happy to accept your bet. (I'm not a gambler, I only bet on certainties.)

"The Poll Tax didn't destroy Margaret Thatcher" - it was only AFTER we in the anti-poll-tax movement had inflicted the first defeat on the "Iron Lady" that her opponents within the Conservative Party began to find the courage to stand up to her.

The way the police have pursued Tommy Sheridan and those around him, while neglecting to pursue other matters, is a kind of corruption. Wendy Alexander, Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, is caught red-handed in a frankly corrupt act and reluctantly forced to admit she has broken the law, but nobody, least of all the police, is interested in doing anything about this. Yet huge amounts of police time and public money can be devoted to pursuing somebody who is seen as a thorn in the flesh of the establishment. Personally, I couldn't care less whether some MSP attended a sex club or not. I do care about whether folk are telling the truth or not, and if Tommy was lying, then he certainly won't be a hero to me. But a lot of folk (me included) will see the way that this has been pursued as being the revenge of a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites on somebody who wasn't seen as part of their rotten establishment.

Rinty · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:

Dave, the piece said Tommy was 'a' leader of the anti-poll tax movement, not 'the' leader.

Its quite a distinction and I am sure most agree he was one of the leading people in that movement.

The aftermath was important and that includes, not just Thatcher's collapse, but Tommy's bill to abolish warrant sales.

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject:

Can any of you lefties perchance enlighten me as to why the SWP and International Socialists within the SSP defected to Solidarity along with the Sheridan Travelling Fan Club?

Was it part of the personalities issue, or is there some political subtlety I'm missing between the two organisations?
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

iainmhor · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject:

To exacerbate the split and because they thought they could build something more akin to Respect that they would weild more control or influence over. I think youd like them as they are very good Brits.

Rinty · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject:

Very good ian Smile

The split was not by a Tommy Sheridan fan club Aventinian. Anyone in the SSP will tell you that I would be considered far from being on the sheridan side of the party.

What happened within the SSP was effectively a coup. The ruling Executive refused to carry out the wishes of the National Councils and Conferences and took their own path independent of the members wishes.

At that stage we had a decision to take, either a damaging battle to win a tarnished badge or start again. The SWP, CWI, supporters of Tommy, Regional groups who opposed centralised control, trade unionists and others decided that to start again would be better in the long run.

Later the SRSM, RMT and others followed suit and decided to leave the SSP but not join Solidarity.

The party had ceased to function as a party and was unfixeable in my mind.

I am not SWP, CWI or in the Sheridan camp but took the same decision as them.

All that remains in the SSP is one faction, who have since disbanded as they have no opposing factions left.

So rather than a split by the Sheridan faction, it was a split by everyone apart from the McCombes faction.

I dont see that we had any choice to be honest.

Since the formation of Solidarity the CWI and SWP have not tried to exert more control, the opposite is the case. They do argue their points at conferences and meetings but dont stand for elected roles in the party and dont dominate branches and regions or sub groups within the party.

They have far more flexibility to push their own politics and are not restricted in the way that the control-freak SSP leadership restricted them.

As for being brits, then surely aligning themselves with pro-independence parties for the last decade or so should highlight that this is not the issue for them that Iain suggests. The CWI support an independent Scotland but prefer a socialist federation of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. The SWP do not support independence as a priority but are happy to campiagn for an "independent socialist republic", socialist and republic being more important to them than independence.

They could easily join another group of their 'brit' feelings were as strong as you suggest.

The SSP propaganda at the time tried to portray the split as just "sheridinistas" and "brits" but that was far from the case as anyone actually involved will tell you.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 845

Aventinian asked "Can any of you lefties perchance enlighten me as to why the SWP and International Socialists within the SSP defected to Solidarity along with the Sheridan Travelling Fan Club? Was it part of the personalities issue, or is there some political subtlety I'm missing between the two organisations?"

"SWP" and "International Socialists" are the same thing. It was called IS, then it became SWP. The "theoretical" magazine of the SWP is still called International Socialism.

Historically speaking, in British Marxist politics, apart from the "official" or Stalinist communist party, there were a number of rival Trotskyist groupings, each of them claiming that they were the true inheritors of Lev Davidovich Bronstein who was assassinated with an ice pick on Stalin's orders. Amongst numerous other smaller groupings, there was the WRP (Workers Revolutionary Party), the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) and the Militant Tendency (which was at one time the Revolutionary Communist Party, before they decided to "infiltrate" the Labour Party).

The WRP was quite prominent for a time, they got the support of a lot of actors, televison producers, etc (Vanessa Redgrave and her brother Corin were both on the Central Committee) and they even managed to produce a DAILY newspaper for a few years. But there was a huge scandal about the voracious sexual appetite of their Leader, Gerry Healey. Like Mao Tse Tung, this dirty old man saw it as his duty to debauch every young female cadre who joined. We are talking about many hundreds of young women here, many of them in the "barely legal" category. The WRP split over this and never really recovered.

Apart from the Leader's exploitation of young female comrades, the WRP also tended to work members so hard, trying to sell their daily paper, that there was a huge turnover of members, as individuals got burned out. The SWP managed to avoid this, by only producing a weekly paper. But every demonstration of every kind was seen as an opportunity to sell "Socialist Worker".

The Militant Tendency included such folk as Derek Hatton, at one time the Deputy Leader of Liverpol Council, and another leader who was quite a jack-the-lad, though he was never guilty of expoloiting young females on quite the same scale as Mao Tse Tung or even Gerry Healey. The introduction of the poll tax a year earlier in Scotland gave the Scottish section of the Militant Tendency an opportunity to rise to prominence. The leader who "emerged" from this was Tommy Sheridan.

The Labour Party was expelling members of the Militant Tendency, and in Scotland the Militants decided this wasn't such a bad thing, but potentially an opportunity. They also noted that Scottish Nationalism was on the rise, and, together with some socialists who were not "Millies", they formed the Scottish Socialist Party.

To begin with, the SWP in Scotland, following the line from party headquarters in London, denounced the SSP as Nationalist Deviationists. But later on they decided, if you can't beat them, join them. So the SWP in Scotland (again following orders from party headquarters in London) joined the SSP as an organised "tendency".

Within the SSP, the SWP joined up with other folk who were opposed to independence for Scotland, or at least lukewarm on the issue, because they wanted a highly centralised Marxist state with headquarters in London.

However, when the scandals relating to Tommy Sheridan arose, a very curious thing happened. The SWP (against independence) decided to back Tommy (who was in favour of independence). They did this mainly because they saw the OTHER "Millies" (Colin Fox, Rosie Kane, etc etc) as being their main opponents. The SWP apparently thought Tommy was a winner, and they decided to back the winner, in the belief that, when he won, he would be in their debt, and they would be able to "control" him. A totally unprincipled decision, but lack of principles comes almost as second nature to the SWP leadership.

So you got the very curious situation where the SSP split, and Solidarity was formed, and yet there was no major POLITICAL difference between these two parties. Both were officially socialist, both were officially committed to independence for Scotland, yet both included "tendencies" opposed to independence because they wanted a centralised, British, Marxist state.

iainmhor · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject:

Red Justice · Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject:

Neither the SSP or Solidarity give equal consideration to both independence and socialism. Any party or organisation that fails to do this is allowing the possiblilty of wide differences of opinion to form or lack of a consistent argument for breaking with the British state and allowing the conditions to fight for a Socialist Republic in Scotland (by which socialism will never be delivered by constitutional or parliamentary means)
_________________
Supporting independence and socialism in a nuclear free Scotland:
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Rinty · Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject:

"Neither the SSP or Solidarity give equal consideration to both independence and socialism. Any party or organisation that fails to do this is allowing the possiblilty of wide differences of opinion to form or lack of a consistent argument for breaking with the British state and allowing the conditions to fight for a Socialist Republic in Scotland (by which socialism will never be delivered by constitutional or parliamentary means)"

So the SNP run this risk as they dont give equal consideration to socialism? What about the SEP, obviously not socialist?

""SWP" and "International Socialists" are the same thing. It was called IS, then it became SWP. The "theoretical" magazine of the SWP is still called International Socialism. "

No Dave, Aventinian is right. The International Socialists is the current name of the Scottish wing of the CWI. You are referring to the ISG in the past.

"However, when the scandals relating to Tommy Sheridan arose, a very curious thing happened. The SWP (against independence) decided to back Tommy (who was in favour of independence). They did this mainly because they saw the OTHER "Millies" (Colin Fox, Rosie Kane, etc etc) as being their main opponents."

But what about the millies who joned the SWP in the split? This doesnt stand up to analysis Dave. The SWP took the same decision as our branch did, perhaps for different reasons, but not as an opposition to militatnt as the new party had ex millie Tommy as Convenor and ex millies sch as Philip Stott and the CWI playing a major role. Rosie Kane was never in militant, perhaps you are mistaking her with Frances Curran.

The split didnt go along factional grounds as such. We were faced with a difficult decision. Most people belived that the actions of the SSP leadership, both in ignoring the instructions from members and in supprting the NotW in court created an ireconcilable gap.

If the SWP belive it fuethers their agenda to join Solidarity then that is for them to decide, why shouldnt they join organisations where they think they can have more influence, dont we all do that?

Red Justice · Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject:

[quote="Rinty"]"Neither the SSP or Solidarity give equal consideration to both independence and socialism. Any party or organisation that fails to do this is allowing the possiblilty of wide differences of opinion to form or lack of a consistent argument for breaking with the British state and allowing the conditions to fight for a Socialist Republic in Scotland (by which socialism will never be delivered by constitutional or parliamentary means)"

So the SNP run this risk as they dont give equal consideration to socialism? What about the SEP, obviously not socialist?

I was not referrering to the SNP Rinty. While the SNP may have some grassroots socialist inclined members, they are not a socialist party. I was meaning more particularly the SSP who ended up with various platforms with differing views about prioritising independence within a socialist agenda. Also important for a party that is socialist and wants independence to unite the members around policy, manifesto and constitution with independence and socialism given equal consideration as major initatives in the party programme. anything less causes major disagreements for the party membership.

As for Solidarity I know less about the membership but thought a significant proportion of members would back Tommy's view of independence in a socialist and more equal society. The SWP have always been cool towards Scottish independence but perhaps less so if they can unite around a party that shows them that independence is the only road to socialism in the longer term for Scotland and the end game is not limited gains of independence through the constitutional nationalists.
_________________
Supporting independence and socialism in a nuclear free Scotland:
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Rinty · Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject:

To build a socilaist party in Scotland would be impossible unless we carry those socialists who dont see independence as a priority, with us.

A socialist party is united around the idea of international socialism, independence can only ever be a policy decision as socialism is not dependent on independence.

A pro-independence party unite around independence not socialism as Independence is not dependent on socialism.

I dont see the problem, for the past two Scottish elections the largest socialist group in the UK, the SWP, have campaigned for an independent socialist Scotland.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 845

Rinty wrote "Dave, Aventinian is right. The International Socialists is the current name of the Scottish wing of the CWI. You are referring to the ISG in the past."

Well, "International Socialism" was the original name of the SWP, and even when they changed their name to the SWP they still published their monthly theoretical magazine "International Socialism" as well as the weekly "Socialist Worker", so it was an understandable mistake for me to make. I accept your correction, but it can be difficult to keep up with the transmutations of the alphabet soup of Trotskyism.

"If the SWP believe it furthers their agenda to join Solidarity then that is for them to decide" - SWP headquarters in London first of all denounced the SSP as nationalist deviationists, then they said their members in Scotland should join the organisation of these nationalist deviationists as a "tendency", then, when the SSP split, the line from London became that SWP members in Scotland should join Solidarity. It is, as you correctly point out, entirely up to the leadership of the SWP to decide what the SWP should do, and of course their members in Scotland will loyally follow every unprincipled twist and turn in the party line.