Armed Struggle and the Fight for a Scottish Workers’ Republic
Peter Urban, 28 February 2008
(Part I)
Introduction
The central perspective of the republican socialist current on the armed struggle is that the question is a matter of tactics, rather than of principle. That is to say, waging the struggle by force of arms does not constitute the criteria for determining that struggle to be revolutionary. To elevate armed struggle to the level of principle is simple militarism and has no place in republican socialist analysis. That said, however, it must be equally clear that the right of the working class to employ whatever tactics are appropriate to historical circumstances within which their struggle is being waged. Thus, while it would be a mistake to insist on pursuing an active struggle in arms, without careful consideration of the appropriateness of that tactical approach to contemporary conditions, it would be no less of an error to proscribe the working class’s use of arms, if such a tactical approach provides them with a clear advantage in their struggle.
Closely tied to this perspective is the understanding that the state, whether it be a military dictatorship or bourgeois democracy, exists to serve the interests of one, and only one, class; that being the class possessing social hegemony. In simple terms, in contemporary times, that means that the state exists to serve and protect the interests of the capitalist class. Accordingly, the police, intelligence services, army, navy, and other armed entity composing a part of the government is the ‘armed wing’ of the capitalist class. So long as the class that stands as the direct opponent of our own possesses such armed entities defend its own class interests, then the working class too—whether it makes immediate use of them or not—must also maintain itself in arms. To do otherwise, would put the working class at clearly severe disadvantage; incapable of availing itself of the same tactical options held by its enemy.
The decision by the Second International to support the formation of a ‘Citizen Army’, such as that built by Larkin and Connolly in Ireland, by its constituent parties and the requirement in the Third International’s ‘21 Conditions’ that all member organizations maintain both legal and
underground organizations (called the ‘Red Hundreds’ in Germany and elsewhere) are representative of this same perspective. If class struggle is the motive force of history, the working class must prepare itself to bring that struggle to conclusion. Since it cannot be assumed that the ruling class is likely to cede its control over the means of production and the state willingly, it is reasonable to assume that the working class will be required to wrest these objectives forcibly. Since history has time and time again demonstrated the preparedness of the ruling class to resort to violence to subdue a rebellious subject class, it would be criminal for a revolutionary organization to not seek the means to defend itself and the working class as a whole against such violence.
Thus far, I believe most revolutionaries will be in full agreement, barring those who are inclined to dishonestly invoke Lenin’s writings on the terrorism of the Narodniks (completely out of context and without acknowledging the actual requirement to maintain an underground—read: ‘armed’—wing in order to be admitted to the Comintern), as though quoting from holy scripture, to argue against any use of armed force by the working class. So, let us now look briefly at the history of republican socialist armed organizations in Scotland.
History
While Scotland can trace a clearly defined, native republican socialist current to the dawn of the 20th Century and an easily identify an emerging republican socialist tendency within its working class as far back as the late 18th Century, it could be argued that there had not been a clearly republican socialist organization in arms until the late 1960s and into the early 1980s. The first of these was the Workers Party of Scotland, a Marxist-Leninist (Maoist) party founded in 1967 in support of both socialism and Scottish national liberation. In 1972, four of its members, most notably Matt Lygate, were arrested and charged with having robbed the Royal Bank of Scotland to raise funds for the party. There is no evidence of the Workers Party of Scotland having engaged in further use of arms after the four were jailed and, though the party continued on until the early 1990s, it never attained its former stature.
The other noteworthy armed organization in Scotland during this period was the Scottish National Liberation Army, which was founded in 1979. Unfortunately, the story of the SNLA has been made difficult to discuss by the later actions of member Adam Busby. There are many who are firmly convinced that Busby is a police agent, but whether that is true or not, what is clear is that his various high profile actions and alleged plots, such as an attempt to poison England’s water supply carried out since the late 1980s have done little to advance the cause of a Scottish workers’ republic and much to discredit Scottish republican socialism. However, the SNLA’s campaign of the early 1980s can more clearly be said to have represented sincere actions of republican socialist activists will revolutionary intent.
One of its first actions occurred in 1980, though the action was conducted under the name ‘Dark Harvest Commando’, at times said to be a part of the ‘Scottish Civilian Army’ and it is an excellent example of how illegal activity can be used effectively. In an effort to force the British government to acknowledge the jeopardy posed to Scotland by its World War II experiments with cultivating Anthrax on Gruinard island, which lies only a short distance from the Scottish mainland, Willie McRae devised an effective plan. Two large sacks of earth were collected from the Scottish mainland facing Gruinard and steps taken to make it appear that it had actually come from the island itself. Then small mounds of the soil were dumped on the perimeter of the Porton Down, Wiltshire biological weapons research facility in England and near the foot of the BlackpoolTower during the Tory’s Blackpool Conference. Next the group advised the media that the soil contained Anthrax spores from Gruinard. The result was a great deal of publicity about the government’s Anthrax experiments on Gruinard. Moreover, when the government tested the soil samples and found Anthrax spores, the group then revealed where it had actually been obtained, thereby getting the government to counter its own assertions that the Anthrax on Gruinard posed no threat to the Scottish mainland and it was then forced to undertake a major clean-up operation on Gruinard.
It is noteworthy, in passing, that soon after this operation was carried out; one of the participants in the Gruinard Anthrax operation, Douglas Ross’s dead body was found in a remote area. Though his death was said to be due to ‘natural causes’, there was never an inquiry into the death of an otherwise healthy young man. While occurring much later, Willie McRae also died under very strange circumstances, having been shot in April of 1985. There was no formal inquiry and the cause of the shooting is officially “undetermined, ”despite which, government officials have refused demands for an inquiry, even when 13 MPs backed such a demand and have made repeated statements alleging that McRae committed suicide when, in fact, there is no evidence to support that conclusion.
The Scottish National Liberation Army's second campaign of the early 1980s involved a plan to plant incendiary devices. The first act of the campaign was nothing more than having delivered a message to the BBC concerning where the devices were supposedly planted, despite none having actually been planted. Similar to an INLA action in the 1990s in solidarity with the Palestinians, which disrupted a planned sporting event including an Israeli team, once an armed organization has been established, it can accomplish its goals at times
armed. In the case of the SNLA action, the police blocked off a number of streets in central Edinburgh. In contrast to the INLA example, however, it is unclear that the SNLA hoax accomplished anything more than disruption of a normal day, which was unlikely to impact on consciousness of Scottish workers. Following that action, the SNLA shifted to a letter bombing campaign, the first act of which was to send a bomb to the British Defence Secretary, John Nott, because of the Trident missile program. When the letter bomb was delivered to Nott’s office—and discovered upon opening, without exploding—on March
17th, however, the media picked up the story as being an IRA undertaking, because of the St. Patrick's Day association and though the SNLA telephoned a statement of responsibility to the Scotsman newspaper, by the time it was received the mistaken IRA connection was already in the media and few media outlets bothered to correct the attribution. When the SNLA learned that a civil service worker would have been the actual victim of the bomb, had she not detected it as she was opening the letter, they shifted to incendiary letter bombs, to avoid possibly killing a low level civil servant. The SNLA followed this by sending of incendiary letter bombs to the Social Democratic Party’s
Glasgow and Edinburgh headquarters. Though neither of the letter bombs ignited, the actions did result in widespread reporting of the existence of the Scottish National Liberation Army. Also in 1982, the SNLA carried out arson attacks on both the Tory and Labour Party headquarters in GIasgow and on the Redford Army Barracks in Edinburgh (though the group used the name the "Scottish Independence Army" for the last arson attack. The letter bomb campaign continued into 1983.
When Princess Diana made her first official visit to Glasgow, in 1983, the SNLA sent an incendiary letter bomb to Glasgow's Lord Provost, Michael Kelly, which did ignite upon opening. Because of excellent coordination between the sending of the letter bomb and the sending statements of responsibility to the media, the incident received widespread coverage and succeeded in displacing the royal visit as the main news of the day, which was the intended result. The SNLA also intended to assassinate Margaret Thatcher at the Tory Party’s Perth conference in May of 1983, as did Arm nan Gaidheal. Though neither group went through with their plans, the threats did succeed in forcing a large police presence. Instead, the INLA was going to send a letter bomb to SconePalace, where Thatcher was staying, but police were following SNLA volunteer David Dinsmore and arrested him when he dropped the letter bomb into a Glasgow post box.
While still awaiting trial, Dinsmore was suddenly released. Dinsmore and Busby then left for Ireland, leaving behind SNLA volunteer Tommy Kelly, who was arrested shortly after their departure and later sentenced to ten years. Dinsmore went on from Ireland to Brazil, where he remained for nine years until surrendering to British authorities. Busby successfully fought extradition in Dublin, allowing him to remain in Ireland. From Ireland, Busby continued to maintain a relatively high profile while claiming various actions and plots against Britain, most of which accomplished little or nothing.
Busby has taken responsibility for shaping most histories of the SNLA (as well as laying claim to being the founding force behind the SRSP) and has provided ample fodder for the likes of News of the World to report him at the center of an ‘international terror network’ involving the Rea IRA, the Russian Maoist Party—and through them, the Maoist Internationalist Movement, along with various environmental activists. However, for the purpose of this discussion, after 1983 there is no Scottish armed organization that can be appropriately called republican socialist. Accordingly, let us turn to the specific circumstances of Scotland today and the question of armed struggle
(Part II)
Armed Struggle in Contemporary Scotland
Regardless of what has occurred elsewhere in the world or what may have happened in Scotland in the past, the pressing question concerning the applicability of armed struggle is, whether present contradictions confronted by the Scottish working class render the tactic immediately appropriate? The short answer to that question is clearly that they do not, but this does not negate the need for Scottish republican socialist revolutionaries to give immediate consideration to the issue. The fact that engaging in armed actions in Scotland at present would, in most instances, be counterproductive, does not alter the reality that the Scottish working class is likely to face circumstances in the not-too-distant future wherein the tactic of armed struggle may well be advantageous, if not actually necessary.
With this consideration foremost in mind, Scottish republican socialist revolutionaries would do well to take steps now that would better facilitate all tactical options being available to them when objective conditions change. Like revolutionaries throughout the world, Scottish republican socialists should take the opportunity to give serious consideration to the issue of armed struggle before the necessity of its employment is thrust upon them. Likewise, to the extent that current law permits, republican socialist activists in Scotland (and elsewhere) would be well advised to take steps to ensure their own access to arms and ensure that they have at least minimal skills in their use. If legal circumstances make ownership of a registered firearm impossible for some, there are other options that should not be disregarded with undue haste. Crossbows, for example, can be useful means of defense or even offense in an urban environment and technical knowledge in the construction of explosive devices can be learned, even if it is not put to immediate use.
More importantly, however, Scottish republican socialist should give consideration to the often thorny issues of how an armed wing might be maintained subject to the needs of the larger revolutionary movement, what the relationship between the party and the underground organization should be, and how can the needs of a clandestine organization be facilitated without unduly undermining the internal democratic practices necessary to the health of legal, political organization? The need to give serious thought to these issues before
potentially devastating mistakes are made makes the document written by INLA volunteer Thomas Power for the Irish Republican Socialist Movement a vital work for any republican socialist cadre educational program. Moreover, the conclusion reached by the IRSM on the basis of Power’s document, that a vetting process for admission to any armed body, which ensures that all volunteers have first proven themselves as political activists is not limited in its applicability to Ireland, but has tremendous value for revolutionaries confronting this issue throughout the world. The establishment of an armed organization creates huge problems for any revolutionary movement that should not be underestimated. It is essential that the movement be able to control the tendency of members in the underground organization to use arms intended to address the needs of the working class to instead provide for their personal enrichment or to enable them to settle personal grudges or disputes. It is equally essential that the existence of an armed organization not subject large numbers of political activists to the risk of incarceration or other forms of repression in disproportion to whatever value the movement gains from its existence. The armed organization cannot be allowed to promote a culture of traditional machismo that undermines the movement’s commitment to combating sexism and heterosexism’s impact on the working class. With all of these considerations to be addressed, using the opportunity provided by immediate circumstances that do not require an armed response to discuss these issues in abstract terms will better prepare comrades for integrating armed struggle when it is necessitated by objective conditions.
Many armed revolutionary organizations have become mired in tactics that have little long-term value to the struggle of working people. While the assassination of a given high-ranking governmental figure, such as Margaret Thatcher or Airey Neave, can have a clear impact on the ruling class’s own tactics, the killing of common soldiers—outside the context of immediate self-defense or when a military occupation exists—provides little last value to the struggle. In contrast, however, armed struggle can be very effectively used to expose government treachery against the interests of working people, as the INLA did with the Mt. Gabriel radar station bombing or as was illustrated above by the SNLA’s Gruinard-Anthrax operation, which legal activities would not be as effective in unmasking. It must also be said that most revolutionary organizations have few members that they can be allowed to lose to death or incarceration for lengthy periods, so there must be an ongoing risk analysis carried out, which weighs the potential benefit to be obtained from a given armed action against the possible damage to the movement if participants in the undertaking are either killed or arrested.
Immediate Uses
Though the armed struggle should never be chosen without adequate consideration of the tactical requirements of present circumstances, there are some applications of the tactic that can be seen to have potential for application at most times. Chief among these is for the physical defense of the revolutionary movement and the working class itself. This consideration is precisely what gave rise to the Irish Citizen Army initially; the need to provide protection to striking workers during the 1913 Dublin lock-out and was also the basis for the IRSM’s response to attacks on its activists by the Official IRA, shortly after the movement was established. Certainly, were the loyalist paramilitaries to become active in Scotland against Scottish republican socialists or were the fascist skinheads to become again as active as they had been in the late 1970s, there is no question that this would call for republican socialists in Scotland to mobilize some form of armed response, in order to ensure the physical safety of their own comrades and members of the working class targeted by these thugs. Likewise, were civil disobedience on the level of the Anti-Poll Tax struggle in Scotland to come about again or a labour struggle with the intensity of the 1980s Miners’ Strike to occur, the use of armed struggle in defending strikers or protesters facing eviction would have clear tactical advantages.
Another application of armed struggle by revolutionary republican socialists that could be argued in favor of under present circumstances would be for use in financially providing for the revolutionary movement. Because less conscious elements of the working class, who remain mired in bourgeois ideology, can be expected to see such tactics as debasing the integrity of the revolutionary movement, however, it would be extremely unwise for ‘fund raising’ activities to be carried out under the flag of any given revolutionary organization. Any funds or other assets obtained in this manner for a legal republican socialist organization must, of necessity, be such that linking them to illegal actions is highly unlikely. Where this application of armed force is undeniably advantageous, however, it in securing the funds necessary for creating arms dumps for later use. By obtaining necessary resources in this manner, an armed organization can be created without tell-tale links to the political organization and the significant funds required for obtaining weapons on the black market would not necessitate diverting resources away from the, usually already over-taxed, funds needed by the political organization. Moreover, if such ‘fund raising’ is carried out without identifying the responsible entity, the bourgeois state can be kept unaware that revolutionary organizations of the working class have taken steps to ensure for their own defense.
It may also be possible for revolutionaries to employ armed, or otherwise illegal, forms of struggle to overcome the limitations imposed by bourgeois ideological hegemony in order to have a significant impact on either the consciousness of the working class or in solidarity with the struggle of working people engaged in struggle elsewhere. The illegal actions undertaken during the various WTO conferences or the attack on the British Embassy in Dublin are excellent illustrations of this use, as was the SNLA action designed to overshadow the royal visit to Glasgow described above or the INLA threat that cancelled the sporting event opportunity for the Zionists to gain a propaganda advance. Such undertakings often require nothing more than bomb hoaxes or the use of violence within the context of mass demonstrations and therefore reduce the risk to the revolutionaries involved.
Finally, it is worth considering that discussion of the tactic of armed struggle now, even without it being employed immediately, is a useful undertaking for the purpose of vetting revolutionary cadre and raising the consciousness of the working class overall. At essence, the use of armed struggle by working people represents a clear realization of their right to pursue their interests as a class through the use of whatever tactics prove necessary. The discussion about the use of armed struggle provides an excellent vehicle for raising issues in ways that might otherwise be possible. For example, the use of revolutionary expropriations of funds provides for contrast with financial swindles by major capitalist entities that result in the defacto theft of far greater sums from thousands of working people, while resulting in far less onerous punishment. Likewise, employer neglect for workers safety regularly results in maiming, death, or other forms of injury throughout a host of industries—in some cases so commonly that the public often considers the resulting deaths and disabilities as a given—yet those responsible rarely are subjected to criminal charges and this violence against working people never meets with the level of condemnation meted out against the armed actions of revolutionaries, even though the human toll is generally far greater in the former than the latter.
Future Considerations
The reality described by John MacLean—that the Scottish working class is compelled to combine its struggle for socialism with the fight for national liberation, in order to overcome the obstacle provided by a far less revolutionary consciousness among English workers—remains the compelling basis for a republican socialist analysis in Scotland today. The series of scandals involving Gordon Brown’s Labour Party government within the last six months was sufficient for the Tory Party to make gains in opinion polls in England, though the same was not true in Scotland or to as great an extent in Wales. It is virtually impossible to imagine the Tories gaining a majority in either Wales or Scotland in the foreseeable future, but it is not impossible to imagine that they could become the dominant party within the British Parliament
again in the not too distant future. Such a turn of events would provide a far greater impetus to the struggle for Scottish independence that exists at present, and the present level of support is not something easily dismissed. Under a situation where Scottish nationalist sentiment was greatly spurred on by frustration over being subjected to a Tory regime that their own nation did not elect to power, it is highly likely that the government’s response would be one of significantly increased repression; and this would create circumstances which republican socialist activists in Scotland would be foolish not to use to press the demand for an independent Scottish workers’ republic.
If such a demand met with growing support among Scottish workers, as might be well expected under such circumstances, the iron hand of the state would undoubtedly be withdrawn from its masking velvet glove with great haste. The amplification of struggle and repression encouraged by these circumstances could well continue to escalate to such an extent that Scottish workers begin to feel as though they are being subjected to a military occupation, or a military occupation could simply become an objective reality. Under conditions of military occupation, such as was experienced in the occupied six counties of
Ireland after 1969; and the appropriateness of armed struggle as a tactic for working class resistance is clear.
The situation described above does not require the imagination of a science fiction devotee. Such conditions existed in the six counties until very recently (and in many ways continue to exist) and were evident in Scotland just two to three decades ago. Under such conditions, class conscious sections of the Scottish working class will not just be inclined to sympathize with revolutionaries engaged in armed struggle, but may well impatiently demand such tactics be used, as was seen in the six counties, following the occupation. When this occurs, revolutionary republican socialists should not make the mistake of being completely unprepared for armed struggle—the cost of such ‘on-the-job learning experiences’ have been well demonstrated in struggles of the past and those examples make clear why every effort should be made to avoid duplicating the error.
It is a serious error when well-meaning, but ill-considered armed actions are undertaken by revolutionary activists without appropriate consideration of the tactical requirements of the day; however, it is no less of an error for revolutionaries to encourage working people to retain illusions about the nature of the state monopoly on armed force and leave them unprepared to take actions which may be necessary for their liberation as a class. The time for republican socialists to undertake discussion of armed struggle and to take practical steps to prepare for the defense of working class interests against the armed thugs of the capitalist ruling class is now. Working people have no interests that can be gained from participation in the wars initiated by imperialism and their lingering support for the military bodies of the bourgeois state should be challenged at every opportunity. At the same time, pacifism is a relic of liberal ideology that masks the reality that the construction of socialism first necessitates the destruction of the system of capitalist property relations. Working people, accordingly, should support no war, but the class war.
return to top
(Part I)
Introduction
The central perspective of the republican socialist current on the armed struggle is that the question is a matter of tactics, rather than of principle. That is to say, waging the struggle by force of arms does not constitute the criteria for determining that struggle to be revolutionary. To elevate armed struggle to the level of principle is simple militarism and has no place in republican socialist analysis. That said, however, it must be equally clear that the right of the working class to employ whatever tactics are appropriate to historical circumstances within which their struggle is being waged. Thus, while it would be a mistake to insist on pursuing an active struggle in arms, without careful consideration of the appropriateness of that tactical approach to contemporary conditions, it would be no less of an error to proscribe the working class’s use of arms, if such a tactical approach provides them with a clear advantage in their struggle.
Closely tied to this perspective is the understanding that the state, whether it be a military dictatorship or bourgeois democracy, exists to serve the interests of one, and only one, class; that being the class possessing social hegemony. In simple terms, in contemporary times, that means that the state exists to serve and protect the interests of the capitalist class. Accordingly, the police, intelligence services, army, navy, and other armed entity composing a part of the government is the ‘armed wing’ of the capitalist class. So long as the class that stands as the direct opponent of our own possesses such armed entities defend its own class interests, then the working class too—whether it makes immediate use of them or not—must also maintain itself in arms. To do otherwise, would put the working class at clearly severe disadvantage; incapable of availing itself of the same tactical options held by its enemy.
The decision by the Second International to support the formation of a ‘Citizen Army’, such as that built by Larkin and Connolly in Ireland, by its constituent parties and the requirement in the Third International’s ‘21 Conditions’ that all member organizations maintain both legal and
underground organizations (called the ‘Red Hundreds’ in Germany and elsewhere) are representative of this same perspective. If class struggle is the motive force of history, the working class must prepare itself to bring that struggle to conclusion. Since it cannot be assumed that the ruling class is likely to cede its control over the means of production and the state willingly, it is reasonable to assume that the working class will be required to wrest these objectives forcibly. Since history has time and time again demonstrated the preparedness of the ruling class to resort to violence to subdue a rebellious subject class, it would be criminal for a revolutionary organization to not seek the means to defend itself and the working class as a whole against such violence.
Thus far, I believe most revolutionaries will be in full agreement, barring those who are inclined to dishonestly invoke Lenin’s writings on the terrorism of the Narodniks (completely out of context and without acknowledging the actual requirement to maintain an underground—read: ‘armed’—wing in order to be admitted to the Comintern), as though quoting from holy scripture, to argue against any use of armed force by the working class. So, let us now look briefly at the history of republican socialist armed organizations in Scotland.
History
While Scotland can trace a clearly defined, native republican socialist current to the dawn of the 20th Century and an easily identify an emerging republican socialist tendency within its working class as far back as the late 18th Century, it could be argued that there had not been a clearly republican socialist organization in arms until the late 1960s and into the early 1980s. The first of these was the Workers Party of Scotland, a Marxist-Leninist (Maoist) party founded in 1967 in support of both socialism and Scottish national liberation. In 1972, four of its members, most notably Matt Lygate, were arrested and charged with having robbed the Royal Bank of Scotland to raise funds for the party. There is no evidence of the Workers Party of Scotland having engaged in further use of arms after the four were jailed and, though the party continued on until the early 1990s, it never attained its former stature.
The other noteworthy armed organization in Scotland during this period was the Scottish National Liberation Army, which was founded in 1979. Unfortunately, the story of the SNLA has been made difficult to discuss by the later actions of member Adam Busby. There are many who are firmly convinced that Busby is a police agent, but whether that is true or not, what is clear is that his various high profile actions and alleged plots, such as an attempt to poison England’s water supply carried out since the late 1980s have done little to advance the cause of a Scottish workers’ republic and much to discredit Scottish republican socialism. However, the SNLA’s campaign of the early 1980s can more clearly be said to have represented sincere actions of republican socialist activists will revolutionary intent.
One of its first actions occurred in 1980, though the action was conducted under the name ‘Dark Harvest Commando’, at times said to be a part of the ‘Scottish Civilian Army’ and it is an excellent example of how illegal activity can be used effectively. In an effort to force the British government to acknowledge the jeopardy posed to Scotland by its World War II experiments with cultivating Anthrax on Gruinard island, which lies only a short distance from the Scottish mainland, Willie McRae devised an effective plan. Two large sacks of earth were collected from the Scottish mainland facing Gruinard and steps taken to make it appear that it had actually come from the island itself. Then small mounds of the soil were dumped on the perimeter of the Porton Down, Wiltshire biological weapons research facility in England and near the foot of the BlackpoolTower during the Tory’s Blackpool Conference. Next the group advised the media that the soil contained Anthrax spores from Gruinard. The result was a great deal of publicity about the government’s Anthrax experiments on Gruinard. Moreover, when the government tested the soil samples and found Anthrax spores, the group then revealed where it had actually been obtained, thereby getting the government to counter its own assertions that the Anthrax on Gruinard posed no threat to the Scottish mainland and it was then forced to undertake a major clean-up operation on Gruinard.
It is noteworthy, in passing, that soon after this operation was carried out; one of the participants in the Gruinard Anthrax operation, Douglas Ross’s dead body was found in a remote area. Though his death was said to be due to ‘natural causes’, there was never an inquiry into the death of an otherwise healthy young man. While occurring much later, Willie McRae also died under very strange circumstances, having been shot in April of 1985. There was no formal inquiry and the cause of the shooting is officially “undetermined, ”despite which, government officials have refused demands for an inquiry, even when 13 MPs backed such a demand and have made repeated statements alleging that McRae committed suicide when, in fact, there is no evidence to support that conclusion.
The Scottish National Liberation Army's second campaign of the early 1980s involved a plan to plant incendiary devices. The first act of the campaign was nothing more than having delivered a message to the BBC concerning where the devices were supposedly planted, despite none having actually been planted. Similar to an INLA action in the 1990s in solidarity with the Palestinians, which disrupted a planned sporting event including an Israeli team, once an armed organization has been established, it can accomplish its goals at times
armed. In the case of the SNLA action, the police blocked off a number of streets in central Edinburgh. In contrast to the INLA example, however, it is unclear that the SNLA hoax accomplished anything more than disruption of a normal day, which was unlikely to impact on consciousness of Scottish workers. Following that action, the SNLA shifted to a letter bombing campaign, the first act of which was to send a bomb to the British Defence Secretary, John Nott, because of the Trident missile program. When the letter bomb was delivered to Nott’s office—and discovered upon opening, without exploding—on March
17th, however, the media picked up the story as being an IRA undertaking, because of the St. Patrick's Day association and though the SNLA telephoned a statement of responsibility to the Scotsman newspaper, by the time it was received the mistaken IRA connection was already in the media and few media outlets bothered to correct the attribution. When the SNLA learned that a civil service worker would have been the actual victim of the bomb, had she not detected it as she was opening the letter, they shifted to incendiary letter bombs, to avoid possibly killing a low level civil servant. The SNLA followed this by sending of incendiary letter bombs to the Social Democratic Party’s
Glasgow and Edinburgh headquarters. Though neither of the letter bombs ignited, the actions did result in widespread reporting of the existence of the Scottish National Liberation Army. Also in 1982, the SNLA carried out arson attacks on both the Tory and Labour Party headquarters in GIasgow and on the Redford Army Barracks in Edinburgh (though the group used the name the "Scottish Independence Army" for the last arson attack. The letter bomb campaign continued into 1983.
When Princess Diana made her first official visit to Glasgow, in 1983, the SNLA sent an incendiary letter bomb to Glasgow's Lord Provost, Michael Kelly, which did ignite upon opening. Because of excellent coordination between the sending of the letter bomb and the sending statements of responsibility to the media, the incident received widespread coverage and succeeded in displacing the royal visit as the main news of the day, which was the intended result. The SNLA also intended to assassinate Margaret Thatcher at the Tory Party’s Perth conference in May of 1983, as did Arm nan Gaidheal. Though neither group went through with their plans, the threats did succeed in forcing a large police presence. Instead, the INLA was going to send a letter bomb to SconePalace, where Thatcher was staying, but police were following SNLA volunteer David Dinsmore and arrested him when he dropped the letter bomb into a Glasgow post box.
While still awaiting trial, Dinsmore was suddenly released. Dinsmore and Busby then left for Ireland, leaving behind SNLA volunteer Tommy Kelly, who was arrested shortly after their departure and later sentenced to ten years. Dinsmore went on from Ireland to Brazil, where he remained for nine years until surrendering to British authorities. Busby successfully fought extradition in Dublin, allowing him to remain in Ireland. From Ireland, Busby continued to maintain a relatively high profile while claiming various actions and plots against Britain, most of which accomplished little or nothing.
Busby has taken responsibility for shaping most histories of the SNLA (as well as laying claim to being the founding force behind the SRSP) and has provided ample fodder for the likes of News of the World to report him at the center of an ‘international terror network’ involving the Rea IRA, the Russian Maoist Party—and through them, the Maoist Internationalist Movement, along with various environmental activists. However, for the purpose of this discussion, after 1983 there is no Scottish armed organization that can be appropriately called republican socialist. Accordingly, let us turn to the specific circumstances of Scotland today and the question of armed struggle
(Part II)
Armed Struggle in Contemporary Scotland
Regardless of what has occurred elsewhere in the world or what may have happened in Scotland in the past, the pressing question concerning the applicability of armed struggle is, whether present contradictions confronted by the Scottish working class render the tactic immediately appropriate? The short answer to that question is clearly that they do not, but this does not negate the need for Scottish republican socialist revolutionaries to give immediate consideration to the issue. The fact that engaging in armed actions in Scotland at present would, in most instances, be counterproductive, does not alter the reality that the Scottish working class is likely to face circumstances in the not-too-distant future wherein the tactic of armed struggle may well be advantageous, if not actually necessary.
With this consideration foremost in mind, Scottish republican socialist revolutionaries would do well to take steps now that would better facilitate all tactical options being available to them when objective conditions change. Like revolutionaries throughout the world, Scottish republican socialists should take the opportunity to give serious consideration to the issue of armed struggle before the necessity of its employment is thrust upon them. Likewise, to the extent that current law permits, republican socialist activists in Scotland (and elsewhere) would be well advised to take steps to ensure their own access to arms and ensure that they have at least minimal skills in their use. If legal circumstances make ownership of a registered firearm impossible for some, there are other options that should not be disregarded with undue haste. Crossbows, for example, can be useful means of defense or even offense in an urban environment and technical knowledge in the construction of explosive devices can be learned, even if it is not put to immediate use.
More importantly, however, Scottish republican socialist should give consideration to the often thorny issues of how an armed wing might be maintained subject to the needs of the larger revolutionary movement, what the relationship between the party and the underground organization should be, and how can the needs of a clandestine organization be facilitated without unduly undermining the internal democratic practices necessary to the health of legal, political organization? The need to give serious thought to these issues before
potentially devastating mistakes are made makes the document written by INLA volunteer Thomas Power for the Irish Republican Socialist Movement a vital work for any republican socialist cadre educational program. Moreover, the conclusion reached by the IRSM on the basis of Power’s document, that a vetting process for admission to any armed body, which ensures that all volunteers have first proven themselves as political activists is not limited in its applicability to Ireland, but has tremendous value for revolutionaries confronting this issue throughout the world. The establishment of an armed organization creates huge problems for any revolutionary movement that should not be underestimated. It is essential that the movement be able to control the tendency of members in the underground organization to use arms intended to address the needs of the working class to instead provide for their personal enrichment or to enable them to settle personal grudges or disputes. It is equally essential that the existence of an armed organization not subject large numbers of political activists to the risk of incarceration or other forms of repression in disproportion to whatever value the movement gains from its existence. The armed organization cannot be allowed to promote a culture of traditional machismo that undermines the movement’s commitment to combating sexism and heterosexism’s impact on the working class. With all of these considerations to be addressed, using the opportunity provided by immediate circumstances that do not require an armed response to discuss these issues in abstract terms will better prepare comrades for integrating armed struggle when it is necessitated by objective conditions.
Many armed revolutionary organizations have become mired in tactics that have little long-term value to the struggle of working people. While the assassination of a given high-ranking governmental figure, such as Margaret Thatcher or Airey Neave, can have a clear impact on the ruling class’s own tactics, the killing of common soldiers—outside the context of immediate self-defense or when a military occupation exists—provides little last value to the struggle. In contrast, however, armed struggle can be very effectively used to expose government treachery against the interests of working people, as the INLA did with the Mt. Gabriel radar station bombing or as was illustrated above by the SNLA’s Gruinard-Anthrax operation, which legal activities would not be as effective in unmasking. It must also be said that most revolutionary organizations have few members that they can be allowed to lose to death or incarceration for lengthy periods, so there must be an ongoing risk analysis carried out, which weighs the potential benefit to be obtained from a given armed action against the possible damage to the movement if participants in the undertaking are either killed or arrested.
Immediate Uses
Though the armed struggle should never be chosen without adequate consideration of the tactical requirements of present circumstances, there are some applications of the tactic that can be seen to have potential for application at most times. Chief among these is for the physical defense of the revolutionary movement and the working class itself. This consideration is precisely what gave rise to the Irish Citizen Army initially; the need to provide protection to striking workers during the 1913 Dublin lock-out and was also the basis for the IRSM’s response to attacks on its activists by the Official IRA, shortly after the movement was established. Certainly, were the loyalist paramilitaries to become active in Scotland against Scottish republican socialists or were the fascist skinheads to become again as active as they had been in the late 1970s, there is no question that this would call for republican socialists in Scotland to mobilize some form of armed response, in order to ensure the physical safety of their own comrades and members of the working class targeted by these thugs. Likewise, were civil disobedience on the level of the Anti-Poll Tax struggle in Scotland to come about again or a labour struggle with the intensity of the 1980s Miners’ Strike to occur, the use of armed struggle in defending strikers or protesters facing eviction would have clear tactical advantages.
Another application of armed struggle by revolutionary republican socialists that could be argued in favor of under present circumstances would be for use in financially providing for the revolutionary movement. Because less conscious elements of the working class, who remain mired in bourgeois ideology, can be expected to see such tactics as debasing the integrity of the revolutionary movement, however, it would be extremely unwise for ‘fund raising’ activities to be carried out under the flag of any given revolutionary organization. Any funds or other assets obtained in this manner for a legal republican socialist organization must, of necessity, be such that linking them to illegal actions is highly unlikely. Where this application of armed force is undeniably advantageous, however, it in securing the funds necessary for creating arms dumps for later use. By obtaining necessary resources in this manner, an armed organization can be created without tell-tale links to the political organization and the significant funds required for obtaining weapons on the black market would not necessitate diverting resources away from the, usually already over-taxed, funds needed by the political organization. Moreover, if such ‘fund raising’ is carried out without identifying the responsible entity, the bourgeois state can be kept unaware that revolutionary organizations of the working class have taken steps to ensure for their own defense.
It may also be possible for revolutionaries to employ armed, or otherwise illegal, forms of struggle to overcome the limitations imposed by bourgeois ideological hegemony in order to have a significant impact on either the consciousness of the working class or in solidarity with the struggle of working people engaged in struggle elsewhere. The illegal actions undertaken during the various WTO conferences or the attack on the British Embassy in Dublin are excellent illustrations of this use, as was the SNLA action designed to overshadow the royal visit to Glasgow described above or the INLA threat that cancelled the sporting event opportunity for the Zionists to gain a propaganda advance. Such undertakings often require nothing more than bomb hoaxes or the use of violence within the context of mass demonstrations and therefore reduce the risk to the revolutionaries involved.
Finally, it is worth considering that discussion of the tactic of armed struggle now, even without it being employed immediately, is a useful undertaking for the purpose of vetting revolutionary cadre and raising the consciousness of the working class overall. At essence, the use of armed struggle by working people represents a clear realization of their right to pursue their interests as a class through the use of whatever tactics prove necessary. The discussion about the use of armed struggle provides an excellent vehicle for raising issues in ways that might otherwise be possible. For example, the use of revolutionary expropriations of funds provides for contrast with financial swindles by major capitalist entities that result in the defacto theft of far greater sums from thousands of working people, while resulting in far less onerous punishment. Likewise, employer neglect for workers safety regularly results in maiming, death, or other forms of injury throughout a host of industries—in some cases so commonly that the public often considers the resulting deaths and disabilities as a given—yet those responsible rarely are subjected to criminal charges and this violence against working people never meets with the level of condemnation meted out against the armed actions of revolutionaries, even though the human toll is generally far greater in the former than the latter.
Future Considerations
The reality described by John MacLean—that the Scottish working class is compelled to combine its struggle for socialism with the fight for national liberation, in order to overcome the obstacle provided by a far less revolutionary consciousness among English workers—remains the compelling basis for a republican socialist analysis in Scotland today. The series of scandals involving Gordon Brown’s Labour Party government within the last six months was sufficient for the Tory Party to make gains in opinion polls in England, though the same was not true in Scotland or to as great an extent in Wales. It is virtually impossible to imagine the Tories gaining a majority in either Wales or Scotland in the foreseeable future, but it is not impossible to imagine that they could become the dominant party within the British Parliament
again in the not too distant future. Such a turn of events would provide a far greater impetus to the struggle for Scottish independence that exists at present, and the present level of support is not something easily dismissed. Under a situation where Scottish nationalist sentiment was greatly spurred on by frustration over being subjected to a Tory regime that their own nation did not elect to power, it is highly likely that the government’s response would be one of significantly increased repression; and this would create circumstances which republican socialist activists in Scotland would be foolish not to use to press the demand for an independent Scottish workers’ republic.
If such a demand met with growing support among Scottish workers, as might be well expected under such circumstances, the iron hand of the state would undoubtedly be withdrawn from its masking velvet glove with great haste. The amplification of struggle and repression encouraged by these circumstances could well continue to escalate to such an extent that Scottish workers begin to feel as though they are being subjected to a military occupation, or a military occupation could simply become an objective reality. Under conditions of military occupation, such as was experienced in the occupied six counties of
Ireland after 1969; and the appropriateness of armed struggle as a tactic for working class resistance is clear.
The situation described above does not require the imagination of a science fiction devotee. Such conditions existed in the six counties until very recently (and in many ways continue to exist) and were evident in Scotland just two to three decades ago. Under such conditions, class conscious sections of the Scottish working class will not just be inclined to sympathize with revolutionaries engaged in armed struggle, but may well impatiently demand such tactics be used, as was seen in the six counties, following the occupation. When this occurs, revolutionary republican socialists should not make the mistake of being completely unprepared for armed struggle—the cost of such ‘on-the-job learning experiences’ have been well demonstrated in struggles of the past and those examples make clear why every effort should be made to avoid duplicating the error.
It is a serious error when well-meaning, but ill-considered armed actions are undertaken by revolutionary activists without appropriate consideration of the tactical requirements of the day; however, it is no less of an error for revolutionaries to encourage working people to retain illusions about the nature of the state monopoly on armed force and leave them unprepared to take actions which may be necessary for their liberation as a class. The time for republican socialists to undertake discussion of armed struggle and to take practical steps to prepare for the defense of working class interests against the armed thugs of the capitalist ruling class is now. Working people have no interests that can be gained from participation in the wars initiated by imperialism and their lingering support for the military bodies of the bourgeois state should be challenged at every opportunity. At the same time, pacifism is a relic of liberal ideology that masks the reality that the construction of socialism first necessitates the destruction of the system of capitalist property relations. Working people, accordingly, should support no war, but the class war.
return to top