bloody nose union bureaucrats proposed 'security of earnings' scheme. Leyland bosses get a LAST WEEK workers at Leyland plants gave the company — and the Below J. HAINE reports on what the scheme represents and how it has been cold-shouldered' while CHARLIE GALLAGHER, Transport and General Workers Union shop steward at Rover Solihull, tell Red Weekly about the background to two resolutions recently passed by Solihull workers which chart a different way forward. - a bloody nose by resoundingly rejecting Leyland's * Against any reduction in statt ing levels — for work-sharing. THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT has now largely junked the programme of legislation which it promised would be Dan one Socia accepted by the 'lefts') was the amount of time needed for the Devolution Bill The priority of this legislation for the Government is simply inal its talure electorally in Scotland and greatly increase the vote for the Scottish National Party as the only method of securing the Assembly that three-quarters of the Scottish people Opponents of the Bill and the Assembly in Parliament (over 70 of them) demanded a referendum as a condition of supporting even an amended Devolution Bill. They, the name of the sovereignty of Parliament, hoped and still hope to sabotage or delay the legislation. The referendum now promised by Michael Foot, the Bill's guardian angel is quite simply the only way the Government can get its legislation passed.
This referendum will be no exception to the rule that none of the devices of bourgeois 'democratic'. But despite this, it is only in very unusual situations that revolutionaries would turn their backs on the participation of the mass of the population when through the absence of any other form of self-expression, they participate in bourgeois democratic devices, be they elections or referenda.
WHY NO BOYCOTT Boycotting a referendum would be justified if, for instance, the questions were so rigged as to give only the answers that the Government wanted (as for example with de Gaulle's referendum in 1969, whose intention was to produce a vote of confidence in the regime after May 1968); if open campaigning were banned around it (as in Spain last December); or if the results were going to De ignored by the Government anyway, as was the referendum on democratisation of the Tsarist regime given as a sop to the masses in Russia after the 1905 revolution At the present time none of these considerations apply But the form in which the referendum questions are posed would be a factor which could change that situation Of course, Scotland's no restrictions placed on its powers. because of the limited choices restriction on the right of self-determination restriction which revolutionaries are in a position to change.
Faced with proposals in the Government's Bill, the answer must b yes. While the prohibitions, vetoes and restrictions of the Government's proposals have to be continuously denoun ced, nevertheless it does contain the essential features of democratic rights for the Scottish people - that of a directly elected Assembly. At the same time, though, we should be in favour of the widest and most open number of choices. The more open the democratic the result. In particular this should include the choice of setting up an Assembly immediately with no limitations on its powers INDEPENDENCE But the referendum reason given (and would decimate the Labour Party democracy are really best method achieving self-determination would be A referendum, which it offers, but a choice of voting for or against th questions SEne -OTE should include a question on . Unlike the situation in Ireland, The greatest would be maintained under a revolutionary Supporters of this paper in Scotland will be fighting for would find it necessary to , and prepare the way Negate for every 500 members or reot. from eacn tactor wit and Cars for first year.
Antonal Negotiating Comite 05t at the above conterenc ment will be brought back to a recalled delegate conterenc ishment of Neatin mmittee, as elected under 1(t