When is it time to rename the heterorthodox orthodox?
Typically when a new group forms, splintering off from a pre-set contemporary organisation it becomes 'heterorthodox'. That is, it is a new way of thinking implicitly seeking to reject the prevailing orthodoxy which went before it.
The problem is when it comes to Scottish Labour politics, labourforindy aren't 'heterorthodox' at all. It isn't even a revisionism of a predetermined theory within the movement. LabourforIndy actually seems to be the truer orthodoxy by comparison to 'Scottish Labour'!
A question of values
Take a look at the values of 'Scottish Labour' and Scottish Labour for Independence' and you can see what I'm getting at.
The former opposes Scots home rule, accepts (or at least fails to meaningfully oppose) neo-liberal economics & actively participates in subsidising low pay by corporations at taxpayer expense. The latter calls for implementing Keir Hardie demands for Scots home rule, house of lords abolition, socialism and redistributive justice. If we take the record of both organisations, and compare it to the foundational Labour Movement in Scotland, and the UK more widely you come to startling realisations. Most notably, LabforIndy seems to be more 'orthodox' in defending core Labour values than the 'official' Scots Labour Party! This raises an interesting question does it not?
When do we rename a 'heterodoxy' orthodox?
For the most part, labelling labforindy 'splitters', 'revisionists' or anti-orthodox labour dissenters seems entirely ill founded. Perhaps the reverse is true? Could it be that 'Scots Labour' are the revisionists, dedicated to altering foundational labour movement values; abandoning socialism, rejecting home rule and dismantling ideological commitments to redistributive justice?
Numbers speak for themselves
|My thanks to Wings for drawing my attention to this|
Ironically, with these kinds of numbers, LabourforIndy is damn close to enjoying a bigger membership than 'Scots Labour' in the whole of Scotland!