Since we last reported on Thailand, the unelected Thai government has completed its brutal crackdown on the protest camp in the heart of Bangkok’s business and shopping district.

Showing that they valued the property of the area, and their own power, more than human life, the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajjiva ordered troops to violently clear the site. In the process, at least 88 people were killed by army snipers and assault tanks. Over 1000 were injured.

Thailand’s 20th century history is littered with the intervention of the army to protect the aristocratic and business elite’s power against the majority of Thais who live in poverty. Now once again, Thais are living under a military curfew, with mass censorship of the media and internet and hundreds of political prisoners facing long sentences or possible execution.

Among the many prisoners facing trial is a British man, Jeff Savage, who lives in Thailand and was part of the protests.

But despite their short term retaking of the streets, the government has solved nothing by using violence against the overwhelmingly poor and working class Red Shirt protesters. The huge economic and class inequality in Thailand remains, and the poor are demanding democracy in order to try and get a government that will do something about it.

In parliament itself, opposition politicians have voiced their anger about the way the government has conducted itself, calling for Eton educated Abhisit to be impeached.

“Up until now, almost 100 people have died. Can you continue reading the budget and balance sheets like that? Do you have any feelings?” said Surapong Tovichakchaikul, an opposition member from Chiang Mai, a northern city where support is strong for the Red Shirts. Regional inequalities are also an important factor in the division of Thailand. The Red Shirts are particularly strong among the peasants and small farmers of the Thai north and northeast, which are ethnically and linguistically different from both central and southern Thailand. The peoples of these regions have been bounded to the rest of the country by borders established in the times of western colonialism.

Further evidence that Thailand is riven by discontent was the news that two bombs exploded in the south of the country this week, set by Islamic insurgents who want an independent south. The south of Thailand was an autonomous Islamic enclave before being annexed by Thailand in the early 20th century.

School contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson Abhisit Vejjajjiva

Fundamentally, the conflict in Thailand is about the desire of the traditional nobility and business elite to hold on to power. They were threatened when, for the first time in Thai history, the 1997 constitution allowed both houses of parliament to be directly elected. This led to the rise of billionaire tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra, who was able to fill the vacuum on the left of Thai politics once filled by the Communist Party.

In the absence of a credible left alternative, Thaksin established policies like the first universal healthcare scheme and economic support for small farmers that won him huge support among the Thai poor. Ousted by a military coup in 2006, he now lives in exile and the current Thai regime is seeking his arrest through Interpol.

The demand for democracy by the mass of Thai people is, therefore, a demand to be allowed to vote in a government that will represent their interests. They are frustrated in this by the so-called ‘Human Rights’ organisations and NGOs, who support the monarchy and anti-democracy, middle class Yellow Shirt movement, which has used violence and intimidation. The National Human Rights Commission is now actively taking part in the prosecution of Red Shirts.

The complicity of the monarchy in the current crisis has for virtually the first time in Thai history brought out open criticism of the institution, and the radicalisation that is likely to follow the government crackdown can only increase this. The current King Bhumibol has been on the throne for 55 years, and is ailing in health. He still retains widespread support, especially concentrated in the more well off. Check out this scene from the national Thai TV awards, where an audience of the entertainment elite applaud a pro-monarchy statement by one of those winning an award. Such total shows of total submission to the monarchy are common among the Thai elite. (The term “Father” refers to the King.)

However, his son and heir apparent, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, is held in much less esteem by most people. As a military officer, he participated directly in crackdowns against the Communist Party in the 70s. And his personal life has drawn a lot of criticism: he has been married several times, abandoning different wives and children. In Thailand, laws that prevent offences against the monarchy have been used to silence republican opposition. That’s why Thai socialist Giles ji Ungpakorn, who we’ve linked to before, lives in exile in Britain: he faces charges for criticising the monarchy at home. However, the Crown Prince has gone even further than that. In divorce proceedings, he accused a former wife of being totally responsible for the breakdown of their relationship, and she couldn’t answer back for fear of contravening the law!

It’s virtually certain that although crushed militarily for now the Red Shirt movement will re-emerge, quite possible greatly radicalised by this show of state violence. The fact of the matter is that the crackdown is a hollow victory for the Thai elite, for instead of taking any steps to resolve the contradictions at the heart of Thai society, their actions have only heightened them. The future of Thailand as a country is highly uncertain.

Proportional votes map

Geographical votes map

Here, you can see two maps of the election. To the left is a map of all the seats and who has taken them. Above, those same constituencies are all shrunk to the same size, so that you can see where how much of a proportion of the total UK vote the population of Scotland represents – not very much.

With the prospect of the Tories retaking power (with the support of the fake radical and con man Clegg), Scotland is experiencing a nasty 80s flashback.

Last night’s election results powerfully reinforce the case for Scottish independence.

In the 80s, Scotland consistently voted overwhelmingly for Labour, but it made no difference. The vast majority of the UK’s population are concentrated in the South East, London and its surroundings. This is where British governments are elected. After 18 years out of power, Labour were elected in 1997 because they transformed themselves into a right wing, neoliberal party in order to win the votes of these seats.

Under the last Tory regime, the most notorious example of how they ruled Scotland with contempt came when they imposed the Poll Tax in Scotland a year early. That helped kick off a mass campaign of resistance that ultimately led to the formation of the SSP.

Poster for the SSP's protest in 2004, demanding a Scottish Republic

There’s nothing inherent about being Scottish that means we’re more left wing than people in the South East. Until the 50s, the Tories usually got the biggest share of the vote here. But for the last 50 years or so, the political consensus in Scotland has been that people basically want left wing, old Labourish policies. Since the 80s, although we’ve voted for that, we haven’t got it. Since Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party we couldn’t even try to vote for a government that would implement what most people want.

In the 80s, hating the Tories became virtually synonymous with being Scottish. There was an important reason for that – Scots pretty much didn’t live in a democracy, they didn’t get the government they vote for.

Last night, Scotland overwhelmingly voted Labour again. Things are slightly different now. Although the Labour Party in the 80s was a long, long way from being perfect, people aren’t voting for something that even approaches what they want any more, they’re voting against what they don’t want – the Tories.

Perhaps the most important consequence of the undemocratic governments of the 80s in Scotland was that it became impossible for the British ruling class to not concede a Scottish Parliament. Holyrood was a concession to try and buy off Scotland, staving off the anger of Scottish people that they don’t get the government policies they want.

But the fact remains that the vast majority of people can’t vote out to get rid of Trident nuclear weapons from Scottish soil, we can’t vote against neoliberal economic policies, and we can’t vote for a full welfare state and an end to the scapegoating of people on benefits. These things are all still controlled by the London government.

In the aftermath of the election, who will form the next government isn’t clear. In this situation, the need for a republic couldn’t be clearer. The UK government operates in the name of the Queen. The UK is still a monarchy, governed by crown powers. That means that the actions of the UK government, and who ultimately will form that government, isn’t decided by the people, but is controlled by the unelected elite, in the name of the Queen. That’s why the SSP has stood consistently not only for independence, but also for a republic. The SNP say they want independence, but they won’t make a clear commitment to getting rid of the monarchy and establishing a Scottish republic – which would mean Scotland ultimately was still controlled by the traditional British elite.

Scotland became part of the British state 303 years ago. But the Scottish state never ceased fully to exist. Throughout that whole time, there was still a separate Scottish legal system, official church and education system. Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the scope of what the submerged Scottish state controls has got much greater. But in the face of a possible return to the power of the anti-Scottish Tories, its time that everything done by the state in Scotland/the Scottish state is brought under full democratic control. The only way to do that is to establish a completely independent, democratic republic.

Protesting for a Scottish Republic, on Calton Hill in 2004

This would mean that the national question would no longer dominate Scottish politics. Nobody would blame England for our social and class problems. People would be able to completely focus on the role of Scottish bosses (and their international partners in England and around the world) and Scottish governments in oppressing the Scottish working class. The SNP would probably split as well, with the many socialists who are members of it but want to see independence first focusing completely on the social struggle.

We’re socialists, and anti-capitalists. We want to see Scotland go further than the reformist politics of old Labour. We want Scotland to move towards the full abolition of capitalism, transforming relations in Scotland so that nobody is exploited, working to make a minority get rich while we get poorer. But there’s a basic issue of democracy here. The vast majority of people in Scotland don’t want the right wing, neoliberal policies of the British governments of the last 30 odd years. If the Scottish state is to become a democracy, then we need an independent, democratic republic.

Bonuses: Check out this article about the need for a republic. And check out this wiki article for full details about the Declaration of Calton Hill and the SSP’s protests for a Scottish republic.

As Britain is gearing up for the most important election in decades, it’s also the most closely fought. Successive opinion polls have shown that it is unlikely any party will have an overall majority to govern – that either means working as a minority Government, or one in coalition. This has an obvious disadvantage, that at the time when the ruling class in the UK needs a strong Government to enforce public sector cuts, take on the trade unions and face down community campaigns against cuts to their services they may in fact have the weakest Government in decades; a Government that can be undermined by appealing to the opposition or coalition partners with cold feet.

This scenario has caused considerable and obvious disquiet to Britain’s bankers and potential investors. In order to quash this concern, the British state is, according to at least one press report prepared to rely on undemocratic and ancient rules to enforce stability at the price of democracy; that is, the use of Crown Powers.

The Daily Mail reports that none other than The Queen has been approached by leading civil servants to discuss using her powers as a Monarch in relation to a hung Parliament. It outlines a scenario in which no party has a majority, and the Parliament is a hung one. The minority Government could approach the Queen to request another general election to secure a stable majority Government. Leading civil servants are worried this would cause instability in the UK, and are discussing with the Queen the possibility of her using her Crown Powers to deny a request for a second General Election.

This would be designed to force the political parties to form a stable coalition Government, able to make the cuts necessary to make the UK profitable for capitalism again. Such use of Crown Power in the UK would be shocking and controversial, and it may not be necessary but it is far from impossible. Crown Powers have already been used in people’s lifetime – the Governor General in Australia dismissed a left-leaning Government in Australia using Crown Powers. These powers have also been used to overrule a High Court ruling which said the expulsion of Diego Garcia’s indigenous population to make way for a US military base was illegal.

The reality is the Crown still has plenty of power in the UK, if not to be used on the whim of the monarch itself but in the interests of Britain’s ruling establishment of MP’s, civil servants, bankers etc. It is still used in the Privy Council, whose prerogative powers were used to deny justice to the islanders of Diego Garcia and to ban GCHQ workers from being allowed to join a union. And there is of course the undemocratic House of Lords, whose peers are allowed to block laws voted on democratically in Westminster.

All these hang ons from the medieval ages are kept as an insurance policy in case any Government – in the past a feared “ultra-left” Labour one – would go too far, and for any Government to use as an extension of it’s powers beyond the relative transparency of Parliament. Remember that the next time the Monarchy comes up in a debate – tourists they may attract, but Mickey Mouse does not have the power to deny elections to the Senate in the United States!

The Queens Diamond Jubillee will be held in 2012, with public holidays on the 4th and 5th of June to celebrate her glorious reign. The SSP won’t be attending however – and will organise a demonstration for an Independent Republic, like we did at Calton Hill in 2004. We’ll be protesting so that the Queen and all the undemocratic hangovers of the middle ages have no role in politics, and Scotland is a modern, 21st century democratic Republic without inherited privilege or power.