Bill B Paterson

This paper questions whether the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) 2014 independence campaign offered an alternative to Westminster’s neoliberalism. This doubt arises because the SNP’s social justice and Nordic model discourse promised a departure from existing UK policies, but this seemed contradicted by the SNP’s guarantee of European Union (EU) membership. The paper explains this contradiction by identifying the SNP’s commitment to a neoliberalising rather than collective Nordic model, and the neoliberalisation agenda of the EU’s Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020. Consequently, the SNP evoked the language of radical economic, political and social change, but was committed to maintaining a neoliberal capitalism similar to Westminster’s.

This paper questions whether the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) 2014 independence campaign offered an alternative to Westminster’s neoliberalism. This doubt arises because the SNP’s social justice and Nordic model discourse promised a departure from existing UK policies, but this seemed contradicted by the SNP’s guarantee of European Union (EU) membership. The paper explains this contradiction by identifying the SNP’s commitment to a neoliberalising rather than collective Nordic model, and the neoliberalisation agenda of the EU’s Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020. Consequently, the SNP evoked the language of radical economic, political and social change, but was committed to maintaining a neoliberal capitalism similar to Westminster’s. This paper questions whether the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) 2014 independence campaign offered an alternative to Westminster’s neoliberalism. This doubt arises because the SNP’s social justice and Nordic model discourse promised a departure from existing UK policies, but this seemed contradicted by the SNP’s guarantee of European Union (EU) membership. The paper explains this contradiction by identifying the SNP’s commitment to a neoliberalising rather than collective Nordic model, and the neoliberalisation agenda of the EU’s Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020. Consequently, the SNP evoked the language of radical economic, political and social change, but was committed to maintaining a neoliberal capitalism similar to Westminster’s.This paper questions whether the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) 2014 independence campaign offered an alternative to Westminster’s neoliberalism. This doubt arises because the SNP’s social justice and Nordic model discourse promised a departure from existing UK policies, but this seemed contradicted by the SNP’s guarantee of European Union (EU) membership. The paper explains this contradiction by identifying the SNP’s commitment to a neoliberalising rather than collective Nordic model, and the neoliberalisation agenda of the EU’s Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020. Consequently, the SNP evoked the language of radical economic, political and social change, but was committed to maintaining a neoliberal capitalism similar to Westminster’s. This paper questions whether the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) 2014 independence campaign offered an alternative to Westminster’s neoliberalism. This doubt arises because the SNP’s social justice and Nordic model discourse promised a departure from existing UK policies, but this seemed contradicted by the SNP’s guarantee of European Union (EU) membership. The paper explains this contradiction by identifying the SNP’s commitment to a neoliberalising rather than collective Nordic model, and the neoliberalisation agenda of the EU’s Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020. Consequently, the SNP evoked the language of radical economic, political and social change, but was committed to maintaining a neoliberal capitalism similar to Westminster’s. http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/09/29/0309816815607245.abstract

If the 2014 referendum on independence is successful, the Scottish National Party (SNP) will initially decide the principles for governing domestically, and defining Scotland’s new international relationships. In the case of the latter independence would give the Scottish Parliament not only the exceptional status of non-membership but the unique opportunity to assess whether membership terms of international organisations are compatible with its chosen social and economic policy agenda. From the devolved parliament the SNP government has stated that independence will bring a departure from the economic policies and international relations pursued by the United Kingdom’s government. Indeed since Nicola Sturgeon has advocated the ‘common weal’, it is possible to identify two different agendas within the SNP leadership for the development of Scotland’s future social and economic policy. This debate is used in this paper to explore how Scotland’s choice of economic and social policies may be affected by membership of the European Union, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. In doing so the paper seeks open the way for a discussion on the impact membership of international organisations will have on the policy autonomy of an independent Scotland.

In this paper, I want to evaluate the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) public transparency and participation reforms as a response to its democratic deficits and legitimacy crisis. Campaigns by social movements and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have generated this crisis of legitimacy through highlighting, not only the inequalities of policy outputs, but also the undemocratic practices amongst members (internal transparency and participation) and the absence of public oversight and accountability (external transparency and participation). To transform policy outputs and address internal and external democratic deficits (transparency and participation) many NGOs have sought the right to contribute to ‘policy-making, policy-implementation, compliance-monitoring, and dispute settlement’ (Goetz and Jenkins 2005, Van de Bossche 2008). By 2005, the Director General of the WTO applauded reforms aimed at NGOs engagement as ‘important steps towards greater transparency’. Academics from a social constructivist perspective perceive such official NGO accreditation to be responsible for generating new behavioural norms for states (Ruggie 1998; 2002, Park 2006). From a more critical perspective, I outline the democratic deficits at the WTO and assess its response to these deficits through public transparency and participation reforms. I argue current reforms use the language of ‘public access’ (WTO 2005a), ‘public hearings’ (WTO 2005b), ‘public observations’ (WTO 2005b), ‘transparency’ (WTO 2005c), ‘partnership’ and ‘dialogue’ (WTO 2005d) to enhance the WTO’s legitimacy, whilst crucially ensuring these reforms do not allow significant changes to the WTO’s policies, processes or philosophy.

My manuscript will be published with Routledge.  The book offers a study of the class conflict played out - in and around -the World Trade Organization (WTO) between 1999-2009. Theoretically the monograph challenges the social constructivist perspectives that has come to dominate studies of international political economy by developing the political theory of Antonio Gramsci. The book illustrates the utility of thinking in a Gramscian way through analysing WTO’s strategies to address the demands of protesters and its legitimacy crisis. Empirically, via document analysis and interviews the book makes two contributions. Firstly it illustrates that the shift from the GATT to the WTO can be explained with reference to the influence and policies of fractions of transnational capital (liberalisation) in relation to the fractions of national capital (protectionism) already dominant in the GATT. In addition the book identifies and evaluates the strategies employed by fractions of resistance to initiate change and the WTO. The book proposes that the strategies employed by the fractions of capital within the WTO are best explained through Gramsci’s concepts of passive revolution and trasformismo.