Will Scotland take the,  'High road or the low road?' asks John Foster in the Morning Star.

The SNP now has control of the Scottish Parliament. Its 69 MSPs give it an absolute majority over Labour (37), the Tories (15), the humbled Lib-Dems (5), the Greens (2) and the one independent - the redoubtable Margo Macdonald.
What caused this transformation? Alex Salmond's leadership style? The SNP certainly benefitted. Salmond is moderate, affable, down-to-earth and with an unerring instinct for election pledges with popular credibility.
Yet there were three far more compelling reasons. One was the switch of the Lib-Dem vote to the SNP. The second was comprehensive support from the big business press - from Murdoch's Sun, Newsquest's Herald and the Johnston Press. Third, and probably most important, was the failure of the Labour Party campaign.
The problem was not so much the Labour leader, Iain Gray. It was the degree to which the dogmas of new Labour thought still grip the party north of the border. The SNP was very vulnerable on the cuts. Over the previous year the SNP minority government had simply passed them on to local government. Yet to have challenged the whole logic of the cuts, and exposed the SNP, would also have meant challenging the orthodoxy of big business economics.
Days before the election, at Glasgow May Day, Unite leader Len McCluskey called on Scottish Labour to "regain its radical edge" and to provide an alternative to the cuts. "New Labour philosophy - that slavish ideology of neoliberalism - has failed. It's no good embracing the concept of cuts but saying we won't cut as fast."
Scottish Labour refused to heed this advice and chose instead take its final election stand on knife crime and the defence of the union against Scottish independence.
The outcome has, paradoxically, pushed the union to the fore.
Salmond is pledged to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. He was similarly pledged in the last parliament but lacked the majority needed to honour it. Now there is no impediment. This referendum can only be consultative. Salmond may well hedge his bets by including a third question on greater economic powers short of full independence.
But we can be sure of one thing - the question of independence will be posed and impact powerfully on politics at a British level.
How will the SNP handle it? Salmond is very astute. Currently independence has less than 30 per cent support. An early referendum is unlikely. But the SNP has a lot to play for in making the issue of constitutional relations one that does not go away.
Scotland's financial settlement for the next five years is little short of catastrophic. Overall government annual spending has to be cut by another 12 per cent. Funding for capital projects is down by far more.
At the same time the SNP government has to fund a whole series of expensive election pledges - a freeze on council tax, no cuts in the NHS and no tuition fees. The cuts already made will be as nothing to those that have yet to come, especially in local government. Hence the political dividends to be gained from constantly raising the necessity of a Scotland freed from Westminster control.
A defensive, pro-union response from Labour, framed in neoliberal terms of fiscal responsibility and Scotland "paying its way," would then provide the SNP with an open goal.
This is why it is so important that Labour in Scotland heeds the advice of Len McCluskey. A radical alternative is required - and it does not need to be invented.
For a generation the Scottish labour movement and Scottish Labour fought for a Scottish Parliament that would give its people the democratic powers to act against the "free market."
The Scottish Parliament demanded by the Scottish Trades Union Congress in the 1970s was, as then general secretary Jimmy Jack put it, to be a "workers parliament." It would use the public sector to intervene economically to tackle Scotland's long-term unemployment, the decline in manufacturing and external monopoly dominance.
Is the situation better today? Manufacturing employment has shrunk from 650,000 to 170,000. Scotland's publicly owned industries and utilities, which previously provided an essential element of economic stability, have been sold off to external monopolies. Unaccountable decisions, destroying the livelihoods of thousands, take place almost weekly. Britain's two worst unemployment black spots are in West Dunbartonshire and East Ayrshire.
But the SNP's call for "independence in Europe" provides no remedy at all. Quite the reverse.
The SNP's economics remain locked in a time warp still framed in the neoliberal terms dictated by the grandees of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Scotland's economy is to be developed by cutting corporation tax and reducing burdens on business.
Once upon a time this slogan "independence in Europe" may have sounded safe and cuddly. This is no longer the case. The neoliberal logic of the EU is clear for all to see.
The big monopolies of the core states take over the markets of smaller, weaker economies. The resulting debts are used to justify a wholesale abrogation of democracy and the imposition of direct EU economic control.
The British ruling class may not yet have made up its mind on the benefits of this SNP version of independence. It certainly saw the short-term benefits in terms of dishing Labour in the last election. Long-term it might also see benefits. It already owns Scotland. EU rules would prevent any interference. Excluding Scotland from Westminster would also give more or less permanent control to the Tories.
It is the SNP's failure to address this issue that is its Achilles heel. There are good left-wingers in the SNP. But they can surely now see the logic of its economic policies. They will divide the collective strength of working people across Britain and by doing so strengthen the power of big business. Unlike the Scottish parliament demanded in the 1970s and '80s, independence "in Europe" will block any exercise of economic democracy on behalf of working people.
This is the key political weakness of the SNP. Can Labour take advantage? Only if it breaks with big business economics. Scottish Labour did so at least to an extent in the 1970s and '80s, and by doing so it became Scotland's majority party. The interests of working people in Scotland, and elsewhere, demand that it does so again.