Media and government attacks will get shriller as November 30 looms - here (hopefully) is some sense.

As the day of the biggest strike in recent history looms we can expect well-heeled government ministers like Francis Maude and Danny Alexander to ramp up the levels of hysteria, media commentators to attack the ‘unfairness’ of ‘gold-plated’ public pensions (from the right) or bemoan the ‘choice of target’ for the strikes (from the centre-left) and politicians to attack each other over tactics. In such a febrile atmosphere, it is handy to hold onto a few counters to the main myths peddled by such people.

Here are some. Public pensions are affordable now, and are likely to become more so in the future. Who says so? Not the PCS or other ‘militant TU leaders’ but the Assistant Editor of that comfortable read for Tory ministers, the Daily Telegraph! Yes Jeremy Warner, back in March pointed out that the Hutton report had identified that these pensions have peaked at 1.8% of GDP currently, and even without his ‘reforms’ will now decline steadily in cost. (interestingly, while he repeats the ‘crowding out’ myth, he also argues for better pensions in the private sector) - ‘there is something plainly unsatisfactory about "race to the bottom" policy, or levelling public sector pensions down to the disgracefully low standards that rule in the private sector.’

Of course, it is also the case that public sector pensions support the private sector. Something that polemicists on the other side tend to overlook as they scream about paying for ‘gold-plated’ bureaucrats’ pensions . As well as fair pensions meaning that pensioners can buy goods and services from the private sector, public pension funds are huge investors in private industry. And, as they are successfully and sustainably funded - UNISON estimates that £300m more is going into the Scottish LGPS before investment income, than is being paid out in pensions - that means, as Scottish Secretary, Mike Kirby says ‘Current attacks on both pensions and on public sector employment will be bad for the schemes - and in the long run bad for the economy. The UK Government won’t be putting any of the money they raise or save from stealing from pensions into the schemes - just using it to pay back debt run up to bail out their friends the bankers’.

The strikes are understood and generally supported by the public. Despite the constant battering of government and media attacks, the BBC is today reporting that 61% in an opinion poll they ran believe public service workers are justified in going on strike over the issue. That backs up previous straw polls run after the large UNISON vote to strike. These polls were run in the rabidly anti-union Daily Star, whose readers out-polled the liberal Guardian in support of strikers, and back to our old favourite - the Daily Telegraph. (Might have to think about changing my reading!).

Of course, many of those polled will be strikers or colleagues or family or friends themselves. The voting turn-out in the union ballots is phenomenally good, despite what Francis Maude and others say. Many of the MPs who lead the attacks on trade union democracy a) would give their eye teeth to have levels of support like these and b) are themselves directly responsible for the difficulty in getting improved turnouts in union ballots. Using on-line technology would have helped, (as indeed would workplace ballots), and at least one of those methods has been approved in principle, but not yet put into law. Even so, the ballots from the 30 unions, across many thousands of employers (UNISON itself balloted members in nearly 9,500 employers) show a huge consistency and massive level of support. The best summary is on the impressive ‘Pensions Justice’ site.

The level of support and the breadth of union coverage on this dispute also answers some of the (deliberately?) misinformed attacks by some ‘sympathetic’ commentators that pensions is the ‘wrong issue’. That unions should all co-ordinate a strike over ‘cuts’. Would that they could!! Failing to understand the realities of ‘Trade disputes’ in legislation despite having had them explained, could be put down to deliberate disinformation, more likely it indicates a deep-seated prejudice that is proving immune to reason.

Finally, the (somewhat cheesey, but well-intentioned) supporters single continues to build support. Watch and buy it here. The AFL/CIO (after Wisconsin) went for Tom Morello’s ‘Union Town’!!

See you on the picket line!!

Does increase in ‘constitutional froth’ mar our Scottish media?

In a previous job, a colleague used to regularly advise us to be aware of what he would call ‘froth’ in some reporting of the political scene in Scotland. By that he meant stories that were headline news in some or even all newspapers, and consisted of opposing politicians attacking one another. These stories (of which there were many) were distinguished by the topic of the debate/discussion being either of minor importance, or incapable of any kind of resolution by the combatants involved, eg a consultation.

This has come to mind again recently. It currently seems that a whole raft of spats are being created in the media by pronouncements from Scottish or  Coalition Governments (or Labour Opposition). From consultations on gay marriage, and Scotland’s rail travel, through pronouncements about the impact of independence on the Scottish economy and renewable energy targets to even the furore over ‘doing-gate’ in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the sight of our politicians attacking one another over the constitutional question is becoming less and less edifying (or significant). 

To add to the spectacle, the reporting of these tiffs - from uncritical adoption of the participants’ view of their importance, to the sensationalist bigging-up of the ‘rows’ - seem to blank out sensible analysis and investigation of the issues at all. How much of this is due to continual cuts in journalistic and editorial resources, and how much due to the predetermined political stance of the media in question needs further study, but it does not lead to good reporting.

Now I don’t want to suggest that the individual topics and issues have no validity or importance, at all. Heaven forfend that I might suggest that the Catholic church secretly approves of gay marriage, for example! Or that CitiBank may have a vested interest in rubbishing renewable energy per se. But it is interesting how these disputes tend to end up concentrating on the ‘Referendum’ when we all know that this is some years away, and will not be able to be run successfully unless Westminster and Holyrood come to some agreement (or at least armed neutrality) on key issues. It isn’t even yet clear whether the SNP want a one or two question referendum - or what that would mean for any result!

Am I alone in thinking that at least part of the reason for this froth is to distract us from the key issues that impact on people in Scotland, and the failure of both legislatures to address these? And that this suits both of them?

After all, is Alex Salmond be pleased or upset that George Osborne attacks Scotland’s investment record? Is George Osborne? Is Salmond reasonably happy to be seen as a ‘modern, liberal-thinking FM’ over gay marriage? And while the archaic and macho operations of Westminster are indeed something to be opposed (as we all did in the Constitutional Convention, hoping and planning for a more co-operative and mature Holyrood!) is the SNP ultimately pleased to leave a vacant seat in the Scottish Affairs Committee and wash its hands of a scrutiny of the Scotland Bill where it doesn’t have a majority? Incidentally, the best comment on this episode must be by Joyce MacMillan in her Scotsman piece (on her blog here).

So there can be good reporting. We do have journalists (like Joyce, but not only her) who can blow away the froth and get to the nub of the issue. But increasingly this role is reserved for the commentators. News reporters tend to slot happily into pre-ordained nationalist or unionist tracks, using hyperbolic prose to inflate partisan pronouncements and prejudices into ‘facts’ or suggestions of ‘facts’. (I thought the idea - seriously mentioned by a senior Scottish reporter on Wednesday - that the Electoral Reform Society was part of an anti-SNP ‘conspiracy’ was the nadir of this tendency!)

The latest fight appears to be over an almost unbelievable consultation document on Scotland’s rail transport from Scottish Government agency, Transport Scotland. If you hadn’t had previous with this agency, then it might even look as though the outrageous suggestions in this document were there deliberately to be able to be removed as a ‘listening response’. I have to say that my experience suggests that they are not that forward thinking. But as Scottish Government ministers line up to distance themselves from their own organisation, a suspicion must remain.

At the end of the day, when people are crying out for an economic policy that addresses the crisis we are in, and uses the excess profits of the finance industry to support those who are suffering because of the fallout from the banks’ criminal risk taking, how are our governments responding? Apparently, by ignoring these problems in favour of claim and counter claim about ‘running Scotland down’ or ‘breaking Britain up’.

When two establishments are trying to tell us about the overwhelming importance of the constitutional question, we need more from our media than unquestioning/sensationalist reporting - from whichever side of the constitutional divide. It is also particularly important when the parliaments both have a built-in majority, compliant in one case, and scared in the other, that they are held to account. In this our media has a crucial role. When will we see it adopting this important task?

Independence - which way will the Trades Unions jump?

This is the substance of a contribution I made to a recent debate organised by the Communist Party of Scotland on the topic of trade unions and independence. Other contributers included Chris Stephens of the SNP TU Group, Jimmy Cloughley of the CPS and ex-UCS Steward and Dave Moxham, DGS of the STUC. I believe it is planned to put out a pamphlet collecting the contributions together. 

Despite the somewhat febrile, and often almost certainly manufactured reports that pass for debate on the issue of independence in the press - and not just the tabloids - This is certainly the first serious discussion that I am aware of that covers this ground - a fact that in itself is significant and says much about where TUs are at the moment. More on that later.

Who are we talking about?

The first thing to say about Scottish Trade Unions is of course that there are damn few of them! With the exception of the teaching profession, the vast majority of TUs operating in Scotland are UK organisations which sometimes have a Scottish organisation with a degree of autonomy, more or less broad depending on the organisation.

(Of course some TUs are actually British Isles-wide operations - with sections in the Irish Republic and/or Northern Ireland, but that would be to open up another whole debate).

Despite the increasingly separate nature of law, politics, media and attitudes in Scotland, very few TUs have properly addressed these factors. When I was appointed by Nalgo in 1989, I was the only TU publicity person employed in Scotland, and even then I was officially attached to the union’s London department, who told me that I should not be dealing with the Scottish media!

The arrival of a Scottish Parliament, a merger of unions and a reorganisation of HQ departments took place before even UNISON - and I venture to suggest that they were in the forefront of addressing the issues - set up the type of structure that took cognisance of the new realities in Scotland.

Now the recognition of these needs is wider, but I venture to suggest that it still isn’t universal in the TU movement. This, of course, has an impact not only in the union concerned but in STUC - a fully autonomous body, able to (and I suggest very successfully) articulate and promote the TU movement’s profile and views with Scotland’s politicians, media and civic society. The STUC, however, is resourced and financed by these same central UK organisations with varying levels of autonomy. The last factor of all to be autonomised, of course being finance!! (Even UNISON - with its high levels of Branch organisation, policy, media, campaigning, bargaining, and communications autonomy, still pays its STUC affiliation fees from London, and technically its delegation to Congress is bound by UNISON UK policy).

A rough count suggests that of 650,000 TU members in Scotland - 580,000 are in UK-based unions.

What shapes their policy?

Of course, if we are looking at attitudes to independence, it will not always be the case that this will be dependent on where the union is based. Policy-making is sometimes a complex process in our TUs and there are degrees of relaxation on whether policy on Scottish issues is made close to the source, or remotely from London - often degrees of relaxation that vary according to the issue. In UNISON for example, London would be relaxed about a Scottish policy decision being taken on (say) devolution of broadcasting, but would be far from relaxed on a Scottish policy calling for (say) the break up of the NHS. In either case, however, ultimately the union’s policy will be adopted by the union as a whole.

In fact the NHS proves to be an interesting case in point illustrating another factor that will influence TU attitudes to independence. It is something that has already caused waves within UNISON and will no doubt, have varying impacts on other unions. The principle that someone doing a particular job in one hospital or clinic (or any other workplace) should be paid the same as someone doing that job in another, is a strongly-held union principle and one that underpins grading structures in UK-wide organisations such as the NHS. 

It is of course, also one that employers increasingly want to scrap, so the thought that independence may give that attack further support may well predispose TU activist minds (on both side of the border) in opposition to independence.

A similar concern may also apply in regard to reserved legislation such as that covering employment, work-related benefits and health and safety. Should you lose protection in work when you cross a border? Currently TUs would answer ‘No’ to that, though of course current Tory proposals to attack these rights may sway debate in this area.

Affiliation

A third factor that will militate against TUs deciding in favour of independence, is of course, affiliation to the Labour Party, which is not in favour.

There are 14 Scottish unions affiliated to the Labour Party. (One union affiliate has no members in Scotland). And they cover around 441,000 of the members in Scotland.

Of course, that isn’t the whole story in terms of their membership. Many of the affiliated unions will have substantial membership numbers in Scotland who do not pay the political levy or who do, but would support independence in any case. 

I think UNISON is unique in its twin-track affiliated/non-affiliated political funding, but the SNP TU group has been campaigning for some years now for people to opt-out of affiliated political funds in other unions, (in my view a serious mistake). This will have had some success. Plus there will be members of all affiliated unions down South who don’t pay the political levy and/or who may be part of what I call the ‘sod-off Jock!’ tendency increasingly seen in parts of England.

So, you will have a membership, even in the affiliated unions, who may be ripe to hear the arguments for independence. Whether they will have the strength, the power or the tenacity to have an impact on their union’s policy on the matter, however, is debatable.

Non-Affiliated - potential supporters?

Of course to view those unions that are not affiliated as natural supporters of independence is also a mistake. in my view. While the likes of the FBU and RMT might be thought to be only too happy to be an awkward squad - especially if Labour is on the opposite side - it should be remembered that the FBU is of course part of a UK bargaining machine similar to that in the NHS. So too are the Civil Service unions. and for them you can add an almost pathological aversion to publicly siding with any political view that would be seen as party political - in the way that independence will.

Even in my own union, the NUJ - most likely to be relaxed about dealing with union organisation across boundaries - after all they already do it in Ireland, I think the view that as journalists we must be even-handed to all sides will hold a lot of sway.

But this brief survey is maybe a little missing the point. After all, TUs are essentially - much as we might not like it - not think tanks, not policy wonks breaking new ground with blue sky thinking - but essentially pragmatic organisations that have been created to defend and advance the living and working standards of their members. In many ways reactive rather than proactive organisations.

How will they decide?

I don’t doubt that in the fevered hothouses of TU research departments in Edinburgh and Glasgow (but of course mostly in London) there are people pouring over research, and analyses trying to work out the ‘what-if’s’ of Scottish Independence. But it isn’t occupying the waking hours of their members. No doubt, if and when a referendum is called, then the TU movement will take a decision (or many different decisions) on their policies, but I venture to suggest, if we are talking about reactive organisations with a clear function on defending members, then those debates will be set in the context of ‘what is the impact on our members?’. In a nutshell - will Scottish Independence be a benefit or a detriment to those members - not just in Scotland but across the memberships? At the current time it seems unlikely that this question will be answered in the affirmative.

Are concerns allayed by independence?

The current concerns of TU members - are remarkably similar and similar across the nations of the UK. The threats to jobs, pay, services and of course, currently pensions stems from the Westminster Government’s austerity measures and is being fought - in my view correctly - with a UK-wide co-ordination. While the Scottish Government is able to (and does) criticise these policies, they find themselves in the position of largely passing on the cuts to their recipients in the public and voluntary sectors.

Indeed, while ‘It’s all the fault of Westminster’, is a sentiment we can probably unite around, the suggestions so far about what an independent Scotland would look like, is currently unclear, and the signs are not good. For example, why does the Scottish Government want to control Corporation Tax so badly? To ensure that the bankers and financiers who drove us unheeding into the debt crisis pay back the bail out that they received from us? Apparently not, what is required according to the Scottish Government, is less tax on business to attract more overseas companies into Scotland. The Scottish Government has been notably business friendly in many areas -  the Scottish Futures organisation with its attempts to continue the PFI route (watch out for more of that shortly, by the way), is merely another example.

On the positive side, of course, in Scotland there is a greater value placed on, and defense of public services and public provision. I wouldn’t want to ignore that courageous decision of Nicola Sturgeon to build the new SGH through public provision for example. 

But this attitude to public services largely crosses party boundaries in Scotland - and, what is more, has been a distinctive feature of devolution in any case - so any specific advantage of independence still remains to be clearly spelled out.

Still a huge job to be done

In short, there is some way to go before the Scottish Government or other advocates of Scottish independence can articulate an argument that details a practical case that working people will significantly benefit from independence for Scotland, and such an argument will be important in attracting potential allies from TUs and their activists.

Does all this suggest that those who wish to call for independence need to look elsewhere and ignore the TU movement? Can I suggest they shouldn’t? When Alex Salmond celebrated his stunning victory on May, he said he planned to try and govern though consensus. There has, unfortunately been little practical experience of that so far, but I think that it remains the only sensible aim.

And maybe if it can’t happen inside the Parliament, maybe it should happen outside. After all the trade union movement - well at least the majority of it inside Scotland - isn’t, I don’t think, scared of independence. After all there are already many areas where they have suggested increasing powers to be devolved and contributed much of the evidence to the much-maligned Scotland Bill - devolution of broadcasting, equal opportunities, and immigration legislation are proposals that come immediately to my mind. There are more.

No, the TU movement currently cannot see the relevance of the independence debate, and when the issue looms larger in their ken, they will remain to be convinced. Not an impossibility, but a job that remains to be done.