Our NHS. Why the Yes campaign must destroy a UK-wide service

With the polls coming together as the referendum approaches, it would seem a good time to analyse the importance to that debate of the controversial claims around our NHS

This is a difficult issue for the Yes campaign. Firstly the NHS is that rare thing, a UK-wide institution that is both respected by experts and valued and supported by people across the UK; obviously the complete antithesis of what Yes campaigners want to see. Secondly, it is funded as part of a system (Barnett) that makes at least some attempt to recognise differing demands of different parts of the UK and fund them accordingly. Again an example of an UK-wide positive process that would be killed stone dead by a Yes vote.

In short and in principle, the NHS is a good example of what Better Together should be trumpeting. Sharing UK resources so that anyone in any part of the UK can receive treatment free at the point of delivery, wherever they need to receive it. Why BT hasn’t done so enough, we'll deal with in a minute.

Are the threats real?

The Yes campaign have to deal with the inevitable break up of our NHS that their aims predicate. To invent a back story for this split, a) they have tried to create an image of an irreparably damaged NHS South of the border, and b) argue that the only way out is to pull up the ladder, and abandon the rUK NHS. To do so they risk the claim that they will cut the 'hassle free access to specialist clinical facilities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland' that doctors put so much importance on, and abandon the collective creation, involvement and resourcing of our UK NHS.

So, if a successful UK-wide institution delivering services to us all is so clearly a problem it has to be denigrated. And not just for failings in England, but if possible how those failings will eventually reach across the border.

Eleanor Bradford of the BBC

So the targets picked on by the Yes campaign were Barnett and how it is threatened by English privatisation, and - when it quickly became clear via Eleanor Bradford amongst others, that privatisation itself threatens Barnett in no way - the overall impact of lowering levels of service in England and the knock-on damage to Scotland's Health Service.

What did SNP MPs think?

However, Yes have another problem with the 'impact of NHS privatisation on Scotland' argument. As is well known, SNP MPs do not (as a matter of principle) vote on legislation that has no impact in Scotland. But obviously, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (the main coalition legislation opening health care up to private commissioning) DOES impact, doesn't it? Everyone from Dr Philippa Whitford to Alex Salmond has

Dr Phillippa Whitford

told us so. However you'll look hard to find the SNP MPs voting against that bill (neither in the second nor the third reading!). Surely they couldn't have been under the impression its impact on Scotland would be non-existent (twice)? Hopefully, if a Labour government committed to repealing that law - as both Burnham and Miliband have committed to do - is returned in 2015, they won't make the same mistake again.

However, no matter what SNP MPs might think, the Yes campaign’s point about the privatisation of England's NHS does have an impact on Scotland and Scottish patients. Currently - although the NHS is run differently either side if the border - all UK patients are entitled to get the most appropriate care for their condition in the most appropriate venue. In some cases that means English specialist hospitals. That has been made clear by Sir Leonard Fenwick, the chief executive of the North East NHS foundation when he replied to Dr Whitford's bogus claims about cancer surgery in his area. A number of us also remember the emergency airlifts of Scottish patients suffering from swine flu, to a hospital in Leicester. The prospect of these areas of specialism down in England suffering because of the introduction of profit-driven, resource-undermining privatisation is very much something that we in Scotland should be concerned with. And we should be campaigning with our fellow NHS supporters across the UK to ensure that privatisation is stopped in its tracks and the Health and Social Care Act is repealed.

It is disappointing that Better Together seem to have been a) hypnotised by the 'Barnett myth' and b) hamstrung by the presence of parties representing the architects of this privatisation, and failed to highlight the REAL dangers to Scotland’s patients, but at least the Labour opposition at Westminster has made a clear commitment to repeal the odious Act.

Campaigning for the NHS across the UK

External support, or joint campaigning

We could still campaign in support of the English NHS in an Independent Scotland, of course, although we would a) then be offering solidarity to campaigners in a different country with a different healthcare system, and b) no longer have a right and a stake in a UK-wide NHS. Not impossible then, just unnecessarily more difficult.

And this leads to another objection that the Yes campaign has to challenge. The right of us all as patients to use the NHS across the UK would cease. Now, it is possible, even probable, that arrangements would be negotiated to allow continued access, but they would have to be created via some financial bargain, as Scottish and rUK populations would no longer be contributing to one cross border system.

Plus, of course, the real cast iron danger to any redistributive effect (however small) that exists in the Barnett formula doesn't come from English privatisation, or even from 'revenge plots' by Westminster politicians, but from a Yes vote! Separation of the nation, means separation of national healthcare systems, and separation of the tax and spend arrangements that fund them. So – no Barnett, no redistribution from a bigger pool to a smaller.

Our NHS, Our Campaign

So, while no one underestimates the danger to the NHS from privatisation, it is surely more likely to be defeated by working and campaigning together as part of our NHS, than by striking camp and stealing away into the night? An argument that can also, incidentally, be applied to many other pan-UK struggles and campaigns.

And ultimately this is why the break up of our NHS is quite so crucial to the Yes campaign. It is not just a successful practical service, it is also a symbol of a UK success with input from us all, and access for us all. Let's keep it that way. Vote No to continue and increase the campaign to defeat privatisation of our NHS - wherever that is threatened.

Absent Friends?

Since the Westminster Parliament voted (by 26 votes) to continue with the justly maligned Bedroom Tax, the twitteratti have been having a field day. Bitter recrimination has been piled on accusation and deep loathing. MPs have been targeted for direct action. Threats have been made to oust MPs who have left their vulnerable constituents at the mercy of this iniquitous legislation.

So far, so unexceptional you might think, but in this case the targets are the MPs who represent the party that publicly opposes the Tax; that has committed to repeal the legislation; and that was responsible for the staging of the debate. Whit?!

The substance of the accusations levelled at (some) Labour MPs (and at the Party in general), is that by not having all their MPs in the Commons for the vote, they have let down the fight against the Bedroom Tax. In some extreme cases the claim is that this failure led to their own amendment being lost, despite the obvious fallacy of that!

Now the rights and wrongs of the pairing system aren't an argument that can be dealt with here. Nor, incidentally, are they an issue that was raised by anyone before the debate or vote. However, it is unquestionable that the missing MPs were paired. Thus, all claims that the missing MPs 'cost' the vote against the Bedroom Tax fail, as their appearance would immediately have been matched by the appearance of their 'pair' to vote in favour.

It is also most unlikely that any attempt to 'ambush' the vote would have defeated the tax. Firstly, even if successful, it would not have been binding on the Government, and they would simply have called a vote of confidence, which they would have won. A similar caveat applies to any attempt to impose a three-line whip. That would have been made public, and would have turned the vote into a a vote of confidence with similar results.

Indeed, one MP has pointed out that all the SNP MPs have been absent at one time or another at votes against the legislation containing the Bedroom Tax, while it was going though the commons. While there is one error in her list, the point about absent votes and pairing remains true. No doubt MPs of other parties missed these and similar votes. No doubt all of the above MPs were paired, and their vulnerable constituents not left without a representative. But quite clearly not all parliamentary votes are as significant as others. Indeed these votes actually impacted on the passage of the legislation!

Having said that, there have clearly been failures on the part of the opposition. How else can we explain what should have been a great public opportunity being turned into a publicity gaffe? It should have been anticipated that public interest in the outcome of the vote (even if overturning it would have required the votes of LibDems) meant that any likely absences should have been identified and - if unjustifiable, stopped, if justifiable, explained. After all, many of those criticising believe in extra-parliamentary campaigning, and it is hardly wrong for MPs to also take part in such campaigns. Not preparing for this, and probably allowing some non-attendances that should never have been allowed, has meant a massive publicity opportunity for the Labour Opposition has been lost.

However, what has also been lost in the welter of criticism is any sight of the real villains of the piece. After all the majority of the votes in the Commons were to back the Bedroom Tax - these ConDem MPs are thanking their stars for the furore whipped up by the nationalists and ultra-left.

Serving us and boosting our economy - Public Ownership

In the wake of the Ed Miliband/Daily Mail saga, a blog from James Maxwell of the New Statesman has an interesting series of points to make on the difference between Milliband’s pledges on the UK stage and Salmond’s in Scotland.

His point is essentially that while Miliband is (possibly against his will) being forced to challenge the UK consensus that the the Tories, their coalition partners and New Labour have espoused for a number of decades now - that an unregulated private sector is the saviour of the UK economy and that there is no role for the state to intervene; here in Scotland - despite the opportunities offered for challenging this consensus by the independence referendum - Alex Salmond shows no sign of doing so. Indeed he points to many policies where the SNP have actually moved towards the UK consensus.

To be fair, he also points to a range of policies where the SNP and Scottish Government are still to the left of the Labour Party, but the difference in challenging ‘business and its vested interests’ is marked. 

  The Scottish government was almost alone in retaining close relationships with News International, when even their close political pals were abandoning them. They have consistently courted tax-dodging corporations like Amazon, and argued against state intervention to take our share of windfall profits by North Sea energy companies, or to freeze energy prices to the consumer.

And where is the evidence that these policies work? Ofgen warns of power black-outs by 2015 as a result of lack of investment in the privatised energy sector. Privatised rail has the highest subsidies in Europe – except where the publicly owned East Coast line has delivered almost £1billion in profit. A socially disastrous housing crisis has resulted from the inability of the private sector to provide affordable houses. Yet elsewhere in the world there is economic growth – and it is generally in those countries where there is a significant measure of public ownership and active public support for industry.

In this context Sunday’s conference taking place in Glasgow on the need for greater public input

into our economic life is remarkably appropriate. While few at the conference would put much faith in Miliband, the lack of arguments for increased public ownership that have come out of the ‘indyref’ debate despite the spectacular failure of privatised companies, will hopefully be rectified by an impressive range of speakers. Economists and researchers like the STUC’s Stephen Boyd, and UNISONScotland policy chief, Dave Watson will be joined by politicians from both Labour (Neil Findlay MSP) and the SNP (Chris Stephens of the SNP TU Group). The conference will examine the evidence for successful public sector intervention, from the past and from the present, from the UK and from elsewhere in the world.

The conference is organised by the Morning Star’s Scottish Campaign Committee and takes place from 11 am at the STUC offices in Woodlands Road, Glasgow. Further details here.

Working in unison needs a broad base

Coalition formed in UNISON?

Amongst all the surprise and astonishment that has greeted the 'historic' Labour/SNP coalition in Edinburgh (although constituents in East Renfrewshire might be forgiven for questioning the novelty of this situation) it is interesting to consider a factor that might well have been a catalyst,

A factor that has not been publicly mentioned (as far as I know) is what happened in the huge furore around the LibDems' Alternative Business Model (ABM) proposals in the last administration. The proposals, which primarily involved privatising both support and front-line services in the city, caused a huge backlash, with a very successful campaign, led by the council trade unions but incorporating a much wider community base, ultimately leading to its defeat.

Of course, given the knife-edge balance of the previous party make up (29 each with the Tories always likely to back selling off services), this defeat had to involve detaching SNP support from their LibDem coalition partners and a joint vote with Labour (and the Greens) to defeat the plans.

UNISON (the largest council union) activists in the city have admitted privately that their greatest concern was the the notorious resentment between Labour and the Nationalists might scupper the final votes. In the midst of a very vocal and highly-charged campaign, the difficulty in gaining the joint support of the two key parties without pushing either into a political corner was a manoeuvre worthy of Balkan dexterity!

Working together

As is now known, it was ultimately successful and scuppered the LibDem privatisation plans in all areas. Ultimately two ABMs were defeated by joint Labour/SNP amendments and the LibDems threw the other one out themselves. The two parties also – it now appears – reaped the benefits in the elections. Jenny Dawe and her LD colleagues were left to face the full wrath of the electorate on their own.

Was this experience a straw in the wind of this week's shock coalition? A positive experience in working together can only have assisted the move towards it. Too much cannot be ascribed to this working together, or indeed should it be predicted for this coalition. The economic future for all local government in Scotland is bleak, and difficult times lie ahead. Not only will these strain the alliance, they will almost certainly mean issues with their own workforce and with the communities they serve.

Lessons that both Councillor Burns and Councillor Cardownie need to heed are that power does not simply involve the division of positions on the council, but must ensure that services are defended for their communities. And just as the workforce was instrumental in piloting joint activity over the ABM crisis, they need to continue to be part of the working together package to steer Edinburgh through the crises to come.

Faint scratching noises as the bottom of the barrel is scraped

As the sons set on Rupert Murdoch’s empire (ⓒGeorge Galloway), perhaps the most unedifying sight in a thoroughly unedifying political arena is the view of Alex Salmond’s apologists attempting to shift blame by pointing at Blair, Thatcher, Brown, Cameron and their past courting of the media godfather. 

On blogs and on networking sites, aides and supporters of the isolated Salmond have been using the ‘they all did it’ argument in frantic attempts to distract attention away from the fact that they didn’t all do it, and in fact no one did it at the same time and in such a way as the dear leader.

Of course it is true that party leaders at Westminster and Holyrood have much to answer for in the shameless cultivating of support from Murdoch’s tabloids. And some people have been warning for some time - back at least to Thatcher in the UK - that this is a subversion of democracy. Often this has been at much risk to their own careers and private life. Indeed, Tom Watson MP has been one of those politicians who has ploughed a lonely and risky furrow in opposing the power of the Murdochs, often in opposition to his own whips office and party hierarchy. The least he deserves is a serious hearing when he suggests methods of lancing the boil, rather than Salmond’s curt dismissal that he ‘does not need any lectures from Tom Watson’. Recent experience - not least the revelations of phone hacking of Scottish politicians and media figures - suggests otherwise.

Of course, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report was prepared by politicians, and will be subject to partisan views. But Alex is a politician and his supporters are no strangers to partisan views. Mind you, I’m not sure how many of them will be too keen on his refusal even to back the majority view of that report and to throw in his lot with the Tory minority in failing to condemn Mr Murdoch’s ‘fitness to run a media empire’, In the absence of a BSB takeover to lobby for, maybe defending Murdoch on this will be a sufficient ‘quid pro quo’?

'Is anyone watching?

For despite SNP activists attempts to fling mud  (apparently being photographed reading the Sun equates to writing messages of support for it and leaking the date of the referendum to it), there is a huge difference between the actions of Thatcher, Blair, Cameron et al and that of Alex Salmond. It is this. Salmond’s activities are taking place now. After the revelations of the Millie Dowler and other phone hackings, after the exposure of editorial complicity in police bribery, and after every leader in the rest of UK politics has realised the damage their associations with NI were doing (even Jeremy Hunt had the grace to hide behind a tree!), Mr Salmond scheduled new meetings with the tycoon, and made it clear he was open for a closer relationship. 

And the lack of understanding, attempts to excuse the inexcusable, to brazen it out, and to fall into the age-old nationalist rant of ‘blame Labour’, is what will cause the damage. Oh, this might be seen as still significantly a debate amongst the chattering classes, but (in particular) the hacking of a dead schoolgirl’s phone will always make sure that the distaste for Mr Murdoch and his editorial placepersons spreads wider than that.

It is a shame that the many good people in the SNP remain so quiet on this one. Party discipline is normally something to be recognised and even applauded, but not when something as wrong as this is going on (as Alan Cochrane said the other day in the Telegraph). The normally sure-footed SNP machine has mishandled this one, and mishandled it badly. The problem with elevating leaders to semi-divine status, is that their feet of clay all too often melt!

Public interest should not be compromised

The news (in today's Sunday Mail) that the Scottish Government has now reverted to their fallback reason for refusing to release details of correspondence between them and Sir Brian Souter - one of their biggest donors - should come as little surprise to dedicated Freedom of Information watchers. The use of the 'total cost' excuse by the Scottish Government is becoming a far too regular hiding place for unwanted information release.

It is concerning that this getout clause is being used increasingly by the Scottish Government (and is being latched on to by other public bodies) and it begins to look like it is used to avoid a) giving a specific exemption and b) appeals to the Information Commissioner invoking the 'public interest' test. As the cost limit is not indexed -linked, it also applies to more and more information requests as time passes.

The clause is a convenient one, as it isn't technically an 'exemption' in terms of the law, and therefore not subject to the public interest test, which the previous refusals to disclose the information (because the requester hadn't clearly identified the information, and because it dealt with correspondence with the Royal Family) both were in this case.

Bad enough then, that a Government that trumpets its commitment to 'open government and Freedom of Information by ensuring as much information as possible is made available without having to be asked' (Scottish Government – 6 Principles) seems to regularly practice bureaucratic moves to stymie legitimate information requests, but could there be something more behind this one?

Recently the Scottish Government issued consultation on an amendment to the FoI(s)A. A small amendment, much of which was unexceptional in tidying up anomalies that impacted on potential prosecutions under the Act, and reducing time limits for the release of restricted information. Freedom of Information campaigners heaved a sigh of relief too, that suggestions for the introduction of charges for FoI requests had been left out.

But included in the proposed legislation was a clause to bring the Scottish Act in line with recent changes to the UK Act, in particular increasing the level of exemption for 'correspondence with the Queen or her heir'; so that this would be an 'absolute' exemption. This caused some surprise. Why would this government wish to emulate the ConDem government especially by reducing the citizen's rights to information? Especially as part of a minor amendment that was largely about fixing anomalies and increasing access.

Many campaigners pointed out that this ran completely contrary to FoI principles (not least the Scottish Government's own!), but the responses were muted – many wondered whether to bother replying to such a minor consultation at all. Indeed the strongest arguments against were advanced by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC), himself.

Around the time the consultation closed a couple of interesting Appeal decisions were published by the SIC. Both found that the Scottish Government had unjustifiably rejected (or in one case ignored) requests for information about their involvement (or otherwise) in the process of the conferring of a Knighthood on Sir Brian Souter, by the Crown.

As many who know me will testify, I am one who tends to place 'cock-up' theories before the 'conspiracy' theories, but it is an interesting coincidence (to say the least). Is it merely unfortunate that a government that recently spent £100,000 plus of our money trying to keep their cost estimates of a local income tax secret, consistently refuses to release other information at so much less cost? In particular does an 'absolute exemption' on any contact between the Scottish Government and the Crown, help or hinder the disclosure of the facts on Sir Brian's nomination for a knighthood?

The recent track record of this government suggests that openness and transparency are now far from their aims.

Freedom of Information - a crucial change

Is it really five years since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act came into force? It seems longer somehow. It seems that this has always been part of the landscape, that public authorities - especially in Scotland - have known that information they hold is likely to be available to anyone who asks. Indeed the fact that the major campaign now is to extend the legislation to cover bodies not yet listed, tells you how much the Act has bedded into our political, media, campaigning and community activity.

Of course, the Act was passed in 2002, three years before it came into force, and those three years were spent building an infrastructure, and publishing the implications to anyone who would listen, but the main factor in embedding the Act was the appointment of Kevin Dunion (ex-FoE and Oxfam) as the first Scottish Information Commissioner almost nine years ago. Although his nomination was only passed by a majority vote in the Scottish Parliament, it was always clear that what was needed, was an enthusiast for Freedom of Information to establish the rights of individuals and set up a positive environment for the new legislation, - something that Kevin acknowledged when he spoke to the annual Holyrood Freedom of Information Conference, just before Christmas (see Holyrood interview here).

Kevin’s appointment brought hope to those of us who had been campaigning for Freedom of Information for many years - after all, he has been one of those campaigners - and our hope was not disappointed. Kevin and the staff he gathered around him ploughed a consistent furrow presuming that information should be released, refusing to accept rationalisations from public authorities keen to retain information in their own files, but guided by the law where exemptions are concerned. That he has been successful, not just in applying the law - he has issued 1,400 formal decisions on appeals - but in beginning a change in the attitude of the public sector, says much about how effective his approach was. It is true to say that not everyone in the public sector has got it, Tony Blair and Sir Gus O’Donnell down south, and Lord Smith, Chair of the Glasgow 2014 Ltd, the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee, seem particularly deaf to the benefits of FoI, but the prevailing trend in the public sector now, is a trend to publish, rather than conceal.

Given this, surely the next commissioner has a clear steer on their direction of travel? The Scottish Act has long been held up as a more effective Act that the UK Act, and has led to better decisions (the decision to publish MSP’s expenses, for example surely meant the Scottish Parliament did not attract the level of scandal heaped on its Westminster counterpart). But that lead appears to be slipping. While the Westminster government ploughs on with proposals to extend coverage of its Act to such bodies as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association, the backtracking of the Scottish Government in doing the same - or more - is worrying many practitioners including Kevin himself. And, now that government has the Parliamentary majority to allow it to strengthen the legislation and extend the coverage, it appears not to want to do it. To introduce an amendment to the Act simply to decrease the duration of publication exclusions from 30 years to 15 for some records and to tidy up a legal anomaly, is surely a missed opportunity. The increasing ‘outsourcing’ of our public services requires comprehensive extension to cover local authority trusts and LLPs, private contractors, social housing providers and a range of other bodies. The Scottish Minister, Brian Adam MSP, at the same Holyrood Conference, came under strong pressure from both Kevin and the original architect of the Act, Lord Wallace of Tankerness to extend the Act. He failed to deliver. 

Given such indications of retrenchment coming directly from the top of Scotland’s Government, it becomes increasingly important that whoever is appointed to fill Kevin’s vacancy in February, is also an ‘enthusiast for Freedom of Information’, and remains strongly committed to extending and improving the coverage of this important Act. The temptation might be to appoint a ‘safe pair of hands’ from a parliamentary or government perspective. While not wanting to pre-judge anyone going for the job, to have someone who wants to restrict information and increase exemptions, would be a serious mistake and risk the advances that the Act has given to ordinary people at a crucial time for their public services.

At a time when these services are under increasing threat, and the temptation to outsource grows apace, we should ensure that our right of access to information is not compromised. When Kevin delivers his final report to Parliament next month, I am sure he will point this out. It is up to our parliamentarians to heed the warnings, take the right steps forward themselves, and nominate a replacement to the first Scottish Information Commissioner who can maintain and extend our rights.

Huge turnout for Nov 30 shows new developments in activity, and some political mistakes

Huge turnouts in rallies and marches across Scotland have given the lie to those politicians who have been accusing union leaders of bullying and intimidation. In Glasgow and Edinburgh march and rally attendance topped the 10K mark in each city. Glasgow had to put on an overflow rally meeting to cram ‘em all in. IIn Edinburgh the sight of SNP MSPs joining ConDem MSPs going through union picket lines inspired double the ‘permitted’ number of marchers to cram into the square outside the parliament and listen to an equally inspired Rodney Bickerstaffe demolish the attempts to divide public and private sector workers. “If one person has a leg cut off,” he said does that mean everyone has to have their leg cut off, because it’s not fair?”.  

Rallies and marches took place across Scotland. In Kirkwall, Aberdeen, Moray, Inverness, Motherwell, Dundee, Falkirk, Dumfries, Glenrothes, Paisley, Livingstone. At all of them organisers were reporting double plus the numbers expected. While an estimated 300,000 took strike action in Scotland, around 30,000 also went on marches and rallies, picketed and gave other support.

In Glasgow ‘UNISON have filled the gathering point on their own!’ tweeted the PCS. The demonstration started at 12.30pm and the last got moving at 14.15pm! Those who could get in to the Barrowlands heard UNISON’s Scottish Secretary, Mike Kirby point out that “It could cost this country up to £15 billion to support the millions of private sector workers who have been locked out of saving for their retirement."

A number of commentators watching the rallies have been struck by the changing nature of the strikers. Trade unionists, they were certainly, and angry they were too, but they were not the traditional ‘middle-aged male’. Mike Kirby and Dave Prentis both pointed to the key role being played by women in leading the strikes, and others including the president of the National Pensioners Convention, Rodney Bickerstaffe noticed the high proportion of young people involved in the action. Many of the strikers were involved in their first industrial action, and some of the unions taking part - especially small clinical professional bodies - mark a new development, never having taken strike action before.

Are we seeing a new generation of activists taking the  lead? It is maybe too early to say that this marks a significant shift in the levels of collective activity in the young, or in women, or that there is an ‘arab spring’, but there is certainly something in motion that political and trade union leaders ignore at their peril.

The political fallout from the strikes will be interesting, given the  new numbers of activists. My old colleague Dave Watson has blogged about the position here in Scotland and I think his analysis is sound, if a little easy on the major tactical errors made by the Scottish Government. Yes there are very good trade unionists in the SNP ranks, but they are more than outnumbered by their backwoods colleagues. First Minister, Alex Salmond, who rejected union calls for a suspension of the Scottish Parliament, was booed when his picture was held at the Glasgow rally. 

The ConDems in Westminster, too, have seriously misjudged the mood of the nation. Opinion polls and media straw polls for some time now, have been showing increasing support for the strikers, and Tory ministers like Francis Maude and Danny Alexander have been thrashing about trying to find a tactic to demonise trade unions. Now Cameron’s pal, Jeremy Clarkson has let the cat out of the bag. Calling for strikers to be shot in front of their families, is exactly the logical conclusion of Tory government and Daily Mail vitriol. Not that Cameron will be pleased by his dinner pals intervention. The Tories - instead of going on the offensive - have had to spend the day distancing themselves from their fascistic supporter. The BBC too (not for the first time) have spent the day digging themselves deeper into a hole. One does wonder what it would take for the BBC to actually address the damage this presenter is doing to them? As it is they flounder gracelessly making ‘apologies’ that compound the felony.

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.

Scottish Water failings outline exactly why Freedom of Information coverage must be extended

UNISON last week ‘celebrated’ a ruling from Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion that Scottish Water must reveal costings of PFI contracts that have been operational for some 10 or more years. The celebrations - which mark another step in the union’s long term campaign against this expensive and increasingly bizarre way of funding public service capital expenditure - may however have been somewhat muted.

One reason for this is that not all the information was able to be released. Incredibly Scottish Water do not hold Full Business Cases(FBCs) for nine multi-million pound PFI projects. That is, the documents that purport to show why the paying of £600 million in capital costs, and the continued paying of £130m a year of our money to private contractors to build, and operate sewage works, water treatment works and other vital public services is a good deal, don’t exist (at least in Scottish Water’s hands)!

So, while (courtesy of the Act, and Mr Dunion) we know what the projects are costing (although Scottish Water didn’t want to tell us all of that), we do not know what alternatives were investigated, and we do not know why other methods of funding were discounted - although we can make a guess! 

One of the excuses that Scottish Water used was that the contracts were entered into before they existed, by the previous water authorities. Maybe they got lost in the merger. We all know how difficult it is to keep track of these minor bits of paper when bringing filing together! Come to think of it, maybe those advocating merged Police and Fire Services better keep an eye open for the contracts slipping down the back of the sofa!

However it gets worse! In 2001 Scottish Water told a Scottish Parliament Committee that three of the nine FBCs existed - the Scottish Government website still claims that two do! UNISON is rightly scandalised that a major quango misled Parliament in this way, and was/is so cavalier with your cash! 

But that is the way of PFI contracts. As we are now finding out, the chickens are beginning to settle in the roosting barns with a vengeance. As most if not all of these contracts contain clauses ‘ring-fencing’ the payments to the private contractors, when public sector cash contracts (as it currently is), the only payments guaranteed, are these to PFI contractors. So other essential services suffer increased cutbacks while PFI contracts don’t (if you get my drift).

Oh, and by the way, the contractors themselves are NOT covered by the Freedom of Information Act so, no point in asking them the kind of questions that opened up the ‘mystery of the missing FBCs’ to find out how (for example) contractors take decisions in delivering these services, or what staffing ratios they choose to use, or a million and one other pieces of information on what they do with your money. Indeed, water and sewerage in England - as it is fully privatised - isn’t covered by their FOI Act at all! 

Private contractors ARE covered (in both England and Scotland) to a limited extent through what are known as the Environmental Information Regulations. Indeed, Kevin Dunion specifically judged that these were the appropriate regulations to use in the UNISON case. But they only apply to environmental information. And in any case FOI is supposed to be straightforward, simple, open and transparent. Having two different standards does not help that aim. 

Isn’t it time that the Scottish Government dusted off their proposals to extend the FOI Act in Scotland to cover the myriad of outsourced, private, voluntary, partnerships, trusts and other bodies that are being invented to deliver your services with your money? Not only should they be dusted off (even the Westminster Tories are planning some extension to their Act) they should - to mix a metaphor - be beefed up! They have a majority now...