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.

UCS@40 - the reason for silence here!

Just a short blog at the Captain's site to apologise to all followers for the silence here for a few months.
The reason - which might be suspected by many - is that I have been working on the celebrations for the 40th Anniversary of the UCS work-in. I was asked by FairPley to assist them with the communications and have been enjoying the work immensely. 
Working with the UCS Work-In veterans has been a revelation, and their willingness to be interviewed on the topic almost anywhere, at any time has made the media work a joy (and is indicative of one of the reasons why the work-in got such a sympathetic press at the time). Also the input of the 'stars' especially the great Tony Benn, was key to the stories we were successful in getting into the media.
We produced some excellent material to sell at the gig (programme, badge, polo shirt) all featuring the 'UCS Work-In' logo drawn by the legendary Bobby Starrett - the Work-In cartoonist. These will all shortly be available to buy, for people who couldn't make the concert.
The releases and some of the media stories are listed on the other blog - UCS@40 . Despite the main event being over, a few key celebrations remain. One, announced today, is a second anniversary concert - this time run as part of Celtic Connections. Robert Dawson Scott has a nice piece on the launch on STV. Another - planned for March 2012 - is a screening of the Cinema Action films. Watch the UCS@40 blog for details.

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...

Who knows where the money goes?

The opposition of Glasgow 2014 to telling you what they are doing with your money, is yet another example of why the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) should be extended to private companies and other organisations that increasingly deliver our public services, and spend our money. It is a pity that the last Scottish Government dropped its proposals to start that process.

The kind of outdated thinking expounded by Lord Smith, claiming that private companies will run away from contracts with his body, should they have to tell us what they do with our money, has long been dispersed from guidance that form the procedures that public bodies and the Scottish Information Commissioner have operated under since 2005. Indeed this guidance strongly advises public authorities NOT to include so-called ‘confidentiality clauses’ in contracts. Has Lord Smith included such clauses in their contracts?

But of course Glasgow 2014 is a private company, and they claim they are not subject to the FOI(S)A. Although, because they are one of the quasi-public bodies increasingly used (particularly by Glasgow City Council) to avoid the cumbersome business of accountability, it may not be quite as open and shut as they would like to think (publicly owned companies are already subject to the Act).

This sort of old-style resistance to telling us what is going on is, of course one of the reasons that the SIC and many other bodies argued strongly for the last Scottish government to extend the coverage of FOI(S)A. An extension they unfortunately dropped in the run up to the last Scottish Election.

Failing to divulge public information will, of course, increase damaging speculation about expenditure and motivation when events turn newsworthy. Contrariwise (you can see I’m reading a Lewis Carroll biography), openness is the way to effectively deal with public relations crises. Any (good) PR expert can tell you that.

So, in charge of of the 80% publicly-funded Commonwealth Games, we have an organisation that a) is apparently unaware of the guidance on contractual confidentiality that public bodies abide by, and b) either does not have, or chooses to ignore standard public relations practice. Not an impressive track record. No wonder we need private sector information to be opened up when they spend our money!

Tommy reviewers need a long spoon

Let me say straight away I believe Tommy Sheridan made the biggest mistake of his political life in defying the advice of almost all of his friends and party comrades to go into direct legal confrontation with the News of the World. He would have known that he faced a mass of contrary evidence from others on the ultra-left and the case would tear that group apart. To take the case on, whether or not he lied, and got others to lie for him, automatically meant him putting his personal standing above the political needs of the far left.

Why then am I so disturbed by Paul Hutcheon’s review in Saturday’s Herald, of Alan McCombes book on the hugely damaging affair? After all, both McCombes and Hutcheon are of the same opinion - although they both would I think, take it a good deal further than me.

I am also well aware that media editors like to give books on controversial subjects to reviewers with strongly-held views on the topic in question, whether for or (more often) against the authors thesis. This review is an example of why it is often a bad idea. One doesn’t have to be a Sheridan supporter to find the eulogising of Alan McCombes somewhat OTT. To one who spent many meetings listening to and watching Alan and other acolytes of the Revolutionary Socialist League operate in the Labour Party of the late 1970‘s and 1980’s, this modest man brilliantly writing savage turns of phrase with his unimpeachable integrity must be a completely reformed character!

Maybe the clue to my uncomfortableness lies in the penultimate para of the review. Hutcheon’s states that “Downfall has not altered my own unshakeable conclusions about the 2004-10 disaster: that while McCombes is a man of unimpeachable integrity, Sheridan is the most despicable politician I have ever encountered.” He no doubt has both reasons and evidence for this view, and of course, is entitled to it, but I question the wisdom of giving this book to someone with such staunch views to review. Given their similarity of viewpoint, it would surely have been a miracle if Downfall even gently agitated Paul Hutcheon’s ‘unshakeable conclusions’.

This review may have given Paul Hutcheon an opportunity to let off steam, and welcome the ‘happy ending’ of Tommy Sheridan in a prison cell, but in terms of shedding light on the  book, a panegyric is as ineffective as a hatchet-job.

Where is the TaxPayers'Alliance?

Unaccountably, those upstanding (and unelected) champions of your tax dosh,  the Tax Payers Alliance, seem to have missed a good news story for Scottish tax payers. 


This is the recent announcement by the Scottish Government that the massive M74 extension is due to open 8 months early and £20m under budget. Given all those private business funded resources for monitoring the media, and the close working arrangement private contractors had with the council and Transport Scotland joint venture, you'd think that they would have noticed either the Scottish Government release - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/06/14151514 or the later (but more balanced) UNISON one - http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/news/2011/mayjune/1706a.htm


Maybe only tax savings invented by the TDA and their private sector lobby make it into their PRs and onto their pages?

Stirring the clear yellow water of independence

I was rudely awakened this morning by the sound of the normally calm, urbane and sophisticated Gerry Hassan shouting at some poor unfortunate on GMS! Intrigued as to what had exercised our commentator I listened further. Turns out that this outburst had been occasioned by a disagreement over Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore’s claim that independence would require two referenda to be administered before being achieved.

Gerry was otherwise minded and his ‘opponent’ Alan Trench got both barrels. (Although we found out later that both actually agreed on the advisability or otherwise of this approach.)

But it did suggest to me that Michael Moore might have inadvertantly raised an important procedural point. At what stage does a referendum take place? And what agreements have to be in place before it actually achieves what it sets out to do?

Amidst all the fog of independence-lite, and devolution-max, a number of crucial questions remain to be clarified before clear question(s) could be put to the Scottish people. Ones that immediately come to my mind are - monarchy or republic? boundaries? single currency or sterling? armed forces and defence? There may well be more and each of these - I would hazard - might cause disagreements, not just between unionists and nationalists, but even within the ranks of nationalists. Debate on them could take some resolving, but might make considerable difference to the views of voters. How much would an ‘independent’ Scottish monarchy under a ‘UK’ crown, using ‘UK’ currency, and defended by ‘UK’ troops be ‘independent’ for example - whether the ‘K’ stood for ‘Kingdom’ or ‘Kingdoms’? Would we be more independent in the Euro - shall we ask our Irish, Greek or Portuguese colleagues? Land boundaries might be obvious (leaving aside the question of Berwick-on-Tweed) but what about marine boundaries?

Would any negotiations around these (and other) questions be resolvable by agreement? What happens if the parameters are not agreed? Could we simply leave them to some constitutional court. At one time we might have looked to the UK Supreme Court, I suspect its even-handedness might now be a little more in question! So where would we go now? Europe?

This murky water, I think, is where Michael Moore has placed his size 11s. If we are talking one referendum, then the answers to these (and no doubt other) questions need to be clear to we who are voting. If not, then any early referendum would be about aspirations and would need to be followed by negotiations. On the outcome of these would rest any further vote.

It might be, as Gerry alluded this morning, a device for the British state to draw out and confuse the discussion, but I suspect two factors suggest that this isn’t likely. One, is that within nationalist ranks it seems there are some who are already flying kites on some of these very questions - coming down too definitively on one side or the other may not be in the interests of a united pro-independence campaign. Secondly, are we so sure that Cameron will be too concerned about a separate Scotland? It might be in his political best interests.

Meanwhile, the important (and more concerning) statement that the UK government was not inclined to devolve any more powers under the Scotland Bill, has almost slipped by unnoticed. Is this a ConDem double bluff? Do they want to hand such a key stick to the nationalists?