A Just Scotland

I’ve been meaning to blog for a good while now on the issue of what makes a Just Scotland, as well as reflecting on the journey many people in Scotland have made and are making from the Labour Movement towards supporting Independence. This was very much on my mind recently - as many of you will know, our Convener of Govan SNP, Steve Butler, sadly passed away in December after a very short illness.

Steve was the Constituency Officer Manager for Jim Sillars, and so when I joined the SNP on the back of the 1988 Govan By-election and the Anti-Poll Tax campaign I got to meet him for the first time. I was aware of his background in the trade union movement and am proud to say he was my mentor and someone whose values I shared.

Steve became a good friend and colleague and his contribution, and kindness to many people will never be forgotten.  A typical story about him comes from when he was covering the polling station in Priesthill in 2011.  A conversation with the local Minister resulted in him helping to repair the church organ. He believed in action and his many small acts of assistance were as big a contribution to his community as a lifetime of political debate and activism.

For the wider political picture  I would recommend an interview with a young Steve Butler from 1975 -  with an equally young Christopher Hitchens for the New Statesman, which sums up a lot of Steve’s political thoughts …………..” Steve Butler, a young shop steward from Rolls- Royce in East Kilbride, told me why he had left the Labour Party in Glasgow and signed up with the Nationalists (for whom he hopes to become industrial organiser). ‘Self-government would be a step towards socialism,’ he said. ‘I used to identify with people like Foot but since they took office I’ve given them up.”

Anne McLaughlin reminded me of this interview and has also written a very moving tribute and in blogging it would be remiss of me not to direct you towards that at … http://indygalonindependence.blogspot.co.uk/

When I first heard of Steve’s sudden illness, I had just attended two meetings organised by the STUC as part of its campaign “A Just Scotland”, which is looking at the significant challenges facing Scotland, as part of its approach for the Referendum campaign.  The comparisons with other countries as part of this process gave plenty of food for thought.

Senior Trade Unionists and Academics made rational and measured contributions.

Among the key findings I noted were ;

(1) The infamous IFS report does not suggest that an Independent Scotland would have less money to spend, and should have compared an Independent Scotland with Scotland in the UK, and not Scotland v the UK.

(2)  More importantly, they state that the key issue in terms of finances is one of demographics - an issue that remains whether YES or No is successful.

(3) Income Inequality - the UK has one of the highest gaps in Europe

(4) If all workers not in receipt of the Living Wage, were to be paid it, there would be increased income tax revenues of £550m.

(5) Only in 9 out of the last 69 months have real wages risen.

(6) Workers whose pay and conditions were covered by collective bargaining in 1979,have gone from 81% in Scotland to 23%.

(7) Trade Union membership in Scotland now stands at 32.3% of workers, in Sweden that figure is 69%

These are fascinating statistics, and demonstrate the real challenges the country faces, and the STUC should be thanked for facilitating these events. 

It does however reveal key weaknesses in the Better Together armoury.  As John McInally of the PCS put it.........."if No means more cuts,  austerity, and more privatisation then Scotland will leave the UK.  “ As Ed Miliband has just confirmed that a future Labour government in Westminster would still sing from the same austerity hymn sheet that hits the poorest hardest then what was a concern has just become a reality – a No vote means more of the same with NO possibility of change. That is only tip of the iceberg – and I’ll address that in a future blog post, but at the moment it’s sad to reflect how far the Labour party has moved away from its roots and fails to recognise the opportunities for real change through supporting workers rights and building a new dynamic in an independent Scotland.

The key message that trade union activists recognise is that employment law affects pay, conditions, and the wider economy including welfare. A Fair Work Commission, and a National Convention on Employment and Labour Relations would be a good place to start on addressing these challenges. That opportunity is there to be grasped, and increasingly many people are participating in shaping and discussing what makes a Just Scotland and what is our Common Weal and thinking outside narrow tribal party interests. A YES vote isn’t a vote for the SNP , it’s a vote for the possibility of change and for opening the door to new opportunities. A NO vote is a vote for more of the same diet of austerity and squeezing of public services that hasn’t served the workers of Scotland well in the past decades.

Consulting the Members

The blog is back! and firstly I should note my delight that a former leader of the best employer I ever worked for, Strathclyde Regional Council, has endorsed Independence.  Well done Charles Gray!

I am moved to share my thoughts on the continuing debate within the Trade Union movement on Independence given the mysterious decision of the GMB to announce that they back a No vote. Mysterious in the sense of lack of clarity about how this decision was reached.

The GMB position as announced by their leadership is curious.  Here's a resolution that the GMB put the Scottish Trades Union Congress this year;

"That this Congress notes the continual contraction of the Scottish Economy, the rise in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment and the clear evidence that Austerity is NOT working. What jobs there are, are temporary, insecure, part-time and low wage....
Congress believes that there is an alternative path based on a people-centred economics, which puts democracy at the heart of it.
Congress calls for the development of credible, popular alternative based on common ownership. Investment in public services based on need, a manufacturing renaissance and full and fulfilling employment as an urgent macroeconomic goal, greater industrial economic democracy, including co-operatives, pension fund reform and proper investment in and the reconstruction of, our industrial base. This requires a wide- ranging STUC led campaign, building on the platform of, There is a Better Way."
Also reads like the Common Weal project to me. 

Last week the Scottish Council of the GMB voted to support the No campaign.  How does this motion square with the statements by both Labour and the Tories that over £2 billion of cuts are on the way in 2015? 

Having spoken to many GMB members over the last two days, I can say that they are in shock at this decision.  Claims of an extensive consultation appear wide of the mark - a consultation can only be a consultation if members feel involved - and can be described as patchy at best.

Here's some of the questions GMB members have been asking;

(1) How were consultation meetings advertised, and why do so many members claim they didn't know about them?
(2) How many attended meetings?
(3) Were both sides of the debate asked to send representatives to engage in hustings?
(4) Was a vote taken at these meetings?
(5) Why make the decision now, before publication of the White Paper, and the Labour Party's report on further devolution of powers?
(6) What was the level of engagement?
(7) Why were members not balloted on an issue of such importance?
(7) How does this square with the STUC stance of asking both sides questions, and keeping a neutral approach?

GMB members deserve answers to these basic questions.  If the process has been found to be flawed, they have a duty to re-open the consultation.

We now have 5 Trade unions, traditional full time official led - as opposed to lay member led - making decisions on members behalf on how their money will spent on the Independence Referendum.  In each case, the level of  trade union member engagement and consultation is open to question.  In most cases, these Trade Unions have lost members - usually to other Trade Unions.

Other Trade Unions should think very carefully about how they engage with their members on this issue, and should serve as a warning that top down diktats will alienate their members.

In a time of deregulated markets, a low wage economy, attacks on health and safety legislation and cuts to the public sector, the role and function of Trade unions is as important as ever.  The Trade Union movement, as the largest part of Scottish Civic Society, has a duty to full engage with members on the biggest political decision in decades.  Those Trade Unions backing No appear to have done members a disservice.

Finally, I am curious as to where Trade Union funds will go.  It was my understanding that United with Labour was created to give trade union activists and labour party members some space to campaign to remain in the UK in the absence of Conservatives.  What exactly is the relationship between United with Labour and Better Together?

Union members are entitled to know where and how their money is being spent on campaigning and what exactly is funded by whom to do what. In other words...follow the money ?

ITS TIME FOR TRADE UNIONS TO DITCH NEW LABOUR

Hoping to claw back some semblance of control as the Falkirk debacle unfolds, Ed Miliband has launched  a "reform" of trade union levies going into the Labour Party.

Whilst the aim of "opting-in" is entirely laudable, and to a certain degree already operates in practice within UNISON, a key statistic not widely reported in the media is that over 360,000 UNITE members do not pay the political levy to Labour.

Other Trade Unions correctly take the view that their political fund should be used to fund campaigns of candidates of various political parties - for example the Fire Brigades Union who have funded campaigns of the last two parliamentary elections campaigns I have been involved in.  The RMT similarly fund campaigns in this way, both unions choosing to support candidates who have a track record in supporting fairness at work.

The problem,( depending on your point of view), is that explicitly funding a candidate of a political party other than that of the Labour party results in that trade union being expelled by Labour.

I am prepared to wager that the above scenario will remain the case in this so-called Labour reform.

UNITE have a point when they criticise their arch-nemesis Progress for indulging in the same sort of candidate fixing that they are accused of in the Falkirk case. Actually, a glance at any Left labour blogs can provide chapter and verse on the inglorious history of New Labour fixing to purge any candidates with anything other than strict adherence to centre right orthodoxies. Ironic that Falkirk is the seat under the spotlight as the deliberate exclusion of Denis Canavan in the run up to 1999 is the prime example of this so the double think airbrushing of history that the current leadership are hoping to achieve.

All of which leads to the following conclusions;

Firstly with New Labour, supporters of austerity, taking a similar path to the Tory-led Government, why shouldn't trade unions, in this age of multi-party politics not fund campaigns of those seeking political office whose views and values are sympathetic to the Trade Union Movement - SNP, Plaid Cymru, the various Socialist Parties, and indeed Labour candidates. It's tempting to label those as "what's left of the left" in the Labour party, but it's simplistic and trite to label those who support  workers rights, decent working conditions and fair pay as "Left" - but let's leave challenging the language of the right wing media for another day.

Secondly, if candidate fixing is ok for Progress and not the Trade Unions, what legitimate voice and role remains for the trade union movement in todays British Labour Party?

Thirdly, if this is a step to reduce trade union influence (openly admitted by the leadership) then surely it is time for unions to look elsewhere? Members may wonder what precisely their hard earned subs are going toward if unions will carry less influence than a think tank or lobbying firm when looking to advance their cause of protecting jobs and conditions ?

Surely now, more than ever, it is time for trade unions to ditch New Labour.

ITS TIME TO TACKLE TAX AVOIDANCE

The European Commission estimates that the costs of tax evasion are 1 trillion euros a year – more than the combined debts of each EU member’s state.

Let’s consider that shocking statistic for a moment, and reflect that if it were not for tax avoidance or evasion then these times of austerity may not have been necessary.  All the pain and suffering could have been avoided if some unscrupulous companies had acted in a proper fashion.

  For that reason, I support a Financial Transaction Tax in which the money raised in that country goes to the member state.

Tackling Tax avoidance and evasion rather than making some of the poorest in our society suffer through so called welfare reforms should be among the top priorities of the EU.

 

ITS TIME FOR BETTER WORKERS RIGHTS

As someone who started working when Thatcher was Prime Minister the EU was looked upon as the saviour of public sector workers as TUPE provided a degree of protection against Thatcherism, however conversely Europe took a rightward shift.

As austerity has kicked in an assault on workers’ rights has taken place, most notably by an ideological right wing government at Westminster who have removed health and safety protection and cut the statutory redundancy notice period to 45 days.

As casualisation increases the EU need to protect working people in Europe.

We need to create a set of core standards that apply to all workers.  We also need to address the EU Posted Workers Directive to ensure that migrant workers are paid the same rates of pay, thus closing a loophole in which companies choose migrant workers to drive down wages.

 

ITS TIME TO CHANGE PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS

One of the major bugbears for public sector workers and elected parliamentarians and councillors seeking to secure jobs with decent wages and conditions is EU Procurement Regulations.

They must be changed.

My own experiences of these regulations came about in 2000 when the then Scottish Executive outsourced the maintenance of Trunk Road contracts citing EU Rules , and then more recently when Glasgow City Council outsourced its glass recycling service – bizarrely the Council claimed at Committee that this service was not being delivered in-house, only to admit to the Trade Unions that it was months later.

 

 

Both these experiences bitterly exposed the lack of protection of workers transferring from one body to another, and the lack of social clauses of these contracts.  In the recent glass recycling case there was no provision to adhere to the Glasgow Living Wage, making it much easier for a private contractor to claim the contract. 

In addition to this, Both Central and Local Government appear hamstrung to use Procurement to support local economies to strengthen communities, by ensuring contracts are given to local firms.

That’s why I believe Procurement Regulations need to be changed, to introduce social clauses protecting workers, and their wages, and to allow Procurement decisions to be taken in a way that can consider local economic factors.

 

 

Its Time to End Austerity

This will be first of four blogs over the next few days articulating what I believe to be the main issues facing the EU at the elections next year, and where I believe I can play a part as an SNP MEP.

It truly is time to end austerity, why? It has failed.  It has failed to reduce debt, as debt is rising; it has reduced living standards across the continent causing economies to remain stagnant, and has failed to deal with tax avoidance and evasion.  Common sense alone dictates that repeat doses of harsh medicine that obviously isn’t working is certain to maintain the economic malaise afflicting Europe rather than affect a steady recovery.

As STUC research has shown in Scotland 70p in every £ of public money ends up in the private sector economy, I see no difference in that happening elsewhere.

To grow the economy we need investment.  We need the EU to spend in infrastructure across Europe, providing incentives to those receiving that investment to provide jobs, skills and training to young people aged between 16 and 25 years of age.  Youth Unemployment is a scourge in our society which needs to be dealt with.  The Scottish Government rightly invests in Modern Apprenticeships and Europe must use this example.  Youth Unemployment in some parts of Europe is over 50%.  We can provide further opportunities here and abroad to tackle youth unemployment, and provide the infrastructure required to grow the economy.

With Balls and Miliband’s recent U-turns by suggesting austerity will continue, it is left to the Scottish National Party to fight to end austerity measures – and surely now only             Independence can now deliver the real opportunity to deliver a better way and a better society.

Austerity is merely an excuse to drive down living standards and wages, to reduce the states capacity to affect real positive changes to our economies, and to drive us at the mercy of market driven choices.

It hasn’t worked – it’s time for a better way.