A Wee bit more Devo

Sometimes it’s actually possible to feel very sorry for Scottish Labour Party leaders – tonight it was Johann Lamont’s turn to try and defend the indefensible. The position of the Labour party in Scotland has, since the mid-seventies, been reminiscent of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow.  A long bloody struggle to hold a line and eventually retreating in disarray, scattering baggage along the way.  There are those who question the impartiality of the BBC in the independence debate, but Gordon Brewer’s forensic, detailed questioning of Lamont on Newsnight Scotland tonight exposed the fundamental contradictions at the heart of Scottish Labour.

With a few honourable exceptions, the Labour party in Scotland has regarded devolution and the granting of more powers to Scotland as a war of attrition – concessions reluctantly made in the face of nationalist advance, but designed to halt any progress towards full independence, rather than a positive choice to empower and let go of Westminster control.

Every advance towards self-determination for Scotland has been made reluctantly – yes, devolution was enacted by New Labour, but only after a second vote (as if the 1997 Labour manifesto wasn’t really serious) and explicitly promoted as a way to “kill nationalism stone dead”.

From the Hamilton by-election onwards, Scottish Labour has been profoundly disturbed by the notion that anyone other than themselves can represent the Scottish people. Their sense of outrage has only increased over the years, leading to the dismal tribal tenor of what passes for their debate in the run-up to the referendum.

What was exposed tonight was the total incoherence of the Scottish Labour position – do we really think that a further set of “a wee bit more “ devo proposals would have been forthcoming if it wasn’t for the re-election of the SNP government (with a majority) and a pending referendum on independence ? The inability of Lamont to answer whether Labour in Scotland could set higher tax rates without reference to a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer cruelly exposed the fundamental misunderstanding of what real powers for a purpose should look like.  That’s if Labour win the 2015 election – that’s the X-Factor we all are being invited to take a gamble on. Trust us – we did such a great job of addressing inequality the last time around.

What was announced today was the proverbial mish mash of try and please everyone (within the Scottish Labour tribal tent) and end up pleasing no-one. Incoherent, full of inbuilt contradictions (employment law reserved but employment tribunals devolved) , with a vague attempt to present as socially progressive and fiscally redistributive but taking fright at actually stating that a future Scottish Labour administration would really be coming for the wealthy – and in many ways, that’s Johann’s tragedy. She probably does want to be more open about that, but can’t say so as theUK leadership dominated by the Blairite Progress group won’t let her.

Not so much wee things, just a wee bit more.

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 ?

The Level of Debate

The news that ASLEF have showed their hand by formally backing the No Campaign - whilst disappointing, is no surprise given they were already providing financial support.

I am not sure what mechanisms of consultation were used to engage their membership, but I find the claim that not one member will vote for Independence incredibly silly.

Other Trade Unions are correctly taking a longer term view and engaging with their members through the STUC "A Just Scotland" consultation, which correctly challenges all sides of the debate to demonstrate how the options will benefit the lives of working people.

But lets come back to ASLEF.  Simple research uncovers a rather offensive article in their Newsletter last year, where a certain Tom Burns of their Perth Branch wrote in inflammatory terms.

Among the gems of criticism were

(a) no guarantees that the heirs of Queen Elizabeth would be head of state in an Independent Scotland
(b) the stated intentions of multinationals to relocate south of the border - without naming anyone in particular
(c) That Holyrood is a single legislative chamber with no checks and balances - but the devolved parliament isn't a stand alone institution and ignores the ongoing debate about where powers should sit at an even further local level in Scotland
(d) That the SNP Government discriminates against English Students - ignoring legal context
(e) The SNP is anti-English - despite the existence of English born parliamentarians and Government Ministers and activists who are entirely comfortable with campaigning for independence - as it's about the right to self-determination not tribalism

It is of course the prerogative of ASLEF to publish such arrant nonsense, but leaves serious questions as to why such an article would find itself in a Trade Union news sheet, as is the decision to show their hand in the constitutional debate now.

Interestingly the debate within the Trade Unions is beginning to heat up after STUC Congress and UK Conferences due to take place over the Summer.

The Jimmy Reid Foundation also has very useful suggestions, in its new document "The Common Weal", on the type of economic and social renewal that can take place in Scotland - looking at examples in the Nordic and Germanic countries.  Dealing with issues such as Tax reform, welfare, a proper investment bank, and various models of company ownership are just some of the issues which should lead the debate over the next year or so within the Trade Union Movement.

The level of the debate within Trade Unions has the capacity to lead the way, and perhaps ASLEF will regret showing their hand and their arguments so early on - as all it would take to completely undermine their stance is for one single ASLEF member to come forward and express their support for independence.

PULP THE FICTION

Whoever the genius was who inspired the twitter hashtag - #PulptheFiction can take a great deal of satisfaction from this weekends events, as the Referendum debate hots up.

I had the privilege of listening to Dennis Canavan at the Glasgow UNISON AGM Independence Hustings.  At the same time the Better Together were preparing for a big campaign weekend around the issue of stability - the proverbial "don't frighten the horses"  visionless unionist argument. Perfectly encapsulated in the desiccated persona of Alistair Darling.

Only hours later the news that the UK has lost its AAA Credit Rating became public.

I personally support the view of many that the media obession with credit ratings and the Better Together campaign's use of their status as a weapon of choice gives them a validity and credibility that they do not deserve. After all, the judgement of the international global financial institutions they serve is so sound and reliable.... Alice in Wonderland casino economy forecasts are barely worth the ticker tape they're printed on these days. 

In any event, whilst at a Euro Hustings in Ardrossan on Saturday I was advised that the Better Together campaign were handing out a leaflet stating amongst other challengeable assertions -  "Scots save billions on the costs of mortgages due to the UK's credit rating"

Er...unfortunate timing, but perhaps the Better Together crystal ball was a little cloudy when the order went to the printers - remind me again, who's the main economic genius figurehead leading the campaign? Therein lies the Labour contradiction at the heart of their involvement in Better Together - on the one hand arguing that UK PLC delivers stability, certainty, reassurance, on the other hand campaigning as a party against Gideon Osborne and his bunch of Eton chums not being fit to be in charge of the school tuck shop funds...

The official position from the Better Together is that the leaflet being referred to is "one year old".

If this is correct then why.....

(1) Was Better Together 2012 Ltd Incorparated at Companies House on the 1st June 2012?
(2) Was the leaflet distributed in Glasgow Pollok this weekend? (along with Double Agent Ian Davidsons infamous Clyde Yards leaflet - Doom ! Gloom ! Independence will cost you your jobs and a stable future...)
(3) make the claim that the leaflet was one year old and was not being distributed?

As momentum switches so do the questions and the claims.  The politics of this of course are that if the AAA credit rating is a reason for staying in the UK, now that it no longer has this rating why stay? The online gymnastics from the Better Together spin meisters frantically try to say..nothing to see here, move along...
Incidentally is it just me or does an argument for a secure future for everyone and prosperity all round based on endorsing the status quo of global exploitation, greed, mass poverty and inequality seem a bit..odd ?

In closing the over-arching feeling is how does the UK result in stabilty when the arguments have to change every few months?.......