APPROACHES

Most of the major trade unions in Scotland have adopted a positive and sensible approach to the referendum, as have the STUC. This year’s Congress was a real debate conducted in the best spirit of trade union principles – and contrasts significantly with the chaotic contribution of the  Confederation of British Industry. I accept the right of some individual trade unions and the STUC to adopt a position of challenging both sides , whilst welcoming those unions and branches that support a Yes vote.

However todays Communication Workers Union UK Conference decision is disappointing as they have gone down the same cul de sac as the GMB in that their leadership have imposed a line without consultation in exactly the same way as the CBI did – to support a No vote without consulting any of their members.

 The consequences for those trade unions are yet to be seen, but I have heard that individual members are unhappy about a basic tenet of democracy being ignored, and would have wanted to be consulted on this most important of issues – the future direction of our country and the role their trade union intends to take in the campaign. It’s their subscriptions from their hard earned wages which underwrites any campaigning and the leadership “we know best” approach is hardly a 21^st century approach to politics.

So it proved for the CBI - registering of CBI for the No campaign without the basic requisite of consulting its own members was only going to have one effect.  Resignations.  Another part of this however, begs the question as to why so many public bodies were members in the first place.

At the STUC Congress, correctly, the decision was taken to challenge both sides.  This was a genuine engagement, and any trade union who has engaged with their members properly will tell you, that whilst they may have an individual view, they wish the trade union to challenge both sides – exactly the course taken by PCS.

These recent events leave the decision taken by the Communication Workers Union , all the more baffling.  Already on social media, CWU members are signalling their resignations, in what was described only a few weeks ago by the Sunday Herald as a “sham consultation”.  Whilst I would never encourage any member to resign, the feeling of being ignored and not consulted is an anti-democratic practice, which, given the importance of the decision is indefensible.

 The approaches all organisations take in this debate, have consequences no matter the result.  Organisations which have taken a view without consultation may very well find after the 18^th September that they are left behind in determining the next steps on Scotland’s future, due to mistrust, and a feeling that they do not represent the interests of those they claim to.  This calls for open, transparent, and democratic processes – for the sake of their members who deserve better. After all – who would have ever imagined that the CBI and some trade unions would have something in common ?

 

 

 

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.

REPORT FROM CARDIFF

Last weekend I visited the Plaid Cymru Spring Conference, along with SNP Trade Union colleague Ross Cassie (pictured), and it was probably just as well we weren’t there this Saturday after that rugby score. However, am happy to report that despite giving Scotland one of our worst defeats ever, our Celtic Comrades are strongly supporting us in our joint campaign for self-determination!

This was my second visit to a Plaid event having visited Wales six months before the 2007 election, and perhaps it is a good omen that I was down six months before the referendum.

There is always some curiosity between Plaid and SNP members as to why our electoral performances are so markedly different just now.  It was during this recent visit that I began to really appreciate the scale of the task facing our Celtic Comrades.  Just prior to the conference an opinion poll showed that their one European seat is under threat in May, and astonishingly UKIP already have an MEP for Wales.

The stark reality of the struggle hit home when I was addressing the UNDEB (Plaid Cymru’s Trade Union section).   Whilst the majority of Trade Unions in Scotland are fairly neutral towards independence, and many individual members are voting Yes, the feeling in Wales is that TU’s are still firmly embedded in the Labour Party machine. It was a well-attended meeting and I do know that there are many Plaid activists who are trade union members, but who feel that their voices are yet to be listened to by their union leaderships.  I encouraged our Plaid colleagues to keep on arguing the case for alternatives to the Labour status quo, and promote a positive vision as to why their political party – with democratic socialist values- is best placed to represent them in parliament and local government.  For many workers, and public sector workers in particular, pay, terms and conditions are decided in an England and Wales context, which also makes the case for strong local representation. The sense of frustration at the extent of Labour led authorities in Wales implementing Coalition Cuts without much of an attempt to alleviate or fight back was very clear,  It begs the question that although there are cuts that Labour in Scotland are implementing in the councils they run, and a continued squeeze on terms and conditions for our members – how much worse would it be if Holyrood was Labour led as well ?

Another major challenge, which was brought home to me in our discussions, was the in media.  In many parts of Wales, newspapers and other media are London focused, with no Welsh editions of newspapers, and our colleagues were very upfront that the only media coverage about Scotland’s referendum is through Westminster based media eyes.  We should appreciate that despite the many challenges the newspaper industry face, that regardless of their views on Independence, we have a major advantage in a Scottish based newspaper industry and media, that covers political stories from a Scottish angle. Not to mention the journalists and commentators who report without party bias or favour.

We spent many enjoyable hours in the company of the great Welsh Historian Dr John Davies, who remarked that he was quite offended when listening to the radio where it was suggested that should Scotland vote YES, then all that would be left of the UK is England and its “bits” …….John didn’t take too kindly that Wales was regarded as “a bit”. Having written the definitive history and encyclopaedia of Wales, that’s understandable – and I was intrigued to discover that the copies of his works that are held in the Mitchell library are from the late Edwin Morgan’s  collection – both writers of international renown.

Another curious factor, was that the coalition with Labour from 2007 to 2011 may have electorally damaged Plaid in the short term.  Many Plaid activists feel that in that coalition, Plaid taught Labour how to be Welsh, and to drape themselves in the Welsh flag. 

What is clear is that Plaid are supporting Scottish independence, and that a YES vote would be a boost for more powers for Wales.  Plaid Cymru are playing, (correctly in my view) a long game.  This undermines the solidarity against self-determination argument put out by No supporters who keep insisting that a YES vote would be a disaster for other parts of the UK. That argument would have more force if there weren’t alternative voices in both Wales (and England) saying that Yes in Scotland gives an opportunity for an alternative vision for the rest of the UK.  

I really enjoyed the weekend, and strongly believe that there are positive actions for Plaid Cymru to take forward, particularly their trade union section.   A  strong values based campaign saw them handsomely retain the Ynys Mon by-election, the party has a clear democratic socialist vision for Wales, with a popular leader in Leanne Wood and they should take Scotland’s advances as a clarion call for more powers leading to independence. We should be very clear that the Yes campaign has resonance and meaning beyond Scotland’s borders and people are looking to us to provide hope and example. I lost count of the number of times Plaid activists told me to let everyone in Scotland know how important it for Wales that Scotland votes Yes !

So with that – I also look forward to welcoming Plaid activists who fancy a busman’s holiday in Scotland in September…!

 

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 ?

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?.......

Opinions as Facts?

The best piece of advice I ever received from a Senior Trade union lay activist was if you put two lawyers in a room you get at least three opinions.

That should inform any analysis of the carefully primed over-reaction in the press trailing the news that Monday  would be a dreadful day for the Yes Campaign as a definitive report was going to be published telling you Why You Can’t Vote Yes Because Clever Lawyers Will Tell You Independence Will Be Terribly Difficult  And  A Bad Idea.

It now appears that the legal advice received by the Westminster Government is not what they thought it would be – despite being announced in the Ultra Establishment venue of the Signet Library in Edinburgh, with all the subliminal resonance of   “we are your social and intellectual masters who reserve the right to hand down our judgements to the restless natives”…it hasn’t gone entirely according to plan.

14,000 treaties became 8,500 then 14,000 again, and then the leading academic presenting the opinion messed up the battle plan by stating that negotiations to be members of the UN or the EU would not be difficult, and that the Scottish Government’s stated timeline is entirely realistic.

We then ended the night with the risible sight of David Mundell  (fast approaching Ian Davidson double agent territory in his frantic attempts to hang on to his job) , explaining that the Independence Referendum was not about the Treaty of Union as that isn’t relevant.  An argument that even supporters of the Union will find mildly offensive and a woeful and deliberate misreading of history. It’s actually counter-intuitive of the No campaign to imply that Scotland isn’t an equal partner and historic entity in its own right as this flies in the face of one of the few resonant arguments in favour of maintaining the status quo, namely that Scotland is a nation bonded by “choice” to other nations to form the UK, not a subdued or conquered country.  Using the language and adopting the attitudes of colonialism is a sure fire way to get intelligent and thoughtful voters considering if they wish to be governed by people who deploy such simplistic and arrogant arguments.

The issue of whether Scotland is a continuing or successor state, or even extinguished one, is probably where there will be disagreement from other academic and legal experts.

The underlying tone however from the Tory led Westminster Government is one that should be taken to task.  The tone of too wee, too stupid and things will be difficult will not cut much ice with the regular and informed voter.

Important to remember - who makes laws and where do legislators get their mandate from? Are we governed by lawyers or democratically elected representatives whose role is to action their mandate from the people?

 

VALUES AND VISION

It was with a real sense of anticipation that I went to Govan last night to hear Alex Salmond deliver the Jimmy Reid Memorial Lecture.  I worked alongside him and other SNP Trade Union group colleagues to promote our vision for working people and the FM was correct to reflect on his legacy when he  said that Jimmy Reid was one of Scotland’s great political thinkers.
 
The evening started with a peculiar prelude outside the venue of Govan Old Parish Church.  I was handed a leaflet from “Glasgow South West Labour” which attempted to make the case that Independence would inevitably result in shipyard job losses.  The tone was literally “doom and gloom” (words actually used in the text of the leaflet) , asserting that jobs are always safe under the UK umbrella, and anything else will lead to disaster and unemployment.  This alarming assertion flies in the face of reality -  as I know from personal experience. Family and friends have lost their jobs in shipbuilding whilst being continually told that only remaining in the UK protects the industry.  A rather clunky and simplistic message designed to provoke a “No” vote, and more proof of my pet theory that Iain Davidson is an active Double Agent for the Independence movement. The campaigning tactics of fostering fear and anxiety , overlaid with a paternal and patronising tone are the blunt instruments of the last century and conjure up a dismal vision for the future under “ Scottish” Labour.

Inside, I was struck by the thoughtful and considered contribution from the First Minister.  He outlined a compelling case for how Independence can address some of the social ills which blight our country. It was a message that decisions and political choices can either deal with or exacerbate these problems.

I had not quite appreciated that there is a very damning statistic showing that 700,000 working Scots will be adversely affected by the Tory-led UK Governments ideological welfare changes.  Comparing that political cost to the price of replacing Trident brings that stark choice home.

I was also encouraged by his clear promotion of universal provision of health and education, and agree that Scotland is taking a different course from Westminster in this regard. The Scottish government and the SNP has a far more coherent narrative around the benefits of universality, strongly supported by the public. Interestingly, the elements in Scotland that are challenging that consensus are also the parties most active in the “No” campaign – the Tories and Labour. Looking at the erosion of universality and accountable public services south of the border I can only observe that if that is “better together”, then why do many people I speak to ( who aren’t SNP voters )freely state that they value the devolution of some power in Scotland as that’s been a protection against the worst excesses of bank balance led “choices” for health and education. The harsher the rhetoric and crueller the cuts the more it prompts many non political people to wonder whether devolution has gone far enough.

 The key theme for me, was his praise of the Scottish Parliament, and political institutions working with civic society in doing all we can to tackle social ills.  He was clearly advocating the case for Independence in a social justice context , not for economic or emotional reasons but as a route to showing how we can assert our values of common weal,  and action our empathy for  fellow citizens – the real better together in Scotland message.

As the Reid Foundation has stated today on their website - an excellent and fair analysis of the nights proceedings  “Time and again he made the simple point that it is largely the Parliament – not any one government or any one party – which has protected a social model of government in Scotland. “

 

WHY I'M RUNNING FOR EUROPE

Thanks to the support and encouragement from a number of colleagues I am indicating that I’ve been nominated by a number of constituency associations to be considered as one of the six candidates for the European Elections.  It’s a positive sign of the party’s engagement with Europe that a number of colleagues have decided to do the same, and to them best wishes and good luck.
 
I gave this decision a lot of thought, consulting colleagues, as well as the two MEP’s.

I have decided to seek nominations for a number of reasons, and feel that the following issues are where I can make a contribution to the healthy debate we’ll be having about our country’s future in a 21^st century Europe.

Firstly, austerity at home and abroad.  I take the fundamental and principled view that cutting public spending not only increases deficits but harms the private sector economy.  With 70p in every £ of public money going into to the private sector economy, ideological decisions to cut public spending are just plain wrong.  The examples of so-called smaller countries ( I prefer the term normal sized nations), who have dealt with the financial crisis without attacking public spending or welfare programmes is a useful tool to bring into political debate in 2014.

Secondly, I want to ensure the Social Chapter is protected and enhance it if we can.  I have a real suspicion of the Tory led Government agenda – when they say that Europe needs reformed they mean dumping the Social Chapter, as well as EU Human Rights legislation.  The social chapter has improved the lives of millions of working people, and the Tories wish to opt out will only serve to increase short term employment, and a low wage economy.  The example of European Governments who have better employment protection is in stark contrast to Westminster, and the recent move to reduce the statutory notice of redundancy will only make it easier for multinational companies to close UK workplaces, at the expense of those elsewhere.

Thirdly, I feel due to successive UK Government negligence, we need to do more to access EU funds. It is utterly negligent of the UK Government not to apply for funding that can help small and medium size enterprises, and structural funds have helped alleviate long term unemployment – for example the City Centre Rep service in Glasgow.  Indeed our farming communities would benefit by the tune of £150 million in an Independent Scotland.

Fourthly, we have an opportunity to support our current group on reviewing EU procurement rules.  It is correct that clauses should be inserted to allow local and central government to take procurement decisions which would assist their local economies.  This will allow local economies to grow.

This brings me to the last reason.  2014 is the year we determine Scotland’s future, and I believe I can make a contribution articulating why an Independent Scotland in Europe will benefit our fellow citizens, rather than the increasingly insular attitude we see at Westminster.  Political reality says that Scotland will be welcomed with open arms inside the European Community.

I will over the coming weeks share these views further.

OPTIMISM

I have decided to start blogging again, which is now my 3^rd blog.  I have been meaning to do this for quite some time, and have been encouraged to do so by many, though the last catalyst was actually a family member who told me that I should be doing more political writing. Hope you enjoy reading the first effort.  Here goes;

The Scottish National Party has dominated political debate in the last decade culminating in an extraordinary electoral result in 2011.  It had been coming and certainly the runes were there for all to see.  It has been said that 2012 was a bad year for the Party, and whilst there have been a few bumps as should be expected for a party which has been in power for five years, its polling and electoral performance still outstrips that of 2007.

Still firmly camped in the Social Democratic Centre Left in the European tradition, it has not been challenged adequately in the Scottish Parliament from the left, and with a Labour Party fixated in its Cuts Commission, cheered on by the Tories – who are using it to bash the Labour Party in Wales, it doesn’t look like it will be.

The positioning of the unionist parties into sharing the same vision on welfare, the economy, and the role of the public sector opens I believe many opportunities for the Party and the Yes Campaign for Independence.  Rather than different visions of Independence being a hindrance, it exposes the narrowness of the No campaign, and how little can change by being part of the Westminster system.

The Tory led Westminster Government’s efforts on the economy have demonstrated that austerity is a failure, and that rather than growing the economy to cut deficit, cutting public spending is growing the deficit.

The recent proposed changes to redundancy legislation, which cuts the statutory notice to 45 days, will inevitably lead to more unemployment, and a culture of short term employment.  A deregulated labour market will encourage large employers to close operations in the UK, in times of difficulty, as it is easier to sack workers here than elsewhere.

It is my hope that in 2013, the party develops some of the following in its thinking and vision of Independence;

(1) Tax and Economic Growth

A progressive taxation system and a starting point a comprehensive review of all taxation, to help make the tax system fairer and more progressive, with less reliance on regressive taxes.  Alongside this an economic strategy founded on growing the economy, and developing this narrative as an alternative to austerity.

(2) Extending the Social Contract to Non Devolved Areas

As part of the above of course, and moving into areas like employment law, as a means of securing long term employment and encouraging fairness at work.  Some of the strongest economies in the world have better employment rights than the UK.

(3) Regulation

Developing themes of stronger regulation on energy and fuel prices.

(4) Tackling Poverty

The Westminster’s Government’s Welfare Reforms will be disastrous for the poor and disadvantaged, as well as harming the overall economy, as a recent Glasgow City Council paper alluded to.  Tackling poverty and developing policies such as a Citizens Income will contrast positively against the current Westminster thinking.

(5) An International Agenda based on Justice and Peace

The UK Government’s foreign policies in the last decade from entering from entering illegal wars and provide military aid to regimes who have a cavalier attitude to human rights is a disgrace.  Independence provides an opportunity for a different approach, and one based on the protecting human rights.  In Europe, a positive outlook rather than the Tories whose price for staying in will be an opt out of the social chapter, based on fairness and opportunity will ensure Scotland is welcomed into the EU with open arms.

These are of course only my suggestions, and I will play my small part to help develop similar thinking.

All in all, I firmly believe there is a lot to be optimistic about the SNP and the Independence Campaign, into what many consider to be a defining point in the party’s history.