KNOW YOUR PLACE

“My hunch is that poking Scotland in the chest while telling it what it can't do won't help the No's”

Billy Bragg – 12^th February 2014

Considering that’s the view of a passionate, patriotic (in the finest sense of the word) Englishman, it makes you wonder what the reaction among voters in Scotland to George Osborne’s scolding lecture will be in the weeks and months ahead.

The First Minister’s response this week was measured and positive – and although many Scottish voters would be tempted to respond “Aye do you think…” to the “No you can’t” diktat from the unionist parties, he opted for the “Yes, we can” message.

Let’s consider Osborne’s track record as Chancellor and credibility. He promised that the UK would keep its AAA credit rating – failed.  Reduce the deficit? – failed.  We are meant to believe that Mr Osborne is omniscient in economic matters, especially when it comes to the issue of a currency union – and of course, he is guided by the most impartial advice the civil service can provide. A view provided by the mandarins will inevitably incline towards caution, as change is always suspect and the status quo is the default preference at all times.  Was the UK Chancellor correct on this occasion? Let’s consider the report from Professor Christine Bell of Edinburgh University.

“Legally under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for the debt.  The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money.  Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’.   It can be argued that international law does, however, contemplate that on dividing, the two resulting states.”

Some economists have been making dire predictions that Scotland ‘defaulting on the debt’ is irresponsible – and ignoring the  actual response from the Yes campaign which is to set out a reasonable negotiating point – that if assets aren’t to be shared, then why should liabilities?  Why is a Scottish government not allowed to its negotiate in the event of a “Yes” vote ? That, in effect is the position of the 3 main unionist parties – to deny the right of elected representatives to secure the best deal for Scotland in the event of a “Yes” vote – a blatant denial of the democratic right of the Scottish people to determine their own future. “

Just consider what has actually happened last week –  the Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems position as articulated last week is to state clearly and unequivocally that there will be no reasonable negotiations around our joint economic interests  in an attempt to bludgeon voters into voting “No”.

In a nutshell, the Better Together message boils down to – there’s no point in voting “Yes” because it’s not going to work ( because we say so) and there’s no possibility of an alternative future. There’s no such thing as political will, there’s no point in expecting your elected representatives to articulate and fight for the possibility of change and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the political and economic systems in one of the most unequal countries in the western world. The fact that those who are articulating the “no change” message have a personal stake in business as usual as the system has worked very well for them (Westminster MP’s) gives them not a moment’s pause.

I watched the first in the “Scandimania” documentaries last night, where Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall travelled around Norway and expect he’ll be accused of pandering to the “Yes” campaign by showing a small successful country that’s made good use of natural and human resources to support a society that looks fairly decent – not perfect, but sustainable. One of the more depressing aspects of the nay-sayers is the petty sneering at our Scandanavian neighbours whenever the prospect of a different society in Scotland is discussed.

I fully expected the big red panic button to be pressed in the run up to September 18^th, but am curious as to why now – presumably to halt any sense of momentum in the “yes” campaign, but all this has done is give people time to discuss and consider why there is No Future. The conventional wisdom is that negative always beats positive and that fear always beats hope – that’s tired old politics and my next post will be on how that’s the politics of self-destruction for the unionist parties in Scotland who may find they are destroying their own hopes in order to Save the Union. It’s still in the balance for the referendum, but voters will wonder why in future elections should they vote for parties that are insulting their democratic right to express an opinion, and insulting their intelligence at the same time.

 

 

THE RIGHT TURN

As much as I've been entertained by the farcical 500 questions from the Better Together campaign (providing light relief for a holiday weekend) , the matter of the English local elections and their potential significant bearing on Scotland's decision in September 2014 has been the hot topic this weekend.

Two immediate thoughts spring to mind.  Firstly,  on this showing, Labour will not be elected as the next Westminster Government in 2015.  The rule of thumb from considered political experts is that they needed approx 500 gains to be in a position at this stage of the political cycle to be heading in that direction.  Labour gained half that total.

This fact will no doubt worry Labour activists, and will I am sure lead to some debate as to whether they continue the Tory-lite approach favoured by the Westminster Front Bench , or do they start to provide a clear narrative articulating their differences with the Tories? 

Secondly, and perhaps related was that the rise of the UKIP vote demonstrates that Scotland and England are becoming two, distinct, political countries.  As a regular delegate to the UNISON UK Conference, the reaction from Scottish TU colleagues listening to the challenges faced by TU members elsewhere in the UK, is met with support but also relief that some of the attacks facing public sector workers - for example the abandonment of the two tier workforce agreement by the Tory led Government - are not being faced here in Scotland.

Whilst the defeat of the BNP in Burnley is most welcome, the results indicate a move to the right.  The UKIP agenda of playing to prejudice and grievance, of trying to blame someone else for the country's problems rather than the Government plays into the Tories hands.

The sight on Friday afternoon of Simon Hughes of the Liberal Democrats discussing anti-immigration measures is testament to that.

But perhaps the harshest lesson is that the rise of the UKIP vote, and the pandering to it by the Tories, is that the biggest threat to Scotland's place in Europe, is not an Independent Scotland, but by staying in the UK.

Lets consider this, there is no doubt that Cameron will veto measures such as, a financial transactions tax, limits on bankers bonuses, and extensions to social protections. Are these not policies that a Scottish Government and most Scots find favour with?

WESTMINSTER FAIL - WORKERS RIGHTS

Blogging has been lighter than I would have liked with the touring of Constituencies around the country, which I have found enjoyable, and the good camaraderie with the other Candidates.

It is to my complete astonishment that I read this week, that the Labour Front Bench abstained on a vote to remove from 2500 PCS members, the right to strike in Customs and Immigration.

The honourable John McDonnell probably puts it best when he says

"This is the first time in the Labour Movement - the first time ever in the history of the Labour Party - that his party has supported in Parliament the removal of trade union rights for trade unionists"

Had it not been for John McDonnell's intervention the Labour Front Bench would have supported the measure!

News also reaches me that the Labour front bench are likely to abstain in tomorrow's vote on Workfare.

What on earth is going on?

Have we really reached a point for no return where the Labour Party at Westminster now see the rights of workers and Trade Unions as expendable? Are they so cautious and sensitive to accusations of "Red Ed" being held hostage by the unions that they are prepared to sit back and let those self same members who actively support the Labour party (by choice and opt-in)  through the trade union levy go to the wall ?
This is the enduring mystery at the heart of the Labour party - significant sums of money and resource support the party and individual MP's, MSP's, councillors and constituency parties - cheques written from political funds established though the political levy from the wages of many low paid workers. And what exactly do they get in return for all this support - other than warm words ("Comrades .. as a democratic socialist of course I support you..But...) and cool distance when councils set budgets, and parliamentarians cast their vote.

This ideological right wing Coalition Government must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Who do working people support now.

Westminster has failed working people.  If the Government and the main opposition cannot protect workers, then surely only Independence can.

Only the SNP support the removal of anti-TU laws, with the rights of workers to begin on day one of their employment.

Surely now, only Independence can protect workers in Scotland through the European Social Chapter, which the Tories are desperate to ditch.

I would encourage everyone to sign up to Trade Unions for YES - facebook page up and running.

Westminster has repeatedly failed in the protection of working people in Scotland.

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?.......

AN ATTACK ON HEALTH AND SAFETY

Before Christmas the Westminster Coalition sneakily inserted a new clause to the Enterprise and Regulatory Bill which will impact on workers who seek compensation for suffering injury at work.

The clause (Clause 61) was inserted at the Report Stage of the Bill, has not been subject to public consultation, and overturns what has been established law for over 100 years.

Currently regulations under the Health and Safety at Work Act contain statutory duties that ensure employers maintain safe workplaces.  The Westminster Government wishes to remove what is known as strict laibility.  For example as the employee does not have control over the selection, buying or maintenance of work equipment, the employer takes the risk if the equipment injures someone or is defective.

If the proposed change remains it will remove all opportunities for an injured worker to seek compensation from an employer for breach of a statutory duty, and employers will no longer be liable in civil court for breaches of Health and Safety at Work regulations.  The only remedy available will be to prove employer negligence.

The Westminster Governments own impact assessment demonstrates that negligence is more difficult to prove.

The reality of this situation is that fewer claims will be pursued and fewer injured workers will receive compensation, and they and their families will have will pick up the consequences whilst Insurance compnaies will be the gainers.

Compensation is not a prize or bonus for employees, it is simply compensation for injury suffered.  If this proposal is allowed to stand it will be a further eradication of workers rights in the UK, a dangerous, pernicious, and ideological backward step and a signal to bad employers that they have a better chance of getting away with poor health and safety provision. 

This is quite simply a scandalous piece of legislation hidden under the disguise of deregulation.