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?

 

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.

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.