New Nuclear Power? A union debate.

The trade union movement, the British TUC and the STUC, have for many years supported a “mixed energy policy.” In the past this was a mix of coal, oil, gas and nuclear, determined by the various union membership bases. With the demise of the coal industry following Thatcher’s war against the National Union of Mineworkers, coal was dropped from the energy mix and renewables soon became part of the “mixed energy “ line.

It is to the shame of the movement that they only recognised the need to phase out coal as the worst of the fossil fuels in producing Greenhouse Gases after the NUM had been crushed and we were dependent on imported coal to fire up the coal-burning power stations. If the concept of a Just Transition had been understood and applied to the coalfields, we may have avoided the destruction of the coal communities and the NUM could have survived to organise ex-miners in new industries created as part of that Just Transition.  

However, oil, gas and nuclear has remained central to the policy supported by the TUC and STUC, with wind and solar added to the mix. However, many people, and some unions, have opposed nuclear power for reasons related to the waste produced, concerns over security and governments have baulked at the cost of building new nuclear power stations.

Unions like GMB, Unite and Prospect, who have the vested interest of members working in the industry and in the construction sector who would reasonably expect to have seen many unionised jobs wherever a new project was identified, have been amongst the most vocal proponents of new nuclear and of governments committing to the billions and billions of pounds needed for the construction of new plants, their operation and maintenance, their eventual decommissioning and the storage of the waste for hundreds if not thousands of years to come.

They have rejected attempts to change union policy with their voting strength at TUC, STUC and the Labour Party conferences using arguments about protecting and creating more well-paid and unionised jobs (and to hell with the consequences for the future!).

Despite this, successive Scottish governments have adopted a policy opposed to any new nuclear plants. Whilst energy policy is reserved to Westminster, and the current Tory government, with the support of the Labour opposition, are determined to go ahead with new nuclear, the Scottish government can block any such plans with devolved planning powers.

Added to the arguments for nuclear in recent years is that it doesn’t produce Greenhouse Gases and so is a valuable contribution to reaching net-zero. This ignores the huge GHGs created in the extraction of uranium and the huge and devastating environmental damage that causes, and the GHGs produced in the construction of plants, including the massive contribution that the thousands of tons of concrete needed makes.

It also ignores the unanswered question about what to do with the radio-active waste produced that remains highly dangerous for thousands of years.

Of course, the huge climate changes that are happening due to 200 years of fossil fuel burning and the urgent need to stop the use of coal, oil and gas for energy supplies would make all the disadvantages of nuclear power perhaps worth living with. Except there are alternatives in renewables that mean that nuclear is not needed for the future.

However, the unions who represent workers in the industry are happy continuing to be a front for the corporate elites and governments who have a financial stake in profiting from the trillions of public money that is needed to develop and operate nuclear generation. Trillions that are urgently needed now, to invest in renewables, retrofitting and other industries to give us a fighting chance to achieve the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

At the STUC annual conference this month the debate was had again, with the GMB proposing a motion committing to a policy in support of new nuclear and attacking the Scottish government’s “ideological opposition” to it.

I spoke against the motion (text of speech is below) but it was carried with the block votes of GMB, Unite and Prospect, plus a few others, winning over the votes of UNISON, PCS, UCU and RMT, and others. I described such a policy as an “inter-generational injustice.”

Speech to STUC Conference on Motion 4, An Industrial Strategy for Energy to Grow Jobs and Tackle the Cost-of-Living Crisis, moved by GMB and amended by Prospect.

“Motion 4 is based on a false premiss. It suggests that that the cost-of-living crisis can be addressed by new nuclear power.

A possible sub-text is that nuclear could also be an answer to climate change.

Both are wrong.

The cost-of-living crisis – largely a result of the soaring costs of fossil fuels – is here and now.

New nuclear is 10, 15 maybe more, years away, even if the government were minded to agree to it. Which means it is not going to solve the climate crisis either.

Action to reduce the use of fossil fuels needs to be taken now, not in the 15 to 20 years time. And that means that is has to be through the expansion of renewables.

And so, the billions of pounds that the mover of the motion wants to commit to building new nuclear power, that won’t solve the cost-of-living or the climate crisis, needs to be directed towards investing in renewables – wind and solar, yes but also electricity storage, geothermal, biomass, hydro and tidal, all technologies that exist now and and can be used now to replace fossil fuels.

It needs to be directed towards investing in reducing demand for energy through mass retrofitting programmes.

The motion is also wrong in dismissing as an “ideological opposition” what is a perfectly rational opposition to nuclear as a dirty power source.

Dirty in its extraction of the raw materials from the earth, destroying environments.

Dirty in its energy intense construction, and,

Dirty in its production of a waste material that won’t be left for our children to clean up, but for our great, great, great, to the power of 10, grand children to clean up.

And the idea that we should invest in lots of small modular reactors, is another false premiss. Every nuclear plant, large or small, produces that waste. But it also produces a security risk.

A risk of accidents, and we know what a nuclear accident looks like.

A risk of attack. Whether it be in a war or from terrorists.

Risks that will exist for hundreds and thousands of years.

This is an inter-generational, environmental and security injustice, an inter-generational crime being committed that we must not bequeath to future generations.

Oppose the motion.”

UNISON NEC elections- what are we voting for?

The 2023 NEC elections are underway and I am seeking election in the Scottish General Seat. Also standing is Ian Mullen from the Edinburgh City branch.

Ian is a decent union activist committed to supporting members and fighting for better pay. He has been active in his local trade union council and in campaigning against racism. Just like me really!

Ian, however, is standing as part of the Time For Real Change in UNISON slate of candidates. This means, regardless of his personal attributes, he is standing on the record of the TFRC faction on the NEC and will be accountable to that group should he be elected.

I am not standing as part of any faction, either the TFRC or the other factions that are currently organised on the NEC. I stand simply as an independent candidate on the basis of my record in the union, my contribution to the NEC in past years and with a commitment to reflect the Scottish union’s policy at NEC, speaking up for Scottish interests and accountable only to members in Scotland.

So in asking for members to support me, I would say that anyone active in the union in Scotland will know me and the work I have done as Depute Convenor in Scotland, Chair of the Social Work Issues Group, helping to lead our campaign to stop the National Care Service Bill, representing UNISON members on the Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board and leading the union’s response to the challenge of climate change, including representing UNISON at COP26 and COP27. I also played a significant role in organising a campaign to get UNISON’s national conference in 2022 to adopt a position of support for Proportional Representation at Westminster elections, something that had a large bearing on the Labour Party then adopting that policy.

I have also, as part of the Scottish Local Government Committee, been involved in developing strategy and tactics for our pay campaigns in recent years which have successfully delivered strike action and improved pay deals. I would highlight that Scottish Local Government members have consistently had better pay deals than colleagues down south over recent years.

My branch in South Lanarkshire was one of only 9 out of 32 that was able to deliver a positive vote for strike action last year. Given that I am in a ballot with Ian, I think it reasonable to point out that Ian’s branch, Edinburgh City, did not. South Lanarkshire’s vote was not solely down to me, just as Edinburgh failing to get the vote was not solely Ian’s responsibility. However, in any discussion about how we fight for better pay, my contribution, in ideas and in action, compare favourably with anyone.

As an aside, it is ironic that the two candidates from local government branches standing for election to the Scottish seats under the TFRC slate  are from branches that were not able to deliver a strike vote last year whereas both Lorraine Thomson and I, who they are standing against, come from branches that did deliver strike votes. The TFRC faction argue that the union needs more strike action but stand candidates who don’t deliver against candidates that do!

Time For Real Change candidates are standing on the record of their majority on the NEC over the past 20 months. Their election material boasts of decisions taken by the NEC, as if they were the only ones who supported them. In fact the key achievements they claim were supported by more than just the TFRC people. Doubling strike pay, creating a £1 million energy support fund, the Branch Support and Organising Fund, were supported by most members of the NEC.

The fact that they describe themselves as TFRC members of the NEC rather than describing themselves as representing their constituency is one indication of how they see themselves as representing their faction and not all members.

What their election material does not describe are the many mistakes that they have made as they attempted a “transfer of power.” I believe power in the union rests with members and those that they elect, shop stewards, branch officers, NEC members and the General Secretary, sharing that power, rather than being the property of one faction.

Those mistakes include pushing through major changes against legal advice resulting in a motion of no confidence in the NEC at conference. They alienated many when they attempted to overrule the rights of the self-organised groups and excluded all NEC members from the devolved nations from any of the key positions on the NEC. They supported a candidate for General Secretary and then President who was the subject of complaints and then attempted to prevent these being put to a hearing by abusing their control of the union machinery, which also led to votes at conference going against them. They packed all of the committees and installed as chairs and vice-chairs only their own supporters, excluding the talents of others on the NEC.

Change was indeed needed in UNISON, and more is still needed, and I was happy to support some of the proposals the majority faction put forward but by acting in a entirely factional basis and failing to build support for these changes through discussion and debate, they delayed or made those changes more controversial than they needed to be. It also allowed others who had previously been in the majority and were/are resentful of losing that position, and now operate as an opposition faction, to build support for obstructive behaviour and their own factional opposition.

The other faction that exists on the NEC is the very small Socialist Party faction who broke from TFRC over the issue of the candidate for General Secretary.

An issue that I feel strongly about has been ignored over the past couple of years. That is the lack of real member involvement in the union. Ballot results remain pitiful with few national ballots achieving the 50% turnouts need for strike action. The small numbers who participate in the election of the General Secretary and the NEC has never been seriously discussed.

In short, TFRC have been ineffective as agents of real change and have stoked up divisions in the union rather than building strength around the radical ideas for improving the union that are needed and which they sometimes advocate.

The performance of the opposition faction has not been any better as they have focussed their efforts on trying to undermine TFRC rather than putting forward constructive ideas for taking the union forward.

Actually, some real changes have taken place in the union that are nothing to do with TFRC, or indeed their factional opponents. Policy on Climate Change has been developed and the union can claim to be one of the most progressive in this area. I played a significant part in achieving that. The UNISON College has been launched giving access to training for members, an initiative of the General Secretary. We have fought effective pay campaigns in Scotland, in both local government and health, and delivered effective strike action in Northern Ireland, both areas where TFRC have little influence.

So as members consider who to vote for in the NEC elections, the less than 5% of members who do actually vote, I hope that some of them will consider not only who they are voting for but also what they are voting for.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The full list of candidates standing in the Scottish Seats is below. Where they indicate they are standing as a slate, this is listed.

Female Seats (2 seats)

Maggie McGuire Dundee (TFRC)

Lorraine Thomson Stirling

Davena Rankin Glasgow Caledonian University

Mary McCusker UWS (Socialist Party)

General Seat

Stephen Smellie South Lanarkshire

Ian Mullen City of Edinburgh (TFRC)

Male Seat

Jim McFarlane Dundee (Socialist Party)

Andrew Verrechia Fife Health

Reserved Seat (Low Paid Female)

Lyn Marie O’Hara Glasgow City elected unopposed

Democracy in action or inaction? UNISON’s NEC election

UNISON members will soon be voting, starting on 17 April till 19 May, in the elections for a new NEC. Actually, if past turnouts are anything to go by, only a very small minority of UNISON members will be voting. Around 5% of members actually voted last time round. That should be a major cause of concern to anyone standing for election to the NEC but it is seldom an issue that gets discussed. I suppose if you are elected on such a small turnout and have been able to mobilise enough of your friends, cronies and comrades, with the support of a factional group dedicated to getting only its supporters elected, then it isn’t really a problem for you.

I am standing for the NEC and I think it is a problem. Not a problem just for UNISON, but for most trade unions, where members seldom participate in the democracy of their organisations.

Getting members to actually vote is often only discussed when it comes to industrial action ballots where, by law, we need 50% of members in any group being balloted to actually vote before a majority vote for a strike can be enacted. Significant resources, staff and activist time, are devoted to get members to return a ballot paper. Workplace visits, regular emails, phone banking, are all employed to get a 50% turnout.

When it comes to an election for the leading body of the union, the NEC, or a General Secretary, no where near the same effort is made. Is that because the democratic processes of the union are less important than getting a strike result? Possibly. Strikes tend to be about issues that are of immediate importance to members.

However, I believe, in the long run the democratic engagement of members deciding who the union leaders are, is crucial to the health of the union and its ability to represent the interests of its members.

How do we improve the situation? Well we need to do more than the occasional email to members and an article in the union journal telling them about the election. Members should know in advance and be reminded that an election is coming up. Union leaders should be seen in workplaces, on social media and wherever else they can be seen, encouraging members to use their vote.

Branches should be engaging with members, using their newsletters and Facebook pages, explaining why it is important to vote. Of course those branches who have a vested interest in supporting one candidate or another will make an effort to rally support for their preferred candidate. That isn’t enough. They should be encouraging members to vote for ANY candidate!

Shop stewards, the contact point with the union for most members, should understand why this is important and impress on their members to look out for the ballot paper.

Of course in a UNISON election, members receive a thick wodge of papers with an array of candidates to choose from, for several constituencies. In Scotland we have 5 Scottish seats (one is uncontested) with other parts of the UK having less, up to 5 Service Group seats, 4 Black Members, 2 Disabled Members and 2 Young Members Seats, with at least 2 candidates for each seat. That is at least 36 electoral addresses to read before deciding who to vote for. How many trees do we destroy to send these out to our 1.3 million members? Of course few members will read these and rely on being advised by branches, or the shop stewards, who they should vote for. And of course, they will generally advocate for their preferred candidates and won’t themselves know all the candidates or read all the election addresses.

The legal requirement that NEC elections are postal is also a problem and that needs to change to allow workplace or online systems to be used. But there might also be a case for saying we need fewer constituencies. Could the Black, Disabled, and Young Members elected onto the NEC not be elected separately, by just Black, Disabled and Young Members? I am neither Black, Disabled or Young, so why should I get to vote on who should represent these members on the NEC?

That is a discussion that the new NEC might want to have, although I doubt it. Unless we elect someone who will make a point of raising this on the new NEC?

In the meantime, I urge all UNISON members to vote in the NEC elections. I urge all activists to make a point in speaking to their members and encouraging them to use their vote to elect the leadership of their union. It is democracy in action and I believe the more democracy, the better.

Proportional Representation for Westminster?

The debate on whether we should change the method of electing the Westminster government to a form of Proportional Representation is stepping up. There is a strong possibility that the Labour Party conference later this year will support the policy and trade unions and other organisations are debating this. My own union, UNISON, is likely to debate the issue at our National Delegate Conference in June. This blog is a contribution to that.

Would PR mean progress?

The debate as to whether Proportional Representation (PR) is a fairer system of electing a government is not really a debate. It is obviously a fairer system where political parties are rewarded with seats in parliament in proportion to the votes they get in the election.

The Tories are in government in Westminster with a majority of seats able to implement whatever policies they want when they only received 43.6% of votes.

In 2015 the Tories formed a government with just 37% of the vote. In no post-war election has the party that formed the government received over 50% of votes. The only time a government had a majority of votes was when the LibDems joined the Tories in a coalition in 2010.

So, in every election the current First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system produced an unfair outcome, giving a party a majority of seats in Parliament with a minority of votes.

Anyone who is a democrat would say that is wrong.

But would a system of Proportional Representation give us different and, from a Left perspective, more progressive governments? By more progressive I mean almost anything except the Tories! Although I would note that the Tory/LibDem Coalition government from 2012 was not progressive, although it was probably less reactionary than a majority Tory government would have been.

In the 2019 election, parties to the left of the Tories, that is Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance Party, received a combined 52.2% of votes. A clear majority to the left of Boris Johnson’s Tories. However, it is the Tory policies of selling off the NHS, imposing austerity style restrictions on public spending and keeping the wages of public sector workers down, even taking us into war to divert attention from party-gate scandals, if they want, that we are on the receiving end of.

In fact, in every election since 1945 parties to the left of the Tories always got more votes except in 1955 when the Tories got 50% of the vote and yet they have been in government 60% of the time.

Does that mean that we could have avoided a Tory government more often than we did and could have had a progressive government made up of Labour, LibDems, Greens and Nationalists? The answer is clearly Yes. If, in those circumstances, those parties were willing to work together. With Labour being by far the biggest party in any such coalition, it is almost certain that we would have had more progressive governments in the 80s onwards.

It is worth thinking about what that might have meant. No anti-trade union laws that have done so much to weaken working class people’s ability to fight for decent wages and resist cuts. No, or at least fewer, privatisations of energy, telecommunications, Post Office and water companies. Greater investment in the NHS and Education. More consistent policies to address child poverty. More effective action on climate change.

However, we don’t need to imagine what could-have-been. We can look at the international evidence. Countries who use a form of Proportional Representation when electing their national governments tend to be more equal. Studies which identify those countries with better income equality show that out of the 35 OECD countries the best 14 use PR. The UK comes in way down at no. 29 in the list and of the countries that are higher than the UK, only France (15), Canada (20) and Australia (24) don’t use PR. Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, and all the others use PR.

This however only tells a part of the story. In a FPTP system people don’t always vote for the party they support. Instead, they vote for the party who are most likely to beat the party they like least. So, 100,000s of Labour supporters vote LibDem to try and stop the Tories getting elected. In a PR system voters could vote for those parties that best reflect their own values and support the policies they are in favour of, in the knowledge that their vote will be counted.

When opinion polls tell us that there is a large majority for rail to be re-nationalised and to stop the privatisation of the NHS and for social care to be run for public good not private profit, PR would enable people to vote for those parties who would put forward these progressive policies and expect, where those parties get a majority of the votes, to get a government that would implement those progressive policies.

So, PR would not only be a fairer electoral system but would be likely to produce better and more progressive governments.

12 March 2022

UNISON president sacked – now what?

UNISON President, Paul Holmes, has been dismissed by his employer Kirklees Council. The grounds for dismissal seem to be related to complaints raised about his conduct by members of staff, some of whom, at least, are members of UNISON.

The Council have taken over 2 years to arrive at this decision. That is a disgrace.

A complaint against Paul has also been made within the union and as a result he was suspended by the union pending an investigation. The suspension was recently lifted by a decision of the Chair of the union’s Development and Organising Committee (D&O). It appears that during that 2 years the union did not begin the investigation, possibly awaiting the outcome of the employer’s process. That is also a disgrace.

The nature of these employer and union processes, where the complainants and the person being investigated are not allowed to discuss the case, has meant that details of the complaints have not been known. Until recently I was unaware of any of the details of the case and do not know any of the members who have made complaints.

Therefore, I have not commented on the case. It has not stopped other people from commenting.

On one side supporters of Paul, organised in the union around the Time For Real Change (TFRC) faction, have claimed from early on that this was a witch-hunt of a militant trade union leader who was a thorn in the side of the right-wing Labour council with a right-wing union leadership happy to collude with this. Support for this view has been given from prominent left politicians and senior trade unionists from other unions.

On the other side, including some NEC members, some anonymous social media postings and from within the Socialist Party activists in the union, as reported in the SWP’s newspaper, this was about complaints of bullying and harassment against women activists and staff members. In more recent months some details have been published in local newspapers and covered on the BBC.

Until now, as far as I am aware, Paul and the people who made complaints against him have not publicly commented on the case. Now he has been dismissed it is open season.

Before I comment further, I would point out that Paul has the right to appeal the dismissal including taking his case to an Employment Tribunal. As a UNISON member he has the right to expect to be supported in his appeal and for the case to be assessed for legal support in relation to an ET.

The members who have complained about him are also entitled to be supported by the union.

In my opinion, it appears that both Paul and the members who complained have been let down by the union. I understand both were supported during the employer’s processes. To what extent I do not know. However, the decision not to proceed with the investigation within the union was wrong. No member should be suspended for 2 years pending an investigation and no member who makes a complaint against a union officer should have to wait 2 years for their complaint to be investigated.

Such delays put enormous pressure on the people concerned. Such delays allow and encourage speculation, innuendo, and rumours to circulate. Such delays call the union into disrepute.

The nature of the complaints, that are now known, are of concern. Unions and political parties in recent years have been rocked by allegations of bullying, misogyny and general inappropriate behaviour towards women by men. Lessons should be learned from these episodes but, seemingly, not in UNISON nor in the TFRC faction.

The women making complaints need to have the support of the union and feel supported. That means their complaints need to be investigated properly and timeously. The man being complained about is entitled to be supported and allowed to present his version of events and for these to be considered properly. Options to resolve issues should be explored if possible. A conclusion needs to be reached within a reasonable time frame.

Paul Holmes is entitled to defend his position against the allegations made against him within the processes of his union.

His supporters in TFRC should not have ignored the seriousness of the allegations. In my opinion he should not have stood for General Secretary whilst this was going on. He should not be a public representative of UNISON whilst this is going on. And TFRC should not be organising rallies in his support based on the claim that it is all a witch-hunt of a left-wing activist by a right-wing union and Labour Party officials. To do so demeans the women who have made the allegations.

There is no doubt that Paul has enemies in the union who will be delighted he has been sacked. This includes people who also have no regard for the women who made complaints against him.

We, as a union, have a mess on our hands that is of our own making and which people in the senior levels of the union over the past 2 years have created by not dealing with the original issues in the branch and then at a national level. Senior activists, now in leading national positions, are making matters worse by attempting to use their factional majority on the NEC and Committees for factional gain and in defence of Paul with no regard for the processes that should be in play and for the people involved.

What is going on in UNISON’s NEC?

I should quickly answer- I don’t know!

Last week there were the scheduled meetings of the NEC sub-committees of Finance and Staffing. I am not a member of either so can’t give any first-hand accounts. However there have been statements issued by the group Time For Real Change (TFRC) and by a number of NEC members not affiliated to that group. The General Secretary has also written to NEC members to say that the Staffing Committee was cancelled, as was the meeting with the staff trade unions. 

What seems to have happened is that at the Finance Committee an issue was raised where the Chair reported that he had asked for details of payments made to NEC members to cover their release from their jobs. The overall costs of this were provided but not a breakdown of which NEC members were involved and how much this was for each. Staff advised that they could not release names or the costs of each as this would be a breach of GDPR.

There then followed a disagreement and, allegedly a staff member was told that they would be disciplined if they did not release the information requested. This led to staff withdrawing from the meeting.

The Staffing Committee meeting due to take place the following day was then cancelled by the General Secretary as no staff would attend. She has reported that she is trying to arrange meetings with the Presidential Team and staff trade unions to try to resolve issues.

The Chair and Vice Chair of the Staffing Committee were, apparently, not consulted about this and they decided to proceed with the meeting without staff being present.

In this meeting they put forward proposals that current vacancies for Assistant General Secretaries and Regional Secretaries (including the Scottish Secretary) should not be filled till a proposal that they should be elected positions be considered by the NEC and then the National Delegate Conference.

I accept there may be inaccuracies in the details above but that is what I think has happened.

These events are against a background where the TFRC faction on the NEC, who gained a majority at the NEC elections last year, have been pushing through changes to the way the union’s NEC operates to effect the Real Change that they stand for. As I have written before, exactly what these real changes are, have not been clear, either in their election material during last year’s NEC election campaign, nor since.

However, one by one, proposals have been unveiled and presented as proposals which are then agreed by the majority at the NEC or sub-committees.

These latest proposals, of which no-one outside the TFRC faction were consulted on or asked for an opinion on or even given pre-warning of, are the latest to cause controversy and generate great heat.

Before the past week’s events the actions of TFRC and the decisions their majority have taken have caused considerable kick back. Several Regional Councils, including Scotland, have passed motions condemning the NEC for its actions, a number the National Self Organised Groups have raised concerns at the lack of diversity in the appointments to NEC positions and the perceived attempt to not allow the SOGs to nominate the members to represent them at TUC conferences and committees. The have also enraged some senior staff members with talk of discipline if they do not carry out instructions.

Alongside these controversies is the long running saga of the TFRC appointed President who was suspended from the union for near 2 years. While suspended he ran for General Secretary and received around 30% of the votes cast and was re-elected onto the NEC in the male Local Government seat. His suspension was recently lifted by a decision of the Chair of the Development and Organising Committee, as per the adoption of the controversial motions. What he was suspended for and what charges were levelled against him, I do not know, although there seem to be plenty of people who claim they do know!

The suspension being lifted, the President was able to chair the last NEC meeting. I missed most of the meeting due to other commitments, but he did a competent job in chairing the meeting.

He has also been suspended by his employer and faces possible dismissal. Again, I know nothing of the charges he is facing but, again, many other people seem to. Some claim it is a witch-hunt against a trade unionist whilst others say the complaints made by UNISON members regarding his conduct may justify the possibility of dismissal.

(Note: this was written before the President was dismissed by his employer)

If he is dismissed, he can apply for unemployed membership and that can be approved by the NEC. This would allow him to continue as President and NEC member whilst he appeals against the decision. Rather strangely the Vice-President announced that if he is dismissed, his application for unemployed membership will be approved. This without consideration of what he is to be, or may be, dismissed for. I find that strange. Not that this is what is likely to happen, but that the Vice-Presidents should announce so boldly that this was their intention, no matter what the case is. They added to the consternation by saying that any member of staff who sought to block this would be disciplined. This was interpreted by staff as a bullying threat. The VP’s statement was, wisely, withdrawn and not voted on at the NEC.

When TFRC members (I am assuming they are members of the faction which is operating quite openly as a ‘party’ within the union – as an aside, I would like to know what the membership conditions are and what forms of accountability and democracy they apply) called for Real Change they were not clear what they meant or intended.

Some of the proposals they have put forward are, to me, not unreasonable but they were not part of any published manifesto. Their election statements were vague and populist. They stood for change in the leadership, for fighting back against austerity and so on.

They did not say that they were for fewer women and black members in leadership positions. Or for undermining the role of the Regional Convenors group or the Self Organised Groups. Or for pre-judging the outcome of investigations and hearings. Or for disciplining staff for refusing to breach GDPR legislation. Or for usurping and undermining the role of the elected General Secretary.

All of these things they have been accused of doing.

My observation is that they have so far been incompetent and insensitive in how they sought to bring about change. They are relying on the fact that they have a majority and so can do what they want. Without needing to persuade others who are not in their faction and sometimes without even bothering to learn how things work.

The recent issues are a case in point.

It has been known that some NEC members, for some time, have been getting their wages paid by the union. This may be justified as the employer may not have been willing to grant the amount of time that senior elected activists need to be able to fulfil all of the tasks asked of them. However, there are risks in this. The NEC member is then accountable not to their employer, or their branch, for their time, but to the union officials who pay the wages. They are now, potentially, a paid servant of the union official. This is especially the case when other NEC members are not advised of who is getting paid and who is not. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask for some transparency on this issue.

However, prior to this week, I as an NEC member was not aware that this longstanding arrangement was being challenged or that it was even being questioned. Demanding the release of what is personal information covered by GDPR, and threatening staff who say they cannot do this, is stupid. The issue should be discussed, and the practice considered openly. Who is currently involved, and how much each individual might be costing the union, is not the point. Discussing whether we want this practice to continue and how it might be done in a more transparent way, perhaps with agreed criteria, is entirely justified. Threatening staff with discipline and provoking a possible dispute with the staff trade unions is not.

The issue discussed at the Staffing committee, the election of senior officials rather than their appointment, is a legitimate issue to raise. I think motions to NDC in the past have been ruled out of order as staffing matters were not to be discussed. That always begged the question, how do we discuss such a proposal? What are the pros and cons of such a proposal?

I am not sure whether putting a motion forward to the NEC, voting it through with the majority they have, and putting it to the NDC is the best way to take the issue up. Some folk with longer memories believe the issue has been discussed previously at NDC and not supported. If this is true then the proposal that the NEC put forward a motion, contrary to NDC policy, is itself problematic for a union that believes conference is sovereign. The NEC has agreed to the Staffing Committee recommendation that there be a review of staffing. That would be a process where this issue, amongst many more, could be openly discussed and debated. Attempting to reach a consensus is usually a good way to proceed, developing understanding, building bridges before forcing your view through and creating opposition and resentment.

I have said before, the task of a faction that purports to be of the ‘Left’ and seeking to bring about change for the benefit of the union membership, and not simply their own interests in gaining and holding power, is to build support for their ideas and policy options. TFRC are in such a hurry to take power in the union that they don’t seem to want to give anyone else time or space to voice their opinion, or to develop working partnerships with those other activists, and staff members, who are sympathetic to the general idea that Real Change is needed.

For the record, no-one in TFRC, nor anyone from the faction that previously held the majority on the NEC, or any member of staff was consulted on the contents of this article or sought to influence it. I would venture that very few of them will ever read it!

Old disagreements over nuclear power at the TUC

This year’s TUC conference is online due to the continuing concerns over Covid and this means far fewer motions will be discussed with far fewer opportunities for speakers to contribute to debates. It also means that it is unlikely that any Emergency Motions will be heard meaning the UK trade union movement misses out on the opportunity to be seen to be discussing current issues such as the latest IPCC report on climate change, the lessons from Afghanistan or the anti-women legislation in Texas.

Lack of debate isn’t new at the TUC. Most trade unions agree on 99% of issues and so it is quite usual for motions to be agreed with no opposition. However, there are some issues that regularly cause a division. In recent years the question of how trade unions respond to climate change has been one of these.

It is not too long ago that some in the union movement dismissed warnings of climate change as the concerns of middle-class environmentalists. (‘Middle-class’ is a common dismissive insult in unions designed to portray arguments as being against the interests of trade union members, workers or ‘the class.’ Often this form of dismissal is used by highly paid union officials whose standard of living and lifestyle is somewhat divorced from that enjoyed by the majority of the union members who pay their wages. However, that is a different issue.)

This has led to differences relating to the expansion of airports (future jobs versus increased emissions, air pollution and environmental damage); the winding down or expansion of exploration for fossil fuels in the North Sea (current and future jobs versus the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground to achieve the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming below the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels); and whether the concept of a Just Transition to a low or zero-carbon economy meant business as usual until every gas worker has a guaranteed equivalent job to move to or an expansion of new low-carbon industries with investment shifting from the carbon-intensive industries to the new sectors.

These debates continue but gradually, and not fast enough, the understanding of the threats that global warming and climate change, that is already happening, pose to jobs, health and life have grown and been accepted and with it the need to fight for governments to develop meaningful Just Transition economic policies covering energy, manufacturing, transport, agriculture, public services and other sectors.

This issue, and the differences in approach, are captured in Composite Motion 2 supported by GMB, Prospect, Unite, Community, Aslef and FDA but will be opposed by UNISON and PCS.

The motion uses the language of the Climate Change and Just Transition movements to highlight the “gravest threat currently facing humanity,” rightly decries the failure of the UK to properly plan to address this, highlights the importance of both an internationally co-ordinated response and domestic measures to create a greener economy with union environmental reps having a important role, and reflects the particular membership interests of the unions involved. So, concerns about de-carbonising steel production, increasing the use of rail for freight transport, developing hydrogen to replace fossil fuel gas, using public sector procurement to protect jobs in the UK, are all included.

Whilst these are genuine concerns and those unions are right to raise them, there has been a tendency with some to, effectively, argue for business as usual until a future date. Until some technological solution arises, or Government action produces lots more jobs. Not so much Climate Change Deniers as Climate Change Action Delayers.

The Composite fails to mention the critical issue of ownership. The energy, steel, manufacturing and rail industries are all privately owned by capitalist shareholders whose interest in climate change is secondary, at best, to their primary concern of making a profit. As has been outlined by the likes of TUED (Trade Unions for Energy Democracy), energy companies only address the needs of addressing climate change when governments pay them public money to do so through subsidies or through allowing consumers to pay higher energy bills for greener investments. Steel and manufacturing companies expect the state to finance research and investment into low carbon processes so that they can continue to make profits.

The motion, in an amendment from Unite, calls for support for developing low carbon heating with ‘green’ and ‘blue’ forms of low-carbon hydrogen and investment in the production of these. Hydrogen is critical for the future heating needs of homes. ‘Green’ is produced through using renewable electricity to release the H from H2O (water). However, ‘blue’ is produced from methane, producing CO2 as well as H. The faith in Carbon Capture Storage technology is not shared by some who point out that this makes ‘blue’ hydrogen another fossil fuel rather than a zero-carbon fuel.

However, ‘green’ hydrogen production will require several years of further expansion of wind and solar electricity supplies before sufficient amounts are available to produce the amounts of ‘green’ hydrogen needed and so ‘blue’ is seen as a short-term answer to allow the hydrogen option to be developed, replacing the use of gas in the supply networks.

The opposition to the motion relates to the call to support and campaign for a new generation of nuclear plants, including the development of Smaller Modular Reactors.

Support for nuclear power is voiced by those unions with members currently employed in the industry who point out that the current nuclear power stations are approaching the end of their life. Nuclear is currently a critical component of the UK’s energy supply.

However nuclear power is one of those issues that have consistently been opposed by other trade unions concerned about the safety of the industry, concerns about the security of nuclear sites faced with potential terror threats and the fact that no safe and sustainable systems have yet been devised to deal with the highly radioactive waste products that remain highly dangerous for thousands of years.

Nuclear power has been proposed by some as the answer to how we remove fossil fuels from our energy supply. Leaving aside the carbon footprint of the construction of nuclear plants, it does not produce climate warming emissions. However, it is alternatively argued that the time taken to build new nuclear capacity can be up to 15 years, more if faced with significant local opposition (which they almost always are) and prolonged planning processes and appeals. The enormous cost of construction would be far better used in expanding the provision of wind, solar, hydro, tidal and other forms of renewable energy which would be brought on-stream much quicker and therefore start addressing climate change sooner.

Another concern about nuclear power expansion, not one that trade union opponents raise, is the view that the expansion of nuclear power makes it more likely that nuclear weaponry will be developed. This is less a concern in the UK which already sources its nuclear weaponry from the USA but is often raised in relation to other nations that are deemed to be either less compliant to Western concerns (Iran or North Korea) or less stable with the increased risk of both accidents and of their use in regional wars.

UNISON has been a leading union in recent years in championing the Climate Change agenda and promoting Just Transition policies. Composite 2 contains much that is consistent with our campaigning. However, UNISON has consistently opposed the development of new nuclear plants, including the new Sizewell nuclear plant which was the subject of debates at previous TUC conferences.

The risks, the unanswered issue of what to do with the waste, the costs, and the diversion of billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money into nuclear investment away from renewables, outweigh any potential contribution that a new generation of nuclear would make to the battle against climate change, which, as the motion says, is the gravest threat currently facing humanity.    

Welcome to Congress 2021 | TUC

Uniting for change in UNISON?

3 days ago  Scottish Left Review 120 Views  4 min read

Stephen Smellie gives personal reflections on UNISON’s newly elected national leadership.

Glaswegian Christina McAnea was elected as general secretary of UNISON, the first woman to lead one of the big unions. Leither Gary Smith was elected as GMB general secretary. In UNITE, Sharon Graham was elected as the ‘left’ change candidate. The election of a general secretary does not in itself change anything, although electing a woman in such a senior position does make a significant change to how a union looks and how it reflects its membership. Time will tell if any of the victors implement significant change.

However, leadership of our unions does not rest exclusively with general secretaries. The national executive bodies of lay representatives share that leadership. Therefore, the outcome of the recent election of UNISON’s national executive, where the majority elected had aligned themselves to a grouping who had supported Paul Holmes, runner-up to McAnea, has prompted much discussion and, in some quarters, expectations. To her credit, McAnea made it clear that she would work with the new NEC, respecting the lay democracy of the union.

This grouping stood under the slogan of ‘Time for Real Change’ (TfRC) and are clearly of the ‘left.’ However, claims that this was a victory for ‘the Left,’ made by several ‘Left’ commentators, as if the election was a competition between ‘left’ and ‘right’ groups, is simplistic and the truth more complicated. The TfRC group consists of activists from the left of Labour allied with SWP supporters. Socialist Party supporters were not included, having disagreed over the choice of the ‘left’ general secretary candidate. Nor were supporters of the other candidate, Roger McKenzie, the now departed Assistant General Secretary, who had Corbyn’s support. Nor were several ‘left’ NEC members who supported McAnea.

The TfRC group won most NEC seats and had put itself forward as championing genuine change. With others, there is now a significant majority on the NEC who would represent ‘left’ views. Previously, the NEC was dominated by another, slightly looser, grouping who were supportive of previous general secretary, Dave Prentis. They were steadfast in ensuring that only those loyal to ‘Team Dave’ were allowed access to positions of power and influence within the union. Those outside the TfRC group, who shared some of its aspirations for change, both with some of the internal workings of the union and in the style and vigour of the union’s campaigning, were hopeful that a more open leadership would emerge that would refresh the organising challenges UNISON faces.

Genuine change can take time and anyone claiming to implement it can only be judged by their actions. Whether changes are contributing to the strengthening of a ‘left’ agenda will be judged by the details, the values they represent and whether they empower members in workplaces, address inequalities and create a stronger union. Progressive changes have already taken place, before the new NEC was elected, with the recent annual conference voting for changes to increase the funding of branches and regions.

A challenge for any grouping winning a union election is whether they can broaden their support, bring people on board with their aims and provide leadership rather than fighting off opposing factions to protect their own newly won positions. This is particularly a challenge for those who seek to implement change and face resistance to changing how things are done.

The definition of who is ‘left’ is open to debate and is often, unfortunately, narrowly construed to mean not those who uphold clear socialist values and principles but, those who support one faction or candidate. This factional approach relegates values and principles as less important. It also narrows the base of support to carry through changes based on clear values and principles.

In UNISON, there is recognition of the long struggles to recognise and challenge racism, to challenge the male domination within unions, to create political and bargaining devolution and to promote diversity. A genuine ‘Left’ agenda would always reflect these issues.

Therefore, concerns have been raised at the first actions of the new NEC was to appoint male NEC members as President, and then as Chairs of 5 out of 7 of the main committees. That is quite an achievement considering UNISON’s rules not only ensure a 2/3 female NEC but that the team of a President and two Vice-Presidents must include 2 women and that the chairs and vice-chairs must include a woman. None of these key positions are filled by black members and none of them are from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. UNISON’s lay representatives on the TUC General Council are now all white. So, UNISON’s new lay leadership, drawn from the TfRC group, is white, male dominated and English and to be fair, that is genuine change but hardly the kind of progressive change expected of a ‘left’ leadership.

This gives the impression that diversity and issues of gender, race and devolution are not important. This has created divisions within the union over these issues. From a Scottish perspective, it raises questions as to the relevance of the NEC to Scottish members when there is no representation in senior positions, including no Scottish members on the crucial Finance Committee, when most of the bargaining agenda is within wholly devolved Scottish structures.

Though it is not likely that this was the impression the TfRC intended and it does not reflect the politics it has espoused. The challenge for the TfRC is to move on with building a broader base around a ‘left’ agenda, embracing other views and perspectives, enshrining core values and avoiding becoming another faction seeking to control and exclude others.

Stephen Smellie is a member of UNISON’s NEC, depute convenor of UNISON Scotland and a member of the Scottish Left Review editorial committee.

This article was published in the Scottish Left Review No 125

https://www.scottishleftreview.scot/unisons-new-leadership/

Real Change on the UNISON NEC?

THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION FOR THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE UK’S BIGGEST TRADE UNION UNISON WERE ANNOUNCED ON FRIDAY 11 JUNE.

As always there are winners and losers. Some people who, on a personal level, you are sorry lost out and some you may not miss too much. Some who you are glad to see re-elected and some you wonder about.

However, an election which was dominated by 2 main factions has been ‘won’ by those grouped around #Timeforrealchange. This faction declares this is a victory for the ‘left’ and, once they add in the supporters of the Socialist Party who were elected, have declared on social media posts that they have 41 seats out of 67 on the new NEC.

I am not sure on the arithmetic since I do not know every successful candidate’s allegiance, but they clearly have a majority position.

The reference to themselves as the left is more challengeable if they seek to portray no-one else as on the left. As is the nature of trade union politics the self-proclaimed ‘left’ groups operate on the basis of everyone else being right wingers. In fact, the election saw #Timeforrealchange candidates standing against others whose ‘left’ credentials were as strong as anyone else’s. They just were not in the right club/grouping or supported the wrong General Secretary candidate and so were not on the ‘slate.’

Also consistent with the nature of politics on the left was the split in the ‘left’ faction itself. Failure to agree on who they, previously operating as UNISON Action, should support in the General Secretary election led to the Socialist Party supporters standing Hugo Pierre against the favoured candidate Paul Holmes. Despite much bitterness between the SP and the rest of UA (includes SWP, Corbynistas and a few others) there appeared to have been a non-aggression pact with SP candidates who were already on the NEC not being opposed. The SP are now calling for a united left approach on the NEC.

The faction that has dominated the NEC for years, a Dave Prentis (former General secretary) loyalist group previously referred to as ‘Team Dave,’ first of all split over who to support in the General Secretary election with the majority supporting successful candidate Christina McAnea whilst others supported Roger McKenzie, with some claiming he was the ‘left’ candidate despite having been a loyal member of Team Dave. McKenzie came a poor third behind Holmes.

This split then spilled over into the NEC elections with McKenzie supporters putting forward a slate of candidates standing against McAnea supporters. The result being an overwhelming defeat for the former dominant faction. A defeat that was well deserved given the complacency shown for years, the use of bureaucratic methods to block opponents and a failure to energise the union activists to organise more effective campaigns involving members. It is significant that initiatives to change the way campaigns are run and to adopt a more coherent Organising approach have been developed in the regions and not from a national level. The latter Prentis years, facing the obviously difficult challenges of a Tory government staked a lot on legal battles, with some notable successes including the defeat of Employment Tribunal fees, and the possible election of a Labour Government, whilst lacking confidence in the ability to mobilise widespread national strike action to battle on pay and against cuts. Of course, after the defeat of Labour, Team Dave, despite having supported Corbyn’s original election and in the later leadership contest, moved with undue haste to line up behind the candidacy of Keir Starmer.

As a someone who has been re-elected to the NEC in the Scottish Region (General Seat) and who has never been on any slate (never asked to be and, admittedly, was never asked to join one) the change from one dominant block to another is interesting. I would point to myself as one of those on the political left who had an opponent standing on the #Timeforrealchange ticket. Presumably, I won’t be invited to any caucus to discuss how to bring about ‘Real Change’ so I will watch that with interest.

The previous faction controlled all the positions on the NEC, the Presidential Team, the Committees and the Chairs. No-one from outwith their faction ever got any position of influence or power. Those of us who argued that they should loosen up a bit and allow those outwith their own faction to have places and develop a broader leadership team were ignored.

It would appear from social media posts that this form of control won’t change, and the new dominant faction will ensure that they have the same dominance as the previous lot. To the victor go the spoils. So, expect the President and 2 Vice-Presidents, the Chairs of all the Committees, and the TUC General Council representatives to be a clean sweep for the new majority.

That will be the easy bit and time will tell if the “new boss” will be the “same as the old boss” in how they work with people in these positions.

We can expect more strident statements on opposition to the Tories, to austerity, demanding action on Covid recovery, on pay, on Palestine, but Real Change does not come about simply because you declare it is time for it.

UNISON has been embarking on change, so it is misleading to suggest it has not. The election of Christina McAnea, the first female General Secretary of any of the big unions was real change. Her pledges to better co-ordinate campaigning and organising and establish a UNISON College and Organising School are signals of real change. Cynics, and we are not short of them, see no evidence of this as yet but she has only been in place for 6 months.

One issue that, on the NEC if few other places in the union, has been argued over and needs to change, is the way internal investigations and disciplinary process are conducted. This is a major issue for the #Timeforrealchange faction since one of their own, Paul Holmes, has been in ‘Rule I’ limbo for nearly 2 years and therefore has been unable to attend any UNISON meeting for that time. In a quirk of UNISON’s rules, despite being suspended, he was able to stand for the General Secretary position and be re-elected onto the NEC. The allegations against him have only been published unofficially on social media, mostly during the split in the UA faction around the issue of who should be their General Secretary candidate, and so cannot be commented on. The fact that the investigation has been dragging on so long is clearly unacceptable and questions about this have all been brushed aside at NEC meetings as inappropriate to raise.

However, NEC members from Scotland, one of whom was also subject to these procedures, identified concerns with these and worked to challenge how they had been used and were satisfied when all charges were dropped, and the pending disciplinary hearing was shelved. This included speaking to one of the candidates for the General Secretary position and strongly arguing that the procedures, the position of power they invested in the Chair of the Development and Organising Committee and particularly the lack of oversight of the processes had to change. Those same Scottish NEC members were therefore pleased to note the statement from Christina McAnea at a recent NEC meeting that these procedures would be reviewed and reformed. That is real change.

If the NEC election campaign ran by #Timeforrealchange had been clear about what Real Change they wanted to see and how they would set about achieving that we would be able to know what to expect. However, there was not much more than the slogan to give us an idea of what they had in mind.

We know they oppose the proposals coming out of the Branch Resource Review that, if agreed at the Special Delegate Conference taking place digitally 15 to 17 June, will give additional resources to branches based on a new funding formula and significant new funds to the union’s regions in England and the union in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These proposals, if agreed at the SDC would lead to real change. The proponents of real change argued on the NEC that more time should be taken, even questioning whether the SDC should be postponed, to further consult branches and fundamentally they would argue that more of the union’s money should be given to branches. They don’t spell out where they would cut funds from in order to direct these additional funds to branches. Paul Holmes, during his General Secretary campaign, argued that 50% of funds should go to branches which would mean staff redundancies and significant curtailing of union activity at regional and national level. This demand did not seem to be taken up in the NEC election campaigning.

Beyond that one issue the #Timeforrealchange campaign material was mostly about the union being more energetic, more willing to lead fights and take on the Tories, and Keir Starmer’s leadership in the Labour Party (although many of them are not members of the Labour Party).

Pay is a major issue but bargaining and campaigning on pay is the responsibility, not of the NEC but, the Service Group Executives and Sector Committees in Local Government, Health, Energy, etc. The NEC can be more strident, make bigger demands on the government to fund public services, and they should of course, but it is in the Service Groups that this needs to be taken forward.

Nothing, or not much, was said about Climate Change, an issue that is a huge challenge for the trade union movement and which UNISON’s current NEC has developed decent policies on and plans for mobilising around COP26 this year and seeking to influence the bargaining agendas of our Service Groups.

The recovery from Covid is a big issue but everyone in UNISON and the wider trade union movement supports the demands for huge investment in public services and for the creation of National Care Services based on public provision. It is unclear what Real Change in UNISON’s policies and campaigns is proposed on this issue.

A statement published by the #Timeforrealchange faction after the results were known doesn’t give much of a clue as to the real change they seek to bring about. The statements quote union rules to warn the General Secretary and staff that they must support the new majority and not seek to block them. They also make the mandatory statements about the union being ‘lay led.’ Statements that everyone who ever stands for election make and which are meaningless unless backed by clarity about what that actually means in terms of changing what and how we do it. They are also ironic given the criticism that many of the faction have levelled at the lay members of the Scottish Health Committee for recommending acceptance of a 4% pay offer and their expressions of regret that lay members, by a sizeable majority voted to accept.

The statement also makes the comical claim that ‘the members have spoken.’ Everyone elected to the NEC, including myself, needs a large degree of humility to recognise that an election where only 5% of members actually voted does not represent a resounding vote for anything and much more needs to be done, not only to increase the vote in future elections, but to involve members in far larger numbers in every campaign of the union from branch to national level, including on what real changes are needed.

My concern is that the new majority on the NEC has no real plan for Real Change other than replacing the current leaders and using their new platform to ensure their voices are heard in the union, TUC and the Labour Party rather than those they have replaced. It takes a great deal of work, clarity of ideas and harnessing genuine talent within an organisation to effect real Real Change.

As an NEC member for Scotland, I am clear that most decisions that affect Scottish members should be taken in Scotland in our Scottish structures and by Scottish representatives and members. Beyond that, in NEC meetings and in votes I have never been voting fodder for either the leadership or for opposition groups. I have supported proposals from both and will continue to do so, basing any positions I take on the quality and credibility of the proposal being discussed.  I look forward to the new NEC and working for Real Change, and even have my own ideas on what changes are needed. The first of these would be to move away from factional politics and organising and focus on building the union.

TRADE UNIONS AND The INDEPENDENCE ISSUE

This article appeared in the Morning Star on the day of the STUC conference on 17 November and reflects the speech I delivered.

UNISON’s February Scottish Council agreed a motion stating that the decision as to when or if a second independence referendum should be held was a decision for the Scottish Parliament. It was a simple re-statement of the principle that the Scottish people were sovereign and that Westminster does not have the right to determine the best form of government for the Scottish people.

The December UK election returned 48 SNP MPs and there is a majority of MSPs in favour of a second referendum.

The STUC will this week agree that if there is a majority for referendum supporting parties in May’s Scottish election the case would be “unanswerable.”

In some respects, we have been here before. A Tory government in Westminster, Labour split. The SNP winning elections in Scotland. Calls for a referendum on independence.

However, we have never had a majority in opinion polls in favour of independence. In 2014, at the start of the campaign support for YES stood around 25%. The support for a referendum and independence at current levels is a game changer for Scottish politics. Some will continue to deny the sovereignty of the Scottish people to decide for themselves whether a referendum should happen. Some will cite Salmond and Sturgeon’s reference to “once in a generation,” as if any politician could decide that for all future voters. Any democrat will surely recognise that the principle must stand even if they don’t agree with the proposition or fear the outcome of a vote.

It must also be a game changer for the trade union movement. We are correct to stand for the democratic rights of the Scottish people. However, we must go further. We must recognise the possibility that independence could happen. That does not mean that there isn’t still much debate on whether it would be the best option. However, with the possibility becoming greater than ever before it is time for trade unions to engage in a discussion about what independence might look like and to seek to influence that.

Would an independent Scotland inevitably be a social democratic or even socialist country? Of course not. It is also not inevitable that it would be the neo-liberal austerity driven nation that some say, and some want.

The future is not written. Trade unions need to start contributing to the discussion about what independence would be for and what an independent Scotland should aspire to. There are huge economic, environmental, and democratic issues that an independent state would face. Unless trade unions are involved in discussing these issues and putting forward our ideas on how they should be dealt with, other forces in society will be left to shape and write that future.

Some in the trade union movement will want to join the leadership of the Labour Party and dig trenches and join with those people and interests of all stripes to defend the continuation of the United Kingdom. That means defending a Tory led Brexit-distorted country where inequality is central to the capitalist project being further developed by the current Prime Minister. That has not worked out well for Labour in Scotland with its single MP and diminishing forces in the Scottish Parliament. It would be a disaster for trade unions to adopt that position when increasing numbers of our members support independence.

In 2014 some unions and the STUC adopted a neutral position but sought to influence the debate around the kind of just and fair Scotland we wanted to see. That approach worked, in that the debate, at least on the YES side, was less about flags and more focussed on that question. The increase to 45% for YES was at least in part attributable to the positive vision put forward.

That won’t be enough this time. It won’t be enough just to raise aspirations of a fairer, just and green future. Trade unions will need to involve themselves in working out how that can be achieved. Finance, economic policy, climate change, relations with the rest of the UK, Europe, energy, land, public ownership. All issues that if left to independence supporting neo-liberals will produce something akin to the SNP’s Growth Commission proposals for years of austerity.

Perhaps a Just and Green Independence Commission, involving trade unions, could look at what an independent Scotland needs to do to achieve the future we aspire to for our members. One that sees Scotland for working people, not the Amazons and Microsofts. For families and not for private landlords. For public good and not private profit. For care workers and not off-shore profiteers. For a Just Transition for workers and not just profits for energy companies.

We don’t have to declare support for independence, but we must declare support for workers in any independent Scotland.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/unions-need-start-conversation-about-independent-scotland?fbclid=IwAR2ruQrE82wamaTEJP7OTeg-XGgP6bjiQL6xBroaQy1LtYtOvH1MQ_UuYZo#.X7Q297jz1Yw.facebook