No doubt the SNP will be hailing this poll as yet another victory for them, but what is more interesting is that there is a majority for increased powers. No doubt this explains why the SNP seem so desperate to have the so-called “Devo max” on the ballot paper for the independence vote.

An interesting detail in the survey is that people would be more likely to vote for independence if it gave them an extra £500 a year. Bought and sold for nationalist gold? Perhaps now we know why the SNP are building such a war chest for independence.

To be fair, it’s not quite a bank in the traditional sense, but rather an investment fund which local businesses can access, worth £100million. But it is also being used to drive the city council’s social and economic policies, with businesses using the fund having to commit to creating new jobs, and paying Glasgow’s Living wage of £7.20 an hour.

The new fund will be used to support new and existing firms in the Glasgow and West of Scotland area, although a reasonable return will have to be delivered to pension fund members. Presumably by spreading the risk across a larger number of investments the overall return will be satisfactory.

This is something which all the pension funds, not only across Scotland, but across the UK could consider. My own fund in Tayside is sitting on assets of £1.75billion as at the last report for 2009-10, and it should prove easy for it set up a similar fund for SME’s across Tayside to access to boost employment in the region. If it was to invest £50million in local businesses, it would be less than 3% of their overall assets, yet would have a massive impact on the local economy. Jobs would be created and the local economy put back on its feet. Small businesses would have the capital to grow, and take on more people. Money would be spent in the local economy, creating even more jobs.

Such projects would also break down the “Them and Us” culture which has grown up between the public and private sectors. And that can only be a good thing.

We started off from Dudhope Park, down the Lochee Road. The organisers had told the police they were expecting 2,500. But as you can see there were more - a lot more!

This was my first ever march, as I suspect it was for the large numbers of Primary School teachers, Midwives, Radiologists and many other groups who joined us on our walk into City Square in Dundee. The traffic was held up by the officers of Tayside Police, and many of the drivers waiting patiently honked their horns in support.

Once we arrived in City Square, it was announced that the Police said we had between 8,000 and 10,000 folk on the march. There then followed a number of very good speakers, from all the main public sector unions. 

Sadly, I think this day of strike action will not be the last. We will have to come out again to show the strength of feeling on this issue. This was certainly no “damp squib“.

The argument is about more than pensions, it’s about fairness. Is it fair to expect public sector workers to pay an extra 3% of their wages in order to reduce the deficit caused by the banks? No, of course not. Is it right that people should be expected to work longer, pay in more and receive less? No, it isn’t. Are public sector pensions unaffordable? No, they’re not.

So, if there isn’t anything wrong, why the changes? And why are they being forced upon us? The only answer is that these are ideological cuts, aimed at destroying the public sector. It is aimed at forcing a divide between the public sector and the private. To make people think that we get gold-plated pensions is to try and turn the public against us. It’s really an attempt to portray the current Government as somehow standing up for the private sector against the public – a cynical attempt to garner votes through smears and slurs – truly the Daily Mail-ification of politics.

Everyone deserves a decent pension. I’m fighting for mine, and for those of my colleagues in the public sector. When I worked in the private sector, and saw decent pension schemes for ordinary workers closed I didn’t think “well, if I can’t have a good pension, neither should public sector workers”.  I thought to myself that these schemes can’t be that bad, if the directors and senior managers can still have them.

That’s why I’ll be out on strike, marching in Dundee, to show my solidarity. Not because I’m in the public sector, but because the cause is just and honourable.

The headline in the Daily Record says it all – slower, fuller and dearer. Although this is only a consultation, seasoned observers of the bureaucratic machine will know that the Government has already made its mind up, and one of the options within this document is what it wants. And what it wants are trains which are slower (“to help meet punctuality targets”), fuller (overcrowding does not mean extra carriages) and dearer (“ensuring the rail network remains financially sustainable”).

Rather than services being expanded, it seems that at least one of the Caledonian Sleeper services is for the chop (“removing …. financial support and reducing the provision”); while cross border trains will be terminated at Edinburgh. This last suggestion is particularly galling, seeing as the SNP have campaigned vigorously in defence of such trains in the past. The arguments Mike Weir made then are true now, and it is shameful that it is his Government which is proposing these cut backs.

Instead of looking at ways of increasing the number of stations, serving parts of the population which need rail services, mention is made of reducing the number stations! The examples given of urban stations in Glasgow within a mile of each other is poor, as these are designed to serve commuters, while the discussion on those stations which are lightly used does not mention the appalling service these stations receive. By providing additional services, these stations will pay for themselves, but this is not even considered an option.

While the desire to see Wi-Fi fitted on trains, little thought has been given to electrification providing scope to provide better trains, especially on those lines with rolling stock near to life expiry. Although the document says that Leasing companies are more willing to provide new electric trains, it does not follow this through by suggesting the new franchise could extend electrification, acquire the new electric trains and use those units displaced to replace the oldest trains on the network. Surely this shows a massive lack of joined up thinking?

One of the biggest changes which have been suggested in the past is the use of longer franchises in order to help companies invest in improvements. It is no coincidence that the most successful franchise, Chiltern Railways, received a 20 year franchise in 2002. Not only is Chiltern amongst the most punctual of operators, but it also has one of the highest levels of customer satisfaction, as well as delivering hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investment which simply wouldn’t have been possible without the length of franchise.  However, we are not to be allowed to enjoy this in Scotland, as “We are mindful that the coming years are likely to bring significant organisational and operational change across the industry as … there may also be, particularly for Scotland, significant constitutional changes”. So it seems that because Scotland “may” become independent in the future, we can’t have a long term franchise agreement to provide benefits to passengers now. The option of a mutual or co-operative solution is mentioned, if only to dismiss it by talk of the need for large performance bonds.

What we needed was a positive vision for the future of Scotland’s Railways. What we got was the promise of a poorer, more expensive system. It seems that not only do the SNP don’t get Railways, they positively hate them. Now who’s talking Scotland down?

When Scotland finally joined England in creating the United Kingdom in 1707, it brought to an end over 1,500 years of battles between those living in what is now called Scotland and what is now called England, barring a few wee skirmishes. Such a triumph, carried out neither by colonisation, nor by conquest is virtually unique in the world today – and certainly was in the early 18^th century. The ending of years of warfare, of terrible consequence to both the people of Scotland and northern England is surely the most positive benefit to have come from the Union that one could imagine?

And although such fighting would be unimaginable today, even if Scotland were to become independent, there have been as a consequence of the mutual coming together of the two nations, a much better nation as a result – certainly more productive than either could have been on its own. In the fields of science, industry, engineering, and medicine, Scots have worked alongside colleagues from elsewhere on these islands to improve the life and welfare of everyone. This collaboration, unthinkable between any two countries anywhere else in the world until recently have brought to life almost everything in our modern world, right back to the industrial revolution itself.

The firm of Boulton and Watt, now commemorated on the £50 Bank of England note, symbolised the power that the Union between England and Scotland could achieve. Neither was able to succeed on their own, but after forming their partnership created many of the foundations for the entire industrial revolution, from railway locomotives through to steam powered ocean going liners. Mining become much easier – and more economical – while transport was faster and cheaper too.

The very idea of uniting together, working together – even fighting together, for shared values and beliefs is a most positive thing. It’s something we as socialists encourage everywhere else and actually breaking up the most successful partnership in the history of the world is actually the negative campaign.

First there was the farrago over the advice on the Local Income Tax. Then it was the advice on minimum alcohol pricing. Now it seems the Scottish Government doesn’t want us to know what advice it has received on whether an independent Scotland would have to join the Euro. Also under question is whether an independent Scotland would have to pay into the Euro stabilisation fund – a total of £8billion.

The SNP are never short of a trick or two when it comes to publicity, and self-promotion. If there is anything which can help their case for independence they will do it, whether its lowering the voting age, setting up their own body to oversee the referendum, or ignoring the independent Electoral Commission over the wording of the actual question. Even the timing of the referendum is likely to be such as to maximise the chances of a vote to leave the UK. Which is why it is surprising that they have been keeping quiet over these latest pieces of advice.

Surely, if the advice was “No, Scotland wont have to join the Euro”, and “No it wont have to pay into the bailout fund”, and other such positive things for the nationalist cause, it would be trumpeted from the rooftops at Edinburgh Castle.

Since it hasn’t been, one is left to only one conclusion. That the SNP don’t like the answer they got.

Entrepreneurs rarely change country in order to set up their business. Most incoming investment is made by existing business, which looks at all sorts of factors when deciding whether to invest. Chief amongst these are a skilled and educated workforce, the right infrastructure, and ability to reach the right markets. Whether the CEO will end up paying a bit more tax if he moves there is going to be quite far down the list. After all, if paying higher tax is good enough for Warren Buffett, it’s good enough the likes of Ian Powell, the chief executive of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

But what is needed to attract investment and create growth – and especially jobs? Well, the majority of new jobs created – over 65% – are created by firms employing less than 100 people. The top rate of tax isn’t what is preventing these firms taking on new staff. It’s not, as Stephen Pollard from the Jewish Chronicle tried to claim on Question Time last night, red tape and regulation which is preventing companies taking on staff either. It’s a lack of bank lending, as highlighted by this report from BCVA.

Red tape doesn’t prevent someone from taking on staff for a short term contract, as Mr Pollard tried to claim had prevented him from taking on people at his newspaper. Short term contracts are perfectly legitimate, especially if there are specific projects people are required to work on. My own employer has used people on such a basis for many years.

We need to encourage the real entrepreneurs – the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people up and down the country who start (or want to start) a business. And they don’t worry about the 50% tax rate – most would be happy to be making enough profit to pay 40% tax, let alone be amongst the top 1% of income earners in the country.

At the moment, electricity consumers across the UK(all 29,365,000 of them) pay a small amount extra on their bills for the various green initiatives. The existing Renewable Obligation added £12 a year to the average electricity bill, while the feed-in tariff was originally predicted to cost about anything from £6 to £26 a year before the Government cut back on the scheme.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out, that in the event of an independent Scotland, either Scottish consumers will have to pick up the tab for the subsidy, or the exported electricity will cost more. England will have the benefit of the French interconnector, able to import cheap French nuclear electricity, so expensive Scottish electricity will come second best.  The capacity for importing electricity from France will even be increased by a planned new project by the Channel Tunnel.

SNP claims that England will still have to import Scottish electricity to meet its own green targets overlook a couple of major points. Firstly, the UK Government will be able to claim, quite rightly, that independence has meant that a large chunk of its existing renewable capacity has just left. Secondly, the UK Government is not averse to the construction of new nuclear plants – providing zero carbon electricity. Their own renewable strategy is dependent on offshore wind, such as the London Array.

So if there isn’t a market for export then it falls onto Scottish consumers to pay. And since they make up about 10% of the UK total, it’s pretty clear that to support even the existing renewable industry, let alone the massive expansion to 100% renewable by 2020, bills will be going up quite a bit. It’s not about whether anyone will build the wind farms; it’s about whether anyone will buy their electricity.

Like the leadership hustings, I viewed the candidates all equally, although I did know more about Lewis Macdonald. Lewis opened the session and stressed his experience in working in Holyrood, with much of that time as a minister. He has a long family tradition of involvement in the trade union movement, and personally has done a lot to promote the health and safety work of unions. His proudest moment was the work he had done when he was working for Frank Doran to help the families of the victims of the Piper Alpha disaster and the trade unions to vastly improve the health and safety regime for offshore oil workers.

Ian Davidson was next and recognised the bad situation the Labour Party was in, and that this was because of faulty politics, not faulty organisation. The Labour Party had basically forgot who their friends were, and he saw taxation as a way of paying for public services as a mark of a civilised society. He absolutely supported the November 30th strike, and would be out on the picket lines supporting public sector workers. He felt that only by Labour politicians doing this could they help reconnect with trade unions. He was also a firm beleiver in pushing powers down to the most appropriate body – especially down to local authorities, and not centralising them in Edinburgh.

Anas Sarwar talked about he had been awoken politically by a visit to Palestine at the age of 12. He made the good point that unlike the nationalists, we dont define ourselves by allegiance to a flag, but however the Labour Party and the Labour Movement are now two separate movements – and that was the fault of the Labour Party. He said that the party must challenge the pay freeze and the increase in pension contributions, especially at a time when prices were rising.

There then followed a number of questions from the floor. When questioned by Katrina Murray on what he saw as the role of the deputy leader, Lewis said he felt that their function was to support the leader, especially in the tough times that Labour will face ahead, as well as to engage with the unions. He said that working with MPs, MSPs and councillors had worked in Aberdeen and he would look at doing that across Scotland. Ian said the job should be to inclusive and provide a key link with trade unions, local government and the wider party. Anas said he would be a key part to unify the labour movement, and would work to reconnect MPs, MSPs and councillors.

Alan Cowan asked about the candidates views on Gay marriage, and all the candidates said they supported it, although Lewis said we had to mindful of not forcing churches to accept it.

Another question was raised about repealing anti-trade union legislation. Anas gave an unequivocal ’Yes’ while Lewis identified the rules which had allowed courts to overturn ballot results on small technicalities as deserving of special attention. Ian said that Labour had got the politics wrong. The legislation had come from an ideological position, of seeing trade unions as “the grit in the machine” or business, while he saw unions as being good for business, working for good relations between employers and workers.

In their final summary, Ian said we had to connect our achievements with the reality of peoples lives – he highlighted that many people didn’t see things such as the minimum wage, working tax credits etc as being Labour achievements. He talked about the recent allegations against him, and made the point that not one of the officials, or any of the other members of the committee had corroborated the allegations – it was a mark of how much the SNP feared him. Anas said we had to make being a member of the Labour Party fun again.

I have to say that I felt that Anas came across as very “New Labour” to me, and that I wasn’t sure he really believed some of the things he was saying, especially about support for trade unions. Ian, on the other hand came across to me very well, showing he understood the problem we faced, and his record in taking his seat from the SNP, and increasing his majority every election proved he was capable from taking them on and winning. He had also worked very closely with trade unions, not least as Secretary of the Trade Union group in parliament, and even in maintaining links with RMT and FBU, unions who are no longer affiliated with Labour.

I think that Ian is the best of the candidates to be deputy leader, his commitment to the trade union movement cannot be questioned, and I think he has shown he can take on the nationalists. I am pleased to say that UNISON also thinks the same way, and Ian has been endorsed him.