The Union IS Positive

Anytime anyone tries to argue the case for Scotland staying inside the United Kingdom, nationalists tell us to stop being so negative, as if only their view of the constitutional arrangement is positive. But when you think about it, the very idea of the Union is intrinsically positive.

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.

Hiding their light?

Those who follow the SNP Government closely know they are not slow at coming forward. If there’s even a slight chance of a bit of positive publicity, or some reflected glory, they’ll announce it, sometimes more than once. This makes it surprising that they have been so reluctant to release certain legal advice.

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.

Who are they speaking for?

Today, a series of business leaders have written a letter to the Daily Telegraph calling for the 50p top rate of tax to be cut to help boost the economy. They claim it will attract wealth generators and entrepreneurs to the UK. They are quite simply wrong, and are simply trying to disguise their own greed in the fig leaf of economic recovery.

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.

Renewables need Markets

I am fully behind renewable energy. As I have blogged before, I believe we as a country could be doing much more. But one thing renewables need is a market, and a recent opinion poll indicates that Scots are unwilling to pay for them.

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.

UNISON Leadership hustings – Part Two

My last blog post talked about what the candidates for the Scottish Labour leadership said during the hustings held during the UNISON Labour Link forum meeting held in Glasgow. The end result was for UNISON to nominate Johann, while I still remain undecided. The deputy leadership hustings however ended with me firmly deciding who I would be supporting for deputy leadership.

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.

UNISON Leadership hustings – Part One

I’ve just got back from two days in Glasgow for UNISON Labour Link training yesterday , and today the annual Labour Link Forum. Friday’s session gave me some interesting ideas on working within UNISON to take our policies into the Labour Party, but I was looking forward most of all to the hustings held on Saturday for the Scottish Labour leadership candidates.

I had no strong leanings towards one candidate or another, but I felt that Johann and ken had more to do in term of letting me know where they stood, but that might have been because I know Tom Harris better instead of any lack on their part. Likewise in the deputy contest, I felt I knew more about Lewis Macdonald, and wanted to hear more from Ian and Anas.

Johann started well, and told us how she had been an EIS activist for twenty years and she identified many of the issues which affect union members across Scotland, but didn’t, I felt, offer any solutions. She did, however have an intriguing offer of a place in her shadow cabinet for representatives from the Trade Unions. Johann said that Labour had lost its way, and hence we had lost Scotland, and Unison members must help shape Labour’s, and Scotland’s future.

She also, and this is something I have also been saying for some time, that too many Trade Union Levy payers didn’t vote Labour. Not just levy payers, say I. One remark that I liked was she felt it was great to visit Liverpool and not feel like it was a foreign country.

Ken Macintosh started by telling us of the unison campaigns he had supported as an MSP in the past, and he would continue to do so regardless of the result. He identified that the Labour vote in Scotland had been in continuous decline since 1999, and that if we do nothing it will continue to shrink. The Labour movement, he said, was bigger than the SNP, but we need to be positive in order to turn things around.

Ken said he had always believed in Home Rule, and that something which had worked well for him in Eastwood was to get all Labour representatives to work together, MPs, MSPs and councillors. However, there arnt (in his opinion) enough Labour voters in Scotland to give us victory, so we have to have broad appeal. Our attacks on the SNP need to be focussed, and when they will resonate with the wider public. His priorities are Jobs, Growth and Education, and he wants us to be able to say we are both pro-Scottish and Pro-British.

Tom Harris shocked me with the fact that more Scots had voted for Thatcher’s Tories in 1983 than had voted for Labour in 2011. This gave us an idea of the size of the task ahead of us, and to turn it around, we have to take the SNPs arguments head on. The independence referendum seemed to be the main issue confronting us, and we have to realise that despite the hype, the SNP were only ever positive about independence – we must stand up for Scots – unlike the SNP.

Tom said that Labour had defined itself by its arrogance, and we became too managerial. He wont defend PFI, but did say he wanted his constituents to have the new schools and hospitals that it provided – with hindsight things should have been done differently. Challenged on policy, Tom said that we shouldn’t be making policy on the hoof now, 3 and a half years out from an election, but that he would be listening to all stakeholders, not just trade unions. He was, however, in favour of full employment, and as a start we should be campaigning for GARL (Glasgow Airport Rail Link), as work was the real way out of poverty. I think this was a tough audience for Tom, as I suspect many had already made up their minds about him.

Many activists were able to ask questions of the candidates, but one I wanted to ask them was what they felt they could do to help promote Labour and Trade Union values in areas outside the movements core areas.

To sum up, I felt Ken performed better than I had expected, and Tom had performed poorer than I thought he would. Johann came across well – especially in terms of understanding the issues, but was, I felt, light on the actual solutions. At the end of the day, I still haven’t made up my mind, although UNISON Scotland has now endorsed Johann.

Tomorrow I will talk about how I saw the deputy leadership hustings, but looking back, the real highlight for me was actually the chance to meet fellow activists, and put faces to those friends I have on Facebook. It was good to meet up with Katrina Murray and Gordon McKay again from Labour national conference, to meet Alan Cowan and Stephen Low – not to mention Dave Watson! It was good to make new friends such as George McIrvine and Tom Ferguson from Dundee as well. George and Tom certainly made the train journey home more interesting!

 

One strike I wont support

While I fully support the right of any worker to withdraw their labour, the strike by Jockeys on Monday is one I cannot support. The fact that the Jockeys are condoning the use of the whip on race horses and are even trying to force a change of the new rules show that the welfare of their mounts is the last things on their minds.

The abuse of the whip in horse racing has gained prominence in recent years, culminating in the report by Animal rights campaigners Animal Aid last year. When the Grand National winner this year, Ballabriggs, had to be lead immediately to the stables after the race, “suffering from dehydration” after visible excess use of the whip, ridden by a jockey with previous bans for excessive use of the whip. McGuire was banned again for the needless abuse he dealt out to his mount that day.

Anyway, the rules have been tightened up, so that now the whip can be used only 7 times in a flat race, and 8 times in a national hunt race. There are limits on the number of times it can be used at the end of a race too. However, after senior jockey Richard Hughes was banned on the first day of the new rules and then banned again a few days later, he announced he was giving up the saddle until the rules were changed. Now other top jockeys have announced they will be protesting on Monday in sympathy.

To anyone concerned about the welfare of animals, the abuse heaped out on thoroughbred racehorses is nothing short of criminal. If you or I were to do the same to any animal in any other context we would whisked to court and banned from keeping animals, not for a few days like Hughes, but for years. The common response to these accusations of cruelty is that “the horse hardly feels a thing” and “its only giving a little encouragement”. Well, if it hardly feels a thing - what’s the point of it, and if its only giving a little encouragement, why don’t we use it on jockeys too?

In short there should be a total ban on the use of a whip in horse racing. It won’t affect the quality of the race – as all competitors will be equal. Horses will be able to show their natural ability, and wont be flogged half to death. We wont have to worry about Jockey A only used the whip 6 times because he was worried about being banned, while Jockey B managed to use it 8 times because the stewards didn’t see him etc.

I cant support this strike, and if it means more junior jockeys getting a chance to show how they can ride without thrashing their mounts, all the better.