ScotRail strikes: Independence movement's reaction has disturbed me

This follows a pay offer from ScotRail of only 2.2%, which is around 9% BELOW the current RPI! Some of the comments I have seen range from the very Tory ones that train drivers are well paid enough anyway, to the more tinfoil-hat ones that this a Unionist plot orchestrated by the cold, dead hand of Anas Sarwar.

The truth is that much of the rail industry across the entire UK has experienced a Covid-triggered pay freeze for the last two years. This was accepted by the industry as we were “all in it together” at the time, but with inflation and soaring fuel prices, an industry-wide pay freeze is no longer realistic, and neither are the below-inflation pay offers which are being imposed by the UK Government.

As I write, every single Train Operating Company (TOC) across the entire UK which is subject to the 2.2% cap is being balloted for strike action, and due to Tory anti-trade-union legislation this takes time. These ballots have therefore been a long time coming and it is a matter of timing that the derisory pay offer came around the time the SNP-run Scottish Government assumed formal responsibility for the ScotRail franchise, which, let’s be clear, remains a franchise. Any future government would be free to put that franchise out to tender, and only independence will free it from that threat.

It is therefore highly likely that there will be a UK-wide rail strike in the near future, but for the moment we should look at why the current ASLEF overtime ban is being so effective.

For many, many years ScotRail has failed to fill vacancies, and has preferred to have its employees work overtime. In the main this is to reduce its costs, the expense of hiring and training staff, pension and National Insurance contributions and other costs, for example. A common analogy is that it is more cost-efficient to own one horse and work it harder than it is to own two horses and pay twice the upkeep. But what happens when you run out of horses? While overtime working can be beneficial for some employees, for others it is not. It intrudes on family and social life and reduces rest periods, crucial in a safety-critical industry. With massive levels of Covid-related sickness on top of the usual expected level and a failure to recruit staff to replace those who leave or retire, many people across the rail industry feel that enough is enough. They have been repeatedly told by their management that they are heroes. It’s time they were paid accordingly.

That the Scottish Government have taken control at this time is unfortunate for them, and the fact they are now being beaten around the head for the emergency timetable being imposed by ScotRail comes as no surprise, and indeed Trade Unionists for Independence predicted that the British nationalists would use every train fault and points failure to attack the SNP – and Jackie Baillie has been more than willing to oblige in that department.

Having said that, the SNP must assume a level of responsibility as while they did not have direct control over ScotRail, they had oversight. Scotrail managing director Alex Hynes worked closely with and reported to the Transport Minister, Michael Matheson MSP. Mr Matheson therefore had a duty to ensure that ScotRail was meeting its requirements, not only for train performance, but for staffing.

The question must be asked: did the Transport Minister raise concerns over staffing levels and what did he do about those concerns? If nothing, then it must be assumed that the Scottish Government were happy with the method of operations.

It is notable that only a few weeks before Abellio was to lose the franchise it announced a “consultation” on its plans to close many ticket offices. One has to ask, what organisation which is losing a franchise makes plans for closures which will take place AFTER it has departed? This was spearheaded by Alex Hynes as managing director of Abellio Scotrail, who the Scottish Government have retained as managing director of ScotGov Scotrail. This sends to us a message that these actions were being done in accordance with Scottish Government intentions.

It is also notable that by failing to fill vacancies, should the company then decide to get rid of jobs, it will not have to incur the required redundancy payments to those staff. ASLEF, RMT and TSSA have all been warning that TOCs across the UK, ScotRail included, have been planning to cut services and staff numbers across a range of grades. While the unions want more staff on trains for your safety, and more manned stations for your safety and convenience, the UK Government want a Beeching-style axe taken to the network, keeping stations but chopping services and staff. That the Scottish Government appear to be going along with this mode of thinking is concerning.

Over and above this, the UK Government, which controls Network Rail, plan horrendous cuts to safety and maintenance staff and also face strike action across the entire network involving signalling and maintenance staff. Will independence supporters be so quick to blame Anas Sarwar when it is track workers in Kent who are bringing services to a halt? I think not.

The ScotRail emergency timetable is perhaps the most noticeable example of the type of service we might see should these problems not be addressed. Whatever the outcome of the pay negotiations, the Transport Minister must force Scotrail to address its staffing issues and to fill all existing vacancies so that this can never occur again.

The Tories want a lock on pay across the UK and unionised workers are the key to opening that lock. That will be the signal that workers across a range of industries, not just the rail network, CAN gain a wage rise to combat the horrendous rising price levels and that big corporations, and governmen must take less profit and spread some more of their income to those who generate it. The Scottish Government could do their bit by setting the example for the rest of the UK to follow, like they have in so many other areas.

As a final note, it is also worth remembering that TOCs and Network Rail plan to use semi-trained “contingency staff” to operate safety-critical services on strike days to maintain a service and beat the strikes. Your life is in their hands. Travel safely.
George Milligan
On behalf of Trade Unionists for Independence

THE debate about Nato membership highlights an issue that needs more attention. Whether to join Nato is one of many decisions needing to be made after we decide to become independent, along with joining the EU, the status of the monarchy and much more.

My vote for independence is not a vote for SNP (or Greens) policy to be implemented. I hope that independence would allow each of these important issues to be debated and voted on by all of us.

Brexit and the post-independence referendum period should have taught us much about “losers’ consent” and the need to have plans to engage with those that believe in remaining in the Union.

Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have every right to talk to whoever they please and the Greens are perfectly entitled to argue against joining Nato, but neither party should be assuming that a vote for independence is an endorsement of their policy.
Richard Anderson
Helensburgh

ON Scottish independence it is unlikely the USA will attempt to  force Scotland to retain England’s nuclear weapons. Apart from anything else, Nato is clear that no member state can be forced to have nuclear weapons based in their country against their will.

The US Chiefs of Staff blocked Trident 3 being released to the UK as their own plans will have Trident 3 decommissioned from the US Navy by 2050 and replaced by their new Joint Services nuclear platform which can be launched from sea, land or air and does not need specialist submarines. Tony Blair called in a favour of George W Bush, and Bush wrote a presidential order countermanding his own Chiefs of Staff to let the “UK” have access to Trident 3.

The UK programme has seen numerous delays and it is unlikely the first of class – HMS Dreadnaught, currently being built at Barrow – will be launched and commissioned until the mid-2030s.  In 2040 the US Navy stops its Trident 3 satellite replacement programme and with it much of the targeting data required to launch Trident 3, as it will be obsolete in US terms by 2050.

Nato is not a nuclear power. It has three members who have independent nuclear weapons, but Nato itself cannot launch a pre-emptive or a response nuclear strike. The reality is that we live under both the Russian and US nuclear umbrellas, either of which can turn the Earth into a crisp many times over, and it is daft to think otherwise, especially as neither nation has any intention of reducing their nuclear stockpiles any further. 

If Scotland votes to be independent next year then the current RN Trident 3 “Dreadnaught” bomber submarine programme may well be shelved, as the now English Ministry of Defence will have nowhere to keep it or the Trident 3 missiles. The current UK Trident submarines are at the end of their design lives and are held together with duct tape, brown paper, string and superglue. There are claims that many of the current submarines’ launch tubes are now unusable due to serious faults and leaks. It is unlikely they will stay in commission for long once the UK breaks up.

This begs the question: just why does anyone think the US Navy and US Chiefs of Staff will pressurise an independent Scotland to allow a Trident weapon system which will have a maximum service life of maybe 15 years – if the Dreadnaught submarines are ever launched – which they did not want the UK to have in the first place, to be based in Scotland?

Or will the UK/English nuclear deterrent simply waste away on the vine upon Scottish independence, as it has no real strategic value in any shape or form for the USA and England has no facilities to maintain and keep Trident active?
Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright

WITH all the comments claiming a Scotland without nuclear weapons will not be welcomed into Nato, does it then follow that in the few years after independence when the weapons are still based at Faslane, England without nuclear weapons will be kicked out of Nato? Would England also be kicked out as a permanent member of the UN Security Council – as it would not have nuclear weapons – and Scotland be given the seat?
Rab Doig
Bo’ness