SSP Trade Union Organiser, Richie Venton, wrote this response to the decision by the RMT to disaffiliate from the SSP in last weeks Scottish Socialist Voice. http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.net/
The national executive of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union last week voted to disaffiliate from the Scottish Socialist Party. This decision is deeply regrettable to all those who fight for genuine political representation of the working class against low pay, privatisation, anti-union laws and wars for oil. It is an undeniable setback - not just for the SSP, but also for the RMT’s membership, who need a genuine, organised political voice in the face of ruthless railway and shipping bosses, and New Labour’s anti-union government. It is all the more regrettable given that the policies of the SSP remain unchanged and totally in tune with those of the RMT. The RMT affiliated to the SSP in the first place because they had the courage to break from New Labour and recognised that the SSP’s policies on privatisation, workplace rights, public ownership and the bloody war in Iraq matched the union’s own aims and aspirations. They also took that historic decision in acknowledgement of the outstanding solidarity the SSP had shown to RMT members and other trade unionists in struggle over the years. None of that has changed. Close vote. The decision at the RMT’s national executive arose from a vote to disaffiliate at the union’s Scottish Regional Council. That vote was about as close as it gets; just two delegates voting the other way would have meant continued affiliation to the SSP. And as SSP national convener Colin Fox commented after the RMT vote: “I also regret the union never offered the party any opportunity to put our case.” In fact, the case for staying with the SSP is overwhelming, and where individual RMT members have presented it, other members and RMT branches have wanted to stay affiliated. Where else are they supposed to go? Back to New Labour? That, of course, would be the preferred option of some of those who voted to disaffiliate from the SSP - but certainly not of the vast majority, including a number of principled trade unionists who still vote Labour but argued for the union to remain with the SSP on the grounds that its policies remain the same, and match those of the union. When Tommy Sheridan, the SWP and some others decided to split off from the SSP, I warned in a letter to trade unionists: “This is an act of utter disloyalty and irresponsibility to the hundreds of thousands of working class people whose hopes have been raised by the Scottish left uniting into the one party - the SSP. It would be a particularly cruel deceit of those courageous trade unionists who fought for and won affiliation of the RMT to the SSP. “These workers did not affiliate to Tommy Sheridan - they affiliated to the PARTY whose working class socialist policies and fighting record matches their aims and aspirations. Why should they be dragged off into the wilderness by a split-off from the SSP?”Their split-off had no political justification, but one of its consequences is the RMT’s decision. The RMT’s national executive quite explicitly and unanimously voted NOT to affiliate to Solidarity. That reflects the widespread distrust felt by RMT members. But by splitting from the SSP, Solidarity disheartened and confused enough RMT activists to allow the narrow majority on the RMT Regional Council to vote for disaffiliation. The only victors in this are the enemies of socialism and trade unionism. This is not the end of the story, however. The reasons the RMT broke with Labour and affiliated to the SSP in 2004 remain with added force. RMT members face the same attacks from the employers and the war-mongering, privatising, anti-union New Labour. Picket lines. They will be forced into industrial action in the months and years ahead - and the SSP will continue to stand on their picket lines, organise solidarity with them, and act as the voice of RMT members in the streets, workplaces, councils and parliament. Disaffiliation does not suddenly mean we will sever all links with the RMT or its members. As Colin Fox said last week: “All the reasons the RMT gave for affiliating remain entirely valid. We share a mutual loathing of New Labour and all it represents.”This setback changes nothing in our determination to join with others in breaking the insidious link between New Labour and the unions. Pouring millions of members’ subs down New Labour’s throat does even less for the affiliated unions now than when the RMT dared to defy New Labour’s diktats two years ago and were subsequently expelled. And union members are increasingly reaching breaking point in their link with Labour. The fact that the TGWU leadership has taken the unprecedented step of putting a case for continued affiliation to Labour on their website this month is proof of the clamour of discontent from TGWU members. The working class needs an organised political voice and vehicle for socialism more than ever.The SSP remains that party, and we will continue to campaign shoulder-to-shoulder with the RMT and other unions on the daily struggles and bigger socialist aims that unite us. By Richie Venton SSP Trade Union Organiser
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Tuesday, 7 November 2006
Iraq letter in Scotland on Sunday
Published Sun 5th November
Dear Sir
Brian Wilson fails in last weeks column [‘Troops out’ will not end Basra’s misery] to mention any of the reasons he and his New Labour colleagues gave for invading Iraq in the first place. And I am not surprised.
Let’s briefly remind ourselves what Brian said in 2003 to justify this illegal war; Saddam was a threat to this country, Saddam was a threat to his neighbours, Saddam was responsible for 9/11, he had links with Bin Laden and Al Queada, he had weapons of mass destruction [remember that one!]. All were proven to be spurious and the invasion of a sovereign country was declared illegal under international law and it has proved to be just as heinous in its conduct.
Now Brian Wilson and his New Labour colleagues, as at Westminster this week, argue that their purpose after all was to ‘bring peace, stability and democracy to Iraq.’! I kid you not, this mindless mantra was hummed repeatedly, on all networks all day Tuesday by the likes of David Cairns MP, Des Browne the Defence Secretary –before his gaffe on the enquiry- and Adam Ingram MP.
Peace? Where is the peace, I don’t see it. More than 650,000 Iraqis have died so far and the sectarian killing according to the UN runs at 100 per day. That 36,500 or the equivalent of ten 9/11’s per year.
Stability? The country has disintegrated into ethnic warfare and anarchy and surely must be the least stable country on the planet. The Kurds are completely detached in the north, Sunni and Shia militia are butchering each other with abandon, Al Quaida have control of entire Iraqi provinces, ceded to them by the US Army and the Iraqi police and army are implicated in all the blood letting. On top of that there is no electricity of clean waters for huge sections of the population in an oil rich country.
For British troops in Basra the stability is just as illusive. John Humphries reporting from Basra last week revealed that the British military high command have not been able to leave their Basra Palace HQ in four months.
And democracy? New Labour lectures us on democracy without a hint of shame. This is just too difficult to take. This is the party which justified ‘regime change’ in Iraq, not by the only people morally entitled to do it, that is the Iraqi’s themselves, but rather by two alien invading western armies.
And to my mind anyone who rejects the clear wishes of the Iraq people who by ten to one want the troops withdrawn is in no position to lecture us about democracy.
This debate needs an honest answer to one question. Is the continued presence of British and American troops in Iraq part of the solution or are they now part of the problem? I know where I stand and its not beside Brian Wilson who says ‘There is no ethical case to justify the imminent departure of British troops from Iraq’.
On the contrary the continued presence of invading armies hated by the population means more deaths of young British and American troops as well as one hundred times as many innocent Iraqis. The case for immediate withdrawal is to bring to an end a hideous and disastrous chapter in this nations history.
Colin Fox, MSP
National Convenor Scottish Socialist Party
Dear Sir
Brian Wilson fails in last weeks column [‘Troops out’ will not end Basra’s misery] to mention any of the reasons he and his New Labour colleagues gave for invading Iraq in the first place. And I am not surprised.
Let’s briefly remind ourselves what Brian said in 2003 to justify this illegal war; Saddam was a threat to this country, Saddam was a threat to his neighbours, Saddam was responsible for 9/11, he had links with Bin Laden and Al Queada, he had weapons of mass destruction [remember that one!]. All were proven to be spurious and the invasion of a sovereign country was declared illegal under international law and it has proved to be just as heinous in its conduct.
Now Brian Wilson and his New Labour colleagues, as at Westminster this week, argue that their purpose after all was to ‘bring peace, stability and democracy to Iraq.’! I kid you not, this mindless mantra was hummed repeatedly, on all networks all day Tuesday by the likes of David Cairns MP, Des Browne the Defence Secretary –before his gaffe on the enquiry- and Adam Ingram MP.
Peace? Where is the peace, I don’t see it. More than 650,000 Iraqis have died so far and the sectarian killing according to the UN runs at 100 per day. That 36,500 or the equivalent of ten 9/11’s per year.
Stability? The country has disintegrated into ethnic warfare and anarchy and surely must be the least stable country on the planet. The Kurds are completely detached in the north, Sunni and Shia militia are butchering each other with abandon, Al Quaida have control of entire Iraqi provinces, ceded to them by the US Army and the Iraqi police and army are implicated in all the blood letting. On top of that there is no electricity of clean waters for huge sections of the population in an oil rich country.
For British troops in Basra the stability is just as illusive. John Humphries reporting from Basra last week revealed that the British military high command have not been able to leave their Basra Palace HQ in four months.
And democracy? New Labour lectures us on democracy without a hint of shame. This is just too difficult to take. This is the party which justified ‘regime change’ in Iraq, not by the only people morally entitled to do it, that is the Iraqi’s themselves, but rather by two alien invading western armies.
And to my mind anyone who rejects the clear wishes of the Iraq people who by ten to one want the troops withdrawn is in no position to lecture us about democracy.
This debate needs an honest answer to one question. Is the continued presence of British and American troops in Iraq part of the solution or are they now part of the problem? I know where I stand and its not beside Brian Wilson who says ‘There is no ethical case to justify the imminent departure of British troops from Iraq’.
On the contrary the continued presence of invading armies hated by the population means more deaths of young British and American troops as well as one hundred times as many innocent Iraqis. The case for immediate withdrawal is to bring to an end a hideous and disastrous chapter in this nations history.
Colin Fox, MSP
National Convenor Scottish Socialist Party
S2M-5078 Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP) : North Sea divers' strike
That the Parliament notes the decision of 500 deep sea divers in the Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT) to reject by more than two-to-one the latest United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association pay offer; recognises the extremely dangerous conditions in which these men work, deep in the icy waters of the North Sea, putting their lives at risk to repair oil wells and pipelines in an industry vital to Scotland’s economy; believes that it is right that their wages should reflect the great danger of the job; recognises the fact that they must pay out £20,000 for their extensive training; further notes that they can spend half their working week in decompression chambers after working at depths of 600 feet, that they face compulsory retirement at 50 and cannot get life insurance, medical or sickness cover for the extremely hazardous job they do; believes that the £46,000 maximum salary is therefore not excessive, being much less than the salary earned by an MSP, for example, and notes that divers’ pay has slipped by 20% in recent years in comparison with similar occupations; believes that while the oil industry is making record breaking super-profits it is only right that the highly important and dangerous job these divers do is fully recognised, and calls on the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association to meet RMT representatives at the earliest opportunity to try to settle this dispute to the satisfaction of both sides.
Supported by: Ms Rosemary Byrne, Campbell Martin
Lodged on 02 November 2006
Supported by: Ms Rosemary Byrne, Campbell Martin
Lodged on 02 November 2006
Thursday, 2 November 2006
Iraq success???????
I sent a letter off to the Evening News last week following a report that British military chiefs were so happy with the ‘success’ of their mission in Iraq that they plan to bring home half the troops by May – I kid you not!
This ‘success’ will come as a surprise to anyone who recalls that more than 120 soldiers have been killed there. It will also come as somewhat of a surprise to hear the illegal occupation of a foreign land described this way so soon after Sir Richard Dannatt the General in charge of the British troops decry the tactics and strategy and presence in Iraq just last week. Dannatt demanded a recognition that the British were hated, losing the battle for hearts and minds and desperately lacked an exit strategy. Well now they have one, namely dress up the campaign so far as a success and get the hell out as quickly as possible.
This ‘success’ will come as a surprise to anyone who recalls that more than 120 soldiers have been killed there. It will also come as somewhat of a surprise to hear the illegal occupation of a foreign land described this way so soon after Sir Richard Dannatt the General in charge of the British troops decry the tactics and strategy and presence in Iraq just last week. Dannatt demanded a recognition that the British were hated, losing the battle for hearts and minds and desperately lacked an exit strategy. Well now they have one, namely dress up the campaign so far as a success and get the hell out as quickly as possible.
Letter published in Edinburgh Evening News
Bring the troops in Iraq back home
THE report in Evening News quoting military chiefs claiming British troop operations had been such a success that half the soldiers stationed there could be home early next year almost made me laugh. I say almost because this is Iraq and there is nothing funny about the deadly failure of British military and political policy there.
If there is talk in the Ministry of Defence about withdrawing the troops - and I expect they are discussing little else - then let us not insult the intelligence of the Scottish public by falling for government propaganda. The situation in Iraq is, as the head of the army General Sir Richard Dannatt admitted, a complete disaster.
Anyone who heard John Humphries reports from Basra this week on Radio Four will surely understand how hated and despised the US and UK troops now are in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Basra was supposed to be in the "safe south" of Iraq, well away from Baghdad and the treacherous "Sunni triangle". But now Humphries - himself hardly an arch-critic of government policy these last four years - reveals that British troops cannot be moved in and out of the city other than in the dead of night, that soldiers travel in daylight only in convoys of heavily armoured bullet proof personnel carriers and perhaps most tellingly of all he uncovers the fact that the military top brass have not ventured out of their Basra Palace HQ in many months.
All that doesn't sound like much of a success to me. More like an utterly disastrous and internationally isolated plan which has not only failed to make the world a safer place but has tarnished Britain's reputation worldwide.
The answer needed here is to bring all the troops home now and recognise that the military occupation of a sovereign country, one we knew far too little about, was a grievous error which only a fool could describe as a "success".
Colin Fox MSP, Scottish Socialist Party National Convener, Scottish Parliament
THE report in Evening News quoting military chiefs claiming British troop operations had been such a success that half the soldiers stationed there could be home early next year almost made me laugh. I say almost because this is Iraq and there is nothing funny about the deadly failure of British military and political policy there.
If there is talk in the Ministry of Defence about withdrawing the troops - and I expect they are discussing little else - then let us not insult the intelligence of the Scottish public by falling for government propaganda. The situation in Iraq is, as the head of the army General Sir Richard Dannatt admitted, a complete disaster.
Anyone who heard John Humphries reports from Basra this week on Radio Four will surely understand how hated and despised the US and UK troops now are in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Basra was supposed to be in the "safe south" of Iraq, well away from Baghdad and the treacherous "Sunni triangle". But now Humphries - himself hardly an arch-critic of government policy these last four years - reveals that British troops cannot be moved in and out of the city other than in the dead of night, that soldiers travel in daylight only in convoys of heavily armoured bullet proof personnel carriers and perhaps most tellingly of all he uncovers the fact that the military top brass have not ventured out of their Basra Palace HQ in many months.
All that doesn't sound like much of a success to me. More like an utterly disastrous and internationally isolated plan which has not only failed to make the world a safer place but has tarnished Britain's reputation worldwide.
The answer needed here is to bring all the troops home now and recognise that the military occupation of a sovereign country, one we knew far too little about, was a grievous error which only a fool could describe as a "success".
Colin Fox MSP, Scottish Socialist Party National Convener, Scottish Parliament
S2M-5074 Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP): Closure of Solectron, Dunfermline
That the Parliament condemns the decision by Solectron to close its Dunfermline facility with the loss of 480 jobs; considers Solectron to be a company which, on the one hand commends the workforce for its excellent performance, efficiency and profitability but then on the other hand effectively delivers a slap in the face to that workforce just before Christmas; believes that this is another blow to Fife’s manufacturing base, and further believes that, rather than finding them alternative employment and retraining, the Scottish Executive should support the staff of Solectron by keeping this profitable factory open and retain this asset to the Scottish economy.
QUESTION PUT TO PARLIAMENT
S2W-29672 - Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP) (Date Lodged 7 November 2006) : To ask the Scottish Executive when it first learned of Solectron’s plans to close its factory in Dunfermline.
QUESTION PUT TO PARLIAMENT
S2W-29672 - Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP) (Date Lodged 7 November 2006) : To ask the Scottish Executive when it first learned of Solectron’s plans to close its factory in Dunfermline.
Free school meals campaign goes from strength to strength
Last Saturday SSP campaigners were out on Princes Street gathering support for our bill to introduce healthy nutritious free school meals for all Scotland's children.- One in three youngsters in Scotland are growing up in poverty [these are the governments own figures] and as bad as that is in a wealthy little country like ours the fact is that less than half of them qualify for free school meals. And to make matters worse many of those who do qualify refuse to eat them because of the stigma of them being ‘only for poor kids’ as they see it. All of this means that many many children in Scotland go without the healthy start that they need and eat a much poorer diet.
- 16% of children admitted to Edinburgh’s Sick Kids hospital last year showed signs of malnutrition. Can you believe that in a city as rich as this one that our children do not get enough to eat or are eating all the wrong things.
- Consequential to eating all the wrong , cheaper things is that childhood obesity rates are spiralling out of control.
These are just some of the problems our Bill seeks to solve. The Free School Meals Bill would guarantee every child a hot nutritious free school meal every day. If it is available to everyone then no child will be left behind – that’s the great benefit of universal provision, long an important socialist principle.
As part of the SSP’s campaign a series of public meetings have been arranged throughout Scotland in the coming 3 months.
The Bill is now in front of the scrutinising committees in the Scottish Parliament and will be debated in full in early January. The important thing now is to rachet up the pressure on MSP’s from all parties to support the Bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)