The Point

Last updated: 27 June 2022.

Independence and the red herring of working class unity

Gregor Gall deconstructs the argument that Scottish independence would break trade union unity and solidarity across the UK.

 

There are a number of red herrings in the debate within the left about what the consequences of and motivations for independence. Amongst these are the equation of independence with nationalism and the notion that an independent Scotland would see the peoples of England consigned to permanent Tory rule. This article will focus on another one: that independence will split the unity of the working class in Britain, because this is one of the most potentially damning arguments on the left.

The charge is that independence would break the unity and strength of the unions and working class in Britain, and that this strength is predicated on organisational structures being cross-British. The first consequence in this scenario would be that common employers are not faced by workers by in the same union or as a joint force so that workers are weaker and ultimately can be subject to the tactic of 'divide and rule' by employers. The second is that workers do not show solidarity to each other when they are in struggle because they no longer see themselves as brothers and sisters due to the border. The third is that workers compete against each other – on their terms and conditions of employment – in order to win the favour of employers.

Each of these is more than possible if Scotland was to become independent. But that does not mean to say that they are probable because it is seldom that the structure of unions in and of itself - within and between different countries - plays a decisive or significant role. What is more important factor is the oppositional class consciousness of workers. Such a consciousness can lead to different workers in different unions in different countries pulling or pushing in the same direction. So some care needs to be taken in order not to wrongly assume that change in the structure of nation states means that worker solidarity across borders cannot or will not take place. But by the same token, it should not be assumed that bigger states guarantee that unions within them will support their members in struggles throughout the geographical territory of this state.

The strongest case for such a doomsday scenario of disunity is probably to be found in the public sector/public services (see below) and not in the private sector. This is because there would be little to no change to structure of employers in the private sector but much in the public sector. In the private sector, there is no reason for workers to either leave existing unions to set up new ones, or for existing unions not to cooperate with each other either side of the border if Scotland was to become independent. This is because regardless of a new border, the employers in the private sector would pretty much remain the same compared to how they were before. Yes, employers would be constituted as separate legal companies in Scotland given that they would be operating in a new state while continuing as before south of the border. But the close historic and on-going ties either side of the border suggest that in practice the companies would continue to act pretty much as one body either side of the border, especially as the existing management would remain in place. This point is buttressed by the fact that employment law in an independent Scotland is unlikely to change (and change dramatically) any time soon under an SNP dominated government. But more important than this would be that the structure of the labour market within the Britain would remain very similar because workers are prepared to move across and throughout Britain for work and because employers would recruit throughout Britain for employment north and south of the border. So, for workers employed in effectively the same company either side of the border, there would be no point not staying in the same union. Again this point is buttressed by the fact that existing structures of collective bargaining would be anticipated to stay the same with cross-border negotiations the norm. Thus, workers in the same company either side of the border would continue under company level or industry level bargaining to bargain together collectively with their common employer(s). Where competition in the private sector is possible between workers either side of the border between England and Scotland is over competition for investment and to escape divestment. This would not be a new phenomenon as competition already exists between different areas within Britain to attract investment or retain production (especially by offering concessions on work practices).

What would be new would be that corporation tax levels could be significantly lower in Scotland than in England (or Wales and Northern Ireland) as this is the intention of the SNP. Indeed, the SNP has stated that it intends to reduce corporation tax the level of the Republic of Ireland. That reduction might occasion workers in England to feel compelled to offer concessions in their terms and conditions of employment in order to counter-balance what was perceived as Scotland's competitive advantage (i.e., to make up for the higher taxes in England). Or it might compel the government in the rest of Britain to lower its corporation tax (or change the tax law so that companies find it easier to evade paying their full amount of corporation tax).

The situation in the public sector is probably much different though. A new state in Scotland will become a new employer for many public sector workers, occasioning new and separate bargaining arrangements. Already significant numbers of civil servants are employed by the Scottish government and covered by separate collective bargaining arrangements. Furthermore, teachers, local government workers and NHS are already covered by separate collective bargaining arrangements in Scotland compared to south of the border. Only in teaching are there already separate unions (although the NASUWT organises north and south of the border). Yet there remains much similarity here in terms of wage structures and associated conditions because of the existence of a Britain-wide labour market. And it should be noted that other than the case with the EIS (which is affiliated to the TUC), Unison and PCS organise these workers already either side of the existing border.

But those public sector workers which would be employed by a new (state) employer would be the majority of those in the civil service. One could foresee a situation, with a state as employer which has its own policy objectives and a different path for national development, where members of existing unions in the civil service may not feel quite so compelled to remain in the same unions as those for civil servants in England. But before this conclusion could be reached, these civil servants opting for cession would have to be of the view that a) their existing Britain-wide union was not prepared to give them sufficient autonomy to be able to deal with the different situation in Scotland; b) the labour markets north and south of the border were sufficiently different for civil servants that a common union was of no great benefit; and c) employment law would diverge between the two countries so that Scotland became much more progressive than it was in England. It is hard to see these three conditions being fulfilled, especially as it is not anticipated that an independent Scotland under the SNP would create significantly better conditions for civil servants. So both employer and bargaining structures would diverge but that would not mean that new and different unions would be required, much less be desirable. Indeed, if a union like the PCS has policies – and implements these – based upon resisting neo-liberalism and austerity, then there is no reason to believe that civil servants in an independent Scotland would not also want a union able to have and implement the same policies under a new state.

In addition to the civil servants, the ending of national (i.e., Britain-wide) bargaining in the fire service and universities could be expected. Already there have been longstanding pressures from employers to end this form of bargaining in the universities but a new opportunity would arise with independence. The pressure for ending national bargaining in the fire service has been less marked. Nonetheless, what employers in both sectors wish is to move to forms of regional bargaining (or especially in case of universities sub-national bargaining like cartels of institutions of similar standing) where pay and conditions can either reflect different geographical labour markets and different amounts of resources. Yet the question of whether this would lead to new, separate unions is very much open to doubt for the reasons raised above with regard to the civil service. But in this instance, existing membership of the same unions in the fire service and universities is also likely to be maintained because downward pressure on terms and conditions of employment could arise in either or both England and Scotland. Maintenance of membership of the same union would be a helpful step to resisting such downward pressure

To re-iterate the point made earlier, being in the same union is no guarantee of action as the structure of unions is not the key determining factor. Rather, oppositional consciousness is. That said, there is little prospect when the scenarios are thought through of independence in Scotland either in the public or private sectors occasioning the creation of new Scottish-only unions as a result of cession from existing British-wide unions.

There is one possible exception to this – but even it is not a strong one. It concerns the public sector. Under an independent Scotland, the ultimate employer for this working in the public sector and public services will be the state or government. That is who the unions will seek to bargain with over pay and conditions. There may be cause to say that in this situation where pay and conditions are set by a national state without regard to as what is happening in England or Wales, there is a case for Scottish unions. But equally well, and given that public sector unions have existed for many generations, there seems little need to create new Scottish-only unions in this situation. This is because the labour market for public sector workers will no doubt remain very similar – if not the same – north and south of the border after independence because workers will be free to move back and forth. The few remaining Scottish-only unions in teaching will continue as they are and are no less effective than others for being constituted in this way.

All this is important context because one way of approaching the independence debate is to see the issues in terms of tactics and strategy rather than in terms of principles and ideology. So if mobilised working class unity on an all-Britain basis is not anywhere near a highpoint because of a decline in class consciousness and the capability to collectively mobilise, we should then ask whether are there other ways to get to where we want to be? In other words, could an independent Scotland help push and prod workers south of the border into a re-awakening of a progressive or class consciousness?

(This is an excerpt from my recent book, Scotland the Brave? Independence and radical social change (Scottish Left Review Press, 2013) which is available for £4.99 at http://www.scottishleftreview.org/shop/ )

Gregor Gall is Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Bradford