No fight from leaders
Socialist Organiser1984 1984-02-16Read it in the scan (PDF), scan page 15 →
Transcribed from the scan of page 15 (26 Oct 2026) after a reader report: the machine split had no page for this article and scattered it through 'Why to go on Feb 25', 'Ranks must take over' and Philips. The last letters of the right-hand column are cut off at the edge of the scan and have been restored where the word is certain.
Proofed text: read against the scan word by word; spelling, punctuation and wording are as printed.
Scan page 15
WITH every day that passes in Scott Lithgow's fight for survival as a nationalised oil rig construction yard the incapacity of the trade union leadership, locally and nationally, to initiate the fight needed to save it becomes that much clearer.
The Clydeside Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) has followed up its recent rally of 1,000 in Glasgow with mass production of a leaflet.
The leaflet warns that "If George Younger (Tory secretary of state for Scotland) refuses to intervene, Scotland's reputation in the offshore industry could be seriously damaged". This would mean that "the Koreans, Norwegians, Japanese and others would be delighted."
So, the leaflet asks, like as if it was World War Two all over again, "Whose side are you on?" and goes on to pledge that the Scott Lithgow workers, if their future is assured "will accept flexibility and three-shift working. Compare this positive attitude with the negative stance of George Younger."
The only action which the leaflet calls for is to "write now to your MP urging government action to save the yard."
The Clydeside CSEU is also considering calling a demonstration. But no date has yet been fixed. Presumably it wants to wait until the whole affair is over before doing anything so adventurous as call a demonstration.
The well-attended mass meeting on February 10 rejected a call for immediate occupation. Scott Lithgow convenor Duncan McNeil opposed occupation and announced those speaking in favour of it as people whose goal was to disrupt the meeting and who would oppose whatever was proposed from the platform.
Then he pledged occupation if a takeover deal was done without the union's approval. But how can such a pledge be taken seriously? McNeil used to vow opposition to privatisation. But now that privatisation is on the cards, he only quibbles about the terms of privatisation.
But the meeting did agree to a ban on overtime. That overtime was still being worked at this stage in the dispute is itself an indictment of McNeil's record as convenor. McNeil attempted to prevent the meeting discussing the resolution calling for an overtime ban. It was not relevant to the purpose of the meeting, he said!
The purpose of the meeting for McNeil and his backers on the shop stewards committee was two-fold: demand the right to be consulted on the takeover talks, and declare acceptance of the so-called "survival plan".
McNeil won on both points.
By accepting British Shipbuilders' survival plan, McNeil succeeded only in isolating the yard's workforce from workers elsewhere prepared to put up a fight against the survival plan.
The best chance of saving the yards now is that the terms of the privatisation will turn out to be so unacceptable that it becomes impossible to reopen the questions of the survival plan and privatisation and ditch them along with McNeil and the other shop stewards who travel the same path as him.