The creation of the Scottish parliament was a significant achievement for the trade unions in Scotland. The movement had long been at the forefront of the devolution struggle, campaigning hard to win round the Scottish people to the idea that a Scottish parliament would make a real difference. Now, as the first term of our parliament draws to a close, we can ask whether that sense of achievement has stayed with the unions. How have we had to evolve over the past four years to make the best impact on the new legislative landscape in Scotland?
Our biggest challenge to date has been in building our capacity to respond effectively to the opportunities to influence decisions which have a major impact on our members. We are now helping to shape solutions, which requires detailed research, planning and, sometimes, rapid policy development, not to mention the substantial amount of written submissions formulated in response to the many different enquiries and consultation exercises taking place as legislation is created. At the beginning of the parliament s life, most unions in Scotland did not have a research function. Their research officers in London either did not understand the different systems in Scotland or failed to prioritise Scottish work. It became clear that, just as the power had been devolved from the UK to Scotland, so too would resources need to be devolved from union headquarters at UK level to their Scottish offices.
Resources have been a major issue for the STUC too. In the first six months of the parliament s existence, the STUC found itself organising more ministerial meetings than it had in the previous twenty years. Before, the Scottish media had always seen the STUC as the voice of Scotland s working class. The parliament now provides a new focus for their attention and, as a result, it has become increasingly difficult for the unions to lead the media agenda, something that they had always taken for granted before.
The unions responded to these issues by increasing the STUC s resources. But cash alone was not enough to ensure effective lobbying. We needed to redirect our efforts to where our reach and influence went furthest. That meant letting the TUC get on with representing Scottish members at a UK level, while the STUC concentrated more on devolved issues.
However, while progress has been made, there still remain challenges to be overcome. Union members don t necessarily appreciate that their views are being represented more effectively because to them the visibility of the union movement in Scotland has lessened. It is hard to explain that we don t stand and shout in the street anymore because our time is spent in meetings discussing the finer points of policy.
Similarly, everyone was so used to hearing and reading the views of the STUC, they don t understand that our efforts are now directed more towards ensuring that MSPs hear our views. So, in many ways, we need to work on how we can continue to promote the work we are doing to the media, in order that the public still see us as a relevant force.
Finally, we need to ensure we don t become fixated only on devolved issues and become too inward looking. The TUC, which, after all, represents all of Britain s trade unionists, should have a more visible presence in Scotland on the campaigns they run at UK level on issues like taxation, pensions, employment law and benefits. Also, as devolution makes the differences between our systems grow, we have to pull together more and make the effort to compare and learn from one another s mistakes and successes. In short, devolution is a constitutional journey, which requires evolution from all of its passengers. But, in my view, despite all the changes and difficulties, it is still a journey well worth embarking on, bringing government and the people closer. Ultimately, that can only be a good thing for trade unions.