New Events


no events posted in last week

An Interview with Arthur Scargill

category international | worker & community struggles and protests | feature author Dé Céadaoin Samhain 04, 2009 10:22author by kbrannoauthor email kevinbrannigan at hotmail dot com Report this post to the editors

featured image
Arthur Scargill - a man among the people

As part of the build up to this Friday's 'Day of Action', Unite the Union, invited legendary Trade Union leader Arthur Scargill to Ireland for a series of talks. Before his talk to a packed Matt Merrigan Hall, Indymedia caught up with Scargill to chat about the Miners' Strike of 1984/85 and other contemporary issues such as January's Lidnsey oil refinery strike, which Scargill supported, a strike which caused much debate on the left with the use of the slogan 'British Jobs for British Workers'.

Kevin Brannigan – Folk singer Billy Bragg recently said, “Today’s economic crisis started on March 3rd 1985, the day the Miners were defeated.” Do you support this view?

Arthur Scargill – No. Billy Bragg unfortunately has moved to the right instead of moving to the left. Billy Bragg supported the Miners in 1984/85 and indeed did a lot of things which were very positive, but I think his analysis is completely wrong. The position is that the Labour and Trade Union movement failed to understand in 1984/85 that this was not just a matter of a dispute between an industry and a trade union, this was a fight promoted by the Tory government to try and destroy trade unionism.

Had trade unions accepted the call of the Miners Union to come out on strike with them, the strike would have been over in weeks, but incidentally, you might not know this, on five separate occasions we reached an agreement to settle the strike, on four of those occasions they were sabotaged by Thatcher and the government and on the fifth occasion, the most important one, in October 1984 we reached an agreement, ironically at ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service), and with the Deputies Union present I drafted an agreement which would have settled the strike.

I can tell you that the Government accepted, in secret, that deal and it was only when the Trade Union known as NACODS (National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers) suddenly changed in their position, withdrawing from the agreement they had made with the NUM at ACAS, that the Tory government withdrew its proposal to settle the strike. And even to this day nobody has been able to answer the question 'why did they change their mind?' They even refused a plea from the TUC leadership not to call off their strike. Probably the first time in history the TUC have asked somebody to go on strike!

KB – Well why do you think they changed their mind?

AS – I’m still looking for the answer. It’s like the Ark of the Covenant, but we’ll find out someday.

KB – You said in a television interview in 1984 that you were “proud to be an enemy of capitalism”. Saying such stuff was never going to help you find a middle ground with Thatcher.

AS – Absolutely. You get knocked down in the middle of the road. I’ve never been in the middle of the road. I’ve always been on the left and always will be for the rest of my life. You either take a stand and want to see society changed so that the means of production, distribution and exchange are in the hands of ordinary people and not in the hands of a few, or you go along with the concept that we support Social Democracy and become part of the system, that we become infected with capitalism as a way of life. I’m sorry I don’t go with that. I’m a Socialist and like James Connolly I didn’t want just to see Irish Independence and Nationalism I want to see a Socialist Ireland. Still do, united.

KB – Was it class war in 1984/85?

AS – It’s been class war ever since the beginning of capitalism. If one looks at it you can only define class in political terms by applying one scientific process. There are only two classes. This nonsense about the middle class and the upper-middle class and the lower-middle classes is an invention of the sociologists, perpetuated by the broadcasters on television and radio.

A class is determined by its relationship to the means of production; if you own and control industry and services then you are a member of the capitalist ruling class. If you work by hand or by brain, no matter what your job is, you are a member of the working class and until people understand that they will never understand the nature of what class is or class warfare.

KB – When you look back now after 25 years with the ability to analyse and pick out where mistakes were made, you see how Thatcher stockpiled coal before the strike had started and that she had plans to import coal into Britain. Do you look back at these events and think that you had no chance of success from the start?

AS – See, one of the first things you should do as a journalist is never make the presumption that your question is the right thing to say. In other words, never make a presumption that your point is something that’s a fact. It’s not true. They didn’t have the reserves.

At the start of the 1984 strike, don’t forget the dispute actually started in November 1983, the coal industry had certain supplies but for major industry such as the power industry there was a 26-week supply only. More important, the cement industry, which is dependent upon coal, had only around 12 week's supply but the most vulnerable of all was the steel industry, which had only got 6 week's supply left and no stocking grounds.

That’s why Orgreave was so important and had people followed my advice to recreate what we did at Saltley in 1972 and kept up the mass picketing not only at Orgreave but at Ravenscraig and Llanwern at Port Talbot and all the other steel plants in Britain we would have had the strike settled within weeks. Bearing in mind that at Scunthorpe, for example, which, was dependent upon cooking coal, that steel works had only got about a week's supply left when we had the mass picket at Orgreave.

They couldn’t get coal in by sea because the seamen had stopped it. They couldn’t get coal in by rail because the NUR as it was then had stopped it they couldn’t get it up the wharf because we’d stopped it with our pickets and their only route was by road and if other trade unionists had taken the advice that I gave at the time, indeed if the NUM leadership in many areas had taken the advice, to step up the picketing as we had done in 1972 in February, then we would have brought Orgreave to a permanent standstill.
Tell you an interesting story; just a few years after the miners strike ended I put a telephone call through to the police HQ at South Yorkshire and I asked them if they could send some police straight away down to Orgreave. They said “What for Sir?” Well I said they’re closing it. "Who’s closing it Sir?" I said the British Steel Corporation. "What’s that got to do with us?" Well I said it had a lot to do with you in 1984, you had 8,200 riot police down here and we had 10,200 pickets trying to stop that plant temporarily, just for the course of maybe 5 – 6 days and winning a strike. Here British Steel are closing it permanently and we can’t find one police officer, so you see there is a co-relation between the two things. By the way, that’s called class struggle.

KB – How different place would Britain be today if the Miners had won in 1984/85?

AB – Well I don’t believe we were defeated so let’s get that absolutely clear and I resent and reject this concept that we were defeated. What person in his right mind today would say that James Connolly and those who stormed the GPO in 1916 were defeated? Nobody in their right mind, you wouldn’t have the Republic of Ireland without their campaign their determination and their heroism.

Looking through history people have been told that they were defeated only to see time and time again that was not the case. Probably the most significant is in Cuba. They celebrate 1956 and the storming of the Moncada Barracks where it was commonly conceded that they had lost. 1959, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara walked into Havana and raised the flag of the Revolution, which still flies today. Who won?

KB - The British working class have elected two fascists to the European Parliament. Why has this happened?

AS – Well it’s simple. You have got economic conditions now prevailing not dissimilar to those that prevailed in the 1930s and it’s throughout Europe. On this occasion, for different reasons, you have a worldwide crisis but it’s caused by capitalism and it’s certainly caused by membership of the European Union. Anyone who is daft enough to support the concept of the EU doesn’t understand the damage that it does to countries like Great Britain or to countries like Ireland were the crisis has been catastrophic.

We for example have not only the free movement of capital but the free movement of labour, in other words it can just move around as it wants and it can close down a factory, it can close down a business in Ireland, it can move it to another country.

If workers want to go on strike and do exactly the same thing, withdraw their labour, they’re suddenly confronted with legislation and legal constraints and that demonstrates how they try to keep people's living standards down.

The fact that we saw the crisis that we did over the past 12 months, and it’s still going on, is because capitalism itself is in crisis. You cannot have a system that develops on the basis of one thing only and that’s the accusation of maximum profit because eventually what will happen is you will have a crisis that will bring it to a head and that crisis will create homelessness, unemployment on a mass scale, it will attack pension funds as it has done, it will destroy the whole concept of a sensible health service and education system and those things are inextricably linked with membership of the EU and globalisation. Both of them have got no place with any socialist and should be rejected.

KB – Just to pick you up on your comments on the free movement of labour. In January of this year we had the Lidnsey oil refinery strike in England, which featured placards with the legend ‘British Jobs for British Workers’. What was that about?

AS – It’s about the same thing I’ve just told you about. You can’t have a situation were people can just move factories out of Britain or move labour, not immigration not asylum seekers, there is a difference.

You can’t have a situation were you can just move migrant labour, migrant capital into a society without it having devastating effects on the whole society because it will undermine the whole system that exists.

Imagine a situation were you have unrestricted migrant labour moving from one country to another and the population growth is, say within two years, 8 million, how is the system economically going to deal with that? I’m not talking about immigration I’m not talking about asylum seekers! I’m talking about migrant labour being moved by capitalism.

It’s that which I have brought out time and time again because it’s the movement, the so called ‘free movement’ of capital and labour which is fuelling the crisis not helping to resist it and change and stop it.

KB – It's just that that particular slogan ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ confused a lot on the Irish left.

AS – Well they shouldn’t be confused over it. If you’re in a job and people are saying they’re bringing in, from whatever country you want in the EU because of a policy decision of capitalism, 20,000 workers to do jobs that would normally be done by you, how do you expect workers to react? They’re bound to have a resistance to it.

They’re not saying they don’t except immigration, they’re not saying they don’t accept asylum seekers, of course they do but they are opposing the fact that either their factories are going out of Britain and at the same time they’re seeing migrant labour moved freely in with little hindrance to take jobs that would normally be done by people who live in that country and who have contributed for years. It’s a nettle that’s got to be grasped by the Labour and Trade Union Movement. I’m a Socialist!

KB – You left the Labour Party in 1995 and the Socialist Labour Party was set up after that. Can the left reclaim ‘New Labour’?

AS – No it can’t. First of all let me correct you, the SLP was established in 1902 at a conference in Edinburgh by James Connolly. Our policies ironically are as near as they possibly could be to those devised by James Connolly in the original manifesto.

We re-founded the SLP in 1996 because of the betrayal of the Labour leadership. It’s now abandoned any vestige of pretending to be a party that supports socialism. It’s eliminated form its constitution any commitment to socialism or public ownership. But more than that, it’s dropped the twin cornerstones which formed the Labour Party, a social democratic party one is Propositional Representation, which was abandoned by Ramsay MacDonald, that arch betrayer of the Labour movement in 1926. And then in 1995 Blair abandoned the commitment to common ownership.

Now you can’t have those twin policies removed and make any distinction from the Tories or the Liberal Party, indeed making it to the right of the Liberal Party, and then saying we can re-claim it. You might as well say we can go into the Tory party and re-claim that or change it. It’s complete and utter nonsense: you can’t do it.

KB – You’re a supporter of Sinn Féin, to an extent, how do you think they have preformed in government in the North of Ireland?

AS – Again you see you make presumptions. I’m a supporter of the Socialist Labour Party.

KB – Yes, but you have spoken at Sinn Féin events.

AS – Well I’ve spoken to the Dublin Trades Council, I’m going to speak to trade unionists in Dublin tonight and that is perfectly legitimate and I will speak to organisations wherever they are if they want to listen to an alternative point of view.

I’ve addressed two Sinn Féin conferences, one in Belfast four years ago and one a year ago when I addressed the youth section of Sinn Féin. My views were opposite to theirs and I made it absolutely clear that as far as I was concerned I did not want, as an Irish descendant, to simply see Ireland united, which I do, I want to see a socialist Ireland. To do that you need a socialist policy and you need to make that absolutely crystal clear to the electorate on both sides of the border. Whether that’s in the Republic of Ireland or that part still in the ownership and annexed by Great Britain. And until there is a clear-cut policy that emanates from any party that says we want a United Socialist Ireland, you’ll never have a fundamental change that will benefit workers.

KB- Has Sinn Féin been socialist enough since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement?

AS – Well I think with respect I’ve just answered your question. I will support any argument by any organisation for independence. I will support any organisation that campaigns for the right of self-determination. That’s the reason why I supported for years the campaigns put forward by Republicans in Ireland for a united Ireland. That’s why I supported the ANC in South Africa, because I wanted to see an independent South Africa free from apartheid. But of course that’s not far enough. What you need is a socialist South Africa and a socialist Ireland.

KB – 1984 was also the year of the Brighton bomb. Were the miners supportive of that and the Provisional campaign as a whole?

AS – They I think he’s talking about Provisional IRA when he says they here - KB) were supportive of the strike and tried to persuade the rest of the British Labour movement to support the strike and bring an end to a dispute that was aimed not only at destroying the NUM but the coal industry in the process. So they understood the issues at stake and understood the importance of winning support at all levels.

Tragically there were those on the right of the Trade Union Movement such as Eric Hammond and the leaders of the Electrical Management Association who did everything in their power to support the Tories in opposing the NUM. And that shows a degree of understanding quite unique in trade unionism.

KB – Since ICTU has announced its national day of action the Irish media has tried to change the agenda from talking about the reasons why a day of action is being called to one of attacking union leaders' salaries. What is your opinion on how much trade union leaders should earn?

AS – I think trade union leaders should be paid in accordance with decisions taken by their members. I think that’s perfectly reasonable and perfectly understandable. I don’t go for the Trotskyite argument, which appears to be coming from your question about what they should be paid. No outside body should start interfering. It should be no different from wages policy in either direction.

You’ll find that by and large, if you look at trade union leaders it’s not their salaries that are the problem it’s their policies. And some of the leaders in the past who have been the most militant have been the most attacked and vilified and I don’t need to spell them out to you, certainly as someone who has been under surveillance by the British state on their own admission since 1955.

KB- Finally, regular contributor to Village magazine George Monbiot has yet to take you up on your challenge to stand in a room full of radiation for more than two minutes.

AS – I’m still waiting for him to take up the challenge but he never has. Of course if he walked into a room full of radiation, my choosing not his, he won’t last. He certainly won’t live. I know I can hold my breath for two minutes because I’ve tried it you see and I know what happens with carbon dioxide.

But what also is important is that he can’t get rid of radiation from nuclear power stations and so in supporting nuclear power stations I would say he needs to see a psychiatrist!
In the case of coal we now know, we’ve got the proof, we can remove the carbon by a system called ‘carbon capture’, and that means no carbon will escape into the atmosphere so we don’t have the global warming problem coming from coal.

It’s high time people began to identify where the emissions are coming from. They’re coming from air transport, they’re coming from transport on the roads, and they’re coming from shipping and of course many other areas that they don’t often refer to throughout the world.

The real problem is there isn’t a sensible integrated energy policy that excludes nuclear power completely and begins to develop in our case the 1,000 years plus of coal and extract from that coal all the oil, gas and petro-chemicals we need and which at the same time does not emit dangerous gases including CO2 into the atmosphere.

KB- Thanks Arthur, much appreciated.

AS-You’re welcome and I will be there if not physically but in spirit supporting the demonstrations on November 6th.

Related Link:


author by DonalÓFpublication date Máirt Samh 03, 2009 00:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

An interesting, and (to say the least) complex character. One of the best public meetings I've been to, and probably one of the oddest too.

He's working on a book by his own admission, I find his recollections of the period fascinating (down to the bugged chipshops!) but am not the fondest of his modern day political speeches in all honestly. Good insight into the man here, and not just the famous red-haired larger than life union lion.

His response to the question regarding class war is worth praise.

author by JDpublication date Máirt Samh 03, 2009 01:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Good interview and as said above a good insight into a polarising character. I find Scargill's explanation of the banner ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ very unsatisfactory though. Of course under any Left society the issue of immigration would have to be discussed and addressed in some shape or form. But, ideas such as:

"they are opposing the fact that either their factories are going out of Britain and at the same time they’re seeing migrant labour moved freely in without little hindrance to take jobs that would normally be done by people who live in that country and who have contributed for years."

I would hope would never transpire under any Socialist society. Blaming any worker for wanting to simply work and earn a living at the expense of the "British worker" only serve to drive a wedge between the working classes on an international scale and hinders any possibility of change being achieved.

author by john throne - labors militant voice. publication date Céad Samh 04, 2009 20:01author email loughfinn at aol dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Like tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of others I actively supported the miners strike, raising money and picketing etc. So I am interested to read Arthur Scargill's interview. He denies that the miners strike was defeated. This is just about unbelievable. Thatcher and the British ruling class defeated the miners and threw back the British working class as a whole. How can anybody say otherwise? And the other question which is related, is why would anybody say otherwise?

In this interview with Scargill he does not give even a hint that he himself might have made any mistakes in his position as leader of the miners. This unfortunately is not uncommon amongst trade union leaders and also left groups. It is always somebody else who made the mistakes, it is always somebody else to blame. Of course the rest of the trade union leadership refused to support the miners in a way that would have made their strike successful. But the preparation of the strike within the miners union was determined by Scargill and he made mistakes in this which made it much harder to get industrial action from workers outside the miners union itself. So rather than look at his own role in the miners defeat Scargill denies there was any defeat. This is what is happening here.

Refusing to acknowledge past defeats, refusing to draw lessons from past defeats prepares the way for further defeats. Scargill is not living up to his responsibility here. He is preparing the way for future defeats.

I see that Scargill also takes a poke at Trotskyism. He is against the idea of union leaders being on the average wage of a skilled worker and subject to recall by the membership. This is a Trotskist position. But from experience I know it is supported by many workers. I would like to see it tested in a genuine discussion in the working class movement. But Scargill wants to attack trotskyism. And also does not want to tie himself to a particular wage. While he has something to say about trotskyism Scargill has nothing to say about Stalinism. Surely it also has some sins that could be pointed out. Surely it had influence in the British and international trade union leadership which refused to take the action that would have led the miners to victory.

John Throne.

author by paul o toolepublication date Aoine Samh 06, 2009 13:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In this economic environment it is worth noting that a total of 9 strike- breakers was all it took to smash the Union of Miners. There were 9,000 striking miners. The blacklegs were of course shuttled in by police escort who used to wave their £20 notes earned in overtime to taunt the miners, their familys who were suffering immesurably from hunger amongst other things....
Thacher, Regan and now all leaders across the western world have union-busting/ co-operation/sub -suming as their number 1 priority in advancing their notion of society into the future.....union free, hassle free to abuse us at will.

author by iosafpublication date Sath Samh 07, 2009 20:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I wasn't old enough to properly remember the miners' strike but I am old enough to remember the 80s. Which I suppose puts me in a generational slot below those who do have proper grown up memories and those who have non at all. The 80's political events politicised me to the extent that any school kid going through secondary cycle could be. I remember the hunger strike riots in Dublin and a Garda diverting me in my posh school blazer to avoid the sight of people getting their heads split. I remember Thatcher on TV and the scenes of violence. I was thus then old enough to remember the shortages and power cuts of the 70's before. All those memories gave me a sense of have and have not.

This interview which I've read a few times now, on the first reading sent me to youtube to listen to Billy Bragg. Instead of bothering too much with the industrial worker anthems, union songs and "new England" I have found myself listening to "Saint Swithin's day" since. & as another article has reminded of the fall of the Berlin wall and the father a friend had lost only three months before to the Stasi - I suppose this article has brought me back to the 80's in general - whether it be Irish, British, local, the cold war - whatever.

Scargill's answer to the question about the british jobs for british people sucks completely. As does his reasoning for the BNP. I might agree with Donal OSF that the concept of class warfare is neat - but it has never convinced those who steadfastly stick to the middle class pretence & it is those who dictate the patterns of consumerism and the mechanisms of state. The interview has in fact convinced me that Scargill has not only aged badly as a reference for the modern left or dream of days a reconstitution of a proper labour movement in Britain / England but that worse he never really botherd to rigorously get past a problem inherent to the theory of British labour and socialism.

The jobs were reliant on an imperial system to begin with. Without a protected imperial market the British would never have bothered building their satanic mills and digging their infernal mines. The flaw inherent in the absolutist and trite initial tenets of Marx & Engels popularisation (through pamplets etc - if you will "Marxism lite") as contrasts with complete absorption of the theory was in the inability to explain how workers reliant on empires carved through conquest and the perpetuation of racial differences and inequality could be equal universally and unite to their global betterment . It was in my opinion this very flaw which led to the worst problems of the Soviet system. - Only those who read all the theory and justified their place as apparatchiks and intellectuals in the "-ism" could reconcile the glaring inequalities. Marxism might have been simple in its brochure but it didn't explain why jobs in mines or steel works were better than jobs in rice paddie fields or jobs in rubber extracting jungles of the Congo.

It is my contention that those problems still exist. We are not going to solve those problems by paying too much heed to the miners strike. Nor are we going to solve the problems of imperialism by paying too much heed to the hunger strikes. We wouldn't likewise understand the cold war or the speriod of Thatcher by spending every evening watching a television series which magically transported us back to the time, its language, it's fashions. Not that I say these things aren't worthy of contemplation. But I don't believe they are as worthy as many people think in the task of education future generations in neither "lite" or "inner party heavy" style about leftist thought.

& it is a priority to seperate the chaff from the wheat in the questions where did we go wrong? or more pointedly why did leftist parties collapse in Europe and give birth to "new labour", the european liberal socialists of Schroeder, Zapatero etc..,

If I had been able to add but one question to the list offered Scargill it would have been this :-

How many former strikers under your leadership & their families, do you think vote BNP now?