Unison members accept two-year council pay deal
Unison Scotland's local government committee chairwoman Suzanne Gens said: 'This pay deal is a crucial step in turning round cuts to council staff pay.
'It gives local government workers some financial security now they know their pay will be higher than inflation over the next couple of years.
'This has only been achieved because of the determination of council workers to demand better.'
The union's co-lead for local government David O'Connor said there was 'no room for complacency', despite the offer being accepted.
'Local government has suffered over a decade of cuts,' he added.
'This pay deal shows what can be done when people stand together. Our campaign to protect council services continues.'
Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison welcomed the news, urging other unions to also accept the offer.
'I am delighted that Unison members have voted to accept this improved pay offer, which will see valued local government workers receive pay increases of 4% in 2025-26 and 3.5% in 2026-27,' she said.
'Although the Scottish Government has no formal role in local government pay negotiations, we recognise the importance of an agreement being reached by Cosla – as the employer – and trade unions.
'I would urge members of Unite and GMB to join Unison members in recognising the clear benefit of this offer so that all workers can get the pay they deserve without delay.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Jeremy Corbyn's new outfit won't back indyref2. No British party will
'When that party launches, which I'm expecting to be later this month, will be the start of us getting serious in Scotland and finding out who the members are when they join and trying to get, we're looking at the end of August before we get any real meeting of what will be the new party in Scotland. Until then, we don't really have a position other than we are happy to take part in the coalition, electoral alliance talks in Scotland on that basis, on the basis of supporting a referendum.' So, a big vote of thanks to Jim Monaghan for straightening that out for us. In fact, there is a very simple answer to the question of what will be the position of the Scottish plook on the arse of Corbyn's new party. It will be whatever the arse says it will be. The arm of this new British political party located in Scotland will be no different from the Scotland branch offices of the other British parties. Parties are not permitted to have different positions in different parts of the UK. If the likes of Anas Sarwar tries to give the impression that 'Scottish' Labour has a position on any issue that is distinct from that taken by his boss, Keir Starmer, he is lying. Which will shock nobody. The same goes for the other British parties that are either squatting in Scotland's parliament or hoping to do so. None of them can possibly have a distinct position on the constitutional issue. It is impossible for Sarwar to be in favour of a new referendum while Starmer is against it. Because it is all a single party. And Starmer is in charge. Sarwar is there to try and look as much like a real party leader as he can – no much! – so that the British media can go on promulgating the lie that Scottish Labour are (a) Scottish, and (b) a real political party. It is not Scottish, it is British. It is not a political party, it is a sham. It is part of the apparatus which provides the illusion of democracy and respect for Scotland's distinctiveness. It is all entirely false. The speculation about this new party's position on an independence referendum has nothing to latch on to. If that position is to be inferred from Jeremy Corbyn's stated attitude over the past few years, it is as plain as if it was the victim of one of Jim Monaghan's 'clarifications'. If I were to attempt to sum it up, I'd say Corbyn is not – or tries to appear as if he isn't – as explicitly or fervently opposed to a referendum as many (most?) other British politicians. But now is never the time. That being his position, it is also the position of the bit of his party that calls itself 'Scottish'. If they tell you differently, they're lying like Sarwar. It is all irrelevant anyway. Because even when British politicians try to look as if they are not anti-democratic, they are operating within a system which is inherently anti-democratic. As is the case throughout the discourse around the constitutional issue, people talk of a referendum but never define or describe it. As if this referendum could be only one thing and everybody already knows what it is so it doesn't need to be stated. Generally, what people have in mind is a referendum such as had in 2014. They have been 'conditioned' to think of a Section 30 referendum as the 'gold standard' of democratic events. It most emphatically is not! You are probably asking the obvious question. If a referendum held under 'powers' transferred from Westminster to Holyrood is not the 'gold standard', what is? Or perhaps you are wondering what precludes a referendum held under transferred 'powers' being a proper constitutional referendum. I shall attempt to address both these points. The following suggested criteria for a true constitutional referendum were first published in July 2023 as an appendix to the Stirling Directive. Though no longer online, the criteria were referred to and republished in November 2024. In short, a true constitutional referendum must be binary: The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable – they must be two quite different options and not two variations on the same thing. Both options must be tightly defined at the outset and may not change in the course of the campaign. What is voted on must be what has initially been proposed. Both options must be deliverable, in that the winning option and the following actions must be implementable immediately and without further process. To satisfy the previous criteria, the referendum must be on the question of whether to end the Union with England-as-Britain. The legislation authorising and regulating the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. The outcome must be acknowledged as an expression of the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland and therefore binding on all parties. It should also be understood and acknowledged that the outcome of one referendum cannot preclude future campaigning for other constitutional change even where such change would alter or obviate the prior choice. The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria for residency within Scotland. Registering a vote must be made as easy as possible but with due regard for security and confidentiality. The referendum must be held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament with oversight and services provided exclusively by Scottish institutions. Every effort must be made to eliminate or at least minimise external interference. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, Britain shall be classified as an external (foreign) power. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, political parties registered as such and headquartered other than in Scotland shall be regarded as agencies of the country where they are registered and headquartered. In summary, a constitutional referendum is binary, with options which are discrete, defined and deliverable. It must be entirely made and managed in Scotland by Scotland. It must produce a clear decision and not merely a result. It must meet internationally recognised standards for a democratic event. And the outcome is the undeniable expressed will of the sovereign people of Scotland. These criteria were not meant to be prescriptive. The intention was to provoke a discussion about the form of referendum Scotland's cause requires. Most of the criteria are, however, quite evidently essential. That the referendum must be binary. That the options be fixed and not permitted to change in the course of the campaign. Perhaps most pertinently of all in the present context, the stipulation that the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. A referendum held under transferred powers can never be determinative and self-executing because this would mean that the people had the final word on the matter and not Westminster. A proper constitutional referendum would acknowledge the people of Scotland as the ultimate authority, not Westminster. The British state not only will not transfer powers for a proper constitutional referendum, it cannot do so. Supposing it was possible for the British state to transfer powers such as would allow a proper constitutional referendum, this would breach the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The doctrine which underpins the entire edifice of the British state. Without ultimate political authority being vested in a parliament under the near total control of an executive whose clients are not the people but the ruling elites, the whole thing comes tumbling down. The three pillars of the British 'system' are unchecked power, unearned privilege and unregulated patronage. None of these pillars can exist in a political system which is truly democratic. If the people had the authority which the term 'democracy' implies, it is not believable that they would tolerate the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define a British state which serves the few regardless of the cost to the many. A proper constitutional referendum is informed by the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Therefore, no British government could ever acknowledge the sovereignty of the people in any meaningful way. They may state it as a slogan. But they absolutely cannot give it political effect. It follows that, whatever rhetoric they contrive to make it appear otherwise, no British political party can ever support a proper constitutional referendum. The power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum cannot be given in any case. Regardless of the compelling reasons why the British will not and cannot give that power, the power itself is inherently 'ungiveable'. The right of self-determination is inalienable. It is a human right and cannot be surrendered, transferred, forfeited, abrogated or removed. It is as inherent to the people as life is to the person. If the power to exercise the right of self-determination is in the gift of another, this necessarily implies that it is not present in the people. But it is an inalienable right and cannot be other than present in the people. I hope this has gone some way towards explaining both why no British political party can ever genuinely support a proper constitutional referendum and why a referendum held under powers transferred from Westminster can never be a proper constitutional referendum. Peter A Bell via email
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Claims of 'sovereignty of Scottish people' won't hold up in real world
On November 23, 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament has no power to legislate for an independence referendum, not because of opinion, but because constitutional authority lies solely with Westminster. Holyrood, regardless of the mandate, is legally bound. People then shift the conversation from Parliament to 'the people'. But the people can't act through a Parliament that holds no legal authority. That's the trap. You're told to win a majority, but once you do, you're told you have no right to use it. That's not democracy. That's occupation dressed up as devolution. And what happens if we push anyway? Let's be crystal clear: Westminster has the legal power to shut Holyrood down, just like it did to Stormont on March 30, 1972. Northern Ireland's Parliament was suspended, and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 formally abolished it. A precedent exists – and the UK Government has already demonstrated its willingness to use it. Still, some cling to UN treaties. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is often invoked as a means of protection. However, in the 2010 ICJ ruling on Kosovo, the court made clear that international law doesn't prohibit declarations of independence, but it also doesn't enforce them. It depends entirely on power and recognition. In 2017, Catalonia declared independence. Spain declared it illegal. The EU looked away. Catalan leaders were jailed or fled. Why? Because they had no power to make their sovereignty real. Compare that to Kosovo (2008) or the Baltic states (1990–91). They didn't ask for permission. They created a crisis, gathered support and forced recognition through action, not appeals. Even Canada's Supreme Court (1998) stated that Quebec had no right to secede unilaterally, but rather that a clear referendum would create a political obligation to negotiate, not a legal one. Every route that Andy and others cling to – votes, courts, petitions, the UN – has already been tested. Every door is locked. Every demand for proof of public support is just a stalling tactic. And when we meet the condition, they move the goalposts again. It always comes back to one truth: you either have the power to enforce your sovereignty, or you don't. Scotland does not. Not yet. And until this movement stops confusing theory with force, and starts acting like a people denied their nation – not petitioners in someone else's Parliament – we will never be taken seriously, at home or abroad. James Murphy Bute ANDY Anderson in commenting on my long letter (July 7) writes that I mistakenly assume 'that the so-called UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish people can't have a referendum on independence'. He correctly states: 'The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to institute a referendum on that subject because it can only act within its allotted powers under the Scotland Act, and constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster. This says nothing about the powers of the Scottish people, who in fact hold sovereign power in Scotland.' The only reference to the 'Supreme Court' in my letter was when I said: 'The only item in Jim Fairlie's 2020 article not still entirely relevant is his perceptive warning – that went unheeded by the then leadership of the SNP – against taking the right to an independence referendum to Westminster's 'Supreme Court'.' The entire substance of Jim's article was that neither Westminster or its legal creations could legitimately overrule the sovereign rights of Scotland's people and further he sets out how those rights could be asserted in a Scottish Parliament with a democratic mandate. My own agreement on that position was, I thought, made pretty clear in my last long letter of July 7. If there can be any doubt, I draw Andy's attention to my long letter of June 24 where I stated: 'Some assert that this would be to ignore Westminster's Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood could not act on reserved matters without Westminster's permission. Not so; this approach tackles Westminster's attempted roadblock to democracy head-on. Westminster can be notified of our intent as a protocol courtesy. However, any problem with regard to their Scotland Act and a 'transfer of powers' is a problem for Westminster to address, and not a Scottish Parliament with a specific mandate from Scotland's highest legitimate authority – that of the Scottish people.' Perhaps, Andy was wilfully misreading me to, yet again, mention Scottish Parliament, Petition Number PE2135 on Implementing the International Covenant on Civil and International Rights (ICCPR). A petition I fully support and signed a while ago. The only point on which we may differ is that I regard having the ICCPR passed into Scottish law as a potentially powerful extra lever in the inevitable (political) struggle to prise away Westminster's death-like grip on Scotland. Just not as a magic key that alone will vanquish all obstacles to the exercise of Scotland's democratic rights. Mike Wallace Edinburgh AS I've mentioned a few times before in my letters, I have been guilty in the past of the cardinal sin of voting for Labour. For my sins, I eventually saw the light and ditched them for the SNP and independence sometime in the early noughties. It got me thinking, though. What if I lived in England? Well, as Labour have now basically turned into the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the US, we clearly now have a US-style political situation in England where you can choose between the Tories and Reform UK (the equivalent of the Trumpian Republicans in the US) or Labour (the Democrats). I reckon it's a case of Bernie Sanders's 'no more', England style! As in the US, none of these options now tackle the grotesque inequality and poverty in our society, so basically as a voter that actually has a heart and cares, you are well and truly screwed! If I lived in England, I would definitely vote for the Greens but they ain't gonna win power any time soon so it would basically feel pointless, which is so sad! So, clearly progressive voters in England have no say in who governs them. Well, actually they do but not in the way they would like. Ditching Labour for the Greens or the new party on the left potentially being jointly led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will almost certainly make it even easier for that awful man Farage to be the next prime minister. What aboot us, though? There are thankfully two progressive parties to vote for – the SNP and the Scottish Greens. As we all know, these two parties were in coalition in government. Happy days as far as I'm concerned! Then shitty politics got in the way! The non-progressive wing of the SNP (ie the right-wing types!) got into a fankle and wouldn't settle until they had persuaded Humza Yousaf to ditch the 'lefty' Greens! The rest, as they say, is history. So where am I going with all of this? Well, I'll tell ye where am gaun! Folk with a heart and that actually care are well and truly being squeezed oot o' the democratic process. Nowadays, and it's aye been, it's aw aboot shitty 'growth' which is meant tae trickle doon tae the masses (aye right!). We perversely pride ourselves in Scotland and the UK of living in a democratic society but this 'democracy' doesn't stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer year after year after year! Aye. Ye can stuff this type of 'democracy' up yer arse! Ivor Telfer Dalgety Bay, Fife I WAS disappointing to see the celebrations of the Entente Cordiale by two heads of state. That treaty deprived Scottish citizens of the right to French citizenship that they'd had for centuries. Maybe French education is not what it's cracked up to be. Macron, like his predecessors at the start of the last century, considered Scotland to be a throwaway for better relationships with England. Trump is not the only leader to enjoy having his ego massaged! Drew Reid Falkirk FURTHER to Alan Hinnrichs's letter (The National, Friday, July 11), this should be compulsory reading to a far greater audience, such as the UK and US governments and to all those who believe all the Israeli propaganda. I have previously written to your wonderful newspaper and to others about the genocide that has been happening in Gaza for a very long time. It seems to have been the aim of the Israeli state since 1948 to rid Gaza and the West Bank of the Palestinians. Previously, they have encouraged their population to remove peaceful Palestinians from their rightful homes by using force and even murder of these innocent Palestinians. Now, for a very long time, they have been bombing household buildings and killing many thousands of innocent civilians, mainly women and children. The UK and US governments have been complicit in this genocide by continuing to supply weapons to Israel. How many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been murdered under the pretext that there has supposedly been a Hamas leader sheltering in one of the bombed buildings? For a very long time, the Israelis have denied food and sustenance to the fleeing and sheltering population. Now, the IDF has been guilty of shooting civilians, who have been queuing at so-called safe relief stations, to supposedly receive some meagre scraps of food. Hospitals have been bombed and many medics have been killed, just trying to do their job of treating the injured and trying to save lives. These, all, are crimes against humanity and the Israeli state must be held accountable and punished for these criminal actions. However, the governments of the UK and US must be held accountable for supporting and supplying weapons, thus aiding Israel in committing this genocide and ethnic cleansing. During the Second World War, people and governments denied being aware of what was happening to the Jews in the German concentration camps. However, with modern technology, the whole world can see what is happening in Gaza every day and they should do something to stop the murder of innocents. Robert Cumberland Blantyre
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Jobs lost and weddings cancelled as Scottish venue in shock closure
The closure of the Gables Hotel in Gretna, famed as a town to which people elope from England, has left 16 people without jobs. Local outlet DnG24 reported that liquidators will be appointed on July 16, and that all trading and reservations have been cancelled, even for fully pre-paid weddings. The hotel's website is down, and no one answered the phones when The National called. On Facebook, people with wedding reservations were questioning what had happened at their chosen venue. READ MORE: Popular Scottish cafe to close for 'unknown length of time' after pipe collapse 'Anyone who knows why Gables Hotel Gretna are cancelling people's bookings?' one user wrote on a local page at the start of July. A second post, from Dave Moore, said: 'Does anyone know what's going on with the Gables hotel? We have our wedding there in a few weeks.' Moore later told DnG24: 'I tried to call them a number of times but there was no answer, so I joined a Gretna Facebook group and put a post on there asking if anyone had any information. 'I started receiving private messages from others who had been booked in at The Gables, asking if I had managed to find out what was going on. I believe there are quite a number of people who were booked in for a wedding and had paid in full like ourselves. 'By Friday we had still been unable to contact anyone from the Gables. I called the Wedding Bureau in Gretna (who we have our ceremony booked through) and they informed me that the Gables had ceased trading and that the liquidators would be contacting people this week.' READ MORE: Campervan driver arrested after three-vehicle crash at Culloden battlefield In February, the Gables Hotel was listed for sale with agents Colliers for offers in excess of £1 million. At the time, the agents said: 'This well-established wedding, corporate, and leisure venue presents an excellent opportunity for investors looking to acquire a thriving business in one of the UK's most popular wedding destinations.' The hotel was reportedly built in 1917 and features 31 en-suite letting bedrooms, including five four-poster bridal rooms. It has parking for 50 vehicles and a series of dining and event spaces for parties ranging from 16 to 80. The National was unable to contact The Gables Hotel for comment.
