The recent attack on Unite (Editorial, 15 December) ought to be beneath your paper. It made incorrect accusations and in doing so exposed a fundamental lack of understanding of how trade unions function. Unite did not spend “enormous amounts of money” to “thwart” Jim Murphy. The money we spent to support Neil Findlay was used to communicate to Unite members, entirely in keeping with Labour party rules. The decision was in itself taken by Unite members – the working men and women of our regional committee who opted to back him – because that is how we operate, as a member-led, decision-making body. Far from being “out of touch” as you suggest, we are duty bound to listen to the day-to-day voice of our members and act upon their wishes.
How our individual members cast their vote is up to them, in the privacy of their own homes. They are not the lumpen electorate your writer considers them to be, as can be seen in the votes for the other two candidates. Six in 10 of our members chose to back Neil Findlay because they support his policies. Jim Murphy is now the Scottish Labour leader. Consistent with the values of our movement and the wishes of the electorate, Unite will work alongside him in the hope of winning back disillusioned Labour voters. I urge that the Guardian reflects upon the true nature of this vote and the genuine challenges ahead for Labour in Scotland, and in so doing resists the temptation to indulge what seems to be little more than the anti-union bias of some on its editorial team.
Len McCluskey
General secretary, Unite the union
• Your interesting two-part series, Britain on the brink and How the kingdom survived (17-18 December) had an unfortunately misleading subhead: The real story of the Scottish referendum. You explained very well the unity of the establishment in overcoming the threat to its existence but readers might have come away with the impression that it was only the SNP that stood against them. A grass-roots movement of remarkable proportions spread the Yes vote across the country. The Radical Independence Campaign, Hope over Fear, the National Collective, the Common Weal and others built one of the largest anti-austerity movements in Europe. For them it was not a campaign to support nationalism but a burning desire for social change and self-determination. This partly explains why 97% of Scots registered to vote – the highest level in Scotland or Britain since the introduction of universal suffrage – and turnout was 85%, compared with 65% at the 2010 general election.
And the campaign continues. For example, the post-referendum conference of the Radical Independence Campaign, held in Glasgow last month, attracted more than 7,000 requests for tickets. In the end only half that number could be accommodated but to do so the organisers had to hire extra venues to cater for meetings on an astonishing range of social and political topics. The conference agreed a policy of a social alternative to austerity and privatisation; a green sustainable economy; a modern republic for real democracy; and internationalism based on opposition to Nato and Trident.
Murray Armstrong
London
• Your account of the referendum campaign exposes the SNP’s obfuscation, now even more successful than ever in pulling the wool over the eyes of so many Scots. Three months on, Alex Salmond has obtained a safe seat to carry him to Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon coasts along promising referendum 2 and neither has yet been called upon to answer their false promises to the needy in Scotland. Horrid cliche, hence perfect for David Cameron and the SNP – be careful what you wish for.
Carolyn Kirton
Aberdeen
