THE decision by rail workers in the RMT and refuse collectors, represented by the GMB, to take strike action on dates that coincide with COP26 in Glasgow, along with school staff from Cosla, create a real danger that the UN summit, which will garner the city international attention, will also bring it embarrassment on a global scale.
The primary focus of the event, which will bring around 100 heads of state and 30,000 other participants to the city, is of course to co-ordinate the efforts of governments, international agencies, businesses and other stakeholders to tackle climate and environmental issues – a task that almost everyone accepts is of crucial and urgent importance.
But, from the point of view of the UK and Scottish governments, such events also provide the chance to demonstrate leadership, forge alliances, and promote the qualities of the host city. Sometimes, as in the case of Glasgow’s year as European City of Culture in 1990, these can be transformative; or they can be unexpected triumphs, as with the London Olympics of 2012, which had a rocky road in its run-up.
The chaos that could be created by this action is only the latest headache for the city: road closures are already planned for essential arterial routes, the Kingston Bridge may be closed, there could be significant disruption on the M8 to and from Edinburgh, where many attendees will be staying, and major sites and venues have been shut.
All this is before the unknown – but almost certain – upheaval that will be caused by demonstrations. Even if those do not bring the violent disorder that attended some previous protests by Extinction Rebellion or the illegal blockades of Insulate Britain, they will be a logistical and policing nightmare.
It is difficult to attach all the blame to the unions for this latest threat. The very purpose of collective bargaining is to maximise the leverage of the members; effective strikes, or the threat of them, are almost by definition those that are directed at the times and areas that will be most disruptive.
And these disputes have not sprung from nowhere, or from nothing but opportunism. The rail companies and Glasgow City Council should have been preparing to avert exactly this kind of action for months; the Scottish Government, despite its lack of direct responsibility, should have been doing much more to get the parties round the table and ensure that the issues were resolved.
Nor is it merely a matter of avoiding inconvenience to those attending the summit, or avoiding the spectacle of a shambles that discredits Glasgow, the Scottish or UK governments, or all three. There is the small matter of the residents of the city, who have had, in recent years, to put up with a disgraceful running-down of all manner of public services, from road maintenance to healthcare, and libraries to refuse collection. The usual pay-off for the colossal inconvenience caused by this sort of event is a significant investment in the host city, and the opportunity to showcase its qualities; instead, Glaswegians face a fortnight of potential chaos and humiliation.
Glasgow’s infrastructure and services need major reconstruction, not merely to be tarted up for a conference, but it would still be disastrous for one of the UK’s, and indeed Europe and the world’s, great cities to be seen as having fumbled an event of this magnitude, not to mention critical global importance. The SNP, responsible for Glasgow’s governance, as well as Scotland’s, should be considering the message it sends about the country’s competence, rather than reflexively attempting to cast the blame on the UK or the Prime Minister, as the hosts.
There is a case for being sceptical of the value of such large-scale gatherings of the rich and powerful, from G7 summits to the Olympics, and particularly when the subject is the environment – since such jamborees are hardly best green practice. But they can – as with the Paris Climate Accords – produce real progress, or at least consensus on international aims, and that must be the hope for Glasgow. There’s less than a fortnight to sort this out.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here