“WITH Armistice Day (11th November) fast approaching, it’s appropriate that at least one trade union speaks out in support of Britain’s servicemen and women.”

Adam Walker,

President, Solidarity Trade Union.

SOLIDARITY is a free, autonomous and radical nationalist trade union.  Our priority is defending the rights of our members and workers generally.  Therefore, we’re primarily interested in subjects like wages, working conditions, health and safety and so on.

We realise that there is a fine line between basic trade union work and politics.  But we don’t cross that line. 

However, in a personal message just prior to Armistice Day, STU President Adam Walker has attacked the Con-Dem government’s attitude to returning servicemen and women.

Mr. Walker – who served in the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars – said that many service personnel were facing an uncertain future. 

“They have laid their lives on the line for this country.  Yet what are they returning to?  A bankrupt Britain – where jobs, housing and money are in short supply.

Those that remain in the services may see their jobs go as part of the deep military spending cuts.

Many of those who leave the services will bear the physical and mental scars from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  With the NHS facing savage cuts, who will care for them?”

Mr. Walker noted:

“Remembrance Day honours the sacrifice countless thousands of Britons made in two world wars and more recent conflicts.  As Solidarity is Britain’s only nationalist trade union, it’s fitting that we pay homage to their noble sacrifice.”

He continued:

“On a personal note, I’d like to see more being done for ex-service personnel.  For instance, everyone has the right to a decent home.  What about the government setting up a scheme whereby those returning from the front-line can build their own homes?  This would create jobs.  They should then be allowed to buy these homes at cost.  This would at least enable them to set down genuine roots in their local community.

I’d also be interested in what Solidarity members and supporters feel about the idea of setting aside jobs for our returning servicemen and women.  Remember, they have shed blood for Britain and have served our country with distinction.  Should they not have the right to come out to a guaranteed job at the end of their service?

My message to the government – on behalf of all ex-servicemen and women is: You’ve had our Blood – now give us our rights! ”

Comments

National Syndicalist

0

 

 

I found this article very interesting. Am I right in thinking that there’s an historical precedent for ‘setting aside’ jobs for the armed forces? I’m sure that I’ve read somewhere that this was the case after the Second European Brothers’ War of 1939 -45.

On a related military theme, I also found Pat Harrington’s personal comments very interesting in the previous article ‘National Executive condemns Osborne’s spending cuts’ (24/10/2010).

He mentions Iraq and Afghanistan and calls them “immoral, illegal, and imperialist wars”. I agree! We should get out of these US-led imperialist adventures. I’m not a pacifist, but I believe in the idea that Britain should mind its own business and that Britons should fight for Britain only.

I know that the war in Iraq was for oil, but what are we doing in Afghanistan? The cynic in me believes that the ‘powers that be’ must know that there’s oil (or mineral deposits) there. Would anyone know anything about this?

Once our armed forces are out of Iraq/Afghanistan, they would be better employed in some sort of national reconstruction programme here.

Sunday 28 November 2010, 22:00

Shoreditch

0

 

 

First of all, I’d like to wish all Solidarity members and supporters in Scotland a belated Happy St. Andrew’s Day (for 30th November).

I think ‘National Syndicalist’ may be right about jobs being ‘set aside’ for the armed forces. My late father served in the artillery during 1939 - 45. I remember him saying that when he was demobbed former members of the artillery joined the Post Office en masse.

National Syndicalist is also right to be cynical about the war in Afghanistan. Sometime ago I recall reading/hearing someone saying that all wars are economic. The same looks to be the same for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iran in the near future?) A quick internet search revealed that the war in Afghanistan is more to do with oil and mineral wealth rather than taking on the Taliban. Have a gander at these links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?_r=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7835657/Afghanistan-cla ims-mineral-wea lth-is-worth-3trillion.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/08/20108159431776396.html

George W. Bush and Tony Blair were the chief war mongers here. Wouldn’t it be ironic if they had ties to companies that would profit in some way from these wars?

‘National Syndicalist’ also notes that our armed forces “would be better employed in some sort of national reconstruction programme here.” Yes, they should have some form of positive peacetime role. But what?

At the beginning of last year, Solidarity Trade Union featured an article ‘How can we solve youth unemployment?’ It looked at a book called ‘The ABC of the Welsh Revolution’ written in 1982 by Derrick Hearne. He advocated a form of conscription to solve the social and economic problems inherited by his future independent Welsh Wales. Conscripts in ‘the Army of the Republic’ would care for the land, maintain roads and railways, provide farm labour and be involved in various environmental projects.

I think that there’s some merit in this idea. The fact that conscripts join ‘the Army of the Republic’ suggests that Hearne feels that the armed forces are better placed (I presume via skills/discipline/motivation) to implement some form of national reconstruction programme.

Monday 06 December 2010, 23:06

National Syndicalist

0

 

 

The comments (and links) provided by ‘Shoreditch’ last month make for interesting reading.

I’m now even more cynical about this so-called ‘War against Terror’. Were the horrific events of 9/11 just used as a convenient excuse for the US and UK to invade Iraq? First of all, Bush and Blair said that Saddam Hussein had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' (none of which have ever been found). Then they changed tack and claimed that they wanted to liberate Iraqis from Saddam’s repressive regime.

But I think the real objective was ‘Black Gold’ – also known as oil.

Bush and Blair then invaded Afghanistan to seek out Osama bin Laden and destroy Al-Qaeda. They quickly turned their attention to the Taliban. However, I think the search for oil was also behind this invasion. The US and UK have extensive spy networks all over the place. Is it realistic to believe that they didn’t know anything about Afghanistan’s substantial oil and mineral wealth?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’m no pacifist. But these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolute madness. Many ordinary working-class kids join the Army because it’s the only way out of a life of poverty. And, as usual, it’s ordinary working-class families who’re suffering the most. We shouldn’t be interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations. We should get our troops out and involve them in a national reconstruction programme here.

Personally speaking, as a patriotic British trade unionist, I think I’d have more in common with patriotic Iraqi and Afghan trade unionists than I ever would with Bush and Blair. I now firmly believe that they’re nothing more than war criminals.

Saturday 08 January 2011, 19:32

Please login to post comments or replies.