Talk:Arthur Scargill

"Subsequent events in the inductrial landscape of the UK saw Scargill's position during the strike largely vindicated." How exactly? No one would dispute the industrial landscape has changed, everyone thought it would and most far-sighted people saw it needed to. What was his particular position about it? How have subsequent events vindicated him? The industrial landscape of the country has dramatically changed but the economy has grown markedly. Doesn't that along with numerous other lines of evidence actually point to his being mistaken.

Until this statement is substantiated and supported, I'm removing it. --82.38.224.70 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the point was that Scargill foresaw the mass closures of mines across the UK and was thus right to take a stand despire pressure not to. See for example, [1], which declares "History shows us that all Scargill predicted did indeed come to pass." I think it's important to make this point in the article, though it could be done in a more NPOV way.

That's an opinion not a fact. The UK mining industry had been in decline in terms of output, mines open and people employed ever since World War I so it did not take a genius to work out that this would continue. Was Scargill right to try to halt this decline through strike action (in fact - was this ever a realistic way of combatting the closures)?

That is the question, and not one I think we can answer even today. Failure to hold a ballot was certainly a tactical error that allowed the Labour Party to avoid declaring support for the strike.

Exile 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Acegikmo1 05:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The industrial landscape of the country has dramatically changed but the economy has grown markedly." So the economy growing is the only thing that matters? The USA for example has the largest economy in the world but it has 12 percent of people living below the poverty line.

True - but the UK has a welfare system. Unemployment is now lower than at the time of the strike and the pit closures. Former mining villages and towns are obviously suffering - but this is a process that had been going on for decades before the strike and is repeated in other industries such as textiles, steel and railways. In other words, the UK has, for the last 100 years, gradually ceased to be a major manufacturing and heavy industrial economy (except in, ironically, arms). There are many reasons for this but the fact remains that despite (?) this decline, people in Britain are wealthier, healthier, longer lived (albeit maybe not happier) than at any time in the past.

Scargill believed this process could be halted by strike action - was this at all realistic?

That's not the point. This is Wikipedia, not a politics forum. The salient fact here is that Scargill predicted the almost total collapse of British heavy industry under Thatcher and he was, in retrospect, correct. It's not Wikipedia's job to discus the pragmatism (or otherwise) of his position.

Exile 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No one is claiming the economy is all that matters but, by God, it matters a lot. Try living in the developing world and then tell me economic growth isn't important. Moreover, poverty figures from the US are frequently misused. This is because they are defined differently from the UK; for example, often they are defined pre-welfare payments rather than post. Secondly the larger economy in the US means that the average citizen is wealthier than the average UK citizen. From a utilitarian perspective (often adopted by the left in decrying the wealthy few for the poorer many), this would be seen as better despite the "impoverished" minority. I'm a British citizen but I hate the bashing that the US always gets over here, especially the intellectual left.

Returning to Scargill's predictions, I would say that the majority of his predictions, however banal they may have been, came to pass in fact if not in opinion. That the coal mining industry all but collapsed means he was correct in predicting it; however, the motives he ascribed to the government of the time are not necessarily correct. Has any Tory politician ever admitted to wanting to destroy coalmining (the industry, not the unions)? It is important for the article to make this distinct: that one can predict outcomes and one can predict reasons for those outcomes. Scargill was often right on the former, but I have my doubts to the latter.

I also take Exile's point that easy predictions shouldn't be attributed. Anyone can spot the obvious. Panlane 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I posting this to start a discussion on Arthur Scargill and the way he is entered into the Wikipedia currently which I feel is biased and not objective. Particularly:

1. "fiery and effective orator" I feel that this should be altered to "a fiery and effective orator with sympathetic audiences". It was his lack of effective persuasiveness and communication to the general British public that resulted in him being such a marginalised and ultimately ineffective politician - he had a crushing defeat by the Thatcher government with the unsuccessful miner's strike.

Even his opponents regarded him as effective. Its fair to say it was one of his atributes so we should take the "sympathetic audiences" bit out. Thatcher was the same. She was opposed by the majority of the population consistently but you cant take her charisma and effective speeches away from her.

2. He managed to destroy the National Union of Miners which split during his leadership.

Thats POV. For a start the NUM was a powerful union right up until they were annilated, 1992 onwards is when they were finished. Also you cant ignore the government and coal boards role in trying to nuture the UDM to weaken the NUM.

He did split the union, which had been united until the 1984 strike.

Exile 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

3. Although he was elected with an 'overwhelming majority' when he became lifelong President of the NUM many observers felt it was a 'fix'. At the time the election was surrounded by controversy as he suddenly and with little warning ( six weeks) decided to put a vote to the membership for this change in status (previous Presidents were re-elected at regular intervals. This 'gamesmanship' resulted in no effective alternatives having time to organize and campaign.

I take it your refereing to his retirement? That was dodgy but you'll need to get some sources before putting it in.

4. Any way you look at it Arthur Scargill was considered to be way outside the mainstream and largely out of touch with reality - at the time he was referred to as 'the loony left'. Unlike other far left politicians such as Tony Benn or Michael Foot he never managed to really use influence effectively and gain any direct or elected political - somehow I'd suggest that needs to be reflected in the profile.

Again POV. Its right to say he was way way way outside the mainstream. Saying he never used his influence effectivley is wide of the mark. He was instrumental in defeating Heath in 1972 and toppling the Tories in 1974 and the 84 stike was a very close run thing. Mr Benn and Mr Foot never toppled any enemy government.

'Mr Benn and Mr Foot never toppled any enemy government.' That was Arthur's problem. Benn and Foot are democrats and wouldn't dream of toppling the enemy except at the ballot box. Scargill toppled one elected government, and wanted to repeat the performance. Such behaviour didn't endear him to a lot of people, and unsurprisingly the Tories were better prepared second time around...

How was it a `close-run' thing? There were famous stock-piling mountains of coal, higher than the power stations. Thatcher didn't exactly need to negotiate at any point; the end was a whimper of people returning to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately in the final analysis Scargill failed himself and the people he purported to represent - how can this be put in to balance the entry which seems to infer he was successful at some level?

Opinions?

Nick

He led the NUM were defeated. Was it his fault? Thats debateable at best. "purported"? He was the elected leader of the NUM. He won a landslide in 1980 when elected president and won convincingly after the strike.

What is this myth that Scargill toppled a government? 1974 was THE most democratic thing that Britain ever had. There was a union v government dispute, and Ted Heath [not Arthur Scargill] called an election on it for the electorate to decide. The electorate decided in favour of the unions. What exactly could have been more democratic than that? Epa101 10:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

How come there's no mention of Scargill's visits with and/or rhetorical support for Ghaddafi and various leaders of communist governments? He was pretty much the George Galloway of his day... AnonMoos 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

How come? Well if you can find evidence of this, do so and put it in the article. Wonder if you have got the point of wikipedia? -- 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC) User:Exile

Like it or not, his alleged Libyan and/or Soviet connections were very well-known and controversial in the 1980's, and it's faintly ridiculous that there's nothing about them in the Wikipedia article. However, I should have said that he mainly gratefully accepted support from the Ghaddafi and/or so-called "Soviet workers" (apparently with rather little concern about ethical considerations or probable political consequences)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not Ok to write sentences in the article along the lines of "many people think he was a criminal"! He was accused of specific things which were tested in court or in NUm enquiries. The accusations and the results of these enquiries is NPOV. Johncmullen1960 04:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Libel must be a believable and specific accusation. Calling Scargill names is simply abuse. If name calling was libel, Scargill would be defending thousands of civil actions. "Eh by gum, Thatcher is Torey scoom and thief." "whig" means horse thief in Scottish Gaelic. "tory" means thief in Irish Gaelic. "NUM" means retarted c*cks*cker in Waghinese, so by precedent, that is what Scargill is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.87.74 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for information about Scargill's positions on the Bullock Report and Workers' Control more broadly. I gather that Scargill opposed workers' control, but I don't have any information as to what his objections were based on. Any sources on this would be appreciated. -Father Inire 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't have specific information on Scargill's position, but the debate usually revolves around: 'there is no point in getting involved in so-called 'workers control' when the enterprise is still owned by the capitalists'. So it's often a discussion around workers control versus workers ownership. If you don't own it, why get involved in running an enterprise that, by definition (if you take that point of view) exploits you. Scargill was originally in the Communist Party and would have taken a broadly Marxist view on matters like this. A Google search for "Scargill workers control" threw up some potential sources. - Dave Smith 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone else have a problem with the "he supports Stalin" references in the current article ? I suppose they might be true but I smell a rat. The independent article cites a Morning star column that is supposedly written by a member of the Stop the War coalition. Apparently another "Stalin apologist". Frankly, the Morning Star ?!?! It could very well have been made up and they have had to pay damages to the subject of the article. Something is wrong. I call for more research here, especially in light of Wikipedia's "Biographies of Living Persons" guideline. Thankyou. 82.27.245.84 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Johann Hari has an article in the Independant which confirms this. He is an admirer of Stalin. If knowbody else puts this is I will. RicoRichmond (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is in the article, see under 'Founding of the Socialist Labour Party'. Philip Cross (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Johann Hari's article in New Statesman, which is the only reference currently Wikipedia gives for this, does tell two anecdotes to back up the "Stalin apologist" claim. The author may have witnessed the first in person, although it's not clear if this is the case, or what the source was otherwise. Hari offers no source for the anecdote about what Scargill is supposed to have said to Krushchev. Hari doesn't mention Solidarity. There is no Wikipedia article called 'Founding of the Socialist Labour Party'. The article Socialist Labour Party currently doesn't make any claims of support for Stalin, but does describe conflict with Stalinist organisations and expulsion of their members from the SLP. Dependent Variable (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think we can, by now, safely discount the use of anything written by Johann Hari as a WP:RS, especially where there are WP:BLP concerns.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the accuracy of Johann Hari's piece was never denied, so it stands. Scargill's Stalinism is well-known and long standing. Here's what he said to Kruschev when he visited the Soviet Union:

“You can’t get rid of him [Stalin] by removing his body from the mausoleum, you know. You can’t rewrite history and he did play a valuable part during World War Two.” [Quoted in Scargill and the Miners Michael Crick, Penguin, p32, see here]

Here's what he said about his reasons for leaving the Communist Party:

“I disagreed with the Russians not allowing dissidents to leave the country... I also objected to the moving of Stalin’s body outside the mausoleum and changing the name of Stalingrad. It would be like us trying to pretend Churchill never existed. It was distorting history. And I didn’t like the personal discipline of the party. They wanted me to sell the Daily Worker on Fridays, but I had union business to look after on a Friday so I joined the Co-operative Party.” [J. Mortimer, In Character, p66, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984.]

And here's him later:

“Following the death of Stalin in 1953, new forces seized control in the Soviet Union, and a so-called ‘new realism’ began to take the place of Socialist planning. Khruschev, Breznev, later Andropov, Chernenko, but above all, Gorbachev did what the might of the Nazi army had failed to do—they ripped the heart out of the Soviet Union and destroyed its Socialist system. They opened the door to the ‘free market’ which has produced mass unemployment, poverty, a life expectancy of 46 (compared with 76 under Soviet Socialism)...”

It's a lock. He is a Stalinist. His membership of the British Stalinist Society puts it beyond doubt anyway even without the above. Does this extend to his SLP? Well, let's ask one of its leading lights, Harpal Brar:

“unlike the revisionists and Trotskyists, the SLP honours and cherishes the great achievements of socialism in the USSR. It refuses to denounce that legendary communist, Joseph Stalin. For that reason, deservedly in my view, Comrade Scargill has been denounced by the counter-revolutionary Trots and revisionist liquidators as a dictatorial ‘Stalinist’—a badge that I have told him he ought to wear with honour.”

So not only is the SLP an avowedly Stalinist party, but according to Harpal Brar, Scargill is also a Stalinist and should be proud of it. FOARP (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The only family member mentioned in the article is his father. Can anyone add other family members or anything about his personal relationships etc? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr Scargill was criticised for not holding a National Ballot for the strike. An explanation for this was made by miners involved in the Strike. One said; 'The problem Arthur faced was that many miners thought their jobs were safe and were unlikely to vote in favour of a strike. Arthur could see that the Conservatives only plans for the mining industry was to close it down. If he held a Ballot and lost it would have amounted to the Mining Union voting it's self out of existence'. For Mr Scargill to have held a Ballot it would have been a betrayal of everything he ever stood for and everyone he ever cared about in the Mining Industry and in Politics.Johnwrd (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cared deeply I would say. He was eventually told by the NUM that they were not there as his personal bank account (....and never was). During the 80s, strikers would die if he wanted them to do as such, and only recently would the NUM tell him to come back down on earth. They failed, and they needed a verdict from the Supreme court to confirm they had no obligations towards Arthur Scargill. He could call for the deaths of many miners, but he can't even get a flat in London free of charge. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

For a figure as important and well-known as Scargill, this article is a hell of a mess.

I propose a restructuring -- perhaps along these lines Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Early life

Education

YCL membership

Career in the NUM

as Pit Delegate

as Yorkshire Area Sec

as President

Miners Strike

Political Career

Clause 4

SLP

I would go for it, it can only get better. Keith D (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Arthur Scargills actions probably changed little. The British univerities, compared to the German, offered few places for studying mining engineering. Equally Fewer and fewer young men were willing to go down the pit, although open cast mining might survive.

It is a matter of record that during the discussion about the possible closure of a Kent coal mine, all the underground mine staff present wanted the mine to close. As one of them summed up the situation "I don't want any son of mine to have to go down that pit".

With the increasing use of oil and gas firing for power stations and fewer recruits etc deep mining was a dying industry. It is possible that the members of the Decomcratic mine workers union had already realised this and that a head on confrontation with the Thatcher government would only speed up the run down, which is what happened.

Add to these circumstances the total lack of public sympathy for the miners and the Thatcher government were always likely to win against the miners. During the miners strike was the now almost forgotten ambulance drivers strike. The Ambulance drivers did have the public sympathy, the Thatcher govenment realised this and rapidly settled this pay dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's total rubbish to say that there was no public sympathy for the miners during the strike. There was massive support, as witnessed by mass demonstrations and large amounts of money being collected in solidarity. The country was sharply divided between those supporting the miners and those supporting the government. It was the nearest thing to a civil war in the UK since the General Strike.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 07:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Judging by opinion polls, though, the majority of the public did not support the miners. As the strike went on, more and more people were alienated from supporting the miners due to their brutal methods.--Britannicus (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is purely your opinion. "Brutal methods" ? Five miners were killed in the strike, no policemen were. Which side was brutal?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Er, what about the two miners jailed for murder after they killed a car driver by dropping a concrete block onto him off a bridge? Ben Finn (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whatever load of money Germany puts in on the coal industry, they are not as much efficient. Britain gears out say 8 or 9 percent of its proven coal reserves. Germany gears out half a percent. Dying industry indeed. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This talkpage is for suggested improvements to the article, not for general discussions of its subject.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

As Honorary President, Scargill received generous benefits. These include £33,000 p.a. for the rental and running costs of a flat in London and various other benefits said to total £5000 p.a.

He is currently threatening legal action against the NUM for the withdrawal of some of these benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.56.53 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

From the lede "he became one of its leading cadres"... Can an individual be a cadre? Tigerboy1966  11:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arthur Scargill. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Scargill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050508081141/http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/ to http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Scargill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510125544/http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/european-elections/candidates to http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/european-elections/candidates

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The details about Scargil being a recluse are now out of date. He is currently involved with the Socialist Labour Party of Britain. 86.41.22.126 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply