Unite the Union, Scotland: Mark Lyon “in the wrong meeting” …

January 8, 2017 at 1:52 pm (Guest post, reformism, scotland, sectarianism, Unite the union)

Image result for Picture Mark Lyon Unite
Above: Mark Lyon

By Ann Field

Len McCluskey launched his campaign for re-election as Unite General Secretary at a meeting held in Glasgow last Saturday. Thanks to Mark Lyon, the International Transport Workers Federation full-timer who chaired the meeting, it ended in a fiasco.

In fact, the fiasco had been built into the meeting before it even started.

Since the summer of last year Lyon has dedicated himself to splitting the United Left Scotland (ULS), the Scottish ‘section’ of the national United Left (UL), which functions as a kind of ‘Broad Left’ within Unite.

Stage one of Lyon’s efforts was a meeting held in late August, which he dishonestly presented as a ULS meeting.

Details about the meeting were sent from unitedleft.scotland2016@gmail.com (not the actual ULS e-mail address, but a close imitation). The e-mail was headed “United Left Scotland Meeting” and signed off as “United Left Scotland”.

Lyon did not inform elected ULS co-ordinators of his meeting. Other ULS activists were also left off the e-mail list used to publicise the meeting. But Scottish Unite full-timers certainly attended the meeting in numbers – at the behest of the Scottish Regional Secretary.

Stage two occurred in mid-November, when Lyon sent out an e-mail which proclaimed the existence of the Progressive United Left Scotland (PULS), proclaimed who the PULS candidates would be for the Scottish territorial seats in this year’s Executive Council (EC) elections, and proclaimed himself as elections co-ordinator.

This meant that two PULS candidates would be standing against the two ULS candidates who had been selected at a ULS meeting to contest the Scottish territorial seats. And one of the PULS candidates was not even a UL member.

(In fact, prior to some last-minute juggling by Lyon in his personal selection of the candidates, neither of the PULS candidates he had initially chosen were UL members.)

Stage three followed quickly on the heels of stage two. In late November Lyon circulated a splenetic e-mail on the national UL e-mail address list.

Longstanding ULS members were subjected to personalised abuse, the UL National Chair was denounced for a “deeply personal, vicious and unwarranted attack” on Lyon, the ULS was dismissed as an “oppressive and undemocratic body”, critics of PULS were scorned as “a few self-interested individuals”, and the outcome of ULS-PULS ‘negotiations’ was systematically misrepresented.

Ironically, among the spurious criticisms of the ULS most consistently raised by Lyon were his claims that it was undemocratic and suffered from a culture in which abuse and bullying were condoned.

And yet here was Lyon – in the absence of any meetings of PULS members (insofar as it has a membership in any meaningful sense of the word) – proclaiming the existence of a new organisation, announcing the names of its candidates for EC seats, and launching into a prolonged tirade of personal abuse against ULS and UL members.

In December Lyon sent the first of a series of e-mails publicising last Saturday’s meeting. As had been the case in August, Lyon excluded ULS co-ordinators and a layer of ULS activists from the list he used for all e-mails publicising the meeting.

(Lyon has yet to master the art of blind-copying e-mails. Who he deems worthy, and unworthy, of receipt of one of his e-mails is therefore visible to all.)

But what was the status of Saturday’s meeting?

Was it a PULS meeting? One e-mail publicising the meeting had the header “PULS National Slate and Campaign Materials” and was signed off as “PULS”. An eve-of-meeting e-mail also referred to “our PULS meeting tomorrow.”

Was it another sham ULS meeting? Lyon used the unitedleft.scotland2016@gmail.com address for most of his e-mails about the meeting. And in one e-mail Lyon had declared: “PULS is not a replacement for the ULS. It is the ULS.”

Or was it just a personal venture by Mark Lyon, not subject to any kind of accountability to any broader body? One e-mail publicising the meeting was simply signed off by “Mark” and sent from Lyon’s personal e-mail address.

Another question raised about the meeting was Lyon’s statement in one of his e-mails that the meeting would be attended by “the seven Executive Council candidates we [presumably: PULS] are jointly running in the forthcoming election.”

But who were these seven candidates which PULS was “jointly running”? (And jointly with whom?)

Lyon’s problem was that by the time of the meeting the full UL slate for this year’s EC elections had been published on the UL website.

The two candidates on the slate for the Scottish territorial seats are ULS members, not the PULS nominees. And there are six, not five, Unite members from Scotland listed on the slate as standing for various industrial seats.

Saturday’s 80-strong meeting was no larger than the meeting organised by Lyon in August. In fact, it may have been marginally smaller – despite the presence of an additional five Unite full-timers who had not attended the August meeting.

So much for Lyon’s claim in his splenetic e-mail of last November: “I am part of a group of about 150 people in Scotland and growing. … We grow daily in number and strength in our region.”

It was only towards the end of the meeting, when Lyon announced “our” seven Executive Council candidates, that the fiasco-in-waiting finally came to the surface. Fortunately, McCluskey had left the meeting by this point and was spared witnessing the debacle first-hand.

Lyon introduced “our” five Scottish candidates for various industrial seats on the EC. The sixth Scottish candidate – a member of the ULS, and an official UL candidate – was not asked to address the meeting. In fact, Lyon had not even invited him to the meeting.

Lyon then introduced “our” candidates for the Scottish territorial seats. They were the two PULS candidates whom he had personally selected in November – not the ULS members listed on the official UL slate (whom Lyon had likewise not invited to attend the meeting).

When it was pointed out from the floor that Lyon had failed to mention the ULS members standing for the Scottish territorial seats and officially recognised as UL candidates, Lyon curtly responded:

“You’re in the wrong meeting. They are not United Left candidates. We are supporting our candidates who have been democratically agreed. We are the United Left, we created the United Left, we’re not a different group.”

Lyon clearly thinks that he, rather than the UL, can decree who is a UL candidate. He likewise believes that he, rather than the UL, can decide what constitutes the UL. He even thinks that his own individual personal opinions amount to “democratic agreement”.

And his quip that “you’re in the wrong meeting” might have seemed very clever at the time (if only to Lyon himself). But it is a comment he will hopefully come to regret.

The person who, according to Lyon, was “in the wrong meeting” was an official UL candidate for a territorial seat on the EC. If that UL candidate was “in the wrong meeting”, then that tells you everything you need to know about the nature of Lyon’s meeting.

In fact, if anyone was “in the wrong meeting” – even if he exited it before Lyon’s plea to support non-UL candidates – then it was arguably the United Left’s own candidate in the General Secretary election, i.e. Len McCluskey himself.

The meeting which he used to launch his re-election campaign was one which denied a platform to three Scottish UL candidates, called for a vote for candidates standing against two UL candidates, and refused to call for a vote for a third UL candidate.

Although Lyon made a half-hearted attempt to present the meeting as a UL event, he deliberately withheld information about the meeting from ULS co-ordinators and activists.

And it was a meeting where the disproportionately large number of union full-timers in attendance – including Lyon himself – was at odds with McCluskey’s description of Unite as being primarily about “lay-member radical activism”.

To beat Coyne’s shameless campaign of right-wing anti-migrant populism, McCluskey needs to promote “lay-member radical activism”. But, thanks to Mark Lyon, he could not have chosen a worse event to launch his campaign than last Saturday’s meeting.


  1. Glasgow Working Class said,

    My mrs is with Unite for 26yrs but never hears anything about such meetings. Just the usual little self interested cliques no doubt participating.

    • Unreal!! Dillusional and I must have been at a different meeting??? said,

      If you or your wife, would like to get involved more in Unite then if she approaches her union rep and says so and asks to be added to the activist list for your area. (Or calls unite offices and does it) then she will receive emails to meetings once she has been to a few meetings. They don’t like spamming people with emails unless they are interested. Or leaves an email on here!

      • Glasgow Working Class said,

        When I was a steward with the T&G all members were given notice long in advance for sheduled meetings and reminders posted.

  2. Anne Field said,

    This is the third article to be published on this website about Mark Lyon’s make-believe creation of a new ‘United Left Scotland’. No-one, on even just one single occasion, has claimed that anything in any of these articles is factually inaccurate.

    The reason for that silence is: Nothing in any of the articles is factually inaccurate. All articles are based on Mark Lyon’s own statements.

    (Those statements might be incoherent, inconsistent, and factually inaccurate. But there can be no dispute that the quotes attributed to Mark Lyon are as stated by Mark Lyon. In fact, the vast majority of the quotes are taken from Mark Lyon’s own e-mails.)

    If I was someone who was currently tagging along behind Mark Lyon and his breakaway venture, I’d be asking him questions such as the following:

    “Mark, you told us that your new ‘United Left Scotland’ would be backed by the United Left at a national level. (“It is important to say that we have a level of support for this intervention from friends within the National United Left Committee.”) So how come we haven’t been endorsed by the United Left at a national level?”

    “Mark, you told us that the candidates you picked to contest the Scottish territorial seats on the Executive Council would be recognised as United Left candidates. (“All (our) candidates are running on the same United Left/Progressive United Left Scotland slate.”) So how come your candidates are not on the national United Left slate?”

    “Mark, in one of your many e-mails you raised an allegation that the United Left Scotland was supposedly guilty of “selective invitations to participate” in its activities. But I notice that when you sent out two e-mails on Friday, 9th December (one at 6.13pm, and one at 7.02pm), certain Unite members included on one e-mail were deleted from the address list used for the other e-mail. Isn’t that what you accuse the United Left Scotland of having done?”

    • Glasgow Working Class said,

      Sounds like the Life of Brian. The job of trade unions is to represent their members not the united this or that.

      • Unreal!! Dillusional and I must have been at a different meeting??? said,

        This is written by a very small, bitter, corrupt group of individuals who are not inclusive of members. The group that met at this meeting was open to any activists of Unite who are of left politics not just a select group. Which I may add was the usual for the group who wrote this! Mark Lyon is a man willing to put his neck on the line to get our union back on track to a non corrupt organisation! He should be praised for stepping back into the helm to help sort out the mess!

  3. Anne Field said,


    Len McCluskey has been Unite General Secretary for nearly seven years.

    The United Left has had a majority on the national Executive Council for probably around the same length of time.

    But now Dillusional tells us that the ‘Progressive United Left Scotland’ is needed in order to “get our union back on track to a non-corrupt organisation” and that Mark Lyon is to be praised for “stepping back into the helm to sort out the mess.”

    Get our union back on track to a non-corrupt organisation? Sort out the mess? Isn’t that the Gerard Coyne ‘Take Back Control’ line?

    Genuinely don’t understand.

  4. Roy Bruce said,

    I see after today Mark is a deluded self proclaimed narcissist , imagine writing a book titled ” The battle of Grangemouth ” Mark and Steve deans being the only two to come out of that soap opera smiling .

    Unite are in a mess and that’s because of appointed officials and people like Mark all within agenda of a personal gain .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: