Protests

NINETEEN EIGHTY- NINE

The year of Revolutions and lost hopes

By Stephen Wilson

 

You could never forget the horrific scene. It still haunts me. A formidable troop of police horsemen recklessly charged into a crowd of student protesters. One young female student was trampled by the horses being hurled into the air. She lay on the ground motionless. She did not die but spent the remainder of her life on a wheel chair. When the police horsemen got into the crowd they started to fiercely pound the demonstrators with their batons as if they were raving lunatics. Our photographers managed to capture those scenes and they were subsequently published in the college student union journal. In the aftermath of those scenes some people argued that it was a small group of angry and aggressive  rioters who had provoked this scene. But if so a lot of peaceful demonstrators were injured by those charges and it was not an unprecedented incident. The riot police had been using such tactics against the miners when they went on strike during 1984-1985. Those policemen would thump their batons on their shields and trade insults with the protesters. One judge even called the events of the 1980's 'a civil war without guns'. That line perhaps sums up my experience as a student in 1980's Britain. The ruthless attempt to impose an austerity program with only 40% of  the population supporting this government had deeply polarized Britain leading to strikes, and riots in as many as 30 cities in Britain. The bitterness still runs deep to this day!  

 

During that day instead of going to London, I with a small group of union activists decided to occupy the Conservative H.Q. in Glasgow. We were to take over the office and hang out protest banners on the balcony 'Grants not Loans'. Funnily enough, taking over the offices turned out to be quite easy. We just barged our way in and only an elderly woman physically lounged on such students. We opened a window and got to the balcony where television journalists filmed the scene. When I saw myself on screen shouting slogans, it was uncanny. Only one student was arrested for 'disturbance of the peace' because of the way he had entered the headquarters. I wondered why we were also not charged! Perhaps it is because the police in Scotland are asked to use discretion when it comes to pressing charges. If the police deem that such a move is detrimental to the public interest in the sense it might  be counter-productive {I.e. leading to more unrest rather than less}, then they should use their practical common sense. This usually applies to not serious offences. On a later occasion in 2004 on a visit to Glasgow I noticed that police who found people at a festival drinking wine in the streets did not arrest them. Strictly speaking they could. But instead they simply politely warned the drinkers not to do it again and poured the contents of the bottle down the drain. I think if the police in England had been less belligerent as this Scottish policewoman there would have been less animosity and aggression from both sides.

 

Getting students to attend those protest rallies was not easy. Each representative had to go round to lectures to give a brief appeal to students to come out. We had to give a 5 minute talk in a lecture hall about ten times at least. I lost count of how many times I spoke either in the college canteen or classrooms. It was always the same message. "The Government intends to introduce student loans and replace grants. If they get away with it this will mean less access to the poorest students. Unless we strongly protest they will be  able to impose those unpopular changes. And students won't be able to pay back those loans." Most teachers allowed us to speak. But not all teachers. There was one academic who told me, "You'll have to wait until the end of my lecture". I just went ahead anyway. This lecturer told the other students, "This Stephen is nothing but a troublemaker." Some students told me, "It is a waste of time protesting and occupying offices. What difference will it make? The government is hardly going to change course just because of an occupation." This was because we were struggling against a very intransigent government led by Margaret Thatcher who declared, 'The Lady is not for Turning'. Will the lady did turn or her colleagues certainly turned when it came to Scotland. At present, in Scotland, access to further education remains free in contrast to England. So we did win this fight and were vindicated. Our struggle was not entirely in vain as some cynical students sneered. And the situation in England where students struggle to pay loans is a nightmare. It is so bad that many stuidents think they are better off pursuing a more practical profession or skill such as becoming a plumber. At least such work is in great demand and you don't have to spend years attempting to pay back a loan. That is if you can! Many students just can't pay back the loans. How a student in England can be expected to pay back nearly 60,000 pounds in debt remains a mystery. What can they do it? Just pray for a miracle? We have a situation where students are dependent on food charities and can't afford to rent accommodations. Many students are forced to remain with their parents beyond the age of thirty. And those students stay with their parents not because they are 'parasites' or 'infantile adult Peter Pans' who refuse to grow up, but because rents are too high and wages too low. Wages have decreased by one third in real value since 2008.  It is worth noting that England has one of the most expensive systems of university tuition in the World.

 

Why did Scotland manage to avoid the loans system being imposed? It could be that the Scottish have a long tradition of defending the legacy of a free education. Such a philosophy has deep roots in Scotland. It goes back to the Reformation when John Knox declared that school education should be made free to every school child so they could read the Bible. This custom was supported by numerous Scottish philosophers like Edward Caird and George Davies. There is even a notion that the Scottish tradition is at odds with England because it stresses a wholly free and accessible education system open to all in contrast to England. The term is called 'Democratic intellect'. The notion of a free education in Scotland is viewed by many as a sacred cow. Woe to any government in the south which attempts to challenge and stop it. The reason why the government did not impose loans in Scotland is because they would have risked the break up of the Union. The Scots would have lost patience and declared independence. And it seems that the Scots, who have their own parliament which is headed by a prime-minister who is a Scottish nationalist, are on a collision course. Now the prospect of Scottish independence does not seem so remote as in 1989.

 

However, Scots can also express sympathy and solid support to impoverished students in England. Our hearts go out to them. We hope that a new government in England will reverse student loans and a more improved and caring education system will emerge. As always, it remains axiomatic that you can't achieve this without tireless struggle.