SINCE May, this Conservative government has made it incredibly clear exactly what their agenda is and what their priorities are. After securing a majority in Parliament, they are effectively working to secure a low-wage economy.

Their twin-track approach is to attack the living conditions of individuals and to destroy the power of workers working collectively to secure better terms and conditions.

Despite the Tories' continual claims that they are introducing a "living wage" at £7.20 per hour, the reality is that the real living wage is currently positioned at £7.85 per hour. This is the living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation, set independently and updated annually, and is calculated according to the basic cost of living in the UK.

At the same time, the Tory government plans to cut tax credits to such an extent that many people will face a severe drop in their income. More and more people will be forced into accepting low-paid jobs as the Tory assault on the benefits system continues, with sanctions forcing people into work that simply will not pay enough and lead to ever-increasing queues of those in employment waiting outside foodbanks to feed themselves and their families.

The other element of the Tory twin-track attack on workers is to undermine the ability of employees to work collectively to protect their pay and conditions via their trade unions.

Historically, being in a trade union provides a range of benefits to workers. This includes better rates of pay, more job security and better health and safety. However, it comes as no surprise that the Tories do not like trade unions or the power of workers to bargain collectively for better working conditions.

Although the Trade Union Bill was debated a few weeks ago in the UK Parliament, with the upcoming SNP conference (where I will be speaking at an SNP Trade Union Group fringe meeting) I thought it would be useful to explain in full why the Trade Union Bill is so dangerous, hypocritical and erosive.

Firstly, one of the main proposals of the Bill is to reform strike laws to require a 50 per cent turnout for strike ballots to be considered valid. In cases of “essential public services” such as health, education, fire services and transport, the requirements become even tighter with 40 per cent of all those eligible to vote, as well as a majority of voters, having to support a strike for it to go ahead.

This 40 per cent rule is one which many in Scotland will already be familiar with, given that the last time it was used was in the failed 1979 referendum for a Scottish Assembly. At that time, Labour MPs insisted that 40 per cent of the electorate must vote Yes for Scotland to get any devolution. At that time, electoral registers were routinely out of date and this meant that anyone who moved out of Scotland or those who had died but had not yet been removed from the electoral register effectively counted as No votes. The same problem will exist for the trade unions if this rule is applied. The 40 per cent rule will make it increasingly more difficult for those working in public services to go on strike.

What is most appalling of the introduction of this rule is the complete hypocrisy of it. The very Conservative government looking to introduce this requirement was actually only supported by 24 per cent of those entitled to vote in the General Election. Even if you only count those who voted, Conservative support only came in at 37 per cent of the participating electorate.

If this standard was applied to the General Election 270 of the Tories in the House of Commons would remain unelected. The Tories would fall short on the very standard they are imposing on Trade Unions.

For me, the most insulting and damaging aspect of the Bill is the introduction of the ability to use agency workers during industrial disputes to replace strikers. This will create more strife in the workplace; it will pitch union members against agency workers; create conflict between those who are trying to protect their terms and conditions and those who are being forced into employment via the threat of zero-hours contracts and benefit sanctions. There are also health and safety concerns about inexperienced agency workers taking on the roles of the permanent workforce.

The use of agency workers completely undermines the whole purpose of strike action. It is worth remembering that one individual withdrawing their labour is as ineffective as it is replaceable. However, the withdrawal of labour en masse by many workers united is incredibly powerful and effective. What balances out this power is the reality that, fundamentally, workers do not wish to strike. It is hassle. It causes financial hardship, stress and difficulty. If workers vote to strike, they do so as an absolute last resort. The only bargaining chip workers have to defend their rights and interests at the negotiating table in order to wield any kind of influence is the ultimate threat of possible industrial action.

In legalising the introduction of agency workers to replace those on strike, the Government does not only introduce potential battle lines between agency workers and those employed directly, but they are also pulling the carpet from underneath workers' feet. If your labour is replaceable, then by definition so are you. And your demands are therefore of no consequence.

The one mechanism you had to influence and ensure your safety and dignity in work is taken from you. When this was debated in the Commons, I was met with many attempts to condone this aspect of the Bill by saying that strikes caused unnecessary disruption and inconvenience to the general public and, therefore, it was only fair and responsible that agency staff could replace workers on strike to minimise that disruption. This argument completely misses the point of a strike; it is supposed to disrupt. It is supposed to cause inconvenience, whether that be to raise public awareness, public pressure or to simply be effective.

The disruption is deliberate and essential. And If that inconvenience to the public ensures higher pay, fairer contracts and improved working conditions, then it is an inconvenience well had.

Trade unions are key social partners, playing an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, especially in the workplace. The Tory Trade Union Bill will tie up trade unions in red tape and leave workers with some of the weakest legal protection in the developed world.