IT would be delusional for us to think that the government does not already have a strategy to deal with strikes by public service workers. As a minimum, the Conservative government would have searched through their annals to find the Ridley Report (Economic Reconstruction Group), highlighted briefly in the TV series Sherwood, to see how the government of the day set out to deal with those opposed to the privatisation of the nationalised industries and in particular the unions in 1977.

The report on the nationalised industries set out a strategy to overcome inefficient and uncompetitive industries that either did not know what their individual unit costs of operation were or would not divulge those details to parliament. The solution was to place the industries into the private sector, fragmentise the sectors – e.g. NHS and rail to name two – so that the loss makers could be determined and shut down and the others sold off. Not only were the industries firmly institutionalised as part of a way of life but there were very large union and political lobbies wanting to keep the industries as they were.

The Ridley Report set out for the Conservative government the means to defeat those that oppose privatisation.

The first step to privatisation was to introduce the “nasty little bill” to destroy union monopolies in the public sector.

Opposition to privatisation was also high in the civil service and the report highlights those industries where the public vulnerability to strike is high for example: Category II – including rail where the public would be vulnerable in a four-week strike.

The greater deterrent to any strike was to cut off the supply of money to strikers including welfare payments; prepare to deal with the problem of violent pickets and recruit non-union personnel to cross picket lines. Some strategies we are currently hearing about in the media today.

It will come as no surprise having read the report that the government will use some of these tactics as were used in I977 and it is unlikely that in the rail strike the government is not in some way involved in a dispute be it in rail or other public sectors.

Richard Cox

Derby

The National: National Extra Scottish politics newsletter banner

So there you have it, Johnson confirmed it from his own mouth.

He is who he is, he will not change, so the electorate must get used to it, and the bad news is there is more to come – because he has a job to finish, so “suck it up”. He didn’t actually say that, but it felt like he did.

There is a delusional man in charge of the UK and the control systems have been “gamed” by his supporters. His supporting team are currently planning to manipulate the executive committee of the 1922 committee (the backbench committee in the Conservative Party that vote to remove and/or for the new PM).

So not even the Conservative Party can remove his hands from the power controls. Listening to the informed political commentators, it will require the cabinet to metaphorically “wrestle” control from him and his team.

Surely, the Conservative backbenchers will vote him out after last week’s by-elections, you may ask, but the thinking is that the turnouts were low – Wakefield was 39% and Tiverton was 47% whereas at the 2019 election they were 64% and 71% respectively.

With a year before next election they will forget, particularly with the backing of the print and broadcast media moving the focus on.

READ MORE: Keir Starmer hit with resignation as Mike Amesbury steps down from shadow cabinet

His Levelling Up agenda is under threat as the “Blue Wall” in the home counties are worried that monies being earmarked for northern constituencies would be better spent further to the centre of their universe.

The infamous quote from October 6, 2012 – “A pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde” – should not be forgotten by the Scottish voting public, be they pro-independence, but more so pro-unionism.

The Union is no longer what it was and what it has been selling for 50-odd years, the clock cannot be reversed. Pro-Unionist Scots need to realise they are on their own.

An independent Scotland, contrary to media speculation, will not be a command economy – AKA a communist state. Small C conservatives are always welcomed to provide balance.

Alistair Ballantyne

Birkhill, Angus

There is no doubt that Scotland could benefit from an intelligent debate on the benefits or otherwise of nuclear energy. However, reader Gwilym Barlow’s opposition (Letters, 27 June) seems to be based on living close to Hunterston, reading a brochure about the place and having “suspicions” confirmed by a pal – all of this happening when he and the pal were seven.

By all means let’s have the debate, but can we please raise the level a bit?

Douglas Morton

Lanark