Trade unions are an integral part of a modern democracy. Dictatorships ban them or force workers into state-controlled unions. The denial to workers of freedom to organise collectively in pursuit of a common interest has been a fundamental characteristic of all twentieth-century despotisms. Strikes can be a nuisance. The total exclusion of strikes, by state dikdat, is much more than a nuisance; it signals the oppression not only of workers but of society as a whole. There were no strikes in Nazi Germany or in Stalin's Russia. Given a choice, I would prefer the nuisance of an occasional strike than the only long-term alternative

In a free society there must be free trade unions. Internal union democracy is therefore a matter for society as a whole. This is something I have subscribed to all my life and have not hesitated publicly to assail trade union leaders who have sought to deny their members the right to a vote in the determination of policy and on whether industrial action should take place. Workers have to be won, not dragooned. Trade unions have to be independent of governments or, as in the Soviet Union, become appendages of the state. Trade unions are in politics for the living standards of their members can be affected, for good or ill, by political decisions. But trade unions should never allow themselves to be subordinate to the dictates of any political party.

All of which brings me to last week's Scottish Trade Union Congress. For years prior to the last General election the STUC met in an atmosphere of threats and arm twisting. New Labour in London got the union barons in London to apply pressure on Scottish union leaders to toe the line and not to rock the boat, embarrass New Labour, and thus impair its electoral chances. Since the election the STUC has been subject to the same pressures. Don't embarrass the government. Get in tune. Don't rock the boat and impair New Labour's chances of getting re-elected. The result is that the STUC cannot meet, debate, and decide what it considers to be in the best interests of Scottish workers. Its basic freedoms are being severely constrained; its internal democracy suborned.

The week before the STUC met the New Labour heavies moved in. Union presidents and general secretaries were nobbled and told to get their Scottish subordinates on message. They were cajoled, threatened, and even bribed. Play ball and post-retirement quangos, knighthoods, and a seat in the House of Lords could be theirs. Before Congress met it had been all sewn up. The major decisions had all been decided, mainly in London. The final touches were agreed at a secret breakfast meeting in Scotland on Saturday morning prior to the opening of Congress. In attendance were leaders of the main unions north of the Border and the Chancellor. As a consequence of all this the Congress proceedings were mainly a charade. The majority of Scottish trade unionists are bitterly opposed to the Private Finance Initiative, PFI, and rightly so. It was one of Thatcher's flagship policies and a sleekit way of privatising

the NHS. It will also impose a crippling burden of interest rates, paid to the private financiers, on our children. The word was out. Opposition to the PFI must not be passed. It didn't. A composite resolution opposing PFI was moved. Militant noises were made. The General Council, at the end of the debate, asked the mover to remit. With great alacrity she did. End of story. The snag is that this was no spontaneous development. It had all been explained to me the night before. It had been a stitch-up originating in London.

All of this raises sharply the question of whether a devolved parliament for Scotland is worth a tosser if civic institutions in our country do not also have similar devolved powers. Scottish trade unions must have the right to determine their policies on all matters devolved to Holyrood. The same applies to Scottish political parties and the media. If this doesn't happen the Scottish Parliament could become a puppet show, with London pulling the strings. And where the ensuing bitterness would take us is anybody's guess.

Even more disturbing is the news that Unison, one of the largest unions in the country, is going to discipline two officials who spoke out against PFI, in line with union policy. One of them, Mark Irvine, is an outstanding trade union officer. He recently resigned from the New Labour Party. His letter of resignation states: ''The trades unions in Scotland are treated with respect only so long as their views chime with those of the leadership. On issues such as PFI their concerns are completely ignored. The party leadership talks the language of partnership, but the reality is that the trade unions in Scotland have become little more than a handy milch cow for raising party funds. My resignation will remove an all too obvious conflict which requires many trade unionists to put the interest of the party before those of their own members.''

Some New Labour zealots in Unison's leadership now want to purge Irvine and another union dissident, George McGregor, under a disciplinary and grievance procedure largely framed by the Tories. This raises an issue that has been concerning me for some years. The great majority of trade unionists are not members of the Labour Party. Admission to trade union membership is not conditional on Labour Party membership. Trade union leaders have not all been Labour Party members: Mick McGahey, for example. Trade unionists pay their dues to fund an organisation that fights for their interests irrespective of the government of the day. These interests must be the main concern of trade unions and not the political fortunes of any political party. If trade union officials have different priorities then let them resign and try their luck in the political arena. I now believe that the unions gain nothing

from the present arrangement. It is now interfering with their primary duty to serve their members.

I first had these doubts in the 1970s when some top union leaders spent most of their time in quasi-governmental agencies like Neddy and Nicky. I remember telling some of them that if they wanted to govern the country they should stand for parliament and pack in their union jobs. And that was when Labour was Labour, not New Labour, Thatcherism Mk 2. The present government treats the unions like pariahs except when they want union money. The irony is that New Labour will end the union link it considers an electoral embarassment in Middle England when it is able to legislate for the state funding of political parties. Why the unions should hand over their cash to a government that cuts their throats, and will throw them aside when it suits them, beats me. That ain't trade unionism but masochism.