IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v52y2023i2p283-311..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic Injustice and the 1984–85 Miners’ Strike in Scotland

Author

Listed:
  • Jim Phillips

Abstract

Justice was sorely experienced by Scottish miners in the strike against pit closures and redundancies in 1984–85. In Scotland strikers were arrested by police officers at twice the rate of those in England and Wales and were three times more likely to be dismissed from employment by the National Coal Board. Analysis uses Gramsci as guide: Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government was engaged in an anti-trade union war of position as well as a war of manoeuvre. In Scotland, despite the strike’s legality, police officers and NCB officials outmanoeuvred the strikers by criminalising and victimising their local leaders. Arrests and relatively innocuous public-order convictions were followed by punitive sackings which reinforced the government’s positional untruths about the strike. This targeted action was strategic: to defeat the strike; and weaken opposition to the closure of some collieries while intensifying production at others. The subsequent acceleration of deindustrialisation was a further injustice. In contributing to further political divergence within the UK, however, it provided a route to restorative justice for former strikers and their supporters in Scotland. In 2022 the Scottish Parliament provided a collective and posthumous pardon for more than 500 people with strike-related convictions in Scottish courts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jim Phillips, 2023. "Strategic Injustice and the 1984–85 Miners’ Strike in Scotland," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 52(2), pages 283-311.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:2:p:283-311.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:2:p:283-311.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.