SNP and Edinburgh University strikers need to realise that compulsory redundancies are sometimes unavoidable

Edinburgh University vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson has accused unions of deliberately timing a strike to 'disadvantage the students' (Picture: Chris Close/University of Edinburgh) | PA

In 2007, when the SNP won power in Scotland, they announced they would make no one compulsorily redundant. Today, that policy is under real pressure, as ministers seek to tackle a looming £5 billion black hole in government finances.

The man with the toughest job in politics, Public Sector Reform Secretary Ivan McKee, recently suggested a change, saying the measure could potentially be used as a last resort, if all efforts to redeploy staff failed.

Two decades ago, ministers wanted to make a statement about their values as a government and an employer. Today those values are, essentially, colliding with economic reality.

A similar situation is emerging at Edinburgh University with the authorities saying its annual budget must be cut by £140 million. The University and College Union (UCU), which claims 1,800 jobs are set to be lost, began five weeks of strike action on Monday and its demands include that there should be no compulsory redundancies.

READ MORE: Compulsory redundancies 'may be needed' to cut Scotland's public sector workforce, economist warns

Stand-off between university and union

In an interview with The Scotsman, Edinburgh’s principal and vice-chancellor, Peter Mathieson, who recently announced he would leave the post when his current term ends in 2028, made clear the animus that exists between the two sides. “I think UCU have weaponised the students by knowing that the way to influence the leadership is to disadvantage the students,” he said. “There have been communications from UCU to their members, suggesting that they deliberately time their actions to coincide with teaching and I regret that. I don't think that's reasonable...”

While he stressed they wanted to “ideally avoid” compulsory redundancies, he added: “I have told them [the union] for months that we cannot do that, and I will not promise something that I’m not certain that I can deliver... They insist on a guarantee. We insist that we can’t give it.”

If the cuts are necessary, it seems unrealistic to expect they could be achieved without anyone who wants to stay losing their job. The effects of a loss of income are not to be downplayed. But, sometimes, harsh realities must be faced.

A practical compromise, rather than standing on principle, seems like the best way forward for both sides.