How can Arthur Scargill describe the NUM as being ‘vindictive’ after the 1984 Miners’ Strike?
Mr Scargill could have drawn a better contract for miners taking redundancy. Miners, for whatever their reasons after the strike, having worked in the industry for years and some more than 30 years, lost their fuel allowance through Mr Scargill because he was trying to stop miners taking redundancy.
Miners were told if they took redundancy, they would forfeit their fuel allowance. Who was ‘vindictive’ then?
I think it’s a case of ‘I’m alright Jack’ – talk about double standards. The NUM president is right in saying he wished Mr Scargill had put as much effort in looking after members as he clearly has looking after himself in drawing up his own contract.