Greetings from iainthepict. This blog of mine is meant to be like a 'Book of Days' or a kind of 'Scottish Year Book' if you will. The idea was to present an event for each day of the year. Somewhere in here, you can find out what happened, affecting Scotland and the Scots, on any given day of the year. Your comments and observations are very welcome.
The photograph is by Sam Perkins (check him out on Facebook at Sam Perkins Photography) and was taken near Oban.

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

'Bloody Friday' - the Battle of George Square

On the 1st of February, 1919, after ‘Bloody Friday’, soldiers patrolled Glasgow’s streets.

“I rode a tank
In the General Strike
When the workers raged
And Government stank.”

Anyone with an interest in 20th Century politics and the history of Scotland will undoubtedly have seen a famous, black and white image of ‘Red Clydeside’. It’s a newspaper photograph of the raising of the ‘Red Flag’ above thousands of striking engineering workers who massed in Glasgow’s George Square during the ‘General Strike’ of 1919. The mass demonstration became the notorious ‘Battle of George Square’ and it took place on the last day of January, 1919. The newspapers of the following day dubbed it ‘Bloody Friday’ and the extraordinary industrial and political militancy that spawned those events led the Russian revolutionary leader, Vladimir Lenin, to dub Glasgow “the Petrograd of the West.” By the next day, the 1st of February, the Government had deployed its soldiers and tanks on the streets of Glasgow.

After the First World War, the campaign for a shorter working week and improved conditions for workers remobilised the organised labour movement. In 1919, Glasgow’s engineering unions called for a general strike, starting on the 27th of January, to demand a 40-hour week. That took place in the midst of an era of political radicalism known as ‘Red Clydeside’, which was a significant landmark in the development of the movement in the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. It grew out of socio-political militancy amongst industrial workers on the banks of the River Clyde; in places such as Clydebank, Greenock and Paisley, and it lasted from the 1910s until, roughly, the 1930s.

Of course, the media of the day brought the term ‘Red Clydeside’ into popular consciousness, but that’s fine; that’s a purpose of newspapers. In some ways, it was a 20th Century manifestation of the concerns that led to the formation of the ‘Friends of the People’ in 1792 and the ‘Radical War’ of 1820. As the organised left grew to replace the Liberal Party as the party of the working class, several ‘Red Clydesiders’ were elected to Parliament at the 1922 General Election. Two of the Clyde Workers’ Committee strike leaders, Emanuel Shinwell and David Kirkwood, joined other Independent Labour Party members, such as James Maxton, John Wheatley, Neil Maclean and George Buchanan, in the House of Commons.

On the 31st of January, a massive trade union rally took place in George Square, where it has been estimated as many as 90,000 were present when the ‘Red Flag’ was raised. Whilst the flag was run up, strike leaders were meeting inside the City Chambers with the Lord Provost, Sir James Watson Stewart, who was due to read a public response from the Government to the Unions’ request for intervention. Outside, it was a riot. It has been said that it started after a tram tried to make its way through the square, but whatever provocation the Police might have had in its collective heads to justify its actions, a baton charge was mounted against what had been, up to that point, a peaceful demonstration. Issue 237 of the ‘Socialist Review’ (January, 2000) suggests the Police acted “under secret Cabinet orders”, but in any case, the Police launched a savage, unprovoked baton charge on the demonstrators, felling men and women. The crowd, with many ex-servicemen to the fore, quickly retaliated with fists, iron railings, which were pulled up, and bottles from a passing lorry, before forcing the Police into a retreat.

Sheriff MacKenzie attempted to read the ‘Riot Act’, but it was torn from his hands and fighting continued, in and around the city centre streets, throughout the rest of the day and into the night. The Townhead area of the City and Glasgow Green, where many of the demonstrators had regrouped after the initial Police charge, were the scenes of running battles. Earlier, when the noise reached the Provost’s office, the strike leaders rushed out to see what was happening.  Kirkwood was promptly felled by a police baton and, along with Gallacher, Shinwell, Harry Hopkins and George Edbury, was arrested and charged with incitement to riot. The next day, the 1st of February, the front page of ‘The Strike Bulletin’, the official publication of the ‘40 Hours Movement’, carried the headline “Glasgow’s Bloody Friday – Brutal attack on defenceless strikers.”

At the news of the gathering, the Coalition Government appears to have panicked. No doubt it feared a threat to order, but maybe even a Bolshevik-style insurrection. After all, it was only fourteen months since the Russian Revolution and the German Revolution was a current affair. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Robert Munro, said at the time, “It is a misnomer to call the situation in Glasgow a Strike - this is a Bolshevist uprising.” The Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, sent 10,000 soldiers armed with machine guns, six tanks and a 4.5 inch Howitzer to Glasgow; the largest deployment of British troops on native soil. The army appeared on Glasgow’s streets on the 1st of February, 1919, in a calculated show of force. The Howitzer was positioned at the City Chambers, the cattle market was transformed into a tank depot, Lewis Guns were posted on the top of the North British Hotel and the General Post Office, and armed troops stood sentry outside power stations and the docks. Revealingly, the Government’s intent is obvious from civil unrest ‘Regulation 965’, which stated ominously that “It is undesirable that firing should take place over the heads of rioters or that blank cartridges should be used.” Other ‘rules’, such as reading the ‘Riot Act’ or consulting with Magistrates were only to be followed “if time (or circumstances) permits.”

Churchill confined the local regiment to its barracks in Maryhill, fearing the Glasgow troops would sympathise with the strikers, but the claim that all deployed troops were English isn’t backed up by contemporary accounts, which stress the youth and inexperience of the soldiers, rather than national origins. There are mixed reports, such as in ‘The Times’ of the 3rd of February, 1919, in which a veteran, based with the Seaforth Highlanders at Cromarty, recalls, “We had no idea what was going on in Glasgow. But one morning the whole battalion was paraded and all men from Glasgow and district were told to come out to the front of the parade. We thought that was us going to be demobbed, but instead we were kept in Cromarty while all the rest (around 700 men) were sent to Glasgow to shoot if it were necessary.” Contrast with the January 30th Minutes of the War Cabinet Meeting, which record Sir William Robertson stating that “there were certain disadvantages in employing Scottish troops, but on the whole he thought it would be safer to use them than to import English battalions.” Also, the ‘Evening News’ of the 31st of January, which reported “long columns of khaki-clad men who belong to the Seaforths, the Gordons and other Highland regiments.” Interesting.

19 comments:

  1. Thanks for this Ian, very interesting, it's hard to find detailed accounts of what took place that day but you've done sterling work here. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very kind of you to say so; thanks! Regards, The Pict.

      Delete
  2. Interesting article. Was lucky enough to spend time with Harry McShane, one of the last surviving Red Clydeside activists, in the early 80s. His book "Revolt on the Clyde" is a compelling account of those times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting Joeparker. I've not read the book you mention, but I amassed near enough 40 pages of information at the time when I wrote this article. It amazed me to discover how the government reacted, but there you go, and they've done similar things since, on more than one occasion, albeit not so dramatically drastic. Regards, IanC

      Delete
  3. i remember my dad telling me about this. thanks for doing this post.
    we are hearing a lot about Churchill this week but conveniently not talking about this! we mustn't let this kind of thing be forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly puts him in a different light. Sure, we owe him a lot for the Second World War, but there's dark sides to his story right enough. I saw on TV last week that the famous bowing cranes on the Thames during his funeral procession wasn't exactly the spontaneous act of respect that has been portrayed. It appears the crane drivers were effectively paid to do it as they were told do come in on a Saturday on overtime. Regards, IanC

      Delete
  4. Joe
    Glad you enjoyed this counter-balance to the current British Churchill imperial fest as well as McShane's book.

    However, I'd be careful of the latter also given John MacLean's reservations about him as a possible British agent complicit in a poison attempt against him as well as selling out MacLean's pro-Scottish Workers Republic line in favour of a British tailist one on McShane's visit to Lenin in Moscow - as a substitute for the Bolshevik commissar, MacLean, who was imprisoned in a British gaol in Glasgow.

    A great question mark hangs over this individual to this day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi David, thanks for posting and commenting. It's interesting to read your comments on McShane; something there of which I wisnae aware. Unlikely he'd confess that sort of thing in a book. I'll have to look that up. Regards, IanC

      Delete
  5. Well done Ian. Another piece of hidden Scottish history that needs spreading to a wider audience. As David comments, McShane has a question hanging over his true intent. Meanwhile Shinwell turned out to be another establishment toady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, well, there you go, a lot of our heroes turn out to be flawed in one way or another, not least Churchill and of course, the others mentioned in these comments. Thanks for posting, IanC

      Delete
  6. Brilliant piece. I have a feeling your unique visitors are going to skyrocket. Not surprised there's been zero mention of it in the MSM. Quite used to the establishment having selective memory and rewriting history nowadays! Well done Ian, on bringing the events of that day to the eyes and ears of another generation to keep the memory and truth alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi and thanks very much for your comment; glad you liked the post.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, Churchill was the 'British hero' who sent thousands to their deaths at Gallipoli when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. It was his master-plan to eliminate the Ottomans and open a sea route to Russia, but the plan was flawed and led to a stalemate. The senseless loss of human life wouldn't have been remotely considered or concerned about by The British Empire or First Lord of the Admiralty.

    Anzacs have never forgotten Churchill's disregard for human life, or the Empire's ruthless quest for victory at all costs. Churchill is no hero to them. And, had we in Scotland been informed in school, made aware of the events in George Sq, in 1919, I doubt if we'd have given much of a toss at his funeral in 1965. It's my guess that many elderly Glaswegians were eagerly calling him an 'auld basket' when his passing was announced.

    Excellent article, Ian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi and thanks.
      The ANZAC angle is interesting and I'm sure you're right about elderly folks and their memories. It's easy to forget things when the media presents a sanitised version of everything, or presents a jaundiced viewpoint for a variety of cozy political reasons.
      Cheers, IanC

      Delete
    2. I remember my Grandfather talking about Churchill,I was very young at the time and had no real idea who he was,other than a murderer,at least that's what my Grandfather said,my father too was very derogatory in his descriptions of the man,when I got older I was intrigued about why they felt that way,of course internet not being available in the 60s and not knowing what to look for in the library I didn't learn much,but thankfully now know a lot more of the man,and realise my dislike of him for 50 odd years has real reasons

      Delete
    3. Hi Marjory, thanks for reading and commenting. I hope you enjoyed my post anyhow. Regards, IanC

      Delete
  9. I remember my gran talking about this and when I was doing a project in school about Churchill I mentioned it and was told it wasn't appropriate.
    Said he was good for the war effort but had no regards for the common people.
    loved listening to her memories!!
    m smith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment M. It'd be nice if they taught folks to think while at school, instead of merely regurgitating 'facts'. Regards, IanC

      Delete