YeahWrite Super Challenge #24 Final Round Prompts:
Genres: Epistolary + Alt History
[Final Round: Honourable Mention #1]
Synopsis: In late twentieth-century Britain, the coal mining industry is enjoying a significant revival in fortunes. Can unknown scientist Edmund Folkestone convince famed trade unionist Arthur Scargill that this recovery will only be short-lived?
Alternate History: The British Miners’ Strike of 1984-5 was successful in forcing Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government to abandon plans to privatise the British mining industry.
[This was permitted to be added to title page.]
6.1.92
Dear Mr Arthur Scargill,
I am a junior researcher in the Faculty of Sciences at Sheffield Hallam University. I am writing to you in the hopes that I might finally receive an answer that I can find nowhere else. Ever since your success leading the 1984-5 Miners’ Strike, I know that you have gained greater and greater influence within the political world. The ‘no confidence’ vote for Margaret Thatcher in 1986 and the subsequent election success for the Labour party is undoubtedly testament to this.
It is for this reason that I write to you now. My research has consistently upheld what many of my fellow scientists across the world have already warned against: the threat of global warming. I have unequivocal proof that the renewed reliance on the use of coal, oil and natural gas within our heavy industries will only lead to future hardship for every working class family within Great Britain.
Thatcher once claimed that the trade unions were ‘the enemy within’. I do not believe that, Mr Scargill, but I do know that we, as a country, are in an extremely vulnerable position. One which only a united front from the trade unions, spearheaded by the likes of the National Union of Mineworkers, can defend against. Please, if only I could have one short meeting, I believe that you would come to fully understand the enormity of this issue as I do.
I attach a brief summary of my findings in anticipation of our meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Edmund Folkestone
3rd February 1992
Dear Mr Folkestone,
The NUM acknowledges receipt of your letter dated 6th January 1992. While Mr Scargill cannot reply directly, he did wish you to know that if Thatcher herself could not defeat the coal miners of Great Britain, a little extra pollution is hardly a concern of his.
[Signature indecipherable]
On behalf of Arthur Scargill, President of the National Union of Mineworkers
12.2.92
Dear ‘On behalf of Arthur Scargill’,
With all due respect, ‘a little extra pollution’ is a gross misunderstanding of this situation. Did anyone at the NUM even glance through the report I sent? Global warming is not the creation of hysterical tree-hugging activists; it is a scientifically proven occurrence which will result in unprecedented change across the entire world. The contribution from Great Britain as a consequence of the resurgence in heavy industry is highly significant.
I understand that this must feel like yet another attack on the coal industry. That is not my intent. I write to the NUM, not only as a scientist, but as the son, the nephew, the grandson of miners. Were it not for Mr Scargill’s unwavering leadership, my family could not have afforded to send me to university. The current economic security of so many working class families is his legacy. But that legacy will not endure if someone does not heed what I am saying right now.
Please, I implore you to show Mr Scargill my report and these letters. I remain available at your earliest convenience for a meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Edmund Folkestone
S.H. University
20th March 1992
Dear Mr Folkestone,
The NUM acknowledges receipt of your letter dated 12th February 1992.
[Signature blank]
On behalf of Arthur Scargill, President of the National Union of Mineworkers
[Scrawled in pencil underneath:] What bloody purpose does he hope this correspondence will achieve? AS
25.3.92
Dear AS,
At least I now know that you have read my letters!
To be blunt, the ‘bloody purpose’ I hope to achieve is to prevent a complete collapse of British industry. As a socialist, Mr Scargill, I thought that would be of significant interest to you.
Or have you forgotten your responsibility towards those who helped to put you in the position you are in?
E. Folkestone
5th May 1992
Folkestone,
If I listened to every sodding warning of complete industry collapse, I would spend my days cowering beneath my desk. Yours is just one more voice.
Be assured that my focus is always on ensuring the welfare of the Great British working class.
A. Scargill
9.5.92
Scargill,
If you carry on like this, you are going to be complicit in the destruction of the Great British working class. Can’t you see?
Forget global warming for the moment. I see it’s pointless to try and appeal to your morality! Fine, let’s look at the figures instead. Specifically the rates of production in the likes of China and the recently created Russian Federation. Do you really believe that British production costs can ever hope to rival those? We’re both Yorkshire men. We know how many collieries are beginning to exhaust their seams. Now replicate that across the entire country.
This is an opportunity. Denying global warming will not stop it from happening. But acting now to ease the impact on all of those you led in action against the Tory government during the 70s and 80s? That’s the kind of legacy I would want.
Ed Folkestone
3rd June 1992
Folkestone,
One meeting. Details enclosed. Don’t miss it.
A. Scargill
10.6.92
Arthur,
The additional evidence I referred to during our meeting.
Ed.
12th July 1992
Dear Prime Minister, The Honourable Neil Kinnock,
We write to you on behalf of all members of the National Union for Mineworkers. It has come to our attention that substantial change within the mining industry is required if the financial security and economic stability of the British working class is to be maintained.
However, unlike the attempted actions of the preceding government, this change cannot be made in one fell swoop. Instead, it must be meticulously planned, taking into account not only the necessities of social welfare but also that of the environment.
With this in mind, we respectfully request a meeting to discuss steps forward into more sustainable methods of industry.
A. Scargill and E. Folkestone
C.A. Raine 