The metaphorical cannons have been fired, the first few volley of arrows twanged and the blood-curdling roars, as much as an old Etonian can muster, have been sounded.
This isn’t the 1600s though, this cross-border assault was delivered by press release.
Day 1 (yesterday) saw George Osborne warn that Scotland was losing out on investment as a result of constitutional uncertainty. Day 2 (today) sees similar warnings that Scotland will lose jobs in the Defence industry. Big Brother is clearly watching us and we shall see how long the onslaught goes on for but I suspect the drip-drip-drip of stories such as these will continue for a good while yet. So much for a positive case defending the union.
Whether the timing of the Conservative scaremongering/prudent warning (delete as applicable) over independence is supposed to coincide with Ruth Davidson being installed as new Tory leader and before Labour have selected theirs doesn’t change the fact that there has been a palpable stepping up of rhetoric against SNP plans.
The rights and wrongs of these arguments could, and will, be argued until the sheep come home; a neat analogy as it happens as David Cameron is effectively trying to round Scots up and put them back in their unionist pens. I don’t really mind what the result of the coming referendum is, but I do want Scots to really sit down and have a conversation with themselves and consider where they want to take their nation. There’s nothing wrong with not voting Yes, there’s nothing even wrong with bottling it but I do not want people frightened into thoughtlessly voting No and missing this great opportunity.
Yes, Scotland will have less jobs in Defence if we are independent but we’ll also be about £2bn a year better off if we adopt Scandinavian levels of spending in this area, more than enough money to retrain and reemploy anyone directly affected with change left over to help fund a renewables revolution, the oil boom of tomorrow. Furthermore, while there is a clear irony, even hypocrisy, in the SNP calling for the UK’s Green Investment Bank to be located in Edinburgh while simultaneously trying to remove Scotland from that same UK, it is telling that Alex Salmond can name several large companies who have invested in Scotland recently while George Osborne can name none. Scotland is bearing up very well indeed despite these difficult times and there’s only one Government that can take credit for that, even if it is to the chagrin of the other.
The real villain of this war of words debacle, not that it’s their fault, is the media. Newspapers sell through sensationalising a story (which perhaps makes we the public the real villains for falling for it) but this is not serving Scotland and the debate around independence very well at all.
The best way for the main players in this debate to take their arguments to the people is directly, be it party broadcasts, stump speeches or good old-fashioned door to door. There is an opportunity here for individuals to make famous deliveries – the constitutional equivalent of Jimmy Reid’s rat race speech or Obama’s Berlin speech on Europe.
There is at the very least an opportunity to rip up the tired old format of two political foes knocking lumps out of each other in the column inches and, I think, we will see that happen before too long. The SNP simply want this too much to not try something new and dynamic.
#1 by R.G. Bargie on November 15, 2011 - 10:07 am
“there’s nothing even wrong with bottling it”
There really is. If you believe in the Union, go ahead and vote for the Union, and good for you. But for God’s sake don’t chicken out just because you’re scared of standing on your own two feet. The sky will NOT fall in in an independent Scotland. We are a wealthy, modern democratic nation and independence is simply about choosing to run our own affairs, rather than have them dictated by a far-off electorate which knows nothing of our situation.
All of Scotland’s political parties are moderates located within a fairly narrow range on the spectrum, and none will plunge us into the abyss should they be elected post-independence.
The Tories warned in 1979 and 1999 that taking even a modest degree of responsibility would turn Scotland into a feral economic basket-case. They were lying then and they’re lying now. Everyone except a few extremist nutters accepts Scotland COULD be independent without disaster – the only question posed by independence is whether we want to be. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Whichever side we’re on, we need to grow a pair and face up to it like adults.
#2 by itsyourself on November 15, 2011 - 10:31 am
Finland manages to sell weapons abroad without difficulty so will Scotland should it choose to. Finland also has a thriving high quality shipbuilding industry specialising in cruise liners. Scotland may wish to try for that market too.
#3 by Jeff on November 15, 2011 - 10:36 am
That’s just it, Scotland could be mourning the end of its woollen mill industry if we were to take this suggested approach.
Is there really as much of a need for big ships as there was 40 years ago? We can diversify and adapt, (build cruise liners as you suggest), but if you cling to the past you’ll be done for.
#4 by Angus McLellan on November 15, 2011 - 12:18 pm
There are huge market for ships, but Babcock and BAE aren’t in the business of merchant ships or building for the offshore industries.
Building tankers, bulkers and container ships is fairly low-tech and Kvaerner were unable to win enough business at Govan in those areas when they owned the yard. Scotstoun has almost no experience in these areas and is a defence-driven business. And Rosyth is only doing the final assembly of the aircraft carriers because it was cheapest to modify the drydocks there. When the carriers are finished so is Rosyth’s shipbuilding business. The future there, such as it is, will have to be refits and repairs and scrapping nuclear submarines.
The only interesting aspect here is the timing. Ian Davidson has been angling for this for months, so why is Westminster obliging him now?
#5 by Bugger (the Panda) on November 15, 2011 - 12:01 pm
and, purely coincidentally the BBC close the comments sections of their two main blogs, Blether without Brian and Douglas Fraser’s.
Just a coincidence, surely.
#6 by Doug Daniel on November 15, 2011 - 12:52 pm
I noticed that. No point in reading them now, they’re pretty much irrelevant.
I wonder if STV has an alternative?
#7 by Manny on November 15, 2011 - 4:10 pm
I unsubscribed from the rss feed for Brian’s blog when I saw that they’d disabled the comments.
If they want their opinion to be unchallenged then I’m not interested in hearing it.
#8 by Kenny on November 16, 2011 - 2:05 pm
Dunno about that, the comments tended to show the worst of Scottish politics – all accusations of bias and agendas, no proper policy discussion. I won’t miss them.
#9 by Doug Daniel on November 15, 2011 - 12:15 pm
Stewart Maxwell debunked this myth on Newsnicht, despite the protestations of the bumbling David Mundell. The UK is signed up to the European Defence Procurement initiative (or whatever it is) that states that defence contracts should be open to tender to anyone in the EU. So the reason Scotland currently gets these contracts is not purely because it is in the UK, but because it offers the best deal for the UK. That may change after independence, or it may not. However, the Tories are in no position to make such categorical statements in the absence of a time machine that lets them see into the future.
This is blackmail, pure and simple, and it is disgraceful behaviour from a supposedly democratic government. “If you decide to become independent, say goodbye to any UK defence contracts” – that’s essentially what this boils down to. The unionist argument was originally based on fearmongering over some unspeakable peril and has progressed into cynical, somewhat sinister threats to take their ball home.
Pathetic.
#10 by Indy on November 15, 2011 - 12:56 pm
The thing I don’t get about this is the timing. Because obviously they are going to go big on all the negatives of independence. But why now? They are surely not going to go on like this for the next two years so why blow the negative case by going too early? To have a major impact I would have tought they would want to keep these kinds of argunents in reserve rather than chuck them into the mix now.
#11 by Jeff on November 15, 2011 - 1:02 pm
I would imagine it is to shore up the subconscious, the ‘back of the mind’ belief that Scots ‘may’ have whereby independence is synonymous with bad times. I guess you have to regularly keep reinforcing that argument to stop it breaking loose.
I suspect, this time around, only a positive case for the union will do (to combat the SNP’s relentlessly positive arguments), whatever the polls say.
#12 by R.G. Bargie on November 15, 2011 - 1:59 pm
“only a positive case for the union will do”
Sadly, Labour just had another failed attempt at that one:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=12358
Can anyone work out just what’s so hard about it? I mean, I’m in favour of independence so I’m not going to do their job for them, but there must be at least ONE actual, genuine, positive benefit of the Union? Is it a secret?
#13 by Dubbieside on November 15, 2011 - 1:41 pm
Jeff
What really surprised me was the planted question that the minister had a carefully scripted off the cuff reply ready.
Now these planted questions are usually asked by your own side, but this question came from the Labour MP for Dunfermline. Ok I suppose we can say Labour and the Torys are always on the same side in the supremacy of Westminster, and Labour would rather have Torys at Westminster controlling Scotlands finances than Scots at Holyrood but this must be a first Labour planting a question so a Tory can rubbish Scotland.
Labour lost the May election because people saw they had no vision or ambition for Scotland. Do they really thing that siding with the Torys at Westminster to help them deliver the usual “Too Wee, Too Stupid” argument will bring the voters who deserted them in May flooding back to the Labour camp?
Maybe they think what happened to the Lib Dems in May will not happen to them going forward.
#14 by CassiusClaymore on November 15, 2011 - 1:49 pm
As a business person I have been absolutely appalled by Osborne, Gray, Goldie, Mundell, Bain, Moore (and no doubt others) talking down the Scottish economy for purely partisan political purposes.
This has real consequences for jobs and for the people seeking them or trying to hang onto them.
Another Union dividend?
CC
#15 by Chris on November 15, 2011 - 1:53 pm
I think these are legitimate questions to raise, and despair that the response is often ad hominen attacks along the lines of “he would say that, wouldn’t he?” or accuse him of soemthing not particularly relevant such as “bumbling” above.
Let’s not be utterly naive about EU procurement rules. They get bent to meet pressure from the electorate which is why it is RN ships get built in Govan and Rosyth, the French Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was built in France and 89 of the active 90 ships in the German Navy was built in Germany.
#16 by R.G. Bargie on November 15, 2011 - 2:54 pm
…but British trains don’t get built by Bombardier.
#17 by Angus McLellan on November 15, 2011 - 3:19 pm
Indeed, defence equipment and the associated contracts are so complex that no decision could be challenged with much prospect of success.
But the RN or the MoD doesn’t get ships built in Govan or Scotstoun. BAE does that because it suits BAE to do so. It seems as if Rosyth has “built” – or rather “is building” – precisely two ships and will probably never build another since Babcock own a yard at Appledore which has much more experience, better facilities and a track record of winning export orders.
Docherty would have done better to ask Hammond about the MoD’s shipbuilding plans for the next decade. As things stand there are no warship projects anywhere close to being translated from Power Point into real orders. So what is going to fill the gap between the end of work on modules for Gordon’s aircraft carriers and the ever-more-delayed start of work on new frigates (aka FSC, GCS or Type 26)? Babcock have at least the prospect of orders from Ireland to keep Appledore ticking over, but BAE look to have a huge gap in their order book for all of their yards except Barrow-in-Furness.
#18 by Indy on November 15, 2011 - 3:32 pm
Yes but you are overlooking the somewhat obvious point that these ships are built with taxpayers money. Including ours. When you look at what Scottish taxpayers pay into the defence side of things and what we get back, there’s a pretty big discrepancy – we pay in more than we get back.
Which makes these kinds of debates a bit meaningless. Unionists say ah hah you won’t be able to get big battle ships built any more. Maybe not – but we won’t have to pay for them either, will we? And let’s face it how many more are going to be built anyway? We are only getting the aircraft carriers because of an absurd contract – there won’t actually be any aircraft for them to carry because they have been cancelled. It is somewhat preposterous whichever way you look at it.
However in an independent Scotland there would be a continuing demand for things like coastguard vessels as well as naval vessels so we will still be able to meet our own demand if you see what I mean. We will be able to pay our own people to build our own ships as everyone else does. And we’ll have more cash available because we won’t be contributing vast sums towards Trident replacement either.
#19 by Dubbieside on November 15, 2011 - 2:43 pm
In the ongoing debate about jobs lost in Scotland from the defence industry, I wonder does anyone have a estimate for the number of UK warships that will be built in Scotland in the next ten years?
Since this proud maritime nation managed to build two aircraft carriers, one of which may never sail under a UK flag, and the other will have no aircraft, my guess at the warship total built in Scotland in the next ten years if we stay with nanny is somewhere between zero and nil.
#20 by Angus McLellan on November 16, 2011 - 12:24 pm
The answer should be “more than zero”.
According to this story, construction of Type 26 frigates should start in about 2017. The average completion rate is planned to be around one a year. If the targets are to be met there should be about four frigates started in 2017-2020. The construction work would mostly go to BAE.
The MHPC programme (the “mine-hunting, hydrographic and patrol ships” mentioned in that story) is even more power-pointy than the Type 26 design. It might not happen. The “patrol” requirement depends to a considerable degree on DEFRA’s decision on the provision of fisheries protection for EW&NI, the “hydrographic” bit is much more of a nice-to-have than a necessity and the “mine-hunting” bit could probably be delayed for a while yet.
#21 by Dubbieside on November 16, 2011 - 1:55 pm
Given the time that it will take to finish the two ghost ships and the comments of Vic Emery in 2008 I think my estimate of the numbers will be quite accurate
Successive British governments have so decimated the Royal Navy that Vic Emery, managing director of BAE Surface Fleet Solutions, in his evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee in April 2008 anticipated that, after contracts for the two aircraft carriers are completed, the Navy order book will be equivalent to one 5000-ton vessel per annum, and that the industry is set to shrink.
I have no idea how many people are needed to build a 5000 ton vessel but I would guess that is a lot less than are employed in Scottish shipbuilding at present. So Scotland will lose shipbuilding jobs, but it will not be because if independence. Maybe the fact that the UK is skint may have something to do with it.
#22 by Angus McLellan on November 16, 2011 - 6:41 pm
I don’t disagree. But maybe I can add something.
The only only data I’ve seen on work involved in building the ships is a RAND report from 2005, but since it has glitzy graphs rather than tables of boring, useful numbers – obviously done for bloody PowerPoint – it’s hard to read. Emery’s “5000-ton ship” is the FSC/GCS/Type 26 and maybe the MHPC too if that’s ever built. Ignoring the design phase, which employs very few people, it looks like they have around 35,000 man-years to build 18 5,000 ton FSC ships spread over 12 years.
That works out at a requirement for something like an average of 3,000 workers, assuming all the work was done by BAE in-house on the Clyde. Which it wouldn’t be, even though BAE sub-contracts out relatively little work by industry standards. But it’s a start anyway. And then there wouldn’t be 18 FSC ships as planned in 2005 but more likely just 12 or 13. Neither would the work be spread over 12 years but instead over nearer 18 years. So, about a third less work to be done spread over half as long again. And even if some MHPC ships were ordered in the most expensive form, that would mean 18 ships or so over 18 years. Still not back to 2005 levels, but at Emery’s level of “one ship a year”.
I believe there are substantially more than 3,000 people employed at Govan and Scotstoun today. I can find newspapers saying 4,000, but we all know how useless the Scottish media are. So does anyone know what the figure actually is?
(The source of the numbers above is Arena et al, “The United Kingdom’s Naval Shipbuilding Industrial Base: The Next Fifteen Years”, RAND Corporation, 2005. Yes, really, I did have nothing better to do. And thanks for asking.)
#23 by Craig on November 15, 2011 - 3:00 pm
Type your comment here
No need to bend them. Article 296 of the EC Treaty has a specific exemption for military procurement.
“(1)(b) Any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the roduction of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.”
Hence why the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (civilian) FPV Hirta was built in Poland while the River Class of Royal Navy Fisheries Protection Squadron were built in Portsmouth.
The European Defence Agency, which is supposed to be promoting a market in defence procurement, has barely got off the ground. The UK amongst other is threatening to withdraw and the EDA has been scarred by disasters of pan-European projects like Eurofighter, A400M and Horizon.
#24 by Bugger (the Panda) on November 15, 2011 - 4:12 pm
So, if we want to co-operate with the rUK(or whatever) in defence matters, which would oprobablky be in their interests, they will refuse to co-operate with us, when it suits them?
Anyway, the co-operation part of naval procurement is a red herring. How many ships will the Former UK actually need to build or could afford.
We could always finance, build and lease them?
Just like their hospitals and Trident missiles!¬
#25 by Alexander Belic on November 15, 2011 - 4:37 pm
“Yes, Scotland will have less jobs in Defence if we are independent…”
There may very well be less jobs coming from the UK MOD (who already award Scotland a less than per-capita share of defence contracts) but there’d be a glut of work to be done in the establishment of a Scots defence infrastructure and I’d imagine the lion’s share of that is going to go to Scots firms.
Craig is right about the EU competition rules not applying to the same extent for defence jobs as well. Countries like Spain have their ferries fitted with tow cables or sprinklers so they’re classed as military vessels and the contracts go to Spanish yards. Perhaps our government will do something similar when it comes round to commissioning the new Calmac vessels.
#26 by Barbarian on November 15, 2011 - 8:01 pm
The biggest problem for the SNP is not Westminster – it’s Europe.
As long as they continue to tell us that we will join Europe, and have a referendum AFTER independence, then unless some miracle takes place, many people are going to be rather worried.
It’s my main concern, and I’ve seen comments from die-hard nationalists saying the same.
Voters up here don’t really pay attention to Cameron, but they do look over the Channel.
#27 by Chris on November 15, 2011 - 9:45 pm
So we’re agreed with Independence the shipyards will definitely close, but with devolution mini or maxi they may close?
#28 by Angus McLellan on November 16, 2011 - 4:46 pm
“Some, all or none of the shipyards will close” seems to me to be a better way to express the possibilities. But it still isn’t perfect. We can’t rule out the possibility that shipyards might open or re-open in some conditions. Govan did and Birkenhead too, although the Merseyside yard is still really just a repair facility as it hasn’t yet secured any orders for new ships.
#29 by Doug Daniel on November 17, 2011 - 8:48 am
Erm, no, we’re not.
#30 by John Thomson on November 16, 2011 - 10:53 pm
Concerned about the closing off of comments on the BBC Scotland blogs?
There is a thread on the BBC POV messageboard complaining about this censorship:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/NF1951574?thread=8297690