Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

Why would it be political suicide? Surely if it makes financial sense to BAE systems or Thales or whoever to give contacts to Scottish companies then they will? It's the fabulous free market isn't it?

Well that's a matter of opinion, Santana. What is clear is that BAE systems is the contractor of choice. It is, and will still be, a British company, and has a commercial incentive to build on the Clyde. I'm not sure it would be seen to be "political suicide" to award a contract to a British country, rather to a "foreign" country elsewhere. There's also the argument to be made that, due to a highly mobile workforce, shared qualifications, equivalent skills etc, that allowing building to continue on the Clyde still gives RUK access to the skilled workforce it needs to protect shipbuilding in RUK. That's not to say there wouldn't also be strong incentives to build in Portsmouth too, but ultimately, that's up to BAE systems who own the operations in both yards...

British company, I mean.

Flora raises a good point. I couldn't work out what has been troubling me beyond Yes against No (and Edinburgh against Westminster). After following a couple of forums I now sense that the Yes campaign has (cleverly) tapped into the grievances of a whole range of disparate groups against the Union. There is no coherent vision for iScotland. There are lots of different visions. If there is a Yes vote, I'll wager that "Yes" against "Yes" will be the ugliest struggle.

I don't want to take this analogy too far because it is potentially tasteless and ridiculously OTT but we had all such high hopes for the Arab Spring. Look at Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Tunisia etc now. The disparate groups that came together as "brothers and sisters" to topple the status quo are now at each other's throats.

None of the shipyards, as far as I know, are in a particularly great way. Can you imagine the uproar in rUK if a contract was awarded to a Clyde shipyard and folk were then laid off in Portsmouth? The awarding of these contracts isn't just a free market issue - if it was then there are cheaper places. That's not saying "it must go to tender" but it is a logical conclusion that if it's going to go to a non rUK shipyard then you'd would go for an option which is at least defensible as being the best option financially.

Criseyde
at the end of the day, rUK politicians will choose where the ships will be built, not BAE systems. (BTW, BAE systems used to be British Aerospace, but changed the name not least to appear LESS British. They now employ a large number of people in the US, and are a major supplier to the US armed forces, so the British part is debatable.) If the politicians smell that there are votes to be won in making it a condition that BAE invest in rUK yards to bring them up to scratch (and even pay a "surcharge" to do so), then I believe that's what will happen. It also follows that rUK politicians placing orders with BAE systems for ships to be built in iScotland yards would be very unpopular.

"rUK politicians will choose where the ships will be built, not BAE systems"

Explain that to those who lost their jobs in Portsmouth. Unfortunately, that puts Portsmouth in the position of having to rehire and upskill people between now and...2016 at the earliest. This just provides more of an incentive for BAE systems to keep building on the Clyde. You say that the Westminster government could just hold them over a barrel and specify but they must be built in Portsmouth - but what's their alternative? Giving the contract to a "foreign" company in some other "foreign" country, rather than giving them to a British company at all...

Because all of the polls from the RUK suggest that the public there will not stand for an independent Scotland being treated lightly.

You cannot declare independence from Westminster and blame them for all your country's evils and then expect them to give you a contract. Not happening.

Unfortunately, that puts Portsmouth in the position of having to rehire and upskill people between now and...2016 at the earliest.

Exactly in time for independence.

Criseyde, that's a bit naive. You give the contracts to nationals (ie not iScotland) or to the cheapest bidder (ie not iScotland).

You cannot declare independence from Westminster and blame them for all your country's evils and then expect them to give you a contract. Not happening.

^this.

Look at the poll results about whether rUK wants a currency union of we vote Yes. A pretty strong "er, no chance". You can't expect special treatment for being a British country when we've chosen to separate.

As I said Santana, what's the alternative? It's giving contracts to a "foreign" company in some other "foreign" country. How does that look better than giving the contract to a British company, who can keep employing, relocating and upskilling workers from RUK?

Not liking Patrick harvie and his smug face

Criseyde, that's a bit naive. You give the contracts to nationals (ie not iScotland) or to the cheapest bidder (ie not iScotland).

No, grovel, this is entirely the misperception I mean. Building outside the UK does not necessarily mean that the contract has to go through a tendering process and to the lowest bidder.

Criseyde
Well there are certainly those in Portsmouth (and other UK shipbuilding towns) that believe Gordon Brown arranged that the Carriers would be assembled on the Clyde, to get votes for himself. As it stands, the carriers are are more or less done, so can't be changed. The Clyde yards are still part of the UK so despite some general grumblings people have no reason to object to work going to the Clyde yards. I think that in the event of independence then the game changes completely, and it becomes a massive issue.
I guess you are of the opinion that "market forces" will prevail, and rUK will roll over and place orders with BAE to built in Clyde shipyards without question. I disagree.

The alternative is putting a lot of money into Portsmouth- guaranteeing jobs and expansion of the economy there.

It's alright to go to Korea, because it's far enough away. Scotland is too close and would be too politically sensitive. It's not always to do with money.

If Scotland is not in the UK and rUK cannot build a ship I would expect WM to put it out to tender. I am a rUK taxpayer. I want to help our industries and/or value for money.

Santana, I always listen & read what you write, you have loads of well researched posts that you have spent a lot of time over, you won't change my mind but I'm sorry you feel your mental health is suffering & I mean that most sincerely.

When's the indyref after party night out? We seriously need to organise one.

I'm just home via the pub after canvassing, an area we don't get a big SNP vote, but we are winning this one.

Great, put money into Portsmouth. Fantastic.

But when it comes to actually awarding a contract they're awarded to a company, not 'Scotland' or 'Korea'. All I'm trying to point out is that a lot of people seem to think that building outside the UK automatically means a tendering process that goes to the lowest bidder. This isn't true. And there are strong commercial and defence reasons for awarding contracts to British companies.

Gets ready to be pelted....
Maybe we should give up on shipbuilding anyway if the commercial side doesn't work out? It's always been artificially subsidised by the UK military. One of the problems with Scotland is the reliance on jobs being created for us, rather than people creating wealth off their own bat.

You might want to read this Criseyde.

The UK never willingly builds warships outside the UK.... The principle reason the UK builds warships at home is that it wants to be able to maintain the ability to do so without having to rely on any other nation... If the result is a 'No' vote, we believe that the work will be carried out on the Clyde, whereas a 'Yes' vote will result in the work being carried out in Portsmouth

"I want to help our industries and/or value for money"

Erm, you are helping your industries if you give the contract to a British company, with sites and supply chains across the rest of Britain, and who can very easily hire in workers from its other sites around Britain.

Yes, there are strong reasons to award it, but political reality will dictate otherwise.

Thanks Fanny. Desperate for it to be all over so we know one way or another.

"i'm not a nationalist" erm, I think you probably are!

I won't pelt you for that stoppedlurking56, I think it's a fair point. It's quite a capitalist attitude though and not one which is generally popular.

Criseyde
I totally agree that it isn't true it goes to the lowest bidder!!!
Political considerations (i.e. getting votes) are a MASSIVE part of it. Which is exactly what I am saying. Although, yes, BAE will probably get the order, there will be a huge condition, which will be, it must be built in rUK yards NOT on the Clyde!