Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

I've seen that Santana. Obviously the key reason (other than subsidising British companies) is to retain capacity in Britain. But that committee report is over a year old, and at that point a lot of MPs were labouring under the misapprehension that article 346 only applied to warlike ships built in the UK (read the whole document), and that Scottish yards would have to bid through open competition. Since then, they have become aware that this is not at all the case. Which changes the situation significantly.

But it doesn't Criseyde.

The public doesn't care about article 346. The public will see a foreign, close to home country getting massive investment from a government which that country chose to reject, and the public will. not. be. happy!

Santana - another person here who has appreciated your posts. i haven't had time to keep up with everything but I've often felt you've said what I was thinking - but a lot more informed and substantiated than I could!

I also worry about what will happen to us in the case of a Yes vote. I don't think my job prospects will be good in iScotland but DP won't want to leave.

I doubt rUK will be buying many more warships in the near term anyway.
We've blown the budget on the carriers.

We'll be "giving" a couple of frigates to iScotland as part of the settlement - meaning that iScotland won't need to build either.

davros, I do understand that political considerations are an issue too. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of people genuinely believe that yards in Scotland would have to bid through open competition - which isn't true. And I'm not saying that it isn't likely that the UK Gov wouldn't prefer to invest money in Portsmouth, or that they would try to ensure that BAE build in Portsmouth - just that there are some commercial incentives for BAE to keep building on the Clyde, and that the decision to give the contract to a non-British company instead might look worse.

I doubt we will have much choice wearenotinkansas - I'm the main earner in our house and my job will probably go (along with all the similar ones)

Sorry Santana, but you posted a whole section of a Select Committee Report to prove a particular point, and the entire report was predicated on a falsehood.

Nooh - Santana. Not kumbayah... Anything but that

My post was partly prompted by meeting some lovely, charming, delightful Scots Nat visitors out here in the wilds over the weekend. They were totally pro Scotland's independence but had no idea what life was like outside the Central Belt. I just felt a little bit despairing...

It also reminded me of the preface to Liz Lochhead's play: ' Mary Queen of Scots got her head chopped off' . (Mumsnet admin geeks, I genuinely hope this little extract is not infringing copyright:)

The corbie (national bird) is speaking:

Scotland. Whit like is it?
It’s a peatbog, it’s a daurk forest.
It’s a cauldron o’ lye, a saltpan or a coal mine.
If you’re gey lucky it’s a bricht bere meadow or a park o’ kye.
Or mibbe... it’s a field o’ stanes.
It’s a tenement or a merchant’s ha’.
It’s a hure hoose or a humble cot. Princes Street or Paddy’s Merkit.
It’s a fistfu’ o’ fish or a pickle o’ oatmeal.
It’s a queen’s banquet o’ roast meats and junketts.
It depends. It depends ...

My extract was qoted from here lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/la-corbie-scottish-makar.html

The important bits were copied and pasted here, Criseyde. It doesn't matter what article they come under- the UK will simply do all they can to avoid giving a contract to a foreign nation.

Lovely poem :)

You think I am a nationalist? Depends how you define it, I suppose. The other day I was making the point that there are plenty of Scots who believe we are a separate country - in a union with three other countries/principalities... Entities ie E, W and NI - who are not nationalists. Nationalist to my mind means more, someone who wishes a separate country outside that Union. When I was growing up there were obviously far fewer of those people as there was no mainstream movement for constitutional change. Hence my reaction.

Reminds me of the yes voters I met in the park one day

me - "there's still far too many big issues which aren't clear, currency, EU...."blablabla
them - "Have you read the white paper"
me - "yes, I read it the day it came out"
Them - (incredulous tone) "and you still have questions?!?"

They are the 'important bits' of a select committee report where apparently nobody was competent enough to understand the relevant legislation...

That yes fucker who came to my door told me to read the white paper, because it would change my mind. I brandished my annotated copy at him

Not you stoppedlurking - it was a quote from the debate! Patrick stood up and started his emotional plea for independence with "i'm not a nationalist"

Criseyde Phrased like that, I cannot disagree with what you said :-)
I accept that from BAEs point of view, they have all the infrastructure and investment on the Clyde. My viewpoint is that the Political element will trump that and "force" an alternative.
To put it bluntly, as others have touched on above, post a Yes vote, rUK electorate will not look too kindly on politicians who give their tax money to make jobs in a different country - a country that recently "rejected" the Union, and who caused taxes in rUK to go up (as they will on both sides of the border to pay for the seperation) - that's what the headlines in the tabloids and "white van man" will think. Massive vote loser - much more powerful than "it will be a bit cheaper to build them on the Clyde".

Because the relevant legislation is irrelevant in the wider political sphere. It doesn't matter what article 346 or 456 says. It matters what the public thinks, and the public won't think much of the Clyde being supported instead of Portsmouth.

Exactly davros!

Annotated copy! Are you a lawyer?! ;-)

(not really asking, just kidding!)

In response to Criseyde:
I am no expert in international law, procurement or strategic defence planning. My understanding about the entry into the EU was from one of the many articles I read around this debate. I'm sorry but I don't have a reference. As for the misperceptions regarding shipbuilding tenders then I have no differing opinion as no half-baked truth should be used to forge a nation's future. As for a future viable Scottish Defence Force then this will depend largely on whether the ruling party in an independent Scotland would take the decision to invest based on popular politics or an informed assessment of the security climate. The point of greatest vulnerability is in the process of change and a piecemeal defence capability which will be heavily reliant on other nation's support for many years would leave Scotland just that - vulnerable. Equipment is one thing - but without trained personnel it is nothing.
Davros - you're right, Defence is not a big political issue nor is it one of those things you think about. I would argue that by dint of that very statement it shows that what we have works, albeit not perfectly. I suppose a good analogy would be that of a ship's stabilisers; it's only when they are missing that you appreciate the job they do. What I think should be concerning voters more is the threat to homeland security and stability from terrorism and organised crime - currently held in abeyance by the exceptional work of our intelligence services - services which are a national asset. I can't see those being shared in the event of Independence.
I'm sorry this is so heavy but it is something I come to realise is of the greatest importance. That Yes voters have not responded suggests to me that they have either not thought of this or do not want to. I am a Scot and I love my country and the UK. However, this is why I am voting the way I will (amongst other reasons) - because the future of the land I love and its people would be in the hands of politicians who have not had the respect to give Scotland a considered and honest defence strategy. Shameful and inexpedient - and history should teach us why.

Just a geek with a deep appreciation of a good highlighter pen

"I accept that from BAEs point of view, they have all the infrastructure and investment on the Clyde. My viewpoint is that the Political element will trump that and "force" an alternative."

Yes, I think you may well be right. Obviously there are lots of reasons as to why the UK would rather see the ships built in the UK. My only point is that a lot of people (including a lot of Westminster politicians) genuinely seemed to believe that it was a financial, administrative and legal impossibility for the orders to go to the Clyde. I agree that politically, it might not play well. But giving the order to a non-British company, rather than a British company located outside the UK, might look even worse. It may well be possible for the government to force or incentivise a company like BAE systems to invest more in Portsmouth instead of the Clyde, but the alternative is to give the order to a non-British company, and we'll have to wait and see what happens. I'm not for a minute claiming that the orders 'should' or probably will go to the Clyde.

Go Santana

I missed the debate, take it it was good? Anything has to be better than Two Angry Men.

There was a huge outcry in Portsmouth when the last order went to the Clyde. There is just no way that could happen again if Scotland becomes a foreign country.
When the UK government orders new ships from BAE, it can specify where they will be built, and it will.

This guy must know what he's talking about...

"Olli Rehn, European Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said keeping the pound without consent from Westminster "would simply not be possible" because EU membership requires countries to have access to an independent central bank."

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11071043/Independent-Scotland-could-not-keep-pound-and-stay-in-EU.html