Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Carrier jobs joy but is cost too high?



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 July 2008
SCOTLAND celebrated its biggest ever defence boost yesterday as the contract for the UK's most powerful warships was signed after a decade of delays. Britain's two largest aircraft carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – will guarantee 5,000 jobs in Scotland for at least the next decade.
But even before the ink was dry, the government was being challenged on whether it was justified in spending £3.2 billion – or £4 billion if inflation is taken into account – on two warships that will not be ready until 2014 and 2016, at a time when Britain's armed forces are stretched to breaking point fighting wars on two fronts.

Unionist and Nationalist politicians also clashed over whether the Rosyth and Govan dockyards could ever win such jobs again, if Scotland became independent.

At the signing ceremony in Portsmouth, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, hailed the safeguarding of 10,000 UK jobs.

"This is a historic day for everyone in defence," he said. "This is truly a national project, involving companies from the Clyde to the Solent. Construction work will create or sustain around 10,000 UK jobs at the peak of production.

"The two aircraft carriers will provide our forces with the world-class capabilities they will need over the coming decades. They will support peacekeeping and conflict prevention, as well as our strategic operational priorities."

Mr Browne, also the Scottish Secretary, added: "Today's contract signing seals the future for thousands of jobs, and ensures that we will have a Royal Navy fit for the 21st century."

More than half the massive ships, each the length of three football pitches, will be built in Govan and Rosyth.

Workers in Govan will build the hull blocks, while assembly will be carried out in Rosyth.

The work will support more than 3,000 jobs on the Clyde yards and sustain 1,600 jobs at Rosyth.

A decade after the carriers were formally proposed by the Ministry of Defence, contracts signed yesterday included:

• £1.33 billion for the construction of giant sections of both ships by BVT Surface Fleet at Govan and in Portsmouth;

• £300 million for the construction of giant sections of the ships at the BAE Systems yard at Barrow-in-Furness;

• £675 million to build the bow sections and for final assembly and completion of the ships by Babcock Marine, with assembly taking place at Rosyth;

• £424 million for design and engineering for Thales UK;

• £275 million for design and supply of mission systems for BAE Systems Integrated Systems Technologies (Insyte).

Workers and defence chiefs welcomed the news, but with British forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, doubts had been cast on whether the contracts would ever be signed.

Defence analysts were split on whether it was wise to spend £4 billion on warships that would take six and eight years to come into service, at a time when troops abroad have faced helicopter and armoured vehicle shortages.

Andrew Brookes, a defence analyst, said Britain could not afford the contracts. "We can't afford the cost of the aircraft carriers, the cost of the Joint Strike Fighters to go on them, and all the replenishment, escort and protecting vessels," he said.

"We can't afford that without a major increase in funding, which I can't see coming."

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and a former army officer, said: "Of course, we have to have the normal deterrent of aircraft carriers, but our kids are dying on the ground in Afghanistan. They are not getting the equipment they need to be properly protected.

"The funds for the carriers should come from the Royal Navy budget, but it in the end, it is all part of the same pool of cash."

Janet Lowrie, from Dumbarton, whose son is in Iraq and who is part of Military Families Against The War, said the money would have been better spent on protective equipment for frontline troops. "Our vehicles break down all the time, so replace them – save lives," she said.

But Jon Rosamond, the editor of Jane's Navy International magazine, said the cost and the effort of building the carriers were justified. "Yes, times are tight, but now is not the time to stop paying the insurance premiums," he said. "The aircraft carriers are an insurance policy for the future. It gives us flexibility, and we are looking 50 years into the future. Who knows what will happen?"

Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk and a former member of the Black Watch, welcomed the investment and warned: "This is the last time in Scotland we will get jobs like this if it goes independent."

Angus Robertson, the SNP's Westminster leader and the party's defence spokesman, also welcomed the signing of the contracts, and hit back at Mr Joyce, saying: "Scotland has the best yards and best workforce in the world and, in all circumstances, will secure orders on the basis of their formidable skills, and a record of delivery which is second to none."

A computer generated image of the aircraft carrier
A computer generated image of the aircraft carrier


Commitment that was ten years in the making

Ross Lydall


IT HAS been one of the most protracted procurements in defence history.

Talk of future aircraft carriers has now been bandied about for a decade, since the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. Over that time, the Royal Navy has faced severe cutbacks. It has lost ten frigates and is now down to only 25.

But commanders have taken it on the chin, putting up with severe contraction in the hope that the future aircraft carrier deal would be pulled off.

It was on 25 July, 2007 that Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, announced that a contract would be placed for two 65,000-tonne carriers, to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

But negotiations were delayed due to the fact that a new company had to be formed to build the ships, and this did not technically come into being until this week. This resulted in deadlines slipping from March to April. The Ministry of Defence's commitment to the deal was restated in May and it was finally sealed yesterday.

The deal was previously announced in December 2005 but, because of its size, was at risk of cost pressures within the MoD. Back in 2005 the aim was for the carriers to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

Even then, shipyards had been waiting for months for confirmation of the contracts, knowing how important they were to securing long-term work.

Throughout the long wait, Scots MPs have been concerned at the lack of alternative work in the interim. The Scottish affairs committee recently published a report outlining the importance of the carriers to the nation's workforce and pleading with the MoD to press ahead and rubber-stamp the contract.

MPs even pressed the government to keep the dockyards busy with building smaller research vessels, but these were designated as commercial rather than naval vessels, meaning that competition rules applied and the work could not be kept within the UK and had to be tendered across the European Union.

At present, Scottish workers are working on the Type 45 programme frigates. HMS Daring is due to come into service in December next year.

The Royal Navy has only two aircraft carriers – HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious – in active service. A third, HMS Invincible, is "onside" at Portsmouth after retiring in 2005. It is due to be sold in 2010.

This has sparked concerns that, with the new carriers not due to enter service to 2014 and 2016 respectively, the navy will be left under-resourced. Ark Royal is due to be withdrawn from service in 2012 and Illustrious in 2015. MPs warned that time was running out for work to start on the new ships to bring their first into service in 2014.

Workers tell of relief and joy as future is secured

Craig Brown


Apprentices throw their hats in the air at the Govan shipyard
Apprentices throw their hats in the air at the Govan shipyard
AS THE news filtered through at Govan and Rosyth yesterday, the workers were overjoyed.

At the BVT Surface Fleet yard on the Clyde, Jamie Webster, the GMB union's yard convener, said: "When I woke up this morning, I realised that it was D-Day for this. I felt a mixture of relief and joy.

"Relief mainly because it's been the longest, most protracted decision we've had on a project. It will bring employment and stability to the Clyde.

"There was a real sense of euphoria here today but there is still the job to deliver, and that is to build these ships.

"Compared with these new projects, the Ark Royal and Illustrious will look like rowing boats. They are going to be incredible.

"It is amazing to think that in 1999, we were two days from closing. I could never imagine that we would get to where we are now."

For first-year apprentice Joanne McGlinchy the news was a major boost. She said: "This is a really great day for everyone here at Govan and in all the other Scottish yards that will benefit from this work.

"I am really excited about being involved in something this huge right at the beginning of my career. I cannot wait to get started."

At Rosyth, where workers finished work early after the news, the announcement was met with joy.

Bernie Hamilton, the Unite national area officer for shipyards, was present at the signing of the east coast contract. He worked at Rosyth during the 1980s and 1990s.

He said: "When it was decided by the Tories in 1993 to take the refit of nuclear submarines from Rosyth it always seemed that there could never be a recovery, because the people and infrastructure to do that left the yard.

"Today's announcement gives Rosyth a future for generations to come.

"It gives people a sense of that there is a tomorrow and lets communities plan."

The full article contains 1639 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 July 2008 9:27 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Shipbuilding
 
1

danielrober,

04/07/2008 00:02:46
I'm over the moon and can't wait to see them launch.
2

,

04/07/2008 00:22:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

,

04/07/2008 00:33:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

jett,

aden 04/07/2008 00:35:41
did you know that argyle house near bread street is a MOD building. i had my mental welfare tribunal there most present were very informative i spoke to what looked like ex servicemen/security guards about our old pal sadam. its the building on lady lawson street w port. it's a shame for sadam we used to get on well with him and the Iranians. och well c'est le geurre.
5

,

04/07/2008 00:44:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 04/07/2008 00:45:56
"Rejoice"
7

,

04/07/2008 00:48:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

04/07/2008 00:51:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

,

04/07/2008 00:52:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

jett,

aden 04/07/2008 00:52:55
tommy Sheridan spoke badly of MP's and MSP's yet when i spoke to him on the phone to seek some help for my case against the UK he praised them and said I am sure they will help, hypocrite.
11

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 04/07/2008 00:54:24
Why is there the suggestion from Labourites that if Scotland becomes Independent that it will not enjoy any defence orders from rump UK?

Current UK defence procurement is that submissions are sought from capable companies regardless of whether the are in the UK so this implication is quite bizarre.

Are we to assume that Labour would be willing to break Eurpoean competition law and change current purchasing policy to give the Scots a bloody nose? Would Labour stop all current and future contracts with overseas suppliers?. If they believe such threats will keep us at heel they really are living in a dream world.

A shocking admission from Labour and one that portrays how much they dislike the people of Scotland exercising their democratic rights if it dosen't show support for them.

Parcel o rogues
12

jett,

aden 04/07/2008 00:54:25
he spoke well of them but publicly slandered them on talk 107.
13

Jock MacSprog,

04/07/2008 00:58:00
so where are all the anti war lefties in Scotland who I would have thought would be fighting against these ships tooth and nail ?
14

,

04/07/2008 01:04:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

,

04/07/2008 01:05:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

,

04/07/2008 01:07:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

,

04/07/2008 01:09:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

jett,

aden 04/07/2008 01:12:57
i used to be one of them you twit so up yours
19

jett,

aden 04/07/2008 01:14:30
you cannot even trust fellow soldiers, they could kill you and not by accident either
20

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 04/07/2008 01:14:37
Eric Joyce deserves a good political p!ss pounding - or maybe the outside-the-pub kind - for pulling on the old ratchet handle the way he did. Vote Labour or the dummy carriers get it.
After independence the Scots Navy will also need a fleet of gunships.
You can bet your bottom dollar the East Glasgow by-election will now be fought in the name of QE2 and POW.
Makes me kind of sick that Gordon Brown would sink so low.
But I'm sure the worst is yet to come.
21

,

04/07/2008 01:17:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

,

04/07/2008 01:18:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

,

04/07/2008 01:20:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

,

04/07/2008 01:21:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

,

04/07/2008 01:27:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

04/07/2008 01:37:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

04/07/2008 01:37:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

,

04/07/2008 01:43:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Edward,

04/07/2008 02:16:44
Do we actually need the 'super' carriers - NO
Is the UK a global power - NO
Are we spending too much on 2 ships, when the money could have gone to better utilisation of defence - YES

Wake up Scotland your being used by Labour
To help pay for the carriers, Labour have actually cancelled 2 type 45 destroyers, plus other orders are in doubt, something that they dont like talking about
Where will they be berthed - Portsmouth. But will the carriers be deployed anywhere, not really as the costs will be prohibitive. Labour havent even thought about how they will pay for the 40 odd aircraft that each carrier will have!
30

Royster,

04/07/2008 02:40:38
Obviously a political move by Labour - which isn't necessarily a bad thing. On whether a Rump UK would ever award a contract to Scottish shipyard if Scotland were independent, that would be up to the government of Rump UK. Obviously, shipyards based in England would have an advantage from a political perspective. #31. The UK is a global power though not the same as it was in the 19th century. That doesn't mean you should run your country down. Aircraft carriers are needed to protect the people of the Falklands for one.
31

Royster,

04/07/2008 02:42:02
#19. yes the economy is collapsing after 10 years of growth and a booming housing market. It just depends when you bought your house, if you have a job and how much you have spent on your credit card.
32

Edward,

04/07/2008 02:51:12
#32 Royster
Your correct ot was a political move by Labour
The problem is the whole of the UK cannot afford 2 'super sized' carriers, as its not just thecarriers but all the equipment, such as 40 aircarft per carrier that goes with it plus the escort fleet that has to accompany the carriers. Would an Indepnedent Scotland win miltary contracts in future - yes it would as it has the skilled workforce and according to Des Browne, he admited that Scotland could win contracts worldwide!
As for a 'Rump UK' you really should state England, as there will be no UK after Scotland's Independence
It will however be a question of what can England afford after the dissalution of the UK. It certainly will not be able to afford to keep the 2 newly built carriers and realistically England would not have any use for them. Currently UK is by no stretch of the imagiantion a Global power!, It never has been since 1945. Those who think it is are living in cloud cuckoo land. After Independence, England would be fo0ling itself to believe or to continue this illusion that somehow its a global power
33

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 04/07/2008 03:27:07
Err...you mean aggressive, living-in-the-past, Britannia rules-the-whatever England needs aircraft carriers. It's got little to do with Scotland. Except for the politically and cynically manipulated jobs.
34

Traquir , Alba,

04/07/2008 04:12:51
Interesting that a "Union Dividend" tops the headlines
and the critical Glasgow East by-election
is hidden in the minor headlines. Clearly
the implication is the Glasgow East voters
must know what side their bread is buttered on
they must vote Labour :)

Getting back to the real world :

"David Cairns, the Scotland Office Minister, said: "If a by-election is not called now, the earliest possible date would be late October."

see - tinyurl.com/6979x3

Angus Robertson SNP MP
"The 1975 Recess Election Act allows for parliamentary by-elections to take place when Parliament is not in session,"

see - tinyurl.com/5wclvt

Oops, Labour caught out to be liars yet again :)

"The deadline for getting a postal vote is
5.00 pm on Wednesday, 9th July 2008"

"The issuing of postal ballot papers will commence on or after 14 July 2008"

see - tinyurl.com/63djyo

Glasgow Trades holidays are the week of the election
19th to 25th July. So basically to have a chance
to vote anybody that is going on holiday needs
to fill in the postal ballot and hopefully
receive the postal ballot form before they
head off on holiday. I wonder what the chance are
that they will get posted out after the 14th
July and won't arrive in mailboxes until people
have left for vacation the 18th July ?

From the Guardian

"Polling day has been deliberately placed during the summer holidays - Scottish schools have already broken up. It is also midway through the Glasgow fair holiday, when the city traditionally empties and the more politically volatile C2 demographic - backbone of many a byelection swing - are safely away on vacation."

"Today, humiliatingly, Labour's view is that the fewer people who vote, the better. Glasgow East - like Brown's premiership - is now entirely about survival."

see - tinyurl.com/66cr87

Clearly this is democracy British style - apparently
there is only a level playing field if
you are wearing a Unionist strip.
One silver lining thoug
35

Traquir , Alba,

04/07/2008 04:13:45
cont.

Clearly this is democracy British style - apparently
there is only a level playing field if
you are wearing a Unionist strip.
One silver lining though the SNP win in Glasgow East
will be even sweeter when it wins against
this type of underhand abuse.

Saor Alba

P.S. Not that easy to find but the postal ballot
application form is at http://tinyurl.com/59spkb

PLEASE PLEASE pass this around so the people of
Glasgow East at least have the chance to vote.
36

Royster,

04/07/2008 04:46:38
#34. You are being naive. Skills has nothing to do with it, it's all politics. Yards south of the border would obviously have an advantage if Scotland were independent because the local MP would be at Westminster and voters close to Rump UK shipyards would make their voices heard. Scotland would have to cut its price to compete which essentially means lower living standards for Scots. It's a question of semantics but the UK is a global power. It is no longer a superpower but it is one of the world's top economies and it has a relatively strong military - albeit underfunded by Labour and undermined by PC Labour politocos.
37

Phil C,

04/07/2008 05:12:54
"Unionist and Nationalist politicians also clashed over whether the Rosyth and Govan dockyards could ever win such jobs again, if Scotland became independent."

There is no reason why Scotland shouldn't get such work after independence. After all, this wouldn't be a politically motivated order, would it?

I for one hopes that an independent Scotland builds cruise ships, not war machines.
38

Royster,

04/07/2008 06:52:57
#40. Phil. Realistically why would the government in London give a huge defence contract order to a shipyard in an independent Scotland? This is obviously a pork barrel contract. The only reason it is being made in the UK is because it is defence. Cruise ships can be made much cheaper in Korea.
39

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 04/07/2008 06:56:18
A waste of money. These are redundant even before they are built. Each can be sunk by just one space launched missile costing fourpence.
40

LaSagesse,

Washington. D.C. 04/07/2008 07:04:41
Could you guys tell me what kind of cheap fuel they will run on?
41

Royster,

04/07/2008 07:12:56
#42. Yes, they are very vulnerable.
42

Peter Curran,

Kirkliston 04/07/2008 07:15:13
The jobs are welcome, and I'm happy for the skilled workers and their families, and for the security it gives them for the immediate future.
The contract is a blatant political bribe - we don't need the carriers, and from a defence standpoint, the money would have better protected the lives of our soldiers if spent on other things.
The prospect of Scottish independence drove Labour and the Unionists to this concession. Let us be happy, but not grateful, that they made it. England and the world have always needed Scotland's inventiveness, skill, bravery and entrepreneurial drive, and they will need it even more after independence.
The carriers will show the world what Scotland can do. We have always punched above our weight and will continue to do so.
43

Skyrat,

Edinburgh 04/07/2008 07:25:43
More unionist scaremongering at a time when we should be celebrating this contract.

The skilled workers and the shipyards will not just disappear the minute we become independent. If anything we might be more likely to be awarded these sorts of jobs as we could be more competitive!

When unionists resort, as they regularly do nowadays, to outright lies you know they're terrified of the independence argument.
44

Royster,

04/07/2008 07:33:54
#46. They won't disappear but there won't be any work for them - at least from south of the border. That is blindingly obvious.
45

Royster,

04/07/2008 08:16:25
Just out of interest, how many fighting ships (not supply) have been built outside the UK recently?
46

williamx,

Delta 04/07/2008 08:45:18
All it takes is one guided missile to sink these carriers and there is no defense against an ICBM or cruise missiles. Meantime, the army has to go short on decent equipment. I guess the navy is still considered top dog by the government. I wonder if the chief of defense has ever heard of the Doolittle attack on naval ships in 1933 which spelled the end of the battleship.
47

Boswall,

04/07/2008 08:46:04
SNP trolls are really full of it.

This announcement has been known to be coming for some time, the SNP fanboys on this very site have been either casting doubt that the order would ever be signed OR demanding the signing be sped up. Well now that it's happened you're all moaning it took place a few days before a by-election.

Fortunately the regular people of Scotland can see right through your dual standards.....they've become rather experienced at it over the past year.
48

donald,

glasgow 04/07/2008 08:48:33
Could an Independent Engerland afford these carriers, or to invade anyone else again?
49

Boswall,

04/07/2008 08:49:48
#50 Williamx

Are you in fact referring to the Doolittle raid from April 1942?

Your assertion about the lack of missile defence is about as accurate as your history.
50

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 04/07/2008 08:53:23
These vessels are far too vulnerable.

Let the ship yards build submarine turbines instead and our energy crisis will be solved once and for all.
51

Royster,

04/07/2008 08:56:53
#52. Well, as the ships have been ordered and 90% of the UK population is in England it would appear so.
52

Jings Crivens,

04/07/2008 08:57:22
So will the SNP supporter be praising and thanking the UK government for all the Scottish jobs that they have created/saved - not very likely

So fast to criticise but so slow to thank

The carriers are a perfect demonstration of the benefits the union has to the Scottish economy.
53

Jings Crivens,

04/07/2008 09:00:22
53 Boswall

You forgot to mention it was a bombing raid against a city not battleships. Perhaps he meant the japenese air attack against Repulse and Prince of Wales which proved that capital ships required air cover to operate
54

The Strategist,

04/07/2008 09:12:39
I'm truly intrigued as to what the Govt thinks these carriers will be using for fuel. It's not just a question of keeping the carriers going but also the aircraft they'll carry.
55

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/07/2008 09:14:27
#35 quote:

"Forget the timing of the announcement, politics etc., Britain needs aircraft carriers. End of story."

Yes, but Scotland doesn't. Also, it's a vanity thing for the UK.
56

shivago8,

livingston 04/07/2008 09:19:34
Brilliant timing.
One ship to Glasgow[bye election shortly]
One ship to Rosyth[Gordons backyard]
Navy ships mothballed[no matelots]
Once built[white elephants]
Cost 2.3 billions[approved]
Ghurka,s pensions 170 million[rejected]
Political [yes][yes][yes]
Two big white elephants on the high seas[two torpedoes is all it takes]
Remember the Falklands[when the powers to be hid our carrier and holiday cruise ship in case they got a plane hit]
57

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/07/2008 09:21:59
#56 Jings

A great example of the Scottish cringe. Offer thanks for receiving what is rightfully ours.

I don't hear anyone at Westminster thanking Scotland for its oil revenue.
58

Yeah1,

04/07/2008 09:24:28
#37 Traquir:

""The 1975 Recess Election Act allows for parliamentary by-elections to take place when Parliament is not in session,
Oops, Labour caught out to be liars yet again"

No Traquir. You are correct to say that the Recess Election Act allows by-elections to take place when parliament isn't in session but what you have failed to mention, or don't realise, is that this can only happen if the sitting MP has either died, or become disqualified or bankrupt.

In this case the sitting MP has simply resigned and so the Recess Election Act can't be applied. Could you perhaps apologise for your incorrect assumption?
59

bluehead,

edinburgh 04/07/2008 09:46:35
more insanity from the mob!there are to many things needed now!,that amount of money should be spread over many types of equipment used for warfare,
if we wait for commonsense being applied we will wait for ever.
60

Ike,

Glasgow 04/07/2008 09:49:19
Great news for our shipyards. What's truly sad is that successive governments have reduced Scottish shipbuilding to a dependency on centralised defence contracts... thus all the political piffle in this forum. Readers should remember that global demand for ships has never been higher... demand for vessels of all kinds has never been higher... What we have lacked for a generation are enterprising industrialists capabable of harnessing Scottish engineering skills to create domestic wealth in these booming markets. Globalisation = more ships. We used to have a huge market share... but no longer. Why not?
61

Boswall,

04/07/2008 10:19:23
#64

You've answered your own point - we're in a global market place so no enterprising company owner in his right mind would employ a skilled first world worker at £150/day when they can employ an equally skilled 3rd world worker at £15/day.

The future of ship building for the UK is in small numbers of highly technical projects such as the QE class carriers rather than mass production.
62

Toast,

04/07/2008 10:25:22
Give me $4 billion and I'll create a lot more than 10,000 jobs,just like trident a ridiculous waste of money,who is labour kidding,we are not a world power any more.
63

MisterN,

Scotland 04/07/2008 10:25:52
41

We wouldnt need contracts from London we would generate our own. We are not dependent on England for anything we never have been.
64

Boswall,

04/07/2008 10:26:49
#57

I've no idea really what the original posters point was.

I'm fairly sure Pearl Harbor or the annihilation of the Royal Navy Indian/Pacific Oceans was a better historical example of why the Battleship was obsolete.
65

MisterN,

Scotland 04/07/2008 10:31:40
39

Our so called top economy is a house of cards and ready to fall. It has no firm foundation on which to support itself.
An Independent Scotland on the other hand can build a strong foundation based on its natural assets including renewable energy sourses wind and wave power.
We can easily be self sustaining in many areas the UK cant afford to be.
Even Highland Mighty has shown that Scotland generates over 3 times more income than it receives from the Barnett formula and he used Government statistics and figures to prove it.
Your living in a world of lies and deceit propaganda and spin and whats worse you are fully aware it.
66

MisterN,

Scotland 04/07/2008 10:32:51
68

Air power made sea power obsolete decades ago.
67

Mike555,

Falkirk 04/07/2008 10:40:04
#31 Edward

Well said and like you I think with the cost of fuel, these white elephants will remain tied up in Portsmouth Bay for much of the time due to the crippling cost of fuel.

Of course Gordon Broon thinks this is a vote winner for the Glasgoe East by election so that's OK. Aye right......
68

Graeme2,

Aberdeen 04/07/2008 10:46:54
£4 Billion over eight years? £500milion per year?
Lets get the context right here, Norway, ship building last year was worth £10 billion (down from £12 billion the year before)
Are the unionists really telling us we are always going to be dependent on Westminister? Smacks a bit of "Animal Farm"
69

C -Squared,

Fife 04/07/2008 10:48:51
Regardless of the polictal undercurrents, the contracts announced numerous times as a good new story, are good news for the workforces and the families of the workforces employed at Goven and Rosyth. Nobody has made the connection between the size of the new carriers and the building of a new Forth Bridge. Both projects are expecetd to be completed 2015 and 2016, with the carriers first and the Bridge in 2016. Lets hope that a monumental gaff is not made whereby both carriers are trapped upstream on the Forth. If moored bow to stern could the carriers form yet another £4bn crossing for the Forth. Otherwise we could use them as very big ferries.
70

,

04/07/2008 10:52:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

Graham Barnes,

Gravesend, Kent 04/07/2008 10:53:40
No 45. So very well stated.
72

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/07/2008 10:58:27
It keeps people dirdie (busy as they say in Wick) and trains apprentices in important engineering skills.

Yet who can say how world powers will be aligned in 2014? Are these carriers for a European Defence Force? Will the USA as we know it still exist?

In any case we'll get a multi-tiered industrial city (so long's it don't get sunk) with a runway on top.
73

Herne the Hunter,

All of Scotland 04/07/2008 11:13:39
At last we are producing British ships in the UK,and securing tax paying jobs. Cost matters less when it is used for production,of jobs,instead of these jobs being service industries. A wise decision, and yes we must protect our armed services personnel with the very best equipment necessary,but if we are not making this equipment and we do not have the facilities for making it,then we as a country should not be making promises we cannot keep,to our service personnel, and to the rest of the world.
74

danielrober,

04/07/2008 11:15:12
# 58 The Strategist

In the long term, if conventional liquid fuel runs low I should imagine the ships of the RN can all operate on enriched Methanol. Methanol is becoming very popular in China, using i think an adaptation of a USA 1920 process, rather than the SA version been considered here in Europe.
75

Ike,

Glasgow 04/07/2008 11:15:28
65 Boswall
Thanks for the comment. Notwithstanding the well-understood point you make about wages, the market in higher value, higher spec vessels moves ever upwards. Sadly Clydeside is not populated by a large cluster of companies supplying high end, high spec solutions to this large market. The airport lounge isn't full of international customers flying in for demonstrations of leading edge techologies all of which ought to have evolved from strong past performance as mass production moved to Korea, Japan and elsewhere. It's worth remembering that when John Brown's failed, the liquidator could find no-one responsible for selling. The attitude was that if people wanted ships they'd come to JB's.
76

,

04/07/2008 11:16:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
77

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 04/07/2008 11:23:58
"Big"ships during the Second World War became obselete before it finally ended.They became sitting ducks to new technology which was introduced almost daily.
The very same criterion applies today; in fact more so, as we have ever more sophisticated technology available now, some publicly known; much we don't know,due to the armmamant corporates who are the prime beneficiaries from this huge amount of taxpayers money about to be irresponsibly spent. I spent much of my wartime service aboard two large ships and the government at the time, couldn't send them to the 'knackers' yard fast enough at the very first available opportunity.
Who are going to provide this money? We are! The gullible clowns who the Establishment have plundered financialy for centuries to proviide them with their priveleged life styles; their armies to protect them and for their foreign adventures abroad.
We are living in a dangerous nuclear age that threatens every one of us humans. There is also highly developed rocket delivery sytems that can penetrate on a global scale; yet in 2008; one of the smallest inhabited islands on the planet have chosen to build the largest aircraft carriers known.
Who are really in control of this island? It is certainly not Brown's New Labour Party1 They have to do what their clandestine controllers instruct them to do.
78

Boswall,

04/07/2008 11:27:44
#70

Just as well they're AIRCRAFT Carriers then.
79

danielrober,

04/07/2008 11:30:35
# 76 Yok Finney,Ross-shire

Absolutley agree. Though i think the RN will fight back if attacked, as point missed by some of the it'll sink group.
80

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:30:53
70 Mister N-not true-Sea Power and critically(and significantly here) Carrier borne aircraft made the liberation of the Falklands possible.
50 Williamx-it was the demise of the Battleship that brought the Aircraft Carrier into its own. The carrierrs will be protected by the worlds most advanced destroyers, the type 45. Your assertion that one cruise missile could take them out is oversimplified nonsense. If ICBMs were deployed then it would be endgame in any event with full thermonuclear war in which case eveything would be obsolete!
81

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:31:52
82 Boswall-touche!!!
82

Fairfax,

04/07/2008 11:34:38
Phil C (40): "There is no reason why Scotland shouldn't get such work after independence."

It depends on the attitude of English politicians after Scottish independence. Sadly, I suspect that England will be bitter following Scottish secession.

"After all, this wouldn't be a politically motivated order, would it?"

Surely not. After all, what would a Scottish PM, Chancellor and Defence Secretary have to gain from job creation in the once solidly Labour Scotland?

"I for one hopes that an independent Scotland builds cruise ships, not war machines."

That's an interesting point: even if England wished to continue such defence contracts after the UK's dissolution, would Scotland be politically willing to allow involvement?
83

Boswall,

04/07/2008 11:35:24
#81

Size doesn't matter.

In a naval sense it doesn't anyway - it's all about capability, and these carriers represent a massive upgrading in the Navy's surface capability.

As you point out, the worlds a very dangerous place....with dwindling fossil resources I wouldn't like to guess what's going to happen to global security in the next 50 years however I do think it's wise to have these ships - they represent pretty good value for money given the overall cost to an economy that has an annual GDP of 1.5 trillion.
84

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:37:01
81 Wattie-go into the HMS Daring-type 45 website and see what this ship is capable of by way of self defence and defending the carriers. Also if WW2 made big ships obsolete-how come all the worlds major navies have built orplan aircraft carriers including the yanks with approx 12 huge carriers the largest of which is nearly 100000 tons!!! do you know something that the US Navy does not?
85

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:39:33
PhilC 40-cruise ships arent much good and defending your country and its vital interests worldwide!
86

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:40:16
good at defending...
87

cataibh,

Over the Struie 04/07/2008 11:47:39
#41 I am sure that these two ships could also be built much cheaper in Korea.
88

Alfie Bett,

04/07/2008 12:05:48
Certainly good news for the people involved in the construction of these vessels but I wonder if this is just a case of the UK government showing themselves to being last of the big spenders in an effort to prop up their notion of being a big military power that and the fact that labour have milked this carrier contract politically for years.
Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk and a former member of the Black Watch, welcomed the investment and warned: "This is the last time in Scotland we will get jobs like this if it goes independent."
The reality is this will probably be the last big MoD naval contract awarded in the entire UK irrespective whether Scotland is independent or not,the UK just cannot afford to continually posture around the world as a great military power without massively increasing the defence or should that be the offence budget to the cost of sacrificing far more urgent civil projects but hey! when has that ever stopped them.
89

elizabeth the first ,

04/07/2008 12:10:09
Now you have a good reason to stay in GB.
90

Molly Weirs wrung out gusset.,

04/07/2008 12:24:30
Err whom are 'we' defending the country against, that we need to spend this amount of schools, hospitals and roads, money on?
91

,

04/07/2008 12:28:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
92

Zambo,

04/07/2008 12:30:11
Do these two warship contracts represent a platform for long term sustainable jobs for Scottish shipyards (and the rest of the UK’s), or are they simply a political injection of cash to prop up a dying domestic industry that’s no longer competitive in the World? If it is the former – great news but what will the yards produce after 2016, if is the latter what kind of political fallout is being created for 2014-16 when the yards close down?
93

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 12:38:03
96 Zambo-there is a requirement for a replacement for type 22,23 frigates and MCM vessels. This could involve up to thirty vessels.
94

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 12:43:48
95 McMadman-such a common and ultimately silly comment. The answer is -ok spend nothing on defence-hope like hell that our allies dont follow suit or, if they follow your logic and all our allies decide to cancel their armed forces and buy books then leave us all totally defenceless-afterall you say who are we defending against? Kim,Hussein,Hitler,Napoleon,genghis Khan,Musolini,Mad iranian Mullahs,Putin.....
95

elizabeth the first ,

04/07/2008 12:44:11
95. You are all obsessed with this "kimba" character,now either you can't understand the queens english, or, you are thick as two short planks,either way let me state for the umteenth time, I AM NOT KIMBA. As for your foul mouthed rhetoric,carbolic and soap come to mind.
96

Darien,

Panama 04/07/2008 13:09:50
The two aircract carriers are an utter waste of £4.0 bn of taxpayers money. There is today a global shipbuilding boom, where most countries with any sense are building ships for trading purposes to benefit jobs, competitiveness and balance of payments; the UK is instead virtually alone in building only ships for war purposes. Trading ships are worth money, to sell and/or operate; war ships earn nothing and cost a fortune to build and operate. Think about it: £4.0 billion would build over 50 large ferries of the Superfast type, or 100 large containerships, or 200 very large (VLCC) oil tankers, or 20 mega cruise ships (each for 2500 people), or 200 large CalMac-type ferries. If we really wanted to subsidise shipbuilding jobs, we might at least do so sensibly, by building ships for trade (and peace), not for war. To build such a vast fleet of trading ships would provide shipbuilding jobs for over 30 years. This order reflects outdated British Nationalist (aka Unionist) imperialist thinking and stinks of gesture politics. It is a complete and utter waste of our money.
97

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 13:31:18
100 Darien-see my post at 98. Also the UK is nowhere near alone in building this type of ships-India,France,the USA,Italy,Spain,Russia all planning/building/operating Carriers. Were it that simple that we didnt have to operate these vessels. No use having a big merchant fleet if u lack the means to defend them!
98

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/07/2008 13:32:01
A thousand money men in the City of London are rewarded with a million pounds each for their labours as thieves. Thousands of us have used their cheap money, which they allow us to use as credit to out-bid each other for a home.

We're fighting a war in Afghanistan, are we? Troops are fighting it. That the the CEOs of the bank that guards your money might buy a helicopter or armoured vehicle for these brave men - from their annual bonus and renumerations - never occurs to them. Money talks and men die.
99

elizabeth the first ,

04/07/2008 13:34:04
102, And women.
100

Darien,

Panama 04/07/2008 13:47:41
101 - 'defend' what (UK) merchant fleet? It may have passed you by, but the UK no longer has a merchant fleet to defend. neither has South Africa; its all owned by by old man Moller in beautiful beautiful Copenhagen plus other patriarchs in Geneva, Shanghai, olso, New York, Hamburg, Taipei, Hong Kong, Singapore etc etc. Where have you been since collapse of the Brit Empire, and globalisation? Watch my lips - "aircraft carriers are complete and utter waste of our money".
101

elizabeth the first ,

04/07/2008 13:57:04
104. Well that's settled then,Britain does not need aircraft carriers,because the man from panama says so!
102

Boswall,

04/07/2008 14:07:53
#104

Carriers are currently used to launch air support for ground troops as you well know.

It seems pretty obvious to everyone (bar you) that as the worlds energy supply dries up and with the rise of new economic and military powers that we might be heading for a spot of bother in the future.

When diplomacy fails it's enormously useful to have a flat top or 2 at your disposal.

Interesting to note you failed to respond to Geoff's point that almost any country that can afford it is building carriers.
103

W Smith,

Middle East 04/07/2008 14:11:51
Considering how much Gordon Brown has spent on qunagos(hundreds of billions of pounds - not many jobs), over the last ten years, this money is WELL SPENT.

Some Scots don't want Trumps development 'cos the jobs created are too menial or beneath them now some Scots don't want these shipyard jobs which are a of a more technical nature.

No point in trying to please everybody but I'll bet the lads in Rosyth and Govan are happy while the Editor of The Scotsman suddenly gets all pious about money!

Bit late for that is it not?

If you don't have a problem with Brown giving jobs to the boys in the quangos why suddenly make an issue of the cost of these aircraft carriers?
104

The Tin Man,

04/07/2008 14:33:13
#101 Geoff

I think you'll find that Russia manages fine with one aircraft carrier that never goes to sea (probably for sale). That, and a stockpile of Sunburn missiles designed to cripple aircraft carriers.
105

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 14:58:14
108 tin man-I think the fact that the ruskies only have one flat top is down to circumstance more than desire. The collapse of the soviets saw the collapse of their navy. Putin will no doubt rebuild the russian Navy.
106 boswall-good post and ta for ur support!
104 Darien-yes flags of convenience pose some probs.. In reality as you say the merchant fleets of the UK and others all sail under flags of convenience which have advantages for big business but lead to exploitation of merchant mariners and big questions about responsibility for these fleets on the High seas-the Bremuda or Panamanian-not to mention Liberian Navies are not really up to it! The Uks lifeline is the sea-we have always been seafarers and need a strong navy.
106

European Scot,

04/07/2008 15:19:50
109 Good afternoon Admiral Geoff !

Or should we demote you, bearing in mind your geographical position, and call you Captain Horn-blower !

These Carriers are just a wee bit of a target are they not.
All-seeing Satellites, that can identify a car in a car park from Space, and these are only the civilian models that we're allowed to see, plus a couple of well placed missiles later.........
Even if it was only one medium sized missile that hit the deck, how are all those aircraft going to take-off and land afterwards ?
Is the 'UK' Government thinking ahead, about protecting 'its' oil off the Malvinas ?
That being the case, would Argentina have access to such missiles ?
Do nice naval ships, and not so nice little 'Exocets' ring any ships bells ?
It seems an awful lot of money, to waste on an awful lot of metal, which will cost a fortune in fuel, just to get out of the harbour.
Then we have this old argument about protecting our interests overseas.
Correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but hasn't the Empire gone ?
Is Gun-Boat diplomacy still part of the 'British' repertoire ?
Many Nations have interests overseas, but it isn't normally accompanied by sending in 'the heavies'.
It all seems like a bit of Britannia Rules the Waves posturing, from a faded power which still wants to be seen playing alongside the big boys.
As for America continuing to invest in large ships. Take a look at their mothball fleet, a veritable Armada of scrap metal, to be added to in due course.
If we must continue to spend obscene amounts of money on the Military, let's at least spend it on protecting those troops who are on the ground today.
Making sure that they are properly equipped, would be a start.
I'd rather see soldiers covered with ample equipment, than with body bags.
107

The Tin Man,

04/07/2008 15:27:13
#109 Geoff

The USSR had no operational aircraft carriers, and relied on the ability to sink other people's carriers. I think that two were commisioned after the fall of the Soviet Union, with one sold to India.
108

INTER-nationalist,

04/07/2008 15:43:26
Ochone, ochone as Angus Og was wont to say. I spend a wee bit of time travelling the world and return to find the numpty Nats just as nasty as ever. And stlll lying their heads off. Especially the loony called Traquir with his cut and paste nonsense. 62 found him out but he'll wait a long time for an apology. The SNP doesn't do sorry.

And hark at their grudging welcome for this great news for Scottish industry. Still, never mind, in the Nat utopia there'll be plenty of jobs in shipbuilding. All those extra fishing boats we'll need once Fat Eck waves his fist and Europe trembles.
109

European Scot,

04/07/2008 15:55:57
112 INTER-nationalist

"I spend a wee bit of time travelling the world and return to find the numpty Nats just as nasty as ever"

Perhaps if you made that, a lot of time travelling the World.
Now would be nice !

By the way what is a "grudgingly welcome" ?
110

John Cameron,

Broughty Ferry 04/07/2008 16:09:47
This is the ultimate example of pork barrel politics. The Big Awkward is rapidly becoming one of the most disreputable politicians in recent British history, which is saying a very great deal indeed. What our servicemen really need is a battle field rifle that works, decent kit, bomb resistant transport, and an observation aircraft whose main function is not killing its crew. Which two ocean war does does Brown have in mind with this pair of carriers. Who is he going to fight, Sweden and Togo? Time to pack in it, Gordon. Go back home and watch Raith Rovers before you have destroyed everything.
111

lord john,

borders 04/07/2008 16:21:09
We should have had new and bigger carriers long ago.
Instead of buying jets from U.S. we should have put squadrons of "Harriers"on board.
Watching "Warship " the Illustrious sailed to Goa with only six helicopters .During the cruise they said they were expecting a squadron of "harriers " to land on. Iwas let down when only four aircraft arrived . We are short of planes crews to service them and the ships .
112

INTER-nationalist,

04/07/2008 16:21:56
113 European Scot

'Perhaps if you made that, a lot of time travelling the World.
Now would be nice !

By the way what is a "grudgingly welcome" ?'

I think that might be one. A typical response from the wee Scotlanders.
113

European Scot,

04/07/2008 16:32:24
116 INTER-nationalist

Ah, a typical response eh ?
Well, by all means express yourself, but perhaps it might be a good idea, if you learned how to do it correctly first !

Try 'Grudging' Welcome !

This 'little Scotlander' is over six feet in his socks !
114

Darien,

Panama 04/07/2008 16:34:00
Geoff: planning for (more) wars - what a great aspiration for a 'nation'. Aircraft carriers are not needed to defend this country, we have plenty of runways for aircraft to take off from (if needed!). Carriers' only purpose is aggression in far off places - which is a policy we know never turns out very well.

Think about it: £4bn our cash = 100 large container ships and tankers. That activity would be worth 10-times more jobs over a far longer period at Clyde and Rosyth. And you even get money for selling merchant ships. Government might even make a profit! Moral of the story is - if you want to subsidise shipyard jobs, far better to build merchant ships, like most sensible economies!
115

brownlie,

04/07/2008 16:40:41
112 International

Scotland would need a lot more fishing boats if the "trembling" regarding Scottish fisheries allocation had not already been done by successive unionist governments who sold fishing rights down the river.

Ask yourself why, for instance, the Spanish have a thriving fishing industry whilst Scots boats are lying idle.

At least Salmond would not have allowed himself to sit in a corridor whilst the UK government were having talks on fishing rights.
116

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 04/07/2008 16:54:12
In 1975, when the late Robin Cook - one of the most intelligent MPs to sit in the House of Commonns in recent times, forecast: UNLESS arms spending is drastically cut, the UK faces economiic disaster.
Further, to his forecast, he went on to say the following...."We have the absurd situation where the UK is still trying to be a world military power which could only lead to economic and social disaster". He went on to emphasise that the resources wasted on arms could be used to INCREASE personal expenditure which could create demands on industry that would in turn create Production enabling further improvement to PUBLIC SERVICES; Amenities and provide much new investment in UK industry.
If Robin's wise words had been taken heed of then, we may have still retained much of the UK industrial basis that has almost but completely disappeared since Thatcher arrived on the political scene.
Can anyone please inform me; WHO are the present owners of what is left of MoD dockyards?
Devonport; which is the largest Naval base in Western Europe which I believe is stiil partly owned by DML; it was privatised and partly controlled at one time by the infamous USA Haliburton; now so much involved in Iraq.
117

The Gorm,

St Catharines 04/07/2008 17:06:45
Be happy for your good fortune-Money ,jobs and a partial return to world status.We must be prepared for conflict hoping that it wil never be needed.
118

Fairfax,

04/07/2008 17:15:13
wattie>x 1 (120): "In 1975, when the late Robin Cook - one of the most intelligent MPs to sit in the House of Commonns in recent times, forecast: UNLESS arms spending is drastically cut, the UK faces economiic disaster."

When did this economic disaster occur? Britain reversed its economic decline in the 1980s and, pace current economic problems, is vastly richer than Cook would have believed possible in the dreary days of the 1970s. I can see little prescience in Cook's prediction 33 years ago.

"If Robin's wise words had been taken heed of then, we may have still retained much of the UK industrial basis that has almost but completely disappeared since Thatcher arrived on the political scene."

All Thatcher did was to turn off taxpayer subsidies for industries that had been ruined by inefficiency and union militancy. In fact manufacturing still counts for some 25% of the British economy.
119

Fairfax,

04/07/2008 17:23:29
Darien (118): "Think about it: £4bn our cash = 100 large container ships and tankers."

Let's think about the £4 bn another way: it's one third of the UK incapacity benefit cost for one year, or roughly Scotland's incapacity benefit cost for 3 years. It seems like a good deal to me.

"That activity would be worth 10-times more jobs over a far longer period at Clyde and Rosyth."

Why should the UK spend money creating jobs at Clyde and Rosyth? Given that it's fairly likely that Scotland will secede from the UK, as I fervently hope, why should England spend some £3.6 billion on jobs in Scotland?
120

,

04/07/2008 17:25:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
121

,

04/07/2008 18:34:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
122

MisterN,

Scotland 04/07/2008 18:46:35
84

By the skin of their teeth by all accounts if only 1 carrier had been lost then the entire campaign was over. Luckly the Argentinians didnt have a single silent nuclear powered sub which could have sunk our entire surface fleet from a couple of miles off.
123

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 04/07/2008 19:18:44
I thought part of this contract was going to France?

Anyway Scotland has an 8 and a bit percentage stake in the sell-off value.

Another thing I really like to see in print is how proud Royster and his likes delight in talking about the "rump UK" after independence.

Do they realise where the rump is?
124

MT,

04/07/2008 19:19:08
what a waste of money. What are they going to do with the carrier when Scotland becomes independent?
125

,

04/07/2008 19:27:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
126

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 04/07/2008 19:30:55
A Scottish Government could build coastal defence ships in all shapes and sizes. Some could be shaped liked fishing vessels (disguise) and sold to scottish fishermen as second hand.

The list is endless. Where there is a will there is a way.
127

sonofhamish,

edinburgh 04/07/2008 19:42:56
Great news, well done, these are badly needed skills that will be kept alive in the U.K.
128

Linden Engineering Inc,

Denver Colorado 04/07/2008 19:44:50
If some question if the cost is too high why not tender it out to China and have Walmart do the negotiations?
Seems we will all be using Chinese goods before too long: Why not equip HM Forces with Boats Planes and Weapons made in China and finish with it!
Dennis
129

INTER-nationalist,

Troon 04/07/2008 19:45:40
117 - You may be over six feet in your socks but your vision is somewhat less than 20/20. Read my original post again and tell me where the word 'grudgingly' is. I DID write 'grudging welcome.' And boy have you ever justified my words.

Bad show when you can't even get your pedantry right.
130

Linden Engineering Inc,

Denver Colorado 04/07/2008 19:46:58
It makes me sick that people are questioning the cost of warships such as these. Scotland has produced great ships for more than a century, a testament is still plying its trade on lake Titicaca in Bolivia.
Dennis
131

A big boy dun it an ran away,

04/07/2008 20:01:01
An let's no forgit whit happened tae the gid auld Soviet Union by chasin shadows wae military spendin – noo Russia has wan rustin carrier in the dock. Does Scotland need tae gaun doon the same road? Robin Cook wis nae soothsayer he wis jist statin whit we awready kent an the boys in Westminister are keen tae ignore.
132

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 04/07/2008 20:01:51
Linden @ 136. You might find that more people are questioning the wisdom of the construction, rather than the cost.

Colorado? Where's your nearest anchorage?
133

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/07/2008 20:17:14
-- why not tender it out to China?

Chinese CAN build in steel. But the Party would want paid in hard currency - like oil - not £ sterling - for this length of contract. British workers get paid £sUK which are created "out of nothing" by Mervyn King and Charlie Bean. The taxpayer then pays the interest on this fake money issued by the bank of england.

-- seems we will all be using Chinese goods before too long

We are! My company uses mainly chinese electronics. My own bed was made there. I recently bought a pair of sailing gloves. There were made in Pakistan. (not yet part of China)
134

European Scot,

04/07/2008 20:20:38
135 INTER-nationalist

"You may be over six feet in your socks but your vision is somewhat less than 20/20. Read my original post again and tell me where the word 'grudgingly' is. I DID write 'grudging welcome.' And boy have you ever justified my words."

You are quite right ! Sorry for that. Have now cleaned glasses, and withdraw that particular comment. It's astigmatism actually, but not 20/20 that's for sure.
Took you long enough to find it, I note !
"Justified my words", however is pushing things a bit.

". I spend a wee bit of time travelling the world and return to find the numpty Nats just as nasty as ever............ The SNP doesn't do sorry.

Take another look, their supporters do !
135

Fairfax,

04/07/2008 20:33:26
Jackie Priest (128): "You mean England, Wales and Northern Ireland, no?"

No, I meant England, according to (approximate) share of GDP.

"And, of course, the English are known for being very sporting, aren't they? Albeit, you appear to be letting the side down, Fairfax, old boy."

It's economics, not sport.
136

Ewen Miler,

Amesbury 04/07/2008 21:06:10
#139

China - no thanks! We want to retain some skills in this country before we lose them aall to the likes of China who can then charge what they want. Anyway, China's too busy building its own Forces - Defence budget more than doubled in last 4 years.
137

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 04/07/2008 21:12:01
142, Ewen Miler, how's the RSA at Larkhill doing these days?
138

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 04/07/2008 21:15:36
#122
Ask those who lost their livelihood, homes, broken families, driven overseas to start a new life and those needlessly killed in Thatcher's war; when her own useless son was travelling around the desert with an unknown blonde female friend.
Ask the pensioners who cut their pension increase link to earnings when her legalised crooked colleagues were up to their necks in sleaze, lying, corruption and living a life of immorality.
139

INTER-nationalist,

04/07/2008 22:47:23
140 "Took you long enough to find it, I note !"

About three seconds actually. Unlike the Cybernats I have other things to do with my day than live it on newspaper forums.

"Justified my words", however is pushing things a bit"

I don't think so. A gratuitous, unjustified and incorrect personal attack seems to be par for the course

". I spend a wee bit of time travelling the world and return to find the numpty Nats just as nasty as ever............ The SNP doesn't do sorry."

Take another look, their supporters do

I think you mean one of their supporters has. Like a carload of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean it's a start!
140

INTER-nationalist,

Troon 04/07/2008 22:52:22
119 "Ask yourself why, for instance, the Spanish have a thriving fishing industry whilst Scots boats are lying idle"

Erm, could it have something to do with licences being sold by Scots skippers to Spanish fishermen?

But hey with Eck in charge there'd be no Spanish fishermen in Scottish waters. No fish either, mind you, which would be hard on the eck-olytes who think if you gave Eck five fish and a couple of loaves he'd solve world hunger overnight.
141

danielrober,

04/07/2008 23:08:35
As these new ships are launched a small agreement is renewed. That between the armed forces and the civilian population of the UK. Yeh we get some great jobs and a new generation of engineers (so needed). But it is also about supplying the best equipment that we can afford to the armed foces.

Only a short time ago some guys were captured and they were taken prisoner. If they had of had better boats, which we make, they could have withdraw to the safety of their command ship. This will be redressed with better faster patrol craft and new figates. Yet they need to withdraw to somewhere, when they themselves are a long away from home. Well now the Royal Navy and the other forces will have two decent homes from home. That's whats this is about.

Next i'm sure we will as a nation be lookig at ground troop and air protection. But we are not the USA so this won't happen overnight.

Every member of the armed forces should look the these ships as what they are, a thank you.
142

danielrober,

04/07/2008 23:25:11
# 144 wattie>x 1,PLYMOUTH

Your comments take me back to when i was sixteen and considered taking a role a rating in the Royal Navy. I failed the Artificer exam, but passed mechanic (i'm still proud now). I went with another choice in the end (who knows if it was the right one).

Your remind me of the feeling of common ground and welcoming at Plymouth. A stange feeling that this was a home. I have never been back even though i almost ended up taking a reaseach post there in only 2004. Too long i think, i'll head over there next summer and show my kids a real port.

Have a good night.
143

Vaward,

05/07/2008 10:57:29
Some of these comments are hilarious!

What did Churchill say? "The greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

How apt.
144

danielrober,

05/07/2008 19:11:22
# 149 Vaward,

Churchill also said silence in he face of threats and ignorance was weakness.

145

FTH22inarow,

06/07/2008 09:43:19
Anyway independence doesn't mean the break up of the United Kingdom, if attained I believe we're keeping the Germans as our head of state and therefore the United Kingdom still would exist, I can see no reason of gaining independence why this would result in the break up of the armed forces as they currently stand
146

spartan72,

glasgow 06/07/2008 09:58:57
People seem to be getting all bent out of shape over the cost of the carriers, well people thats nothing compared to the price of their air groups, the F35B, with which we are hoping to equip them will add another twelve billion quid to the equation, we still haven't decided which aircraft or helicopter will provide the airborne early warning,and if the U.S. decides to abandon the short take off vertical landing version F35B, which is possible, these two carriers will have to be equipped with catapults and arrestor gear to operate the F35C, four billion quid may seem cheap by the time these carriers enter service.
147

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 06/07/2008 13:31:52
What did Churchill say?
Here is one of his MOST truthful quotations few (Which he wasn't very fond of telling) if any, that many of his right wing sycophants of today can't bear to think about.
This was the great man at his very best AS a Liberal MP AND then generally loathed by the Tories AS HE still is by many right wing Tories of today!.
" WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN THE TORIES RETURN TO POWER, A PARTY OF GREAT VESTED INTERESTS, BANDED TOGETHER IN A FORMIDABLE CONFEDERATION.
" CORRUPTION AT HOME, AGGGRESION ABROAD; TARIFF JUGGLES; THE TYRANNY OF A WEALTH - FED PARTY MACHINE.
PATRIOTISM BY THE IMPERIAL PINT. AN OPEN HAND AT THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER, AN OPEN DOOR AT THE PUBLIC HOUSE.
DEAR FOOD FOR THE MILLIONS AND CHEAP LABOUR FOR THE MILLIONAIRES. THAT IS THE POLICY THE TORY PARTY BELIEVES IN".
THESE ARE THE actual WORDS OF THE GREAT WINSTON.
I wonder if he was maybe forecasting the future replacement off the Tories by Blair and Brown's 1997 lying corrupt New Labour Party?





 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.