Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008

RBS Ambassador, Luke Donald

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

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 00:22:50
Good news for scottish jobs. Timing of the announcement good too, just as a by election is announced in a seat where liebore are sh'teing themselves....
3

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 00:33:58
#3

What, any more than liebore and the fibdems did ? What do you suggest then ?
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

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 00:44:06
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.


Yup just like the budget it looked good on paper but when you look at the small print, well it tells a different storey.
6

Mercutio,

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

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 00:48:51
The UK, with its debt-laden consumers and shaky house prices, looks especially vulnerable. Just a month ago, in the budget, the Treasury pencilled in GDP growth of 2% this year, and a healthier 2.5% in 2009, as the economy recovers; but the IMF today forecast much weaker 1.6% growth for both this year and next.

House prices are already falling – by 2.5% last month alone, according to the Halifax – and the IMF believes the wider economy will be hit hard over the next two years, as overstretched banks repair their balance sheets, and ordinary borrowers face higher interest rates and tighter loan conditions.

Mercutio,FALKIRK 04/07/2008 00:45:56
"Rejoice"



8

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 00:51:46
The British economy is entering a period of "significant downswing" and will grow even more slowly in 2009 than this year as house prices fall further, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development warned today.

In its half-yearly economic outlook for its 35 member countries, the OECD is particularly downbeat on Britain, predicting that the economy will only expand 1.8% this year, a rate that will drop to 1.4% in 2009.

That is in sharp contrast to Treasury expectations that after a slowdown in growth this year to around 2%, the economy will rebound swiftly next year.

Mercutio,FALKIRK 04/07/2008 00:45:56
"Rejoice"

9

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 00:52:54
#6, No, I'm not.

You asked if Swinney had an answer yet. Clearly not as he has not announced it.

I simply made the observation that lib/lab failed here
(as did the tories) and asked if you had any suggested solution in mind. That's all. Do you ?
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

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:04:24
#3
Barnardo's chief Martin Narey is disgusted at Gordon Browns abandoning of a pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 just to steal the Tories' clothes on inheritance tax


Children in poverty paid for the inheritance tax giveaway. Labour should be ashamed.

Any answers on that ?

15

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:05:53
Labour's strategy for tackling violent crime is failing Britain's young people, a group of former Whitehall advisers and criminal justice experts will warn the Government today.


The damning critique of 10 years of New Labour policy on street violence and antisocial behaviour comes amid a wave of knife killings in Britain's inner cities. Ministers are accused of relying on "flat earth... science" to justify knee-jerk policies instead of confronting the social realities in which crime is committed.

Professor Simon Halls-worth, a former adviser to the Government on gang crime, criticises Labour for giving up on its commitment to being tough on the causes of crime. It is "deeply sinister", he warns, to replace this policy with one that is only concerned with the "management of risk".

Any answers on that labour trolls
16

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 01:07:28
#15

Feckoff, numptie. A good number are getting killed in Afghanistan and Iraq for the likes of you. Tw@t.
17

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:09:36
Lets put this into light. While the UK is collapsing (Mainly south of the border) we have a little rump of good news in Scotland, 5,000 jobs and around that again down south. Meanwhile the economy is being decimated by an incompetent government.
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

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:17:18
Labour hustings at the Glasgow east by-election.

"Vote for us and we will insure MOD contracts will come to the east end"

voter, " Mr labour spin man, all i want is good value for my farmfoods vouchers and how much will my gas bill be and when is glasgow city council going to fix my front door"

Yes the MOD will sort it out for you betty labour voter
22

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:18:40
#22

You hit the labour cr ap soundbites on the head, jolly good post..
23

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 01:20:27
#22

Aye, expect the union jacks out and all. But maybe people will not be conned and see this for what it is. Maybe they should remember Rosyth being sold doon the river to Portsmouth over subs when it had all the facilities and Portsmouth none.

The contract's been awarded. Vote independence 2010. Then the rump uk will have to deal with it's two flagships worth £4bn being built in a foreign newly independent country. That'd be a laugh...
24

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:21:03
How many of the 5,000 MOD jobs and the spin of jobs (hmm 1,500?) will filter through to the deprived east end ? The SNP should challenge this on the streets with Labour
25

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:27:41
#25

Join with me and lets wave the Union Flags, good reasons to after all..

Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were getting inadequate equipment and health care while their families were often living in poor accommodation back home

A further blow to Labour was the release by the Tories of figures showing a quarter of our soldiers will pay up to £233 a year more income tax from next month.

Cameron yesterday appointed author and Daily Express columnist Freddie Forsyth to head a Tory commission which will examine the military covenant.

Falklands War veteran Simon Weston, who will also take part, warned yesterday that many soldiers returning injured from Afghanistan were being forced to “grovel” for decent treatment.

The commission will also include military historian Sir John Keegan and ex-officers from the three Services.
The commission will look at the way public services treat forces personnel and the standard of care for bereaved military families.

The SNP should also challenge Labour over this on the streets of the east

26

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 01:37:02
#28

Well, they don't call it the butcher's apron for nothing.

What a feckinshame for the troops, it is an utter disgrace.
27

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:37:58
Some of the Labour trolls will be asking why im posting negative stuff on this thread?? well i say!! Govan may have the edible bit of the carrot but the rest of the carrot is rotten.
28

Bird of Prey, Will watch what i say.,

04/07/2008 01:43:00
#28

It is a shame what our troops are going through and as Labour will spin this MOD contract into some sort of bargaining tool with the voters the SNP counterbalance with the voters on Labours record of looking after our troops, many of whom will come from areas like the east end..
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

bring them on,

04/07/2008 03:15:38
Forget the timing of the announcement, politics etc., Britain needs aircraft carriers. End of story.
34

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.
35

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
36

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.
37

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.
38

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.
39

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.
40

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.
41

LaSagesse,

Washington. D.C. 04/07/2008 07:04:41
Could you guys tell me what kind of cheap fuel they will run on?
42

Royster,

04/07/2008 07:12:56
#42. Yes, they are very vulnerable.
43

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.
44

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.
45

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.
46

Gianni,

04/07/2008 08:08:48
#23 " Mr labour spin man, all i want is good value for my farmfoods vouchers and how much will my gas bill be and when is glasgow city council going to fix my front door"

Evidence of the endemic inability of many modern Scots to stand on their own two feet without falling over.

For the masses who opt for welfare as a lifestyle the state must provide, reimburse money foolishly spent on Farmfood vouchers and subsidise world energy prices.

Why should the citizen pay to repair his broken front door? That is what GCC is for.
47

Royster,

04/07/2008 08:16:25
Just out of interest, how many fighting ships (not supply) have been built outside the UK recently?
48

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.
49

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.
50

donald,

glasgow 04/07/2008 08:48:33
Could an Independent Engerland afford these carriers, or to invade anyone else again?
51

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.
52

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.
53

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.
54

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.
55

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
56

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.
57

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.
58

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]
59

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.
60

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?
61

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.
62

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?
63

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.
64

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.
65

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.
66

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.
67

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.
68

MisterN,

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

Air power made sea power obsolete decades ago.
69

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......
70

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"
71

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.
72

The Master,

04/07/2008 10:52:28
I parody les miserables on the flight decks with me,myself and i, just the 3 of us.
73

Graham Barnes,

Gravesend, Kent 04/07/2008 10:53:40
No 45. So very well stated.
74

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.
75

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.
76

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.
77

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.
78

The Master,

04/07/2008 11:16:01
77
"securing tax paying jobs" at the expense of the tax payer my old bean



79

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.
80

Boswall,

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

Just as well they're AIRCRAFT Carriers then.
81

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.
82

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!
83

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:31:52
82 Boswall-touche!!!
84

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?
85

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.
86

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?
87

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:39:33
PhilC 40-cruise ships arent much good and defending your country and its vital interests worldwide!
88

Geoff,

sa 04/07/2008 11:40:16
good at defending...
89

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.
90

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.