Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Cameron in threat to Scottish defence jobs

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.

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: 01 May 2009
THOUSANDS of workers in Scotland's naval shipyards were last night warned their jobs could be at risk after David Cameron admitted a future Conservative government would review all major defence contracts.
The Tory leader conceded all major programmes – including the two new aircraft carriers being partly built in Scotland and the replacement Trident programme based on the Clyde – would be reviewed if he became Prime Minister.

Labour politicians reacted with anger and disbelief, with John Park, the MSP for the Rosyth area and a former union official at the yard, warning Rosyth would cease to exist as a naval shipyard without the aircraft carrier orders.

The two new carriers are being partly constructed on the Clyde and are due to be assembled at Rosyth. The joint project is due to secure thousands of jobs at both yards for the next eight years.

The Trident submarines, which carry the nuclear missiles, are based at Faslane on the Clyde and are important for employment in the area.

The replacement programme for Trident has already been scaled down by the Labour government and could be reduced even further by an incoming Conservative administration.

A total of 10,000 jobs depend on the two aircraft carriers throughout Britain, with at least 6,000 in Scotland alone.

Labour has claimed 11,000 jobs in the west of Scotland are dependent on naval operations at Faslane, although the SNP argues only a few hundred posts would go if Faslane closed.

Yesterday, Mr Cameron said a Tory government would have to review existing defence spending commitments "across the piece" as it battled to bring the public finances under control. He said: "We support things that are in the forward defence programme because we think there is good justification for all of them.

"But that doesn't mean in these difficult circumstances that you don't have to look – just as you are looking across government – at all of these things.

"Whether … the armed services need … to project power through having a proper navy and carriers; having the best replacement there is for an independent nuclear deterrent – there are reasons for all of these things. But clearly, when you are reviewing spending, you have to review all spending."

A Tory spokesman later tried to play down the scale of the review, insisting that Britain's nuclear deterrent would not be cancelled completely.

However, Mr Cameron's remarks confirmed speculation that had been growing for some weeks, that a cash-strapped administration would be forced to cut some of the costliest defence projects.

Glasgow Labour MP Ian Davidson said: "Thousands of jobs in Scotland will go if the Tories cut defence spending in this way. The Clyde and Rosyth workers need answers from the Tories now. We cannot put jobs and the future of our communities on the line like this."

Mr Park said: "You cannot have a future for Rosyth without the aircraft carrier orders.

"These are due to take Rosyth beyond its current programme and then Rosyth would be in a position to refit and provide maintenance for the carriers throughout their lifetimes.

"This would provide employment for shipyard workers for years to come."

Mr Cameron's announcement leaves Labour as the only major political party committed to both the aircraft carrier orders and replacing Trident.

The SNP has been supportive of the Scottish yards in their hunt for carrier jobs, but an independent Scotland would never be able to commission massive defence projects like the ships.

The Scottish Government has also done all it can to remove Trident submarines from Scotland, insisting it would retain Faslane, but only as a small naval base, not for nuclear submarines.

If a Tory government was returned at the next election, it would be possible to stop the carrier orders, but that would be costly to do so.

Work has already started on the "blocks" which will make up the carriers, two of which are being built on the Clyde.

The Rosyth yard has been given the job of assembling the blocks into 65,000-tonne ships when they are completed. To date, the Ministry of Defence has awarded £151 million of carrier-related sub-contracts to Scottish firms, a figure which is expected to rise to nearly £4 billion when the carriers are finished in 2015.

The Clyde shipyards were only expected to get one of the sections of each carrier to construct, but ministers announced last month that work scheduled for Barrow-in-Furness was being moved to the Clyde, giving the Glasgow yards an even bigger stake in the project.

Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence spokesman, said:

"Trident is frankly obscene and, in the current economic climate, it is obvious these resources should be better spent."

A LESS SOPHISTICATED ENEMY

THE debate over future defence spending was sparked by David Davis, the former shadow home secretary.

Mr Davis argued that difficult decisions would have to be taken by an incoming Tory government, including on the Trident replacement.

"There is no firmer advocate of nuclear deterrent than me, but even I have some difficulty seeing the justification for a wholesale upgrade of Trident.

"Our system was designed to maintain retaliatory capacity after a full-scale Soviet nuclear onslaught. Now our likeliest nuclear adversary will be much less sophisticated. Should not the costs reflect that?"

The full article contains 888 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Miss H,

01/05/2009 10:57:45
Common sense from the Tories.
2

The Ayrshire Bard,

01/05/2009 11:02:12
This report is no more than pure Labour prpoganda, designed to create alarm.
Nowhere did Cameron specify job cuts in Scotland, he said that a total review of the defence budget would have to made. A review does not necessarily mean cuts in anything, it could actually mean quite the opposite.
However, this paper has simply printed an untrue and biased report that has no substance whatever.
However, David Davis is correct in pointing out that the enemy has changed and the need for nuclear weapons has diminished. They're not much use against terrorists who already live in our cities.
3

sonofcosmos,

glasgow 01/05/2009 11:26:17
nor much use against swine flu !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4

tommy M,

Scotland 01/05/2009 11:27:27
2 -Yes it does smack of more propaganda from the party that brought us sleazegate. It's astonishing what the Scottish press prints and expects the public to suck up.
5

Allan(handofgod137),

01/05/2009 12:15:08
More l1ebour spin.
6

nova albion,

01/05/2009 12:21:53
Cameron is our next PM we all know it,as for the scaremongering of Labour they are less than dispicable.
7

Marga,

Edinburgh 01/05/2009 12:24:17
According to research by many commentators here, this is largely spin and scaremongering. While even David Blunkett is saying in the Times:

"Labour has lost its political antennae and needs to get them back. We have no underlying domestic social policy,"

instead of doing something positive, the UK government falls back once again on negativity. Even sadder when the Scottish media collaborate. For example, where's the story on Calman that the Times has been full of for days?

As you can see, sadly the Times is telling a different story from the Scottish Press. Again.
8

danbob,

01/05/2009 12:33:18
Propaganda my ar*e. Are people really stupid enough to think that with the country trillions in debt any review would be for more defence spending. Get a grip. The problem with defence spending is this, it has been used to prop up firms like BAE at a great cost to the taxpayer and the service personel. Many, many times the forces chiefs have asked for a particular type of weapon system only to find something they didn't want foisted on them because it was made by a british firm. Irrespective of how practical or usefull it is. The euro fighter is a classic case. As for the white elephant carriers they should not be built. If jobs go then tough.
As for the SNP, hypocrites to the last. We want the work but don't base them here. What planet does Salmond live on these days?
9

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 01/05/2009 12:36:30
#8
Carrier "white elephants" the nature of warfare is changing. the next war will be about resources. 75% of the world is covered in water. 80% of the population live in the littoral. To create an effect on this you must project power. Thats what the carrriers are for not defending the UK.
10

danbob,

01/05/2009 12:42:06
9# Go tell Salmond that one. He will need a couple of carriers and subs to protect Scotlands oil he so desperatly wants.
11

Noxious,

01/05/2009 13:02:11
Typical pro-Labour spin by the Hootsman. I also think the so called outraged Labour MPs have a bit of a cheek complaining about possible spending cuts by the Tories, given that its inevitable they will be forced to make massive cuts due to the financial mess they will inherit from Broon.
12

Sumlogic,

GET REAL 01/05/2009 13:34:10
If those contracts are not needed then bin them, it happens in the private sector all the time, where job loses are part of reality.

Keep folk on their toes and learning and growing: job loses and the fear of them can be a good thing.

There are no real guarantees in life its an artificial concept and it inhibits growth, if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster!
13

Proghead,

Embra 01/05/2009 15:25:24
Scrap the weapons, but keep the jobs. Simple message. Faslane and Devonport are deep water docks that can be converted for re-fit or new build for conventional hardware, not nuclear. Labour spin to frighten off any remaining tory voters in Scotland reprinted by Hootsman syncophants
14

zeitgeist,

01/05/2009 15:32:21
This article attempts to conflate what the tories 'might' do with the stated policy of the SNP govt. and other Scottish MSP's who have a conscience, that is to rid Scotland of the Trident WMD's. This leaves only the labour party appearing to be the defender of the MOD jobs in Scotland! How utterly pathetic that this second rate rag is prepared to run stories that propagate this mythology and by definition the continuing retention of these immoral, disgusting, expensive and polluting weapons on Scottish soil. I think that it is time that all labour MSP's be asked to re-state their views on the issue of Trident so that the Scottish electorate is in no doubt where their allegiances lie. Stand up Jackie Baillie!
15

Graeme2,

Aberdeen 01/05/2009 15:43:20
Pity the Labour Party didn't stand up to the shipbuilding unions/weak management that ruined the Clyde and lost Tens of thousands of jobs. They then went on and allowed the oil rig construction yards to close with the loss of Tens of thousdands of jobs! The latest rig for Scottish waters was built where? Holland!
That says it all...Labour have no backbone, no foresight, and more importantly, no vote from me!
16

mike3,

01/05/2009 16:01:32
Shouldn't that read UK defence jobs? Thought the SNP were the anti military spending party.
17

Esox Hunter,

Edinburgh 01/05/2009 16:04:19
Isn't it about time we dropped this feeble suggestion that Labour was entirely to blame for the banking crisis. The same light touch approach would have been adopted were in power, even more so since it's highly unlikely that many of the fat cat bankers were labour supporters or voters, and I can't see that the tories would have done anything to stop their supporters from making millions.

As for the story under discussion, how can people make the leap from a paper reporting on waht cameron said, and then claim that this is labour party propaganda. I don't rate the guy, but Cameron has merely said that budgets and subsequent expenditure will have to be reviewed, and as such there are huge tranches of future expenditure which just might be cut, and extrapolating from that its obvious that defence procurement will be one area to be looked at. Who knows it might mean the scrapping of the Trident upgrade which the Nats want so whats the problem. But just as nuclear weapons are of no use against terrorists who are already in our midst then one could say that thet applies equally to the carrier relpacement programme, whatever that might do for the jobs which depend on it. You pays your money and you makes your choice, then you damn well live with it.
18

Esox Hunter,

Edinburgh 01/05/2009 16:06:06
fourth line should read " adopted were the tories in power.........
19

Iain's,

01/05/2009 16:48:59
Of course Labour will build dozens of ships to defend us against the evil Taliban. They will send them up the river to Afganistan. If there is no river they will dig one.

The Tories will not be able to afford anything when they get in. Not eve a canoe!
Broon has spent every last penny for the next hundred years.
20

John1,

Stirling 01/05/2009 17:19:25
A Review is just that - a Review, not a committment to scrap anything in particular. Defence is always a favourite for cuts with those who have no sense of history. Defence is expensive. Having no defence is suicide. Finding a reasonable policy somewhere between the two is a function of Government. Extending the life of Trident may be a reasonable option since we have to deter places like Iran and North Korea but do not need anything better. Russia may be less dangerous than it was but who's to say it waon't come again, as it did briefly when oil money funded a resurgence of those Bear flights the RAF had to iontercept regularly. Aircraft carriers? Development of successors to the Harrier could enable us to do the relevant job with smaller, cheaper, less vulnerable carriers. Aircraft carriers replaced Battleships as the capital ships of navies and were in turn replced by Trident submarines. Perhaps there is a replacement for the subs waiting in the wings. Let's not forget the defence cuts of the 1930s which made WW2 inevitable. WW2 was expensive by any measure. Perhaps if more had been spent on defence before 1939 it could have been avoided. That would have been cheaper.
None of this avoids the necessity for a wide-ranging Review of public spending, including Defence. Let's hope political expediency does not have the priority it has had in the past when difficult decisions have to be made.
21

John1,

Stirling 01/05/2009 18:28:38
22 Wardog
But it might be superceded. Scraping some of the rust off could extend its life and save us some money. There's a recession on, remember.
22

ecosseman,

FACTS NOT PROPAGANDA 01/05/2009 19:38:34

GIVE US FACTS NOT PROPAGANDA.

ROLL ON THE ELECTION!
23

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 01/05/2009 19:38:51
I must have fallen asleep for a minute or two, so it is true David Cameron is our Prime Minister and he is having a review of all government spending!!! Where did Brown go to so quickly ?????????????????
24

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/05/2009 20:22:41
The retired generals famously dubbed Trident as being completely useless and only relevant in terms of domestic politics. It appears aircraft carriers and indeed the entire Defence budget may fall into the same category - only relevant in terms of domestic politics.

They must be pretty confident we won't be facing any real conflict soon, just the wars we start and can budget for, whilst using defence as a political football to be kicked about back home.
25

,

01/05/2009 20:44:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

01/05/2009 20:50:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Rock Lobster,

01/05/2009 20:52:50

Cameron said a future Conservative Government would review all major defence contracts.

This could mean job losses/gains for Scotland, but their majority will be so big they will please themselves.
28

,

01/05/2009 21:03:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/05/2009 21:13:09
31 I'm not an armchair general Gene. I tend to listen to the views of those who are real Generals. The serving ones are gagged aren't they ?
30

,

01/05/2009 21:20:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/05/2009 21:23:26
33 Both my grandfathers and my great uncles too fought in WW2. One was a POW in Japan. Fortunately both my grandfathers survived, some of their brother did not.

All of them who lived had time to relflect on whether the bombing of Japan was actually necessary. Mixed views but the majority thought not, and opposed the bomb thereafter. I think people who have been that close to death tend to have a great deal of respect for life.
32

,

01/05/2009 21:26:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

,

01/05/2009 21:38:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

Jimmy Le Pie,

01/05/2009 21:52:37
#36 Gene,

So who do you fancy nuking??

Nobody likes the French so would they be first??

What about Germany? Things were never 'really' sorted after WW2, were they?

Then of course there are all the Arab nations. Never really trusted them did we??

Of course Argentina need reminding who's boss??

Most of Africa deserve it too. Losing the Empire still hurts, doesn't it?

After all that lot are sorted out we could turn on China for 'stealing' all our industry and giving us Egg Foo Cat!!

In fact why don't we destroy the rest of the world and live happily ever after until we all die from radiation sickness???
35

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/05/2009 21:53:11
36 Obviously I wasn't around at that time. All I know is what I have read and what I have been told. And I'm in my early 40's now, people younger than me probably have never heard tell of WW2 from the horses mouth so to speak. What you can read is totally contradictory. But what I was told from the horses mouth was that the Japanese were not as mighty as they appeared to be.

But whatever your position I think we can all agree a demonstration of the power would have been preferable, to say the least. And to bomb both Cities.......

It's that indiscriminate nature of the death that an individual decision to press a button can bring that I find horrendous about WMD.
36

,

01/05/2009 21:57:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Jimmy Le Pie,

01/05/2009 22:05:22
#39,

I didn't know I had any friends in Israel??

I thought you spread the lie that us Nats were closet Muslims??

You're getting confused Jean!
38

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/05/2009 22:13:20
40 I think we're actually the muslim brotherhood Jimmy, if you believe AM2 anyway.
39

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/05/2009 22:28:04
And the Oscar for faking goes to (drum roll)......................not 42.
40

Conan the Librarian™,

01/05/2009 22:32:25
42
Hiya fakey.
41

Brianwci,

01/05/2009 22:41:11
Sounds like a scare story designed to send the herd racing for the cover of the London Labour umbrella, albeit TATTERED umbrella.
42

Conan the Librarian™,

01/05/2009 22:42:38
Yes indeed Col. He has a very small l.
43

,

01/05/2009 22:58:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

,

01/05/2009 23:00:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

tommy M,

Scotland 01/05/2009 23:26:26
David Davis wrote in the FT that they may have to abandon Trident because of the economy.James Arbuthnot of the Defence Committee, is calling for a wider debate on the issue and says he is changing his view about unilateral disarmament being unthinkable.It's being reported in the press elsewhere.
46

FTH22inarow,

01/05/2009 23:29:10
Cameron will screw every bit of wealth out of scotland then cast adrift, remember he is nothing but an Eton biscuit boy
47

hoblar,

01/05/2009 23:31:15
A load of sensationalist right wing baws I think.

Nothing to do with one article here claiming the UK union 'dividend' depends on Scotland having ALL UK nuclear subs, and this article tells us that the UNIONIST party led by David Cameron, suddenly wants to 'review' defense.

On this particular nuke wielding Scotland on the Clyde, there is no change on the cards, don't give us a larf.

Tory.....new labour.....they depended on each other to vote in more nuckes for the UK, because Labour are very divided on nuclear weapons.
48

goldenayr,

Alba 01/05/2009 23:44:59
Vote labour or the tories will get back in
49

goldenayr,

Alba 01/05/2009 23:47:35
How do you right the lie in front of bour.The censors won't let me.
50

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/05/2009 23:59:50
You know Alasdair I like you but sometimes my dear you talk a load of plsh. You have got to temper your comments. There is an extreme wing of Islam. That doesn't represent the majority.
51

Ten Rounds Rapid,

02/05/2009 00:28:06
52

What is an "Eton Biscuit Boy" ?
52

Satire above all,

Scotland 02/05/2009 08:49:01
Connan! Barbarian LOL I don't think so...

Anyways, had a laugh at your argument about Scottish jobs losses as a consequence of the removal of Trident from Scotland...always this old chestnut gets trundled out when Labour seek to defend themselves...it's always the same old dogma - you have stick to the status quo otherwise there will be job losses. (We're all of a tremble here just at the thought of it!)

Yeah...and yet Labour was quite content to dismiss the same argument when they oversaw the demise of two of Scotland’s great institutions (as we knew them) RBS and HBOS.

Listen to Labour at our own peril - that is my warning to Scotland. Labour are DEAD and FINISHED and they know it…and you know it too...and I can't wait for the moment when we in Scotland get the chance to drive the last nail home...
53

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 02/05/2009 10:36:04
More flip-flopping by the Sleaze and Corruption Party.

So which is it? Are you for or against nuclear weapons? Are you for or against nuclear power? Is your policy consistent north and south of the border? Are you tearing yourselves apart?
54

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 02/05/2009 10:39:29
There's nothing so entertaining as watching a Labour politician mimicking anger and feigning disbelief.
55

alanh,

ek 02/05/2009 11:29:47
if everyone and all dept's have got to accept tightening their belts , should defence jobs be exempt?
At every opportunity the people of our country have said they are opposed to trident and any replacement so during had times should it not be one of the first things to be cut?
56

John1,

Stirling 03/05/2009 20:25:35
27 QP1,Traquir
Sir Hugh Beach, says: "Britain cannot claim to have derived any direct security benefit from the possession of nuclear weapons," he argued. "British nuclear weapons did not deter Argentina from attempting to annex the Falkland Islands in 1982..."
This is carrying inter-service rivalry a bit too far. This man was commander, LAND forces, remember. I agree we need more squaddies with boots on the ground for active fighting against today's threats, but the whole point of Trident is that it is a DETERRENT. It has worked in the field it operated in - deterring other nuclear powers. It would have been totally inappropriate to use nuclear weapons against Argentina. In the Falklands there was no conventional deterrent in place, unless you count an unarmed ice patrol ship, due for replacement, and one squad of Royal Marines.
In my post at 20 above, I said: " Let's not forget the defence cuts of the 1930s which made WW2 inevitable. WW2 was expensive by any measure. Perhaps if more had been spent on defence before 1939 it could have been avoided. That would have been cheaper."
I stand by that. Jobs/industries require the survival of the nation - the first duty of any governmentis to ensure that.
57

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 04/05/2009 13:06:38
I can say from the inside that plans are afoot to move all of the british armed forces out of scotland faslane and other subsideries are being transfered to plymouth, rosyth is to cease to exist for the navy.
And the carries and other warships will be cancelled as further plans are afoot to reduce the armed forces by 68% over the next two years. british troops in afganastan are to cease combat ops and move back to baggram then do a slow rundown we are leaving it to the Americans to defend us.
58

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 04/05/2009 20:18:14
HaHa! I hate te Tories after that Maggie Thatcher destroyed the country but the election of a Tory Government would pretty much ensure Scotland get's Independance so please English people vote Tory at the next election. And please Scottish People vote SNP and not Liebor and lets hope we see the end of Trident asap...
59

Fletty73,

Stirling 01/07/2009 03:25:45
Why can't we just stop all defence spending and receive instead a big tax rebate?
Live in peace, kick back, relax, have a beer.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.