When will indyref2 happen?

[renton]

10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I'm entirely neutral on Future Scotland's spending on defence but the cuts you propose will have an economic impact - and that includes high skill/high wage jobs in Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth.

Where else do you see you losing jobs?

Well it really depends on whether or not there is an export market or not for what is built there. 

Largely that export market would be to the rUK, at least in the short term.

If the rUK position is that they will force BAE and Babcock to move their operations, that will come at massive cost and huge dislocation to the timings of warship replacement. Something that is already pretty critical.

As to the long term viability of the yards, even under the Union? Well, they already had to stretch out the building of HMS Glasgow by a ridiculous amount to keep the day to day costs low enough (while ultimately making the programme much more expensive). Steel started cutting in 2020, and won't be handed over to the RN until 2027.

Meanwhile we may be looking at the last generation of large manned ships making up the fleet, and will eventually move to smaller number of manned 'motherships' controlling smaller unmanned surface vehicles.

So, many more, much smaller drone ships, none of which need the specialised requirements for survivability and habitability that keeps places like Scotstoun going.

 

[BigDoddyKane]

20 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

You can go back many decades and more that even when Clyde shipbuilding was of the highest standard it was a problem for the ship owners that most builds went over budget and were delivered well past their contracted delivery dates and late financial penalties kicked in.

That's why many owners turned to Japan and South Korea's heavily subsidised yards yards in the sixties, cheaper labour especially in SK made a build more financially attractive.

However as these economies grew and electronic goods became a bigger industry the Asian shipyards found it difficult to recruit local labour as it turned to the likes of clean workplaces with Samsung etc, to stay competitive they have heavily recruited cheap Chinese/Myanmar and Bangladeshi workers.

Thats globalisation, if somewhere is deemed to have become to expensive, pour in cheap exploitable labour from somewhere else or move the industry to somewhere else. Nothing is sustainable and nothing puts roots down for future generations

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Well it really depends on whether or not there is an export market or not for what is built there. 

Largely that export market would be to the rUK, at least in the short term.

If the rUK position is that they will force BAE and Babcock to move their operations, that will come at massive cost and huge dislocation to the timings of warship replacement. Something that is already pretty critical.

As to the long term viability of the yards, even under the Union? Well, they already had to stretch out the building of HMS Glasgow by a ridiculous amount to keep the day to day costs low enough (while ultimately making the programme much more expensive). Steel started cutting in 2020, and won't be handed over to the RN until 2027.

Meanwhile we may be looking at the last generation of large manned ships making up the fleet, and will eventually move to smaller number of manned 'motherships' controlling smaller unmanned surface vehicles.

So, many more, much smaller drone ships, none of which need the specialised requirements for survivability and habitability that keeps places like Scotstoun going.

 

Seem to recall, during the last referendum campaign, that the SNP kept saying that they would more than compensate for the loss of military shipbuilding by developing a commercial market for small ships.

One only has to mention’ FERRIES‘.

End of story.

[Salt n Vinegar]

Very little in the political sphere surprises me, but I confess to feeling a bit surprised when folk use the 'if that happens, what about X,000 jobs'? argument as if past or present employment patterns are handed down on tablets of stone.

Societal and technical change is in most cases an irresistible force.  Carburetor manufacture virtually died out in the 1980s. What happened to the folk who worked in that industry?  Motor vehicles destroyed the large scale manufacture of horse-drawn carriages.  What about the huge job losses? Taking kids out of factories and chimneys had costs for employers, unemployment rates and household incomes for the very poor. Should the use of kids like that have continued?  Folk would have been involved in bear-baiting, cock fighting, and so on and some are still campaigning for other blood sports to be banned nowadays.. oh, the past and future unemployment! Bring back cock fighting then?  No, that would be ridiculous.  The world moves on, and employment patterns move on as well. 

In an office linked to a place I worked, as more staff started using desktop PCs, over about 2 years, the typing pool went from about 15 to 3, and one of them was part time.  

If Scotland decides to set out on a new political path, of course there will be economic costs... AND benefits. Maybe it's time to put on the big boy pants and stop using that old Fife expression "it's aye been" as a shield from making different choices. 

When my sons started secondary school, the Heidie told us not to worry too much about subject choice as most of the kids would be working in jobs that didn't exist yet. 

 

[renton]

28 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Seem to recall, during the last referendum campaign, that the SNP kept saying that they would more than compensate for the loss of military shipbuilding by developing a commercial market for small ships.

One only has to mention’ FERRIES‘.

End of story.

That's not the story though. 

A diversification into commercial vessels is laudable, and is going to lead to controversial outcomes like the Ferries initially.

However, Scotstoun and Govan at least are owned by defence contractors. Babcock at Rosyth does some military marine stuff but is a much more general engineering contractor. So it's not like the current owners of Scotstoun would have any interest in civilian shipbuilding. Indeed, they don't really like doing military shipbuilding but got stuck with it when they merged with GEC in the late 90s.

No, the actual story is one where we ask ourselves how survivable the yards are in the medium to long term even under the awe inspiring gaze of Our Precious Union. Where each generation of military hardware costs more to develop and subsequently ends with less units being bought and expected to last longer (life span for the two QE Carriers is expected to be 50 years) - thus how does BAE keep it's order books full? The future trend will not be to add more manned ships, planes or vehicles but to add "mass" via unmanned drone type vehicles and systems. 

A drone ship would be basically a floating missile barge. Survivability requirements would not be so enhanced as currently. No need for habitability. No requirements for as much power generation. Smaller, cheaper vessels that could be banged together in smaller yards, cheaply.

Edited May 20, 2021 by renton

[Salt n Vinegar]

5 minutes ago, renton said:

That's not the story though. 

A diversification into commercial vessels is laudable, and is going to lead to controversial outcomes like the Ferries initially.

However, Scotstoun and Govan at least are owned by defence contractors. Babcock at Rosyth does some military marine stuff but is a much more general engineering contractor. So it's not like the current owners of Scotstoun would have any interest in civilian shipbuilding. Indeed, they don't really like doing military shipbuilding but got stuck with it when they merged with GEC in the late 90s.

No, the actual story is one where we ask ourselves how survivable the yards are in the medium to long term even under the awe inspiring gaze of Our Precious Union. Where each generation of military hardware costs more to develop and subsequently ends with less units being bought and expected to last longer - thus how does BAE keep it's order books open? The future trend will not be to add more manned ships, planes or vehicles but to add "mass" via unmanned drone type vehicles and systems. 

A drone ship would be basically a floating missile barge. Survivability requirements would not be so enhanced as currently. No need for habitability. No requirements for as much power generation. Smaller, cheaper vessels that could be banged together in smaller yards, cheaply.

Nah, that won't be allowed due to the reduced employment prospects for future generations of sailors...  (another entry for the "change leads to unacceptable unemployment" file.) 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Salt n Vinegar

[Big Rider]

40 minutes ago, Pato said:

It's Pavlovian at this point.

[Wee-Bey]

1 hour ago, Pato said:

It's Pavlovian at this point.

I wonder if 'bUT wHaT aBOuT tHe feRriES' is to do with those who perceive a strong association of unionism with ship building ? Harland and Wolff, Govan, Britannia rules the waves etc.

[Dawson Park Boy]

19 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

I wonder if 'bUT wHaT aBOuT tHe feRriES' is to do with those who perceive a strong association of unionism with ship building ? Harland and Wolff, Govan, Britannia rules the waves etc.

It says everything about the SG’s lack of competence.

[Wee-Bey]

1 minute ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

It says everything about the SG’s lack of competence.

Haha, wait till you find out what the UK government has been up to.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Very little in the political sphere surprises me, but I confess to feeling a bit surprised when folk use the 'if that happens, what about X,000 jobs'? argument as if past or present employment patterns are handed down on tablets of stone.

Societal and technical change is in most cases an irresistible force.  Carburetor manufacture virtually died out in the 1980s. What happened to the folk who worked in that industry?  Motor vehicles destroyed the large scale manufacture of horse-drawn carriages.  What about the huge job losses? Taking kids out of factories and chimneys had costs for employers, unemployment rates and household incomes for the very poor. Should the use of kids like that have continued?  Folk would have been involved in bear-baiting, cock fighting, and so on and some are still campaigning for other blood sports to be banned nowadays.. oh, the past and future unemployment! Bring back cock fighting then?  No, that would be ridiculous.  The world moves on, and employment patterns move on as well. 

In an office linked to a place I worked, as more staff started using desktop PCs, over about 2 years, the typing pool went from about 15 to 3, and one of them was part time.  

If Scotland decides to set out on a new political path, of course there will be economic costs... AND benefits. Maybe it's time to put on the big boy pants and stop using that old Fife expression "it's aye been" as a shield from making different choices. 

When my sons started secondary school, the Heidie told us not to worry too much about subject choice as most of the kids would be working in jobs that didn't exist yet. 

 

That's not a fife term, that's a Scotland wide phrase used to justify all manner of laziness and shitebaggery, i actually think it's one of the key phrases that identifies our national phsyche ( another being the brave "let someone else worry about that" which we are seeing with our covid roadmap)  it says alot about who we are as a nation and goes a long way to explain why we're not a proper country 

[Salt n Vinegar]

21 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

That's not a fife term, that's a Scotland wide phrase used to justify all manner of laziness and shitebaggery, i actually think it's one of the key phrases that identifies our national phsyche ( another being the brave "let someone else worry about that" which we are seeing with our covid roadmap)  it says alot about who we are as a nation and goes a long way to explain why we're not a proper country 

Fife was probably the first place I heard it used. I don't remember hearing it much growing up in Glasgow. Another Fife favourite that I came across was in discussion about building a new East/West road... "why would anyone want to bypass Kirkcaldy?"

[NotThePars]

These were men wae a trade

[SANTAN]

The "aye beeners" are what we call Border Da's. I've heard that term a remarkably high amount of times. 

[Bairnardo]

These were men wae a trade

Armadildo

[Bairnardo]

Me when I see unionists raise ferries as an issue of competent government

The capabilities of a bridge to withstand extreme weather events used to be their thing did it not? Is ferries their summer thing?

[GNU_Linux]

Big fan of the yoons selling not being able to join NATO as a negative. Getting my glengarry ready to take Rockall day one tbh.

[Dawson Park Boy]

5 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

This type of post is typical of the Unionists, they think that by attacking the SNP they seem to gain something, well we all know how that went for Dross who spent his whole campaign continually sniping at Nicola and the SNP, what did he gain? 

The SNP got a fourth Holyrood 5 year term on the back of a landslide with an increased vote and they are still the third largest party in Westminster.

So what does that tell us? well it shows that regardless of the shite and lies the tory party and unionists throw at the SNP it means hee haw to the Independence voter.

The SNP membership has increased five fold since the 2014 referendum to a figure of 125,000, and that's where the likes of Dross needs to spend time, recognising the Independence movement and questioning why, instead he and the rest come up with the same old tired arguments that the SNP and it's membership totally ignore.

Attacking the SNP as we saw achieves absolutely nothing but conversely increases it's vote share., and the Independence movement continually gathers pace.

Sandy, you’ll be delighted that I agree with you that we need the referendum as soon as possible and you and I can get on with our lives without sniping at each other. Boris should call Nicola’s bluff and get ‘referendum done’.

If you win, I’ll enter into the spirit of things and if I win, I’d expect you to shut up for a good long time.

Seems fair.

 

[Anonapersona]

5 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Sandy, you’ll be delighted that I agree with you that we need the referendum as soon as possible and you and I can get on with our lives without sniping at each other. Boris should call Nicola’s bluff and get ‘referendum done’.

If you win, I’ll enter into the spirit of things and if I win, I’d expect you to shut up for a good long time.

Seems fair.

 

If you agree that attacking the SNP gains nothing then why bother? Maybe unionists should try a different approach, like having actual policies to share with us.

[Antlion]

14 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

This type of post is typical of the Unionists, they think that by attacking the SNP they seem to gain something, well we all know how that went for Dross who spent his whole campaign continually sniping at Nicola and the SNP, what did he gain? 

The SNP got a fourth Holyrood 5 year term on the back of a landslide with an increased vote and they are still the third largest party in Westminster.

So what does that tell us? well it shows that regardless of the shite and lies the tory party and unionists throw at the SNP it means hee haw to the Independence voter.

The SNP membership has increased five fold since the 2014 referendum to a figure of 125,000, and that's where the likes of Dross needs to spend time, recognising the Independence movement and questioning why, instead he and the rest come up with the same old tired arguments that the SNP and it's membership totally ignore.

Attacking the SNP as we saw achieves absolutely nothing but conversely increases it's vote share., and the Independence movement continually gathers pace.

From what I can see, hardcore BritNats’ answer to rising numbers of independence supporters isn’t just “SNP bad” (though that’s the main plank); inexplicably, it’s also “MOAR UNION”. Yes, little Britons genuinely seem to think that quelling support for independence can be achieved by “strengthening” the UK (or weakening Scotland, to put it more honestly).

I can only assume they’ve given up on trying to talk independence supporters (or even sympathisers) out of Scottish statehood and into supporting the ridiculous “union”, and are now hoping just to crush them so their voices can never matter legally or constitutionally again. Better together, though, or something.