Shipbuilding Job Losses.

[Drew]

Yes quite.

Anyway, as you may have seen there was a very well informed and articulate Emeritus Prof or similarly labelled gentleman on tv last night pointing out that Shipbuilding on the Clyde , ( and let's be honest he's correct ) has been in decline and has existed via subsidy and a hand to mouth existence for decades now. Time and again a political bail out in the form of a Naval vessel build award has saved the place. Of course he is right as like a repeat cycle Govan rears it's head with a looming crisis, it's the nature of the beast. Japan ,Korea , Poland as well as several other countries are vastly more efficient at producing ships than any yard in Great Britain..this is fact. It was interesting to note the a Union convenor ( I think he was the Yarrow's chap) admit last night that on price the yards couldn't compete , ( no shit Sherlock ) however 'Clyde Built were the best in the world'. In terms of 'quality we are the best' .......conveniently glossed over any relevance to cost right enough !! Also that with some investment Cluyde Yards would be the best in the world again..............I couldn't figure out whether the Convenor was pished or simply deluded and was still living in the late fifties early sixties.

Here's the thing ................the world has changed

Are you suggesting that Japan and others you mention haven't employed protectionism in order to develop their industries?

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed due to its very narrow and somewhat less than informed approach, I'm afraid.

[Seaside Nipper]

Are you suggesting that Japan and others you mention haven't employed protectionism in order to develop their industries?

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed due to its very narrow and somewhat less than informed approach, I'm afraid.

Hmm, no analysis necessary. You learn from History and mistakes of the past, unless I'm mistaken

If you were to drill down, on a single cost unit basis to the customer's final outturn account, ships are returned to client cheaper by others than ourselves, sad for us , but true. I mean look no further than Caledonian MacBrayne, they award their tenders to foreign countries, because, in cost terms , it is less. Now the bitter wee bit , the harsh reality is that any 'true cost' or 'protected approach' and it's value can be trolled round a spreadsheet for ever, it matters not, the basic bottom line , how much is the bill ??

Also years and years of inefficiency and demarcation between trades, not to mention costs of Elf n Safety compound the poor value to cost return in Britain...............that is why British yards suffer in the world context.

I could go on , but it is pointless, it's not getting the redundant shipbuilders their jobs back, that is the real shame.

So, back to basics, how does this trend get reversed, does it need to , the world has changed, shipping patterns have changed, there is a glut of capacity, so , right now , for Shipbuilding going forward, it doesn't look too great. Maybe the Scottish Naval requirements will bail the yards out. Some people who should know better are already suggesting that

[Seaside Nipper]

There was a myriad of causes for the decline in the shipbuilding industry in the British Isles but lack of ability in the workforce wasn't one of them. I had a most enjoyable relationship with Harland & Wolff and dealing with the directors and accountants as I was, I got an insight into the problems they faced from foreign shipyards. It all came down to finance as almost everything did then and still does now. In the late 70's and early 80's, shipyards all over the world were building Suezmax tankers and the going price being quoted by Korean yards was around $25m. At that time, Harland's annual payroll was getting on for £40M. A lot of workers in Korea were earning about $25 per week and a bag of rice. It's not hard to do the maths, is it? In addition, industrial relations in the UK were abysmal and ignoring whose fault that was, it made it well nigh impossible to deliver on time. A partial answer was of course to cut corners which has been alluded to already. One example in Belfast was that H & W stopped making funnels. They bought them in. The chief naval architect at the time, a friend of mine and a fellow Scot, told me it was time he was out of it with a lot of the things going on. He took early retirement.

The EEC didn't help either. They had all sorts of rules about how to tender and so on and to ensure all European countries were on an even footing. German and Italian yards appeared to get away with cheating but British yards were either too honest or too naive to cheat.

'Centres of Excellence' and similar phrases have always made me shudder. It's only jargon. I think all the shipyards involved in the current goings-on are all very capable and very skilled. I'm glad the Clyde is coming out of this relatively well but do feel for the other yards. Belfast will probably never recover fully from the demise of Harland & Wolff.

There was a myriad of causes for the decline in the shipbuilding industry in the British Isles but lack of ability in the workforce wasn't one of them. I had a most enjoyable relationship with Harland & Wolff and dealing with the directors and accountants as I was, I got an insight into the problems they faced from foreign shipyards. It all came down to finance as almost everything did then and still does now. In the late 70's and early 80's, shipyards all over the world were building Suezmax tankers and the going price being quoted by Korean yards was around $25m. At that time, Harland's annual payroll was getting on for £40M. A lot of workers in Korea were earning about $25 per week and a bag of rice. It's not hard to do the maths, is it? In addition, industrial relations in the UK were abysmal and ignoring whose fault that was, it made it well nigh impossible to deliver on time. A partial answer was of course to cut corners which has been alluded to already. One example in Belfast was that H & W stopped making funnels. They bought them in. The chief naval architect at the time, a friend of mine and a fellow Scot, told me it was time he was out of it with a lot of the things going on. He took early retirement.

The EEC didn't help either. They had all sorts of rules about how to tender and so on and to ensure all European countries were on an even footing. German and Italian yards appeared to get away with cheating but British yards were either too honest or too naive to cheat.

'Centres of Excellence' and similar phrases have always made me shudder. It's only jargon. I think all the shipyards involved in the current goings-on are all very capable and very skilled. I'm glad the Clyde is coming out of this relatively well but do feel for the other yards. Belfast will probably never recover fully from the demise of Harland & Wolff.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Drew]

Hmm, no analysis necessary. You learn from History and mistakes of the past, unless I'm mistaken

If you were to drill down, on a single cost unit basis to the customer's final outturn account, ships are returned to client cheaper by others than ourselves, sad for us , but true. I mean look no further than Caledonian MacBrayne, they award their tenders to foreign countries, because, in cost terms , it is less. Now the bitter wee bit , the harsh reality is that any 'true cost' or 'protected approach' and it's value can be trolled round a spreadsheet for ever, it matters not, the basic bottom line , how much is the bill ??

Also years and years of inefficiency and demarcation between trades, not to mention costs of Elf n Safety compound the poor value to cost return in Britain...............that is why British yards suffer in the world context.

I could go on , but it is pointless, it's not getting the redundant shipbuilders their jobs back, that is the real shame.

So, back to basics, how does this trend get reversed, does it need to , the world has changed, shipping patterns have changed, there is a glut of capacity, so , right now , for Shipbuilding going forward, it doesn't look too great. Maybe the Scottish Naval requirements will bail the yards out. Some people who should know better are already suggesting that

You suggested that foreign yards are much more efficient and cited this as 'fact'. This was in the context of talking about British yards being bailed out etc.

My point is that the foreign industries were 'bailed out' by their respective governments by way of protectionist policies. In contrast, the British governments (Thatcher's in particular though not exclusively) were more inclined to embrace free market principles at the expense of domestic industries. This served to undermine the ongoing development and evolution of the yards.

The fatuous notion that the British ship-building industry has been 'bailed-out' is false on numerous levels. 'Hung-out', would be a more appropriate way to describe what happened while foreign governments in the emerging industrial nations such as China, Japan, and South Korea employed strict measures to protect their burgeoning industries. Indeed, Germany, Poland, and numerous others have effectively employed protectionist policies, and good ol' Uncle Sam is always at it.

Britain should have employed protectionist measures in order to safeguard and develop ship-building (and other manufacturing industries). For all the talk of free-market economics, some of its biggest proponents were blatantly disregarding the main principles in order to gain an advantage for their own national industries. That Britain didn't is an industrial crime and national shame.

One other point to bear in mind is that the Govan ship-yard is one of the most technically advanced in the world. Again, this blows out of the water the erroneous notion that it has been bailed-out time and time again. With appropriate support and investment, the British ship-building industry could have had a very secure and influential (even leading) role in the international scene. Let's not kid ourselves that the other nations are better or more efficient at it somehow. They benefitted from investment, protectionism, and 'bailing-out' far more than their counterpart here in Britain.

Edit for typos.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Drew

[faraway saint]

There was a myriad of causes for the decline in the shipbuilding industry in the British Isles but lack of ability in the workforce wasn't one of them. I had a most enjoyable relationship with Harland & Wolff and dealing with the directors and accountants as I was, I got an insight into the problems they faced from foreign shipyards. It all came down to finance as almost everything did then and still does now. In the late 70's and early 80's, shipyards all over the world were building Suezmax tankers and the going price being quoted by Korean yards was around $25m. At that time, Harland's annual payroll was getting on for £40M. A lot of workers in Korea were earning about $25 per week and a bag of rice. It's not hard to do the maths, is it? In addition, industrial relations in the UK were abysmal and ignoring whose fault that was, it made it well nigh impossible to deliver on time. A partial answer was of course to cut corners which has been alluded to already. One example in Belfast was that H & W stopped making funnels. They bought them in. The chief naval architect at the time, a friend of mine and a fellow Scot, told me it was time he was out of it with a lot of the things going on. He took early retirement.

The EEC didn't help either. They had all sorts of rules about how to tender and so on and to ensure all European countries were on an even footing. German and Italian yards appeared to get away with cheating but British yards were either too honest or too naive to cheat.

'Centres of Excellence' and similar phrases have always made me shudder. It's only jargon. I think all the shipyards involved in the current goings-on are all very capable and very skilled. I'm glad the Clyde is coming out of this relatively well but do feel for the other yards. Belfast will probably never recover fully from the demise of Harland & Wolff.

You are basing the highlighted sections on what exactly?

As I explained in an earlier post, and I'm not tarring everybody with the same brush, the skills, overall, are NOT what are required in the modern era of engineering. The fact that the current orders are running at twice the original budget shows there are serious flaws somewhere. This isn't all about guys at the sharp end, this will be rife throughout the whole industry.

From the initial tender to the final product, serious issues have resulted in a massive increase in costs.

As you said, obviously, running costs are another major issue that shipbuilding has suffered but these other countries had neither the experience or skill base that we, seemingly, had. They have worked hard to produce a product that meets requirements.

Stu D has also indicated, through experience, that the skills in the shipbuilding industry are not as high as other areas of engineering.

His view, and mine, come from real experience, not and idealist point of view.

[salmonbuddie]

I have my limited experience in the yards, one 2 year project on the lower Clyde in the late 90's in which I was responsible for £200m of subcontracts (this isn't meant as showing off, only to demonstrate that it was a major project and that I was pretty senior in the organisation). According to the client on that job, the quality of the finished product was second to none. Given that the client was a major oil company and its personnel had worldwide experience, I'm happy to accept their word for it wrt the technical skills involved.

The problem for that client was that productivity was second to everyone, even allowing for the rework required to deal with the lesser standard of workmanship experienced elsewhere.

It's one of my biggest regrets that the workforce couldn't see beyond the next paypoke on that particular job, getting it done more efficiently would have ensured many more paypokes after that one was finished.

So, in short, from real experience, the problem isn't the skill set, the skills are still there, The problem is with the attitude to getting the job done. And I, for one, have no idea how to fix that.

[Seaside Nipper]

You suggested that foreign yards are much more efficient and cited this as 'fact'. This was in the context of talking about British yards being bailed out etc.

My point is that the foreign industries were 'bailed out' by their respective governments by way of protectionist policies. In contrast, the British governments (Thatcher's in particular though not exclusively) were more inclined to embrace free market principles at the expense of domestic industries. This served to undermine the ongoing development and evolution of the yards.

The fatuous notion that the British ship-building industry has been 'bailed-out' is false on numerous levels. 'Hung-out', would be a more appropriate way to describe what happened while foreign governments in the emerging industrial nations such as China, Japan, and South Korea employed strict measures to protect their burgeoning industries. Indeed, Germany, Poland, and numerous others have effectively employed protectionist policies, and good ol' Uncle Sam is always at it.

Britain should have employed protectionist measures in order to safeguard and develop ship-building (and other manufacturing industries). For all the talk of free-market economics, some of its biggest proponents were blatantly disregarding the main principles in order to gain an advantage for their own national industries. That Britain didn't is an industrial crime and national shame.

One other point to bear in mind is that the Govan ship-yard is one of the most technically advanced in the world. Again, this blows out of the water the erroneous notion that it has been bailed-out time and time again. With appropriate support and investment, the British ship-building industry could have had a very secure and influential (even leading) role in the international scene. Let's not kid ourselves that the other nations are better or more efficient at it somehow. They benefitted from investment, protectionism, and 'bailing-out' far more than their counterpart here in Britain.

Edit for typos.

But the foreign yards do not , did not, by and large have the strict demarcation across trades, they have a more inclusive multi disciplined approach to activity. Therefore this approach to Construction of ships in this case, expressly implies an efficiency of approach, especially on mobilisation and de mobilisation time and costs on key turnaround big ticket activity within a project. This strict demarcation of trade has been and does still continue to be a running sore in Britain. .

The politics around the whole issue is another matter entirely , largely dependant on your particular predeliction..............A couple of weeks ago it was Grangemouth , now it's Govan. I can assure you that some of the practises and established procedures in the referred establishments are truly Pre Victorian in their virtue, value and effectiveness. Bottom line though nowadays is that it is all literally about the bottom line, nothing ese matters, yet complaints are overwhelming if there is ever an issue about quality..................insane !!

Fact is with Shipbuilding that on a time line measure, the past has demonstrated that foreign yards are more efficient , much to the detriment of ours. I'm not pleased about it , not particularly impressed and I'm not in any way an advocate of any kind of foreign appointment for award of what should be home based contracts. But I cannot say that either now , as that is setting yourself up as being Protectionist , if not downright jingoistic. It aint playing by so called rules

I'm very much a charity begins at home bloke, but you cannot argue with perception and costs borne by ultimately , the customer, the client.

After all, we all work , labour , earn a crust, try to please, a client, in one form or another, and we all have to satisfy the client , whoever they are .................... !!

[faraway saint]

I have my limited experience in the yards, one 2 year project on the lower Clyde in the late 90's in which I was responsible for £200m of subcontracts (this isn't meant as showing off, only to demonstrate that it was a major project and that I was pretty senior in the organisation). According to the client on that job, the quality of the finished product was second to none. Given that the client was a major oil company and its personnel had worldwide experience, I'm happy to accept their word for it wrt the technical skills involved.

The problem for that client was that productivity was second to everyone, even allowing for the rework required to deal with the lesser standard of workmanship experienced elsewhere.

It's one of my biggest regrets that the workforce couldn't see beyond the next paypoke on that particular job, getting it done more efficiently would have ensured many more paypokes after that one was finished.

So, in short, from real experience, the problem isn't the skill set, the skills are still there, The problem is with the attitude to getting the job done. And I, for one, have no idea how to fix that.

The ships that sailed from these shipyards were also, on completion, excellent quality but the time taken to get things even close to right resulted in massive increase in costs.

I'm convinced that attitude is a major factor, the guys this Turbine company tried to recruit, were surprised that the slack approach and no attention to detail was a major issue.

[stlucifer]

FWIW, My experience one of the major South Korean shipbuilders "STX" leaves me in no doubt that their product, despite claims to the contrary, was far from impressive.

They opened a yard in Dalian, China and their record was very poor.

I was sent to inspect equipment that was meant to be installed on a new vessel they were constructing.

To cut a long story short. They had several vessels in the yard that were left rotting as the clients refused to accept delivery due to shoddy workmanship.

The particular ship I was overseeing was so bad that the shell was carriaged, due to it not being sailworthy, to a yard in Norway to be stripped down and practically rebuilt.

The only reason it wasn't brought to the UK was political as the owners had Norwegian connections.

[Kendo]

The ships that sailed from these shipyards were also, on completion, excellent quality but the time taken to get things even close to right resulted in massive increase in costs.

I'm convinced that attitude is a major factor, the guys this Turbine company tried to recruit, were surprised that the slack approach and no attention to detail was a major issue.

There would appear to be a few experts in the ship building industry on here, talking about costs, quality and attention to detail.

All I can say is holy crap, please stick to the tactics and formations threads which you're equally hopeless at.

[Stuart Dickson]

Hmm, no analysis necessary. You learn from History and mistakes of the past, unless I'm mistaken

 

If you were to drill down,  on a single cost unit basis to the customer's final outturn account,  ships are returned to client cheaper by others than ourselves, sad for us , but true. I mean look no further than Caledonian MacBrayne, they award their tenders to foreign countries, because, in cost terms , it is less. Now the bitter wee bit , the harsh reality is that any 'true cost' or 'protected approach' and it's value can be trolled round a spreadsheet for ever, it matters not, the basic bottom line , how much is the bill ??

Also years and years of inefficiency and demarcation between trades, not to mention costs of Elf n Safety compound the poor value to cost return in Britain...............that is why British yards suffer in the world context.  

 

I could go on , but it is pointless, it's not getting the redundant shipbuilders their jobs back, that is the real shame.

 

So, back to basics, how does this trend get reversed, does it need to , the world has changed, shipping patterns have changed, there is a glut of capacity, so , right now , for Shipbuilding going forward, it doesn't look too great. Maybe the Scottish Naval requirements will bail the yards out. Some people who should know better are already suggesting that

For me, moving forward, UK shipyards had to get into the cruise ship market in the same way Germany has done but to do that the two Clyde shipyards are no use.

I worked at UiE in Clydebank and know the problems getting large ships and oil rigs out of the Clyde. You were restricted by low tides and the Erskine Bridge. That's why - for me - Rosyth and Portsmouth look like more viable options.

[Stuart Dickson]

I have my limited experience in the yards, one 2 year project on the lower Clyde in the late 90's in which I was responsible for £200m of subcontracts (this isn't meant as showing off, only to demonstrate that it was a major project and that I was pretty senior in the organisation). According to the client on that job, the quality of the finished product was second to none. Given that the client was a major oil company and its personnel had worldwide experience, I'm happy to accept their word for it wrt the technical skills involved.

 

The problem for that client was that productivity was second to everyone, even allowing for the rework required to deal with the lesser standard of workmanship experienced elsewhere.

 

It's one of my biggest regrets that the workforce couldn't see beyond the next paypoke on that particular job, getting it done more efficiently would have ensured many more paypokes after that one was finished.

 

So, in short, from real experience, the problem isn't the skill set, the skills are still there, The problem is with the attitude to getting the job done. And I, for one, have no idea how to fix that.

Dutch clients by any chance? The two Bluewater drilling ships had come from Hitachi if I remember correctly and there was a huge problem with missing welds on lines that had supposedly been pressure tested.

I was in charge of a team on that job, two alcoholics, one man with clinical depression and a guy who had previously been sectioned under the mental health act after he flipped out when someone called him a wanker, and a welder with a broken arm. I had to teach three of them how to read isometric drawings and the site was full of plumbers.

After that job I went to Lewis Offshore where the tradesmen were even worse.

We have good tradesmen in Scotland but they tended to stay well away from the shipyards unless there really was a death of jobs

[Drew]

I was in charge of a team on that job....

We have good tradesmen in Scotland but they tended to stay well away from the shipyards unless there really was a death of jobs

Maybe they had heard that you were a gaffer?

Self-awareness is a very underrated personal attribute.

[faraway saint]

There would appear to be a few experts in the ship building industry on here, talking about costs, quality and attention to detail.

All I can say is holy crap, please stick to the tactics and formations threads which you're equally hopeless at.

Draw yer kneck in, I'm speaking from my meetings with managers who worked in this business.

Run along, the "would you" thread are looking for some new pals.

On second thoughts the "I am wanting to meet serious boy" thread might be more in your line.

Edited November 7, 2013 by faraway saint

[saint in exile]

A lot of the 'rework' in the yards was also due to new design features being added by the clients as the job progressed. And that still goes on in some industries. As for demarcation, it was probably the most costly factor in the yards, but it was being (slowly) eroded. In fact, by the time Lithgows was closed, it had finally removed virtually all the demarcation lines.

The problems that led to the closure of yards in Scotland are many and varied - cost, lack of investment, shortsighted owners, management, unions and government, and a belief that because we were once the best, we always would be, no matter what.

[Howard Hughes in BlueSuedeShoes]

There was a myriad of causes for the decline in the shipbuilding industry in the British Isles but lack of ability in the workforce wasn't one of them. I had a most enjoyable relationship with Harland & Wolff and dealing with the directors and accountants as I was, I got an insight into the problems they faced from foreign shipyards. It all came down to finance as almost everything did then and still does now. In the late 70's and early 80's, shipyards all over the world were building Suezmax tankers and the going price being quoted by Korean yards was around $25m. At that time, Harland's annual payroll was getting on for £40M. A lot of workers in Korea were earning about $25 per week and a bag of rice. It's not hard to do the maths, is it? In addition, industrial relations in the UK were abysmal and ignoring whose fault that was, it made it well nigh impossible to deliver on time. A partial answer was of course to cut corners which has been alluded to already. One example in Belfast was that H & W stopped making funnels. They bought them in. The chief naval architect at the time, a friend of mine and a fellow Scot, told me it was time he was out of it with a lot of the things going on. He took early retirement.

The EEC didn't help either. They had all sorts of rules about how to tender and so on and to ensure all European countries were on an even footing. German and Italian yards appeared to get away with cheating but British yards were either too honest or too naive to cheat.

'Centres of Excellence' and similar phrases have always made me shudder. It's only jargon. I think all the shipyards involved in the current goings-on are all very capable and very skilled. I'm glad the Clyde is coming out of this relatively well but do feel for the other yards. Belfast will probably never recover fully from the demise of Harland & Wolff.

Ye build ONE ship that sinks.....

You are basing the highlighted sections on what exactly?

As I explained in an earlier post, and I'm not tarring everybody with the same brush, the skills, overall, are NOT what are required in the modern era of engineering. The fact that the current orders are running at twice the original budget shows there are serious flaws somewhere. This isn't all about guys at the sharp end, this will be rife throughout the whole industry.

From the initial tender to the final product, serious issues have resulted in a massive increase in costs.

As you said, obviously, running costs are another major issue that shipbuilding has suffered but these other countries had neither the experience or skill base that we, seemingly, had. They have worked hard to produce a product that meets requirements.

Stu D has also indicated, through experience, that the skills in the shipbuilding industry are not as high as other areas of engineering.

His view, and mine, come from real experience, not and idealist point of view.

Qyuite frankly, if he told me the sun came up in the morning I'd ask someone else for their opinion on the matter.

[WeeBud]

Hmm, no analysis necessary. You learn from History and mistakes of the past, unless I'm mistaken

If you were to drill down, on a single cost unit basis to the customer's final outturn account, ships are returned to client cheaper by others than ourselves, sad for us , but true. I mean look no further than Caledonian MacBrayne, they award their tenders to foreign countries, because, in cost terms , it is less. Now the bitter wee bit , the harsh reality is that any 'true cost' or 'protected approach' and it's value can be trolled round a spreadsheet for ever, it matters not, the basic bottom line , how much is the bill ??

Also years and years of inefficiency and demarcation between trades, not to mention costs of Elf n Safety compound the poor value to cost return in Britain...............that is why British yards suffer in the world context.

I could go on , but it is pointless, it's not getting the redundant shipbuilders their jobs back, that is the real shame.

So, back to basics, how does this trend get reversed, does it need to , the world has changed, shipping patterns have changed, there is a glut of capacity, so , right now , for Shipbuilding going forward, it doesn't look too great. Maybe the Scottish Naval requirements will bail the yards out. Some people who should know better are already suggesting that

CalMac tender on a ferry by ferry basis and allow British Yards a crack at pricing for their jobs.

CalMac have recently taken possession of two "roll-on, roll-off hybrid powered" ferries built in Port Glasgow, they are also waiting to take possession of a "super-ferry" being built in Germany for the Stornoway run. Horses for courses I think however with the amount of "grant" subsidy paid to the ferry/freight carriers I don't think it would be wrong for a certain number of projects being tendered on a "British/Scottish" only basis.

[faraway saint]

There would appear to be a few experts in the ship building industry on here, talking about costs, quality and attention to detail.

All I can say is holy crap, please stick to the tactics and formations threads which you're equally hopeless at.

Oh 4-6-0............how about that, not heard about it for a while.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Let's hope Scotland remains part of the union so Govan can continue in its historical role as the nations ship builder.

In which case the UK government will be glad to announce now how many shipbuilding jobs will be saved by voting No, and also how many regiments will be kept, what airbases and submarine bases will be kept and how many defence and service jobs will be guaranteed if we vote No.

Ian Davidson, MP for Govan, and the local MP with Fairfields in his constituency has, unbelievably, called for a 'get out' clause to be put into the contract with BAE for the Type 26 vessels, meaning that if Scotland votes Yes then the Govan and Scotstoun yards would close and the Portsmouth yard would re-open and take on the work instead. How a unionist Labour MP can try and engineer a situation where workers in his own constituency lose their jobs, and his constituency loses its biggest employer, if people dare to vote differently to him is breathtaking! It is like Ineos and Grangemouth all over again except it is the local unionist Labour MP saying vote-my-way-or-you-won't-have-a-job!

[Kendo]

Oh 4-6-0............how about that, not heard about it for a while.

You've not heard it cause he got booted oot the door and our fortunes have suddenly changed some what.

[bluto]

CalMac tender on a ferry by ferry basis and allow British Yards a crack at pricing for their jobs.

CalMac have recently taken possession of two "roll-on, roll-off hybrid powered" ferries built in Port Glasgow, they are also waiting to take possession of a "super-ferry" being built in Germany for the Stornoway run. Horses for courses I think however with the amount of "grant" subsidy paid to the ferry/freight carriers I don't think it would be wrong for a certain number of projects being tendered on a "British/Scottish" only basis.

Euro rules would prohibit that, which is why Norway gets away with having its ferries all built in Norway.

Scotland should leave the UK AND Europe... in order to have a thriving Ferry-building business.

[salmonbuddie]

Dutch clients by any chance? The two Bluewater drilling ships had come from Hitachi if I remember correctly and there was a huge problem with missing welds on lines that had supposedly been pressure tested.

Everything in this paragraph is wrong so I give no credence whatsoever to the rest of your post. Unless you're admitting to being one of the alcoholics you referred to? Which would explain a lot.... Edited November 7, 2013 by salmonbuddie

[Lex]

A poor attempt at political point scoring.

The MoD have announced that 3 new boats will be built from 2016. Unfortunately, there is a new defence review due in 2015 which could literally sink any prospect of this work actually being started.

Of course the referendum vote will have taken place by then...

Thoughts with all the individual workers and families affected, as shull says hope they get the majority of local job losses through voluntary means.

FFS what kind of person tries to score political points on a day like this when thousands of people face an uncertain future?

Pretty bizarre posts there. This is very much a political issue, people in Westminster (Philip Hammond) and the SNP have been commenting on it in a political sense, along with trade union officials. Don't either of you ever watch question time? Not see Ed Miliband point scoring against Cameron over Grangemouth? This is a political matter.

It's no wonder that all the major trade unions are coming out in support of the union, GMB being the latest last week. Why do you guys think they're doing this? I'll tell you why, it's because the trade unions believes it's in the best interests of the Scottish Workers to remain in the union, and they're right.

As people who are clearly concerned with workers rights, do you agree with the trade unions conclusions?

In which case the UK government will be glad to announce now how many shipbuilding jobs will be saved by voting No, and also how many regiments will be kept, what airbases and submarine bases will be kept and how many defence and service jobs will be guaranteed if we vote No.

Ian Davidson, MP for Govan, and the local MP with Fairfields in his constituency has, unbelievably, called for a 'get out' clause to be put into the contract with BAE for the Type 26 vessels, meaning that if Scotland votes Yes then the Govan and Scotstoun yards would close and the Portsmouth yard would re-open and take on the work instead. How a unionist Labour MP can try and engineer a situation where workers in his own constituency lose their jobs, and his constituency loses its biggest employer, if people dare to vote differently to him is breathtaking! It is like Ineos and Grangemouth all over again except it is the local unionist Labour MP saying vote-my-way-or-you-won't-have-a-job!

What we do know is that an independent Scotland won't be winning any Royal Navy ship building contracts. A no vote is a vote for costing Scottish workers their jobs, that's assured. What will stay after the no vote? A moot point really, it will certainly be far more than what would stay after a yes vote, and that's the surely the most important thing?

We need as many jobs kept in Scotland as possible, and this is one of many reasons i and the majority of my countrymen will throw the referendum bill out next September.

The deal the Labour MP has done will have played a large part in securing Govan got the contract instead of Portsmouth. He will also know that a no vote is assured, so the clause is a hypothetical scenario that won't materialise. The clause he has put in has won jobs for his constituents, which is surely what you'd expect a Westminster representative to do his best to do?

I am no fan of Labour, but i can't see what this guys done wrong here.

[Naughtius maximus]

i dont get what all the fuss is about the UK government stipulating that our warships have to be made "in the UK" therefore precluding an independent Scotland from building them.

Wish they were so picky about our military aircraft !

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Lex, I didn't say it wasn't a political issue- I said your post was a poor attempt at political point scoring. I then explained why I thought this.

Do Try and keep up!

Pretty bizarre posts there. This is very much a political issue, people in Westminster (Philip Hammond) and the SNP have been commenting on it in a political sense, along with trade union officials. Don't either of you ever watch question time? Not see Ed Miliband point scoring against Cameron over Grangemouth? This is a political matter.

It's no wonder that all the major trade unions are coming out in support of the union, GMB being the latest last week. Why do you guys think they're doing this? I'll tell you why, it's because the trade unions believes it's in the best interests of the Scottish Workers to remain in the union, and they're right.

As people who are clearly concerned with workers rights, do you agree with the trade unions conclusions?

What we do know is that an independent Scotland won't be winning any Royal Navy ship building contracts. A no vote is a vote for costing Scottish workers their jobs, that's assured. What will stay after the no vote? A moot point really, it will certainly be far more than what would stay after a yes vote, and that's the surely the most important thing?

We need as many jobs kept in Scotland as possible, and this is one of many reasons i and the majority of my countrymen will throw the referendum bill out next September.

The deal the Labour MP has done will have played a large part in securing Govan got the contract instead of Portsmouth. He will also know that a no vote is assured, so the clause is a hypothetical scenario that won't materialise. The clause he has put in has won jobs for his constituents, which is surely what you'd expect a Westminster representative to do his best to do?

I am no fan of Labour, but i can't see what this guys done wrong here.