Lex Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Did Stewart Gilmour tell you this after the Hearts game where he was going to sack Danny before the next game? Ian Davidson hasn't played any part in any contracts with BAE over which yard stays open or not. He has called for a clause to be inserted into the contract... he hasn't secured any jobs for Govan and Scotstoun but if he had his way and his clause was inserted and then Scotland voted Yes he would be responsible for closing the biggest employer in his own constituency. Portsmouth was closed because the yard wasn't as well equipped, and their workforce was supposedly more militant than the Clyde yards and less productive. If the decision really is political then maybe the Better Together campaign aren't as confident in private that the referendum vote will go their way next year. It has already been decided that Govan will finish work on the aircraft carriers which Portsmouth was due to carry out, and Govan and Scotstoun will do 3 vessels before the Type 26 work begins.Are you really saying BAE will re-open a closed yard, re-employ redundant workers and then close 3 yards and announce fresh redundancies all based on the referendum result? What's Stuart Gilmour got to do with this thread? How do you know what Ian Davidson does? You don't know how parliament works, do you? As with any MP, Davidson would have been lobbying hard for his constituencies interest to the defence secretary who awarded these contracts. As would the Portsmouth MP for his constituents interests. To suggest MP's lobbying has no involvement at all in decision making simply portrays a basic misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure. The rest of your post doesn't get much better sadly. Conjecture, waffle then a bit more conjecture. The UK government will not award any fresh contracts for ship building to an independent Scotland, that's an absolute certainty. As for the current contract - as was discussed by former leading politicians on the BBC last night, - it's quite possible the UK government will ask for it to be relocated to Portsmouth if Scotland becomes independent, with the skilled Scottish work force being offered relocation packages to complete the contract in England. The British/English government is the customer, BAE is the contractor. If the UK government says jump, BAE asks how high. If the customer wants the ships built in England, you can be damn sure that's where they will be getting built. Why would BAE keep the Govan plant open with no work? Who else is going to contract for major ship building on the Clyde? The Scottish navy? What has been made more than clear by this sorry episode is that an independent Scotland will cost this nation jobs. The trade unions agree, and for once they have got something right. It's no wonder the Scottish electorate is itching to give the independence bill the short shrift treatment it deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Don`t think anyone wins in this , so why do people try to score points on this forum when people are losing their jobs? The cuts will affect 940 workers in Portsmouth in 2014, as well as 835 at Filton, in south west England, and Glasgow and Rosyth in Scotland through to 2016, BAE said. BAE employs 3,200 people at its Glasgow shipyards and 1,200 in shipbuilding in Portsmouth, though it has a total of 4,100 employees in and around the English city steeped in maritime history. The company will continue to keep Portsmouth as the base for its maritime services business, it said. Is it scoring points? To me it reads like a debate about whether or not Scottish shipbuilding could survive a yes vote next year and whether or not the awarded contracts will stay in Glasgow or not. Despite the job losses at Glasgow I'm sure many workers will be relieved that both yards - Govan and Scotstoun - are staying open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Yep that's the one. The one UiE landed up paying £4m to the Scottish Office for.... http://www.paisleydailyexpress.co.uk/renfrewshire-news/local-news-in-renfrewshire/erskine-news/2008/10/21/msp-demands-bridge-cash-is-spent-locally-87085-22076235/ "Nothing to do with UiE" my arse. Some "senior manager" you must be Had a wee day oot yesterday, back now.Fair enough, I didn't know that. In my defence, it was a decision made 8 years after the company disappeared and 8 years after I'd stopped working for them. The platform hitting the bridge was still sod all to do with UiE or its management (it was on the barge operated by a specialist) or the quality of the work done on the project you're banging on about. Have you figured that out yet or are you going to continue making an arse of yourself about it? Edited November 9, 2013 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) After making out that you're an expert it turns out that your opinion is based on a chat you had with some guy you met in a meeting! : Oh dear, I don't recall making out I was an expert. The sad decline continues............................ Edited November 9, 2013 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) The rest of your post doesn't get much better sadly. Conjecture, waffle then a bit more conjecture. The UK government will not award any fresh contracts for ship building to an independent Scotland, that's an absolute certainty. As for the current contract - as was discussed by former leading politicians on the BBC last night, - it's quite possible the UK government will ask for it to be relocated to Portsmouth if Scotland becomes independent, with the skilled Scottish work force being offered relocation packages to complete the contract in England. The British/English government is the customer, BAE is the contractor. If the UK government says jump, BAE asks how high. If the customer wants the ships built in England, you can be damn sure that's where they will be getting built. Why would BAE keep the Govan plant open with no work? Who else is going to contract for major ship building on the Clyde? The Scottish navy? : What has been made more than clear by this sorry episode is that an independent Scotland will cost this nation jobs. The trade unions agree, and for once they have got something right. It's no wonder the Scottish electorate is itching to give the independence bill the short shrift treatment it deserves. You make that first statement about the other posters post (in blue) then you start off by confusing your opinion with a ""fact" which has been disproven many times on this thread and by experts who have informed us that the UK uses a range of other countries to service all manner of defence related contracts. So that would be called over extending your hand. You then talk about the possibility of the current contract being moved which is conjecture based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Then you finish with a completely fantasy section about what MIGHT happen IF BAE ran out of contracts - more conjecture with a bit of waffle thrown in about hypothetical job losses. So, your credentials to stand on the moral anti-conjecture, anti-waffle soapbox remain impeccable then....... ETA: BTW I love this fantasy idea that what a customer wants, a customer gets. I may try it at Costa Coffee - "Hey open longer and move to my street". Think that'll work? IF the English decided to move that contract back down BAE MIGHT agree and it might not. IF it does agree then that wouldn't be a zero cost option because life isn't like that. That's IF we get independence and IF BAE get awarded the fitting contract after the design process completes and IF the Tories decide to spunk a few hundred million pounds making a political point and IF the Clyde workers can be persuaded to relocate and IF another company doesn't wade in to offer a similar service in India or Turkey or Poland or Germany (countries the UK are KNOWN to have tried to do defence related business to keep our costs down) So that's around seven IF's and a MIGHT. What's the defnition of conjecture? Edited November 9, 2013 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 You make that first statement about the other posters post (in blue) then you start off by confusing your opinion with a ""fact" which has been disproven many times on this thread and by experts who have informed us that the UK uses a range of other countries to service all manner of defence related contracts. So that would be called over extending your hand. You then talk about the possibility of the current contract being moved which is conjecture based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Then you finish with a completely fantasy section about what MIGHT happen IF BAE ran out of contracts - more conjecture with a bit of waffle thrown in about hypothetical job losses. So, your credentials to stand on the moral anti-conjecture, anti-waffle soapbox remain impeccable then....... Aye.He'd have been on much more solid ground ( ) comparing ship-building to being a parent launching their children into the oft-stormy seas, where they might sink or swim... See? We ALL waffle. (Me less than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Had a wee day oot yesterday, back now. Fair enough, I didn't know that. In my defence, it was a decision made 8 years after the company disappeared and 8 years after I'd stopped working for them. The platform hitting the bridge was still sod all to do with UiE or its management (it was on the barge operated by a specialist) or the quality of the work done on the project you're banging on about. Have you figured that out yet or are you going to continue making an arse of yourself about it? Come on! UiE wouldn't pay out £4m if it was sod all to do with them. They were involved in the calculations that led to them floating the rig on that barge on that day at that height. Others were involved in the decision - surveying companies and the barge company but - ultimately that was a UiE f**k up and it reflects on the quality of management on that job. That was borne out by the fact that the Captain became the last rig order they ever got at Clydebank. I don't think I worked on the Captain. I think I was on the rig before it. The one where the health and safety record of the company was in the toilet and where that lad got his arm blown off in a pressure test f**k up - I can't remember his name either but you must know him. I was only there for two months back then - as I've said good pipefitters and welders generally avoided the Clyde and worked in the refinery. As for the two ships you are playing the fanny over that one. You know what I'm on about but because you called it a project and a subcontractor you're acting like a tool. I don't know if you were made aware of the f**k up on the pipes that had "passed QC" without welds, bolts and gaskets but I've certainly not made it up. It was caught before anything serious came of it thanks to the lagging company but anyone who had boots on the ground on that one would know the standard of work wasn't great and they'd know the company systems that were in place we're poor. My next job immediately after was at Lewis Offshore where I shared digs with one of the guys who had been a manager on the ship at Clydebank and he didn't hold back on his thoughts about everything from recruitment to planning and quality control. The guy running the job in particular got it in the neck from him. I'd known him from my time at Appolo as an apprentice and I didn't rate him much either. These days I see he's running the aircraft carrier job at Rosyth. I hope he's improved since I knew him. I certainly wouldn't work for him again Edited November 9, 2013 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Come on! UiE wouldn't pay out £4m if it was sod all to do with them. They were involved in the calculations that led to them floating the rig on that barge on that day at that height. Others were involved in the decision - surveying companies and the barge company but - ultimately that was a UiE f**k up and it reflects on the quality of management on that job. UiE won't have paid, their insurers will. The f**k-up is 100% down to the barge captain who got his times wrong. All parties to the contract paid a proportion of the damages depending on their share of the contract value. Simple arithmetic, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 As for the two ships you are playing the fanny over that one. You know what I'm on about but because you called it a project and a subcontractor you're acting like a tool. I don't know if you were made aware of the f**k up on the pipes that had "passed QC" without welds, bolts and gaskets but I've certainly not made it up. It was caught before anything serious came of it thanks to the lagging company but anyone who had boots on the ground on that one would know the standard of work wasn't great and they'd know the company systems that were in place we're poor. I'll put you out of your misery. UiE had 2 ships in at the same time, one at the yard and one in dry-dock. They were two separate contracts for two separate clients. I know of all the f**k-ups on the one I was on at Inchgreen, it was brought to Inchgreen to repair all the f**k-ups by the yard in Singapore that built it. The original build quality was shite and Esso Norge knew they'd get the quality they were after on the Clyde. The people I was talking about who said that the quality was second to none were hard nosed Americans (your heroes) and believe me when I tell you that they knew their stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 But as others have said, the UK has all sorts of defence equipment built all over the world. Keeping jobs in the UK is not the top priority. It's all about saving money bud. If Scotland is cheap and reliable then that's where the work will go. Of course it's about keeping jobs and shipbuilding going in the UK. The vast decline in Scottish shipbuilding has been put down to Korea being a much cheaper place to build ships, they now have a lot of experience and build some of the largest ships in the world.If Scotland was independent and building ships for the UK, you could be sure that German, Dutch, Spanish and Italian shipyards would be banging on the EU's door saying as there is no longer a sovereign requirement to build these ships in the UK they should be put out to tender EU wide or it breaches EU competition laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 It's hyperbole. And allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Get yourself a mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Get yourself a mirror. Ignore him, he's fizzing, his "like" count has slowed to almost non existent and he's not happy. Me, I'm pissing myself at his slow but sure self destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Aye. He'd have been on much more solid ground ( ) comparing ship-building to being a parent launching their children into the oft-stormy seas, where they might sink or swim... See? We ALL waffle. (Me less than others. Solid ground - nice. Also nice to see you fighting Lex's battles for him. Almost like his parent. If you want to help your kid you should really consider launching them into the oft-stormy seas from whence......... He'll appreciate the help. You are the UK to his Scotland. Helping him wipe his own arse and mopping his brow because he passionately BELIEVES he isn't the best person to do that when you can do it so much better. At this moment in time you have 10013 posts. Impressive until you realise that 9000 of them are picking out spelling errors on other posts. So your last sentence was almost correct. You are a pedantic bastard but you're OUR pedantic bastard. Edited November 9, 2013 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Come on! UiE wouldn't pay out £4m if it was sod all to do with them. Now THAT displays a lack of understanding of how goodwill works in business. Assuming they weren't forced into paying it, there are many positive reasons why a company would make such a settlement. Happens all the time in business. £4 million is chickenfeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 £4 million is chickenfeed. Could you lend me a couple of Million good Buddie, it should be less than chicken feed to chap like you. Mr Gilmour would also be interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Oaksoft, It's when you make comments like this that you really let yourself down. Max I'm going to make this really easy for you. Stop responding to my posts because I'm not remotely interested in what you have to say. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Ignore him, he's fizzing, his "like" count has slowed to almost non existent and he's not happy. Me, I'm pissing myself at his slow but sure self destruction. At what point does he realise that the reason he's getting absolutely no responses to his posts is that he's on everyone's ignore list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Could you lend me a couple of Million good Buddie, it should be less than chicken feed to chap like you. Mr Gilmour would also be interested. If you want to BORROW a million quid there are cheaper interest rates than coming to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) At what point does he realise that the reason he's getting absolutely no responses to his posts is that he's on everyone's ignore list? You just responded to his ya dafty. Edited November 9, 2013 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 If you want to BORROW a million quid there are cheaper interest rates than coming to me. Ok then could you just throw some chicken feed my way free of charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 You jars responded to his ya dafty. I'm going for a few jars tonight as well, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Same old nonsense...never anything new to contribute... Carlsberg doesn't do irony, but if it did......I never tire of that one. Anyway, places to be and the clock's ticking, must go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Freeeeeeezer tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) Can you not come up with your own patter? You either steal mine or slogans by multi-national corporations... Premier Inn, Room 235 I take it? You are in for a big surprise when you meet Marina/Sandra. You could say the surprise will be a mouthful for you! Thanks for passing on the contact details for your friend but I'll pass, I've got to dry my hair. I take it you enjoyed yourself when you went along? Edited November 10, 2013 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.