An Independent Scotland?

[Dave *]

I didn't realise that the Royal Navy was going to be given to Scotland post independence .

The same day, Mr Salmond claimed that he could “guarantee” the Royal Navy would continue to order ships from Scottish yards as well as, presumably, safeguard the supply chain of which Thales is part. To any reasonable observer, these claims seem utterly bizarre since whatever else Mr Salmond might one day be in charge of, it would not include Royal Naval procurement.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566

 

[Blank_Canvas]

They want a few of our grey war canoes !

Nay, nay and thrice nay !

Let's face independence isn't going to happen !

 

[Steep]

I didn't realise that the Royal Navy was going to be given to Scotland post independence .

Nothing will be 'given' to us, we PAID for it. From the Westminster Parliamentary Economic Affairs Select Committee report on the impact of Scottish independence (paraphrased)
Scotland contributed approximately £3.2 Billion (2011/12) to a total UK spend of £34.8 billion, that's a little under 10% of spending. They say that Scotland 'owns' about 8.4% of the MOD assets but would not necessarily need that much in hardware so may choose to take less with financial compensation from rUK for the rest.

This is not Alex Salmond or the Yes camps propaganda (unlike Brian Wilson article which you quote from), it's direct from Westminster.

The same report quotes Lord West of Spithead (ex Chief of Naval Staff) and Francis Tusa (Defence Analyst) who call the Westminster Governments total lack of contingency planning for a Yes vote a dereliction of duty and a nightmare in the making.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/152.pdf

 

[Steep]

They want a few of our grey war canoes !

See above ^ they're not 'yours'.

 

[Dave *]

Nothing will be 'given' to us, we PAID for it.

No one is talking about ships, I'm talking about the institution of the Royal Navy, unless wee 'Eck is the new Lord High Grand Admiral of the Royal Navy post independence how can he be guaranteeing that the Royal Navy will be building it's ships in the newly foreign country of Scotlandistan ?

Did you read the (Scottish newspaper) link?

 

[Steep]

Brian Wilson didn't mention the 'institution of the Royal Navy' but I take your point and I'll send it right back at you, why would the ships 'not' be built on the Clyde? the MOD buys ships from Korea, why not Scotland? The MOD has already committed £20mil to BAE systems to allow them to start work on the new patrol vessels ( https://www.gov.uk/government/news/20-million-contract-for-new-royal-navy-ships )

"Scotlandistan"? please try not to stoop to insult, there's no need for it.

 

[Byker28i]

Can I just point out that 'you' Scotland didn't pay for it - the UK as a whole paid for it. You can't just pick and choose to suit your viewpoint.

What really needs to be discussed what resources you require should you gain independence and get that agreed beforehand. I'd really expect all that to be put into place before hand so the voters get a realistic expectation to vote on.

 

[Dave *]

Brian Wilson didn't mention the 'institution of the Royal Navy' but I take your point and I'll send it right back at you, why would the ships 'not' be built on the Clyde? the MOD buys ships from Korea, why not Scotland? The MOD has already committed £20mil to BAE systems to allow them to start work on the new patrol vessels ( https://www.gov.uk/government/news/20-million-contract-for-new-royal-navy-ships )

The Royal Navy does not have warships built abroad, and that policy is protected by law.

Support ships are put out to tender, hence why they can be built in Korea.

"Scotlandistan"? please try not to stoop to insult, there's no need for it.

Is that a whole bag of potatoes on your shoulder? If you can't see the joke you need specsavers...

 

[Steep]

Can I just point out that 'you' Scotland didn't pay for it - the UK as a whole paid for it. You can't just pick and choose to suit your viewpoint.

What really needs to be discussed what resources you require should you gain independence and get that agreed beforehand. I'd really expect all that to be put into place before hand so the voters get a realistic expectation to vote on.

I didn't say the Scots paid for all of it but the Scottish taxpayer has paid for their share of the UK defence infrastructure and as the report I quoted shows would be entitled to 'claim' all or part of that share. rUK would likely need more than the 90 odd percent they are entitled to so some accommodation may need to be reached on that, also as pointed out in the report.

I don't know what part of the UK you're in Byker28i but we're been discussing little else for some time. The trouble is what UK government ministers say and what often turns out to be true are two different things. Take defence as an example. A decent defence budget for an independent Scotland would be about £2 billion per year, we currently pay over £3 billion into the UK defence budget so Scotland would be a billion pounds to the good each year just on that front yet we're constantly told we can't afford it.
I agree that talks need to take place on exactly who gets what and how but until the referendum actually decides one way or the other it would be pointless to start.

 

[Steep]

Is that a whole bag of potatoes on your shoulder? If you can't see the joke you need specsavers...

It was an insult, you intended it as one and so is that ^

 

[Steep]

The Royal Navy does not have warships built abroad, and that policy is protected by law.

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[Dave *]

Do you have a reference for that?

You could use google and hunt for the relevant law that allows the UK to retain warship building as a UK only process, here is mention from Hansard:

Orders for complex warships such as destroyers and the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, on which some 4,000 people are currently employed in Scottish yards, were won only on the basis that the UK can choose to place or hold competition for such contracts domestically for national security reasons under an exemption from EU law.

The UK has not placed an order for a complex warship outside its own borders in modern times. If Scotland were not part of the UK, it would not benefit from that national security exemption.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131203/halltext/131203h0001.htm

 

[Byker28i]

I agree that talks need to take place on exactly who gets what and how but until the referendum actually decides one way or the other it would be pointless to start.

So your happy to vote on some promises or insistence from someone who says that will happen?

If I was voting I'd want to know everything was worked out (or not) before hand so I could make an informed decision. At the moment from both sides you've just got retoric - nothings actually worked out.

 

[Steep]

My reading of that and further reading says you've got it back to front. The UK can for reasons of National Security choose to keep it's ship building contracts within the UK but normally those contracts would be up for tender within the EU member states. The law doesn't say the UK must only build in the UK it says they can make use of an exemption on security grounds to do it.

DSPCR - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...urity-public-contracts-regulations-dspcr-2011

 

[Steep]

So your happy to vote on some promises or insistence from someone who says that will happen?

If I was voting I'd want to know everything was worked out (or not) before hand so I could make an informed decision. At the moment from both sides you've just got retoric - nothings actually worked out.

Westminster is never going to agree to talks on these things, it would be like accepting that there is a possibility that it might happen and they will not do that. I too would like some certainty in what would or would not happen after September but not having that I have to fall back on my own belief in 'our' ability to succeed, the 'promises' of those better informed than I am and the knowledge that no one from Scotland and rUK is going to opt for something that is detrimental to both sides in any negotiations.

 

[Dave *]

My reading of that and further reading says you've got it back to front. The UK can for reasons of National Security choose to keep it's ship building contracts within the UK but normally those contracts would be up for tender within the EU member states. The law doesn't say the UK must only build in the UK it says they can make use of an exemption on security grounds to do it.

DSPCR - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...urity-public-contracts-regulations-dspcr-2011

No, I have it the right way round, normally under EU law any country can tender for business in any other EU country and this cannot be restricted.

One of the exemptions to this law is defence and national security which allows certain items, like warships, to be exclusively built in the relevant country and excluded from tendering by other countries builders.

If the Royal Navy was to consider building a ship in the Republic of Scotland (no more jokes, some people here are humourless), then under law, the tender must then be open to ALL EU countries, so if Scotland can tender, so can Poland etc.

 

[Steep]

The UK has built/bought ships abroad though not in peacetime but there's nothing to stop them doing so, if there's one thing you should know about polititians it's that 'policies' change with the wind.

If the contracts were to be put out to tender Europe wide then Scotland would have to bid the same as any other and win or lose on its merits. There's a lot of ifs buts and maybes as with everything else just now about what exactly will happen though, the contracts have been all but awarded to the Clyde as it's the only place in the current UK capable of building the navies future requirements. Portsmouth is a possibility but it would take an awful lot of money to get it back up to a state where it would be capable and it would end up costing rUK a lot more. The contracts for the patrol vessels are due to start long before Scotland would become independent so I reckon they'll continue, as for the fancy new Global Combat ships ( Global - doesn't that just tell you something about the way Westminster still see the UK?) the designs aren't even finalised yet and won't be until next year, the ships are not due to come into service before 2020.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The UK has built/bought ships abroad though not in peacetime but there's nothing to stop them doing so, if there's one thing you should know about polititians it's that 'policies' change with the wind.

If the contracts were to be put out to tender Europe wide then Scotland would have to bid the same as any other and win or lose on its merits. There's a lot of ifs buts and maybes as with everything else just now about what exactly will happen though, the contracts have been all but awarded to the Clyde as it's the only place in the current UK capable of building the navies future requirements. Portsmouth is a possibility but it would take an awful lot of money to get it back up to a state where it would be capable and it would end up costing rUK a lot more. The contracts for the patrol vessels are due to start long before Scotland would become independent so I reckon they'll continue, as for the fancy new Global Combat ships ( Global - doesn't that just tell you something about the way Westminster still see the UK?) the designs aren't even finalised yet and won't be until next year, the ships are not due to come into service before 2020.

Just a aside

If, and it's a big if, Naval vessel contracts were put out to Europe Wide tender, then the notices would e placed in the OJEC. (Official Journal of the European Community. www.ojec.com

Assuming an Independent Scotland retains/gains EC membership tbhen all sorts of public body contracts can be applied for inclusion on the ITT List (Invitation to Tender) but firsg there is a pre tendee qualification procdss to be undertaken. A potentually long process.

If Scotland is denied membership to the EC then OJEC is closed. (Other than exceptional circustances.

In terms of military equipment EC states are able to use security grounds to avoid OJEC. Thus rUK could ignore tender applications from Independent Scotland.

Messy business.

As an aside I have sat on MoD Tender Evaluation Boards so no axe to grind.

Steve

 

[Dave *]

The UK has built/bought ships abroad though not in peacetime but there's nothing to stop them doing so, if there's one thing you should know about polititians it's that 'policies' change with the wind.

If the contracts were to be put out to tender Europe wide then Scotland would have to bid the same as any other and win or lose on its merits.

Scotland hoping for some sort of magic concession to "GUARANTEE" Royal Navy ships post independence won't happen for 2 reasons;

1. The UK won't be wanting to give up it's "national security" exemption under EU law,
and even if you think the UK would give up it's exemption,
2. Do you really see the Republic of Scotland outbidding either Poland (an EU and NATO member) or Turkey (an associate EU and NATO member)? Either on "security" merit or price?

 

[Byker28i]

Steep - shipbuilding won't change policies with the wind as you put it. It's a highly political area no party would put major defence spending outside the country.

Ec membership isn't a given for independent scotland either as it opens up all sorts of possibilities for others. Spain would certainly block to stop Catalonia or Basque country having the same attempts.

 

[Steep]

BAE systems are already building three of the offshore patrol ships for Brazil, could they win over other European countries? yes possibly but only time would tell there. The OPV is due to come into service in 2017, which means it needs to start construction on schedule next year, Portsmouth cannot handle that, at that point Scotland would still be a part of the UK so I'd expect those ships to be built on the Clyde.
BAE are building the new aircraft carriers on the Clyde, and in Rosyth as well as in Portsmouth, that won't change because again Portsmouth doesn't have the capacity and the contracts have already been awarded. Unless rUK government is prepared to spend huge sums of money getting Portsmouth up to scratch and capable of building them the contracts will remain as they are.

 

[Steep]

Steep - shipbuilding won't change policies with the wind as you put it. It's a highly political area no party would put major defence spending outside the country.

Ec membership isn't a given for independent scotland either as it opens up all sorts of possibilities for others. Spain would certainly block to stop Catalonia or Basque country having the same attempts.

I've outlined my thoughts on the way the shipbuilding will progress in my previous reply. These EC membership points are old and have been covered many times, I'm no expert and I'm no politician but I have more than my share of common sense and common sense says the EU is not going to stop Scotland remaining (or becoming) a member, it's just not going to happen.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

BAE systems are already building three of the offshore patrol ships for Brazil, could they win over other European countries? yes possibly but only time would tell there. The OPV is due to come into service in 2017, which means it needs to start construction on schedule next year, Portsmouth cannot handle that, at that point Scotland would still be a part of the UK so I'd expect those ships to be built on the Clyde.
BAE are building the new aircraft carriers on the Clyde, and in Rosyth as well as in Portsmouth, that won't change because again Portsmouth doesn't have the capacity and the contracts have already been awarded. Unless rUK government is prepared to spend huge sums of money getting Portsmouth up to scratch and capable of building them the contracts will remain as they are.

Personally I think they should BUT in the scheme of things in the longer term, the politics should the YES vote triumph, there will be no further deep ocean vessel contracts going to an independent Scotland. REALPOLITIK would mean that exporting cash from rUK that funds employment in another country is suicide for the party in power.

Sadly there is time for work non the carriers to be slowed (as in the second carrier) and for fitting out to be done elsewhere. Depends how spiteful things become after the election next May posy a YES vote AND the continuing lack of firm carrier borne aircraft delivery dates.

Nothing firm = a lot of conjecture and medium to long term meddling.


We live in interesting times

Steve

 

[Blank_Canvas]

The Royal Navy does not have warships built abroad, and that policy is protected by law.

Support ships are put out to tender, hence why they can be built in Korea....

The main reason for that is that no one in the UK responded to the MoD tender ! Not even any of the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde !



Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Brian Wilson didn't mention the 'institution of the Royal Navy' but I take your point and I'll send it right back at you, why would the ships 'not' be built on the Clyde? the MOD buys ships from Korea, why not Scotland? The MOD has already committed £20mil to BAE systems to allow them to start work on the new patrol vessels ( https://www.gov.uk/government/news/20-million-contract-for-new-royal-navy-ships )

"Scotlandistan"? please try not to stoop to insult, there's no need for it.

The reason why ships can't be built on the Clyde is they can't be bothered to pull their fingers out and respond to the MoD tender !


www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17127488





Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

 

[Steep]

rUK government would be under huge pressure from home not to award contracts to Scotland or anywhere else 'foreign' after independence but it would be a very expensive proposition to try building them in a rUk port and they might have to bite the bullet and put it out to international tender.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I've outlined my thoughts on the way the shipbuilding will progress in my previous reply. These EC membership points are old and have been covered many times, I'm no expert and I'm no politician but I have more than my share of common sense and common sense says the EU is not going to stop Scotland remaining (or becoming) a member, it's just not going to happen.

Ouch

Politics and Common Sense are not easy bedfellows.

The European Community will be looking at much wider issues than a small country breaking away from a union with one of the 2 major contributor member states of the EC.
I am hoping the Yes campaign wins
The day after the big party will be the start of a huge piece of work and very soon after the rUK General Election gets into full swing. (The work for May 2014 is already underway). So don't expect it axles, do expect big business to be risk averse AND to do what their shareholders require. As Gecko said "Greed is Good"

Suppose all you like but the only power the masses have is Yes or No. After that it will be no more to do with you how things develop


S

 

[Steep]

The reason why ships can't be built on the Clyde is they can't be bothered to pull their fingers out and respond to the MoD tender !

Sorry this is not a hyperlink but I'm out and about !

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17127488

I don't really know anything about why those ships were not tendered for here but, there are less than 900 men working in Clyde shipyards, we have the same problem as South of England yards have had in that the yards have been continuously run down for decades until the skills are just no longer available in the numbers required to take on lots of contracts. in 2012 work was already beginning on the first aircraft carrier, maybe BAe just couldn't take on the work.

 

[Steep]

Steve in my view we'd be far better off going to Scandinavia rather than the EU but I'll take whatever is on offer if it means a yes vote. Likewise with Sterling, I can see the benefits for both sides in keeping it at least for a time but I would be happy to see us with our own currency.

 

[Dave *]

The main reason for that is that no one in the UK responded to the MoD tender ! Not even any of the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde !

Not true.

The new generation of 37,000-tonne Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) tankers ordered for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) could have been built in the UK.

Prospect union, which represents over 300 BAE Systems staff in Portsmouth, said that the fact no British companies submitted a final bid for the build contract, despite a number taking part in the competition, is an indictment on our capacity which has already reduced and could be reducing further.

- See more at: http://www.themanufacturer.com/arti...ed-to-south-korean-firm/#sthash.ZwGn8VHA.dpuf

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Not true.

Thats just semantics Dave !

I'll put it another way. No UK company completed the tender process, or if you like no Uk company responded to the final bid. It all amounts to the same thing. That's why no contract was awarded. They either didn't want the work or have the resources to deliver it.






Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Thats just semantics Dave !

I'll put it another way. No UK company completed the tender process, or if you like no Uk company responded to the final bid. It all amounts to the same thing. That's why no contract was awarded. They either didn't want the work or have the resources to deliver it.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

The other element that affects contracts from within MoD contracts is the performance payments against contract performance and delivery of the product.

Thus the main suppliers are hostage to fortune of being able to deliver against expected timepoints.

So risk aversion is a major factor in whether to tender or to accept a contract with very tight penalty clauses.

Adding current capacity against client required contract terms maked the decision to sah thanks but no thanks all to easy.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Precisely !

 

[jakeblu]

Suppose all you like but the only power the masses have is Yes or No. After that it will be no more to do with you how things develop


S

And therein lies the truth. Your aspirations of determining your own destiny will disappear quicker than the shipbuilding contracts you currently hold for the MOD

Steve

 

[Dave *]

Thats just semantics Dave !

I'll put it another way. No UK company completed the tender process, or if you like no Uk company responded to the final bid. It all amounts to the same thing. That's why no contract was awarded. They either didn't want the work or have the resources to deliver it.

Not really semantics, plenty of UK companies responded to the tender, they just fell by the wayside before submitting a final bid, probably because they concluded they couldn't compete on price with Daewoo Shipbuilding (though we are pulling the "war canoes only get built in the UK" debate regarding Scotland independence way off on a tangent ).

 

[Steep]

And therein lies the truth. Your aspirations of determining your own destiny will disappear quicker than the shipbuilding contracts you currently hold for the MOD

Steve

Quick point about that 'We' hold no contracts, BAE do, a British company not a Scottish one.

There's a journalist and writer up here called Lesley Riddoch, she wrote a book called Blossom which I thoroughly recommend to anyone who wants to see what Scotland is and could be. She doesn't get into the same tired old arguments we've seen here but pulls no punches when it comes to telling it like it is. Her notion of a Nordic governing style is very appealing and it's one that actually works very well for them.

That said even if you're right and things governmental don't change it's still a few hundred miles closer to home (within easy driving distance for me) and we'll get the government we vote for.

 

[AHILL]

we'll get the government we vote for.

now wasn't that a lot easier to say!

 

[JennyGW]

I think it is about time the English had a vote about whether we want Scotland as a part of the UK anymore. Let's face it, Wales should have gone long ago, and NI must be hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

And .... what about Cornwall? They want to be independent, too!

What would we be left with? All the most profitable areas and less burden

(Tongue in cheek, before you attack me with your bagpipes, leeks, shillelaghs or pasties!)

 

[JennyGW]

From the money Scotland pays into the Westminster 'pot' from Scottish taxes Jon, some of this is handed back for the Scottish government to run the country and they pay for Prescription charges and uni fees this way.

I think you'll find Scotland takes more out than it puts in.

 

[StewartR]

I think you'll find Scotland takes more out than it puts in.

I think you'll find it's a good idea to provide references when you make bold claims like that. I personally do not know whether your statement is correct, and I do not know how extensive your knowledge is either. But one of the things which has made the debate in this thread (mostly) constructive and civilized is that people have (mostly) tried to avoid stirring the pot gratuitously.

So:
- If you know your statement to be true, please tell us why. What is your source?
- If you don't know whether or not your statement is true, but you would like to know, then I'm sure some of the experts will be along soon to help.
- If you don't care whether or not your statement is true, then you're not really contributing much here.

Hope this helps.