“If Scotland becomes independent…then we will have to have a discussion with our customer, the Westminster Government, about how they would like to deal with that".
Rather different from "deal with it". It seems like it's the Scottish nationalists who are the inept spinners.
Yes, "deal with" and "deal with" are self-evidently completely different. Have you been drinking?
Yet more of the PB tory spinning brilliance we also saw when you triumphantly posted the video of Alex Salmond quite clearly not saying what you foolishly thought he did.
Keeping them in Scotland would, apart from anything else, provide Westminster with a bit of leverage, and be good PR as well (quite apart from being the decent thing to do, especially in the short term).
Like I said, trying to keep this dud of a scarestory going is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset. Or to put it even more succinctly, the PB tories are always wrong, the PB tories never learn.
There's hope for everyone (well, maybe not PB Tories )
12 weeks ago:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP Nov 6 See the Nat bullies are out, but the fact is, if there is an independent Scotland: no yard, no ships. Not a threat, it is law of the land
Today:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP 1 hr As for shipbuilding, we will have to see what happens after the referendum. I hope we don't see a loss of jobs and will be fighting for them
Yes Robertson was obviously daft to conclude that independence means yards will definitely close, but that does not change the fact that defence manufacturing is an intensely political business, where the location of plant and jobs is rarely down to business alone. Countries spending a lot of money like to spend it at home, and if Scotland is no longer part of the UK it should expect to receive less of that spending, and a knock on effect of that is likely to be some closures.
Keeping them in Scotland would, apart from anything else, provide Westminster with a bit of leverage, and be good PR as well (quite apart from being the decent thing to do, especially in the short term).
My guess is that there is a deal to be done on Faslane vs. the shipyards, but that over - say - 10 years both will be relocated.
Is cost of living really a bread and butter isssue? It's ceraintly an issue - but I don't here much talk about the actual solutions, other than the energy freeze, and if that's such a great idea why don't we just follow it to its logical conclusion and freeze the price of everything.
I would like to know how GO has created all these jobs (not net) - does he actually know how he did? Was it based on any known economic theory? Why hasn't anyone been able to do it before now?
Let's turn the question around: assuming an independent Scotland, why do you think rUK would favour a Scottish location vs an rUK site for a new defence contract?
Because the BAE systems manager said he had no contingency plans to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun and the decision was quite clearly made for cost reasons in the first place.
I don't think it is as simple (as usual) as the MoD and mr Carmichael like to pretend.
Defence contracts are not rwquired to conform to EU rules - but the MoD has recently ordered support ships from outside the present UK, so it is evidently not that worried about preserving Uk/EWNI shipbuilding jobs at any cost. (They are not frontline combat ships, so there is a semantic get-out, but ...)
The issue is, I believe, that since Portsmouth's shipbuilding facility was closed, and I am not sure it was modern enough or set up for bigger ships anyway (else BAE would have kept its options open and closed a Scottish yard ), there is simply nowhere in England to build the Type 26 ships that are what the MoD want, and for which the Glasgow yard(s) are increasingly being adapted. Either the MoD pay extra for BAE to set up a new yard and train a workforce, or they go to a foreign country outwith the British Isles, with the added costs that that implies, or they go to Glasgow where everything is ready (and where there should be no foreign currency flcutation issue, at least on one option).
BAE is a multinational and it's not as if anyone else is building Type 26s at all. At the very least BAE may have some intellectual property fees to charge if the work is handed over to an overseas yard.
In any case the above applies primarily to the hulls, which only form a fraction of the value of the order. I would expect a great deal of the fitting out kit in the ships (electronics, for instance) to be built south of the Anglo-Scottish border. The Thales sonar and (possible) RR power units will presumably be made south of the border, and they are not cheap. And this would no doubt remain the case for the Scottish Navy order of the same ships, for economy, so there is a fair bit of potential reciprocity there already.
It should also be remembered that contrary to some media coverage, the recent job cuts, in terms of overall impact, were arguably greater for Glasgow - Portsmouth shipbuilding was only a small fraction of the naval base's activities and BAE will do well in the long run out of basing the EWNI Type 26s there.
Forget Cowdenbeath - the SNP needs to mobilise every able-bodied Scot* to go and fight the Canadian Customs authorities for the rights of every Canuck to drink themselves into a hyper-active frenzy on Irn Bru:
*I accept that there may be limited numbers of such people....
MM
Did you note that the offending substance found in Irn-Bru which caused the Canadian authorities to refuse its entry was 'ponceau'?
I am given to understand that excessive consumption of ponceau gives rise to chortling fits, chuntering and the unfortunate combination of tears and laughter.
I believe it also causes temporary blindness when confronted with by election results.
Keeping them in Scotland would, apart from anything else, provide Westminster with a bit of leverage, and be good PR as well (quite apart from being the decent thing to do, especially in the short term).
My guess is that there is a deal to be done on Faslane vs. the shipyards, but that over - say - 10 years both will be relocated.
The shipyards belong to BAE not the MoD, so unless the latter want to go back to the old days of Royal Dockyards and the Corps of Naval Constructors ... and as I said in my other posting, the Scots have some tasty industrial benefts to offer EWNI in the event of a Type 26 order, so that has to be borne in mind.
Like I said, trying to keep this dud of a scarestory going is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset. Or to put it even more succinctly, the PB tories are always wrong, the PB tories never learn.
There's hope for everyone (well, maybe not PB Tories )
12 weeks ago:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP Nov 6 See the Nat bullies are out, but the fact is, if there is an independent Scotland: no yard, no ships. Not a threat, it is law of the land
Today:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP 1 hr As for shipbuilding, we will have to see what happens after the referendum. I hope we don't see a loss of jobs and will be fighting for them
I don't think it is as simple (as usual) as the MoD and mr Carmichael like to pretend.
Defence contracts are not rwquired to conform to EU rules - but the MoD has recently ordered support ships from outside the present UK, so it is evidently not that worried about preserving Uk/EWNI shipbuilding jobs at any cost. (They are not frontline combat ships, so there is a semantic get-out, but ...)
The issue is, I believe, that since Portsmouth's shipbuilding facility was closed, and I am not sure it was modern enough or set up for bigger ships anyway (else BAE would have kept its options open and closed a Scottish yard ), there is simply nowhere in England to build the Type 26 ships that are what the MoD want, and for which the Glasgow yard(s) are increasingly being adapted. Either the MoD pay extra for BAE to set up a new yard and train a workforce, or they go to a foreign country outwith the British Isles, with the added costs that that implies, or they go to Glasgow where everything is ready (and where there should be no foreign currency flcutation issue, at least on one option).
BAE is a multinational and it's not as if anyone else is building Type 26s at all. At the very least BAE may have some intellectual property fees to charge if the work is handed over to an overseas yard.
In any case the above applies primarily to the hulls, which only form a fraction of the value of the order. I would expect a great deal of the fitting out kit in the ships (electronics, for instance) to be built south of the Anglo-Scottish border. The Thales sonar and (possible) RR power units will presumably be made south of the border, and they are not cheap. And this would no doubt remain the case for the Scottish Navy order of the same ships, for economy, so there is a fair bit of potential reciprocity there already.
It should also be remembered that contrary to some media coverage, the recent job cuts, in terms of overall impact, were arguably greater for Glasgow - Portsmouth shipbuilding was only a small fraction of the naval base's activities and BAE will do well in the long run out of basing the EWNI Type 26s there.
An excellent post, especially the bit about the fitting-out being more valuable than constructing the hulls. The QEII carrier engines come from RR and Wärtsilä, for instance.
However, don't underestimate Portsmouth's desire to get back into the ship construction game. Glasgow will have some stiff competition if there is independence, and there will be a political desire from some for ships to be built by the people who are paying for them.
Totally O/T - but am playing around with the 2011 Census data by Parliamentary constituency - what would be the factors that people would associate with most potential 'UKIP' territory?
I believe it also causes temporary blindness when confronted with by election results.
Best avoided in my opinion.
Are you still predicting a UKIP wipeout at the EU elections, Seth O Logue?
Or is today one of the days we are supposed to remember not to take anything you say remotely seriously?
I am not sure where you got this latest prediction from, Pork, but , in asking, I fear we are all now about to benefit from fifty repetitions of its source.
Let's turn the question around: assuming an independent Scotland, why do you think rUK would favour a Scottish location vs an rUK site for a new defence contract?
Because the BAE systems manager said he had no contingency plans to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun and the decision was quite clearly made for cost reasons in the first place.
Since when does the BAe chap get to decide where his customer spends money? If the rUK government decided to spend money inside rUK, BAe would just follow the money.
The decision was made for cost reasons in the context of the yards being domestic in nature. If the yards were located in a foreign country it is very possible that the rUK government might decide to pay a premium price to locate the work in a domestic port (don't forgeet they also need to look at the impact on taxes, benefits and the balance of payments and votes not just the headline price). They may still decide that Scotland is the best option - but they may not. To argue that there *will* be a change (in either direction) is foolish.
I believe it also causes temporary blindness when confronted with by election results.
Best avoided in my opinion.
Are you still predicting a UKIP wipeout at the EU elections, Seth O Logue?
Or is today one of the days we are supposed to remember not to take anything you say remotely seriously?
I am not sure where you got this latest prediction from, Pork, but , in asking, I fear we are all now about to benefit from fifty repetitions of its source.
You have an exceedingly short memory then since even your biggest fan Neil warned you against your foolishness when you did so. Is it all coming back to you now or should I help you along? Asking will of course result in far more than you think.
I think we've found a new limitless energy resource:
Attach 'Better Together' spinners to one end of a shaft, and the 'Yes' spinners to another, and put a generator in the middle (gearing will be needed as the spins are in different directions).
Add in some thermoeletric generators to produce power from all of the hot air in the debate, and you'll produce enough electricity to deep-fry at least 1 gazillion Mars Bars and stop all Europe's reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
Even better: as the spinners feed off each other, they'll keep operating with only occasional fuelling by polls and election results.
Keeping them in Scotland would, apart from anything else, provide Westminster with a bit of leverage, and be good PR as well (quite apart from being the decent thing to do, especially in the short term).
My guess is that there is a deal to be done on Faslane vs. the shipyards, but that over - say - 10 years both will be relocated.
The shipyards belong to BAE not the MoD, so unless the latter want to go back to the old days of Royal Dockyards and the Corps of Naval Constructors ... and as I said in my other posting, the Scots have some tasty industrial benefts to offer EWNI in the event of a Type 26 order, so that has to be borne in mind.
Indeed. I should have said the order flow would be redirected not the shipyards relocated. And - as I pointed out on taxes, benefits, votes, etc - these things are always a complex calculation, so it's foolish to say with any certainty what the outcome will be. But the scotNats are disingenuous to argue that there is no risk.
If cost of living is a problem then standard economic theory suggests that we should want unemployment to go up - or has everyone given up trying to figure out why inflation happens? Surely the evil tories can't win this one - if they make people richer like under Thatcher then everyone complains about unemployment - and if they start caring about unemployment like GO then everone complains about being poorer. Clearly, only the LDs can build a stronger economy with a fairer society.
I think we've found a new limitless energy resource:
Attach 'Better Together' spinners to one end of a shaft, and the 'Yes' spinners to another, and put a generator in the middle (gearing will be needed as the spins are in different directions).
Add in some thermoeletric generators to produce power from all of the hot air in the debate, and you'll produce enough electricity to deep-fry at least 1 gazillion Mars Bars and stop all Europe's reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
Even better: as the spinners feed off each other, they'll keep operating with only occasional fuelling by polls and election results.
If ever a post made me miss the "Like" button
It's the deep fried mars bars that make it so amusing. Oh, right. You weren't laughing AT him you were laughing WITH him. I gotcha.
I can't for the life of me understand why the Tories think it's a good tactical ploy to tell the voters that they're wrong to think they're worse off, that they just don't realise how good they have it, and that they should start showing some damn gratitude.
I can't for the life of me understand why the Tories think it's a good tactical ploy to tell the voters that they're wrong to think they're worse off, that they just don't realise how good they have it, and that they should start showing some damn gratitude.
Neither do the tories. Which is why they're not doing it.
There has been much talk on PB about the population at large failing to feel the effect of the economic recovery as measured by economic metrics such as GDP growth, inflation or Real Household Disposable Income.
I have countered to some posts by pointing out that there are a number of indices based on confidence surveys and national polls which chart changing perceptions of household finances and that these are generally showing a movement from pessimism to optimism.
For PB to complete the circle we need to know how changes in expectations of financial health, as measured by such surveys, translate, if at all, into changes in voting intention.
But to know that with any reliablity, would make us all richer and would sharply diminish Shadsy's earnings expectations.
The monthly Markit Household Finances Index, which measures a wide range of 'tangible' effects of economic change, is not due until next week. But we do have published today the Markit Knight Frank House Price Sentiment Index.
It is worth looking at the headlines:
• Households in every region perceive that the value of their home will rise over the next 12 months
• The future House Price Sentiment Index hit a record high in January, indicating that prices are expected to rise at the fastest pace since the index began in early 2009
• Households in every region perceived that the value of their home rose during the month
On the metric itself:
Some 22.5% of the 1,500 homeowners surveyed across the UK said that the value of their home had risen over the last month, up from 7.7% in January last year. Only 5.1% of households said the value of their home had fallen over the last month, giving a HPSI reading of 58.7 [falling < 50 > rising ]
It is also worth noting when changes in sentiment 'crossed over' from expectations of falling prices to rising prices. When asked about 'current prices' respondents only started to report equilibrium at the end of Q1 2013.
Expectations that 'future prices' will start rising came in a year earlier. The Index for 'future prices' ("over the next year") is now up at 72.3, an all time record, and for 'current prices' at 58.7%, with all regions recording above 50.
Expectations of house prices rising is a fundamental indicator of changing economic confidence levels and this Markit Index underpins what Cameron means when he says people are beginning to feel the benefits of economic recovery.
Now could some reliable PBer do the calculations which will quantify the effect of rising economic confidence on voting intention?
Now could some reliable PBer do the calculations which will quantify the effect of rising economic confidence on voting intention?
Almost all Economists couldn't foresee their own world collapsing before the bank crash, so the idea that they will have any more success predicting VI is one of your more amusing notions, Seth O Logue.
Here's what you do to figure out VI. Look at an opinion poll.
Don't waste everyone's time with economic stats and calculations that have no hope whatsoever of factoring in the complexities of party support and allegiance and the multiplicity of ways people view their own situations and feed that into an economic feel good factor or not. Ironically trust is likely most crucial. (which is something economists are not overly blessed with by the public) So I'm afraid there is no chance whatsoever that your amusing economic stat fetish can possibly overturn such a basic and powerful factor as trust when it comes to knowing how people will view any supposed recovery through the prism of politics.
Keeping them in Scotland would, apart from anything else, provide Westminster with a bit of leverage, and be good PR as well (quite apart from being the decent thing to do, especially in the short term).
My guess is that there is a deal to be done on Faslane vs. the shipyards, but that over - say - 10 years both will be relocated.
The shipyards belong to BAE not the MoD, so unless the latter want to go back to the old days of Royal Dockyards and the Corps of Naval Constructors ... and as I said in my other posting, the Scots have some tasty industrial benefts to offer EWNI in the event of a Type 26 order, so that has to be borne in mind.
Indeed. I should have said the order flow would be redirected not the shipyards relocated. And - as I pointed out on taxes, benefits, votes, etc - these things are always a complex calculation, so it's foolish to say with any certainty what the outcome will be. But the scotNats are disingenuous to argue that there is no risk.
Points taken. I quite agree there is risk (but there are other options such as cooperation with European countries). The issue is, of course, also that the Unionists say that the risk was, to adapt your words, total - which it is not. And losing orders for major bits of kit would not go down well domestically in EWNI.
Comments
Yes, "deal with" and "deal with" are self-evidently completely different. Have you been drinking?
Yet more of the PB tory spinning brilliance we also saw when you triumphantly posted the video of Alex Salmond quite clearly not saying what you foolishly thought he did.
Keep up the good work auntiefrankie.
LOL
Keeping them in Scotland would, apart from anything else, provide Westminster with a bit of leverage, and be good PR as well (quite apart from being the decent thing to do, especially in the short term).
I would like to know how GO has created all these jobs (not net) - does he actually know how he did? Was it based on any known economic theory? Why hasn't anyone been able to do it before now?
I don't think it is as simple (as usual) as the MoD and mr Carmichael like to pretend.
Defence contracts are not rwquired to conform to EU rules - but the MoD has recently ordered support ships from outside the present UK, so it is evidently not that worried about preserving Uk/EWNI shipbuilding jobs at any cost. (They are not frontline combat ships, so there is a semantic get-out, but ...)
The issue is, I believe, that since Portsmouth's shipbuilding facility was closed, and I am not sure it was modern enough or set up for bigger ships anyway (else BAE would have kept its options open and closed a Scottish yard ), there is simply nowhere in England to build the Type 26 ships that are what the MoD want, and for which the Glasgow yard(s) are increasingly being adapted. Either the MoD pay extra for BAE to set up a new yard and train a workforce, or they go to a foreign country outwith the British Isles, with the added costs that that implies, or they go to Glasgow where everything is ready (and where there should be no foreign currency flcutation issue, at least on one option).
BAE is a multinational and it's not as if anyone else is building Type 26s at all. At the very least BAE may have some intellectual property fees to charge if the work is handed over to an overseas yard.
In any case the above applies primarily to the hulls, which only form a fraction of the value of the order. I would expect a great deal of the fitting out kit in the ships (electronics, for instance) to be built south of the Anglo-Scottish border. The Thales sonar and (possible) RR power units will presumably be made south of the border, and they are not cheap. And this would no doubt remain the case for the Scottish Navy order of the same ships, for economy, so there is a fair bit of potential reciprocity there already.
It should also be remembered that contrary to some media coverage, the recent job cuts, in terms of overall impact, were arguably greater for Glasgow - Portsmouth shipbuilding was only a small fraction of the naval base's activities and BAE will do well in the long run out of basing the EWNI Type 26s there.
Did you note that the offending substance found in Irn-Bru which caused the Canadian authorities to refuse its entry was 'ponceau'?
I am given to understand that excessive consumption of ponceau gives rise to chortling fits, chuntering and the unfortunate combination of tears and laughter.
I believe it also causes temporary blindness when confronted with by election results.
Best avoided in my opinion.
Or is today one of the days we are supposed to remember not to take anything you say remotely seriously?
12 weeks ago:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP Nov 6
See the Nat bullies are out, but the fact is, if there is an independent Scotland: no yard, no ships. Not a threat, it is law of the land
Today:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP 1 hr
As for shipbuilding, we will have to see what happens after the referendum. I hope we don't see a loss of jobs and will be fighting for them
However, don't underestimate Portsmouth's desire to get back into the ship construction game. Glasgow will have some stiff competition if there is independence, and there will be a political desire from some for ships to be built by the people who are paying for them.
The decision was made for cost reasons in the context of the yards being domestic in nature. If the yards were located in a foreign country it is very possible that the rUK government might decide to pay a premium price to locate the work in a domestic port (don't forgeet they also need to look at the impact on taxes, benefits and the balance of payments and votes not just the headline price). They may still decide that Scotland is the best option - but they may not. To argue that there *will* be a change (in either direction) is foolish.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2545295/Ricky-Rayment-scoffs-GIANT-650g-burger-double-date-Jessica-Wright-James-Lock-girlfriend-Danielle.html
Ooops.
I have countered to some posts by pointing out that there are a number of indices based on confidence surveys and national polls which chart changing perceptions of household finances and that these are generally showing a movement from pessimism to optimism.
For PB to complete the circle we need to know how changes in expectations of financial health, as measured by such surveys, translate, if at all, into changes in voting intention.
But to know that with any reliablity, would make us all richer and would sharply diminish Shadsy's earnings expectations.
The monthly Markit Household Finances Index, which measures a wide range of 'tangible' effects of economic change, is not due until next week. But we do have published today the Markit Knight Frank House Price Sentiment Index.
It is worth looking at the headlines:
• Households in every region perceive that the value of their home will rise over the next 12 months
• The future House Price Sentiment Index hit a record high in January, indicating that prices are expected to rise at the fastest pace since the index began in early 2009
• Households in every region perceived that the value of their home rose during the month
On the metric itself:
Some 22.5% of the 1,500 homeowners surveyed across the UK said that the value of their home had risen over the last month, up from 7.7% in January last year. Only 5.1% of households said the value of their home had fallen over the last month, giving a HPSI reading of 58.7 [falling < 50 > rising ]
It is also worth noting when changes in sentiment 'crossed over' from expectations of falling prices to rising prices. When asked about 'current prices' respondents only started to report equilibrium at the end of Q1 2013.
Expectations that 'future prices' will start rising came in a year earlier. The Index for 'future prices' ("over the next year") is now up at 72.3, an all time record, and for 'current prices' at 58.7%, with all regions recording above 50.
Expectations of house prices rising is a fundamental indicator of changing economic confidence levels and this Markit Index underpins what Cameron means when he says people are beginning to feel the benefits of economic recovery.
Now could some reliable PBer do the calculations which will quantify the effect of rising economic confidence on voting intention?
Here's what you do to figure out VI. Look at an opinion poll.
Don't waste everyone's time with economic stats and calculations that have no hope whatsoever of factoring in the complexities of party support and allegiance and the multiplicity of ways people view their own situations and feed that into an economic feel good factor or not. Ironically trust is likely most crucial. (which is something economists are not overly blessed with by the public) So I'm afraid there is no chance whatsoever that your amusing economic stat fetish can possibly overturn such a basic and powerful factor as trust when it comes to knowing how people will view any supposed recovery through the prism of politics.