Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Shipbuilding to end in Pompey

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its a difficult one for me. I am normally on the same side of the fence as you Bruce, but this was a nakedly political decision with the Scottish vote next year in mind. As such, if the Scots go their own way, then England have no ability to build Naval ships.

I think that stinks. Re not getting clients outside of government contracts, I have no idea about that. If true, then that is unforgivable.

Surely if it was done solely for political purposes the Tories would've saved Portsmouth and closed the others? They have a decent chance of winning that seat at the next election, whereas they haven't a chance of winning one on the Clyde.

Either way, they'd be accused of doing it for political reasons.
 
Surely if it was done solely for political purposes the Tories would've saved Portsmouth and closed the others? They have a decent chance of winning that seat at the next election, whereas they haven't a chance of winning one on the Clyde.

Either way, they'd be accused of doing it for political reasons.

Yeah, see your point, but if they had closed Govan, can you imagine the political capital the SNP would have made with that?

Thats why I dont get why they did it now. They could have given one of the new frigates to Portsmouth to build, not all 3 to Govan, see how the independence vote went, then take it from there.
 
Yeah, see your point, but if they had closed Govan, can you imagine the political capital the SNP would have made with that?

Thats why I dont get why they did it now. They could have given one of the new frigates to Portsmouth to build, not all 3 to Govan, see how the independence vote went, then take it from there.

You're absolutely right - but either way they'd be accused of doing it for political reasons. They appear to have taken a decision that is in the 'national interest' instead of the 'party interest', which is probably wrong, but refreshing.
 

You're absolutely right - but either way they'd be accused of doing it for political reasons. They appear to have taken a decision that is in the 'national interest' instead of the 'party interest', which is probably wrong, but refreshing.

If you mean "national interest" in terms of preserving the union, then that is a gamble, and they have potentially sacrificed Englands ability to build its own navel ships in that gamble. Which certainly wouldnt be in the national interest.
 
You're absolutely right - but either way they'd be accused of doing it for political reasons. They appear to have taken a decision that is in the 'national interest' instead of the 'party interest', which is probably wrong, but refreshing.

Don't be daft , Cameron knows if we lose Scotland and the right wing nutcases in his party get their way on Europe and we leave that it would a disaster for the country and it would be all his fault .
 
If you mean "national interest" in terms of preserving the union, then that is a gamble, and they have potentially sacrificed Englands ability to build its own navel ships in that gamble. Which certainly wouldnt be in the national interest.

Again, true, but its not like the independence referendum is on a knife edge, 'no' has quite a substantial lead, and it's very likely that it will stay that way.

Don't be daft , Cameron knows if we lose Scotland and the right wing nutcases in his party get their way on Europe and we leave that it would a disaster for the country and it would be all his fault .

'Losing' Scotland wouldn't be a disaster for the country, it'd be a disaster for Scotland, but the rest of the Union could cope perfectly well without them - it would also help the Tories electorally. And let's be honest, there's no love lost between England and Scotland, so if they did leave it's not like Cameron would be punished come election time.

As for the EU, leaving wouldn't be a disaster, and as with my previous point, we're a pretty eurosceptic country, so Cameron wouldn't be punished if we did leave, because we'd only leave if the electorate voted that way.
 

So the taxpayer should continue funding ships it doesn't need, just to keep an industry that has not managed to secure a single external client alive? That's madness.
Errr.... we need 30 frigates and we have 19. We need aircraft carriers and we have none.

Madness.
 
On Scotland: I think the No vote/unionists will get a bit of a shock. I can see the next poll registering a rise in the Yes to independence vote.

A) people tend to resent charges they're being 'bought off' and will act counter-intuitively
B) once the dust settles all that will be seen is the actual job losses that are going to occur on the Clyde...which will be substantial.
 
Again, true, but its not like the independence referendum is on a knife edge, 'no' has quite a substantial lead, and it's very likely that it will stay that way.



'Losing' Scotland wouldn't be a disaster for the country, it'd be a disaster for Scotland, but the rest of the Union could cope perfectly well without them - it would also help the Tories electorally. And let's be honest, there's no love lost between England and Scotland, so if they did leave it's not like Cameron would be punished come election time.

As for the EU, leaving wouldn't be a disaster, and as with my previous point, we're a pretty eurosceptic country, so Cameron wouldn't be punished if we did leave, because we'd only leave if the electorate voted that way.

Well Cameron doesn't see it that way but keep spinning .
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top