Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

As British unions I would expect the GMB and Unite to support their members across the whole of the UK rather than just in Scotland. The GMB piece I link to talks about jobs at 50 sites across Britain.

Why do you think I wouldn't support a strike?

The British Unions keep talking about UK 'defence contracts' rather than Trident jobs directly ( check all the recent articles ). It's Trident renewal that's being voted on.

The MOD state that only 502 jobs will go directly. 'Defence contracts' are another matter. But there is a fair old stance/chatter about that using Trident renewal as justification to 'keep jobs' is the wrong way to look at it. Especially as those with 'defence contracts' can be retrained/redeployed over a period of time and job losses wouldn't be in evidence much until about 2022.

What makes me think you wouldn't support strikes ? Your voting preferences. But I do apologise if I've gotten that wrong, and that you do in fact always take Len McCluskey's facts and figures as 100% fact, and are always rooting for those down the picket line ( from afar these days ).

If the Conservatives get their Trade Union Act through, the unions will be much weakened in power ( the point ).. I expect that they will support their colleagues UK wide. And I expect that any argument they have with Corbyn will be splashed across the newspapers as headlines for weeks to weaken his leadership ( the point ). It'll be the first time in decades unions will garner positive headlines. <---- but it will backfire on the unions, if they're seen as too Conservative friendly over Trident. Because for most who oppose Trident renewal. it's not the jobs that are the point of having or not having it.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I've never worked on nuclear submarine systems, only on aircraft radar.

I did work with one of the biggest defence contractors in the US, which has a 50 year history with nuclear submarine development.

I remember casually comparing the complexity of tracking multiple targets with some of my colleagues in the US. I remember one guy laughing (in a polite way). He proceeded to explain in just a few simplified pointers, why he felt justified in saying that the nuclear submarine was one of the most complicated man made devices on the planet.

I can't imagine achieving design and build of such a vessel with just 500 people.

Right. So the MOD weren't being completely truthful then ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It comes from an MOD report circa 2012/13 which refers to civilian jobs directly involved in Trident, but " .... that number doesn’t give a true picture of the situation. It leaves out military personnel as well as “the vast majority of jobs at Faslane which support the deterrent, the Vanguard submarines and the infrastructure which keeps the deterrent operational”."

See here:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-should-we-scrap-trident/13202

Shakey will be stoutly defending the figure of 520 because that is SNP Holy writ so I don't think we will get insight there, maybe a poll or two.

Military personnel ? The unions don't represent military personnel as far as I know ? What that got to do with the unions at all ?

Shakey won't be defending anything. Trident renewal is one area where I'm not sure I'm in agreement with the SNP over. I could be persuaded either way. But, the MOD themselves say 500 ish civilian jobs are directly involved. The military are NOT represented by Unite or any other unions. So that leaves another 9,500 civilian jobs to account for which would be directly involved and under immediate threat, should Trident renewal not go ahead.

Where are they ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

So English Votes for English Laws has been used for the Housing and Planning Bill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35295404


@Shakey - what is there in the subject matter of that which is not English + Welsh only? Not general spin please, but specifics.

Yes. English and Welsh only. First time in centuries specific countries within the UK have been divided on the basis of geography and borders within the United Kingdon House of Commons. Fourteen months after a Scottish independence referendum won by 200,000 votes. And a subsequent SNP landslide recording the biggest swings in UK electoral history against unionist parties. Almost wiping all three of them from the Scottish map. Without spin.. my verdict....

You complete and utter dafties ! Viva the Union. *snorts out laughing* :rotfl:

Shakethedisease

ps I LOVE Shakey Mode...

Trying "Shakey Mode" on for size, I can add, as a total irrelevance:

That's exactly how I got my username string !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTGbfbttJys

:T:T:T

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The British Unions keep talking about UK 'defence contracts' rather than Trident jobs directly ( check all the recent articles ). It's Trident renewal that's being voted on.

The MOD state that only 502 jobs will go directly. 'Defence contracts' are another matter. But there is a fair old stance/chatter about that using Trident renewal as justification to 'keep jobs' is the wrong way to look at it. Especially as those with 'defence contracts' can be retrained/redeployed over a period of time and job losses wouldn't be in evidence much until about 2022.

What makes me think you wouldn't support strikes ? Your voting preferences. But I do apologise if I've gotten that wrong, and that you do in fact always take Len McCluskey's facts and figures as 100% fact, and are always rooting for those down the picket line ( from afar these days ).

If the Conservatives get their Trade Union Act through, the unions will be much weakened in power ( the point ).. I expect that they will support their colleagues UK wide. And I expect that any argument they have with Corbyn will be splashed across the newspapers as headlines for weeks to weaken his leadership ( the point ). It'll be the first time in decades unions will garner positive headlines. <---- but it will backfire on the unions, if they're seen as too Conservative friendly over Trident. Because for most who oppose Trident renewal. it's not the jobs that are the point of having or not having it.

You're missing the point as usual. You can't scrap Trident without a madate to do so. If Mr Corbyn can't get the unions to back him on Trident then he's got a couple of pretty unpalatable choices.

I don't know why you're so bothered anyway, a weak Labour party is one of the things that makes you sure that Scotland will vote Freedom! in 2021. Better hope the economy is looking better.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If there's one thing I've learnt from running my own forum.. it's never wise to put people...complete strangers in fact... in boxes on open forums. You're almost always wrong. Best to stay on topic and post content. Rather than making ( wrong) assumptions on the people behind the keyboard.

Sage advice Might be an idea for you start following it sometime soon. Just saying.

I am genuinely glad your family are enjoying grand and great grand parent time together.

HornetSaver

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Viva the Union.

This is most likely how your comment would be reported in the English media if you were asked to give an opinion on English votes for English laws.

But on the point you were making, what makes English votes stupid is that the SNP (and the combined might of their numerous Scottish opponents) can still vote down the law at other stages. So we get all of the downsides (Scots feeling disenfranchised, extra procedural hurdles for every bill, the speaker's impartiality being challenged should the determination of England-only be controversial), with few if any of the stated benefits (with the single exception that it's cheaper for all than having a separate English Parliament).

In principle the idea is sound. It's compatible with the idea of four increasingly autonomous countries within a stable union, which most unionists would argue is what the majority of people in all four nations want. But in practise with Barnett it's unworkable, and the fact that Scottish MPs can vote at other stages anyway defeats the object.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.string. wrote: »

So English Votes for English Laws has been used for the Housing and Planning Bill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35295404


@Shakey - what is there in the subject matter of that which is not English + Welsh only? Not general spin please, but specifics.

Yes. English and Welsh only. First time in centuries specific countries within the UK have been divided on the basis of geography and borders within the United Kingdon House of Commons. Fourteen months after a Scottish independence referendum won by 200,000 votes. And a subsequent SNP landslide recording the biggest swings in UK electoral history against unionist parties. Almost wiping all three of them from the Scottish map. Without spin.. my verdict....

You complete and utter dafties ! Viva the Union. *snorts out laughing* :rotfl:

Oh dear, no specifics, just spin with a wee bit of hate thrown in for spice. Have you lost your substance Shakey? Extraordinary hypocrisy too for a party that has promoted, actually insisted, on borders between a Natland and everywhere else. Since I can't vote on Scottish housing, why do you feel the need to vote on my housing? What subject in there is so directly affecting Scotland?

Specifics, please, not just parroted spin.

Generali

Oh dear.

http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/13/scottish-gdp-growth-lagged-uk-in-3q/

The Scottish economy grew by 0.1 per cent in the third quarter of last year, lagging behind the broader UK’s reading of 0.4 per cent, the Scottish government said on Wednesday.

On the plus side, Scotland’s output has grown for three years.

Sliding oil prices are clearly not helping, and Brent prices have fallen by an eye-watering 36 per cent since the period covered by these figures.

Probably best that Scots voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Union. Lest we forget, GDP includes net Government spending so the loss of income from the 71,000 now (I think) oil workers that have sadly lost their jobs is offset in GDP terms by unemployment payments that effectively are paid by Londoners. Without that balancing item Scottish GDP numbers would be looking even worse.

The problem when your economy relies on a single output is that if the price of that product drops then you are in all sorts of trouble.

Still never mind, I'm sure STD will be along soon to remind us that the polls show that Scots want independence. I wonder whether the open and honest debate that the SNP has includes the dire state of the Scottish economy without the London subsidy?