Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008 Change Date

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Scottish job fears as MPs call on MoD to scrap plans to upgrade defences



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 March 2008
DEFENCE chiefs came under pressure yesterday to abandon delayed plans to build two aircraft carriers and replace the ageing Nimrod aircraft.
Either move could lead to massive job losses in Scotland as the new Nimrod surveillance planes would replace those at RAF Kinloss, while the £3.9 billion aircraft carriers would bring work to Rosyth dockyards and to the Clyde and Govan.

But MPs on the Commons defence committee warned that delays and cost-overruns on a number of orders for new defence equipment were now so great that "salami-slicing" projects to keep them closer to budget may no longer be possible.

The report highlighted the Ministry of Defence's own deadline of 31 March for final contracts to be signed on the aircraft carriers. They are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

This means an announcement has to be made by Monday – but yesterday the MoD tried to distance itself from the deadline, given earlier this year to MPs by David Gould, the chief operating officer of the MoD's defence equipment and support agency.

According to the report, the £2.8 billion programme for 12 new Nimrod MRA4 aircraft is seven-and-a-half years late and £787 million over budget.

There are also delays with the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being bought to replace the Harrier jump-jets, which first came into service in the 1960s. At least 72 Joint Strike Fighters – 36 on each new aircraft carrier – are required, but plans to buy 150 have been described as "cloud cuckoo land" and Harriers will have to be used until at least 2018.

James Arbuthnot, the Commons defence committee chairman, said: "For too long, the MoD has had an unaffordable equipment programme and needs to confront the problem rather than giving the usual response of salami-slicing and moving programmes to the right.

"It is disappointing that the first of the navy's two new aircraft carriers will not have new aircraft to operate from it when it enters service because of delays on the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft programme.

"The Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme goes from bad to worse – almost £800 million over budget and forecast to be nearly eight years late. The MoD must carefully examine whether it should cut its losses and withdraw from this sorry saga."

Angus Robertson, the SNP leader in Westminster whose constituency includes RAF Kinloss, said there was a pressing need to replace the Nimrods currently in service. They were introduced in the 1980s and one crashed in Afghanistan in 2006 with the loss of 14 lives.

Mr Robertson said: "The safety of the Nimrod crew must come first. I am concerned that if the MRA4 programme is cancelled, then the current, ageing aircraft would need to keep on working for an extended period, despite concerns about their safety."

The aircraft carriers are due to be built by a partnership between BaE Systems and VT Group, but there have been delays setting up a joint company to carry out the work.

An MoD spokeswoman said there was no question of the aircraft carriers' contract being dropped. Associated contracts worth £70 million were signed this month.

TIME RUNNING OUT FOR NEW VESSELS
THE Royal Navy has only two aircraft carriers – HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious – in active service. A third, HMS Invincible, is "onside" at Portsmouth after retiring in 2005. It is due to be sold in 2010.

This has sparked concerns that, with their larger replacements, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, not due to enter service to 2014 and 2016 respectively, the navy will be left under-resourced at a time when the cost of front-line operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is soaring.

Ark Royal is due to be withdrawn from service in 2012 and Illustrious in 2015, but yesterday's report from the Commons defence committee warned that time was running out for work to start on the new ships, with the first due to be delivered in six years and the final contracts still unsigned.

Both Illustrious and Ark Royal are currently at sea. The navy refuses to say where for security reasons. In January, Illustrious headed a multinational task force patrolling the Mediterranean, Africa, the Middle East and South-east Asia.

Defence spending for the 2008-9 financial year is £34 billion. The defence minister, Baroness Taylor, said: "The size and complexity of the MoD's equipment programmes, with their challenges in delivery and technology, must not be underestimated."


The full article contains 759 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 March 2008 8:42 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

The Answer,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 00:23:07
Delay at least untill Scotland is independent!
2

Wardog,

Buckie 27/03/2008 00:40:17

MORE UNION DIVIDENDS

MORE UNION BRIBES

3

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 27/03/2008 00:52:54
More London Bungling, no wonder there is a hemorage of service personnel from all three arms of the service!!!
4

,

27/03/2008 01:03:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

urban poacher,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 01:17:50
time to learn to make other things the carriers ad nimrod are not going to happen
6

An Beal Bacht,

27/03/2008 04:15:48
Opening sentence:

"DEFENCE chiefs came under pressure yesterday to abandon delayed plans to build two aircraft carriers and replace the ageing Nimrod aircraft."

Further in the article:

"An MoD spokeswoman said there was no question of the aircraft carriers' contract being dropped. Associated contracts worth £70 million were signed this month."

Aye - Ah'm feart - LOL..
7

David Ban,

04620 Vera 27/03/2008 04:19:11
How did little Finland become the world leader in the design and construction of massive cruise liners? For a start they did not have to deal with a Marxist workforce constantly on strike, the same workforce that brought the Hillman Imp to its knees.

Come on Scotland we can build and sell any damn ship we want provided we are in charge with leaders who put Scotland first!
8

Larry Hallatt,

Chesley Canada 27/03/2008 05:13:46
Why would Britain need two new aircraft carriers. The old carriers, no doubt could easily be converted to helicopter carriers that could be used in minor conflicts and which would provide backup support for troop evacuations as well as troop landings.

The toys of the military are simply getting too costly and military types are prone to design armaments on previous wars, whereas, opponents design attacks on new strategies.

Since most future conflicts will be against non states....the types of tools needed to stop terrorists are not likely to be the expensive billion pound items.

Better to train more special forces, computer programmers, translators and bomb and virus containment personnel. Rapid deployment small groups commandos are much more needed in a modern force.
9

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 07:10:37
in actual fact the navy is to be disbanded and the rest of the euro fightercontract cancelled the new build destroyers are also to be cancelled as a member of the navy I am preparing for redundancy in two years also to take my familie out of this country it is no longer a british country and the way scotland and the rest of the uk are run and security being played out like a monopoly game Im off to a country with more security
10

danielrober,

27/03/2008 07:17:56
We need these ships. This is not a failing of the military or the civil service.

In fact this is a funding issue caused buy other projects. The aicraft carriers will actually return a lot of economic value to the UK/Scotland economy. This contrasts greatly with yet more IT, Railway, Tram and Birdge projects that have very low rates of economic return.

As such this naval project is been cancelled, because it makes other projects look bad (or just waste of money).

Delaying the obsessive ID card scheme would pay for these ships. Cancelling the proeject would pay for the Nimrods as well.
11

Vaughan,

Canada 27/03/2008 07:20:52
Wow!

If the military is 1/10 as verbose in their wording as Ross Lydall, the Political Editor and author of this article, big trouble is ahead. Obtuse? Thick as a Brick? I did not rush to judgement, he always sounds like this. (and worse) You decide: "...chiefs came under pressure to abandon plans to build..." Good Lord, how about "Chiefs urged to build carriers..." Or is that too clear?
12

Richardinho,

27/03/2008 07:23:30
Hmm, were these the same aircraft carriers that Des Browne was saying wouldn't get made in Scotland if it became independent?

methinks they are! Astonishing that Des Browne was prepared to make such a speech threatening to take the work away from Scotland, when he probably knew that it was in the offing that they wouldn't get made at all!

The unionists taken for fools again!
13

yockel,

27/03/2008 07:33:56
OK so we are meant ot buy American and not get involved in EU based military technology fine but the UK really needs to take a close look at its military procurement systems.
It's not just we hardly have a navy left and don't have enough boots or whatever for our troops, we seem to be totally incapable of producing or even buying military equipment.
Look at the SA80, they couldn't even build a rifle that works. There appears to be a total failure of the system. Too many civil servants and bodgers in lab coats or is it the funding system?
14

donald,

glasgow 27/03/2008 07:36:20
Crumbs from bums.
15

Richardinho,

27/03/2008 07:38:04
I don't have a problem with the UK scaling down it's military. I don't see that we need a particularly massive navy or army.
The problem is that on the one hand the govt is not prepared to spend money on the military, whilst at the same time has delusions of grandeur about Britain's military might and it's capacity to get involved in foreign 'vanity' conflicts.
16

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 27/03/2008 07:41:38
The carriers were given to me as a major reason why a traffic causeway across the Forth was impossible!

Since the causeway could have been located upstream of Rosyth that argument was anyway sterile.

Now there are to be no carriers (far too easy to sink)! So, let's hear it for the Forth Crossing Causeway!
17

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 07:43:22
Oh, I thought these contracts were only at risk post-independence? David Cairns said so.

Similarly, the Scottish Steel industry was going to be decimated by independence, and our fishing industry damaged. (What's that? They have been already in the Union?)
18

danielrober,

27/03/2008 07:51:25
These ships are needed because we constantly put our armed forces into difficult situations and they need back up. Its an agreement, they fight as best they and we back them up as much as we can.

The labour party must now accept that the bill for these wars need to be paid. We have the money, to say we don't is just not true.
19

Richardinho,

27/03/2008 07:56:29
Well we may have had the money, but it was needed to shore up the failing financial sector.
It would be much cheaper simply not to get involved in daft wars like Iraq/Afghanistan. we don't have the resources, they don't do any good, and they probably just make us an even bigger target.

It has been said that Britain could not wage a war on it's own such as the Falklands one again.
So there's a project for the British military; defend the falklands. Drop the foreign adventuring.
20

ziz,

Manchester 27/03/2008 08:11:22
Don't forget that troops fly to Iraq/Afghanistan on 42 year old Tristars and VC 10's and the TriStar re-fuelling tankers are the same vintage.

Anyway the Eurofighter (20 yrs i development) dropped it's first bomb in the Irish Sea in October (but needed another to "illuminate" the target) . Wow.
21

yockel,

27/03/2008 08:14:55
#19 There is a story, I have no idea if it is true, that the torpedo which sank the Belgrano was a WWII left-over if not a captured German item. We probably no longer have the necessary scrap to defend the Falkands let alone retake them, for example what could we use to bomb Port Stanley runway with today?
22

danielrober,

27/03/2008 08:30:28
# 19 Richardinho

I agree 'generally' with what you are saying. It's just wrong for a government to say 'we did have the money but we spent the money, sorry'. Try saying that to any debt collector in the country or council tax office.

The money is owed and it should paid.

The fact that only a few labour consultants are needed on these projects is no business of the Royal Navy, Armed Forces or the UK population.
23

Astarte,

Giffnock 27/03/2008 08:37:52
Good news, a kick in the privates for this growing Industrial/Military Compact. We don't need to build war machines to have a vibrant economy and we must stop referring to Maggie's Folly as a war and give the Falklands over to Argentine, their rightful landowners. It is about time that our gullible citizens talked about te real economic benefits that can be gained from Peaceful enterprise, Passenger ships and ferries (less pollutant than air-travel) and much less costly to maintain. Good planning can provide good paying jobs in Scotland. I learned recently that the Province of British Columbia has recently purchased two multi-car ferries and four more on order from Polish Shipyards. We are missing the boat, no pun intended, while planning for the next stupid war before clearing up the present mess. Move on from the Reagan/Thatcher/Bush/Blair mentality and stop Union bashing. We don't have the know how to run an independent country but we have the skills to run a shipbuilding industry thanks to Union trained specialists.
24

Auckland Arab2,

27/03/2008 08:55:14
Can we please have all those idiots back on here who posted about losing defence sector jobs yesterday. Your comments now look a little lame!
25

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:56:16
Just fire a few thousands Labour Councillors and their flunkies and do both projects - it would cheese off the unions as well so all round a good plan!!

There is no need for unions these days and they know it so they use any excuse to 'appear' useful to their gullible members. Union Leaders should be jailed for the frauds they are - they have brought Britain to her knees and rob the taxpayer of services for their own greedy end.

Our Armed forces should be getting about triple the current budget at any rate. Social Services in the UK get over £150bn to look after a bunch of lay about nobodies - and thats just the staff ... our countries defence, on which so much relies, is given a pittance of £33bn and expected to fight a war on at least two fronts as well as look after our interests abroad - Social Services on the other hand make sure lazy folk get hand outs and kids who don't get enough ice cream/TV from their parents are taken away from their 'vile' parents.

Build the carriers AND upgrade Nimrod, ignore the unions (they have no power anyway when push comes to shove!) take the money from Social services, fire about half the council and government staff and make Britain Great again.
26

Senga Jean,

Scotlan 27/03/2008 09:02:05
What could we do in Scotland with just a fraction of the cost of Trident? (or illegal wars, London Olympics,Northern Rock etc etc never mind our own Oil revenues) Makes any Unionist scaremongering pale into insignificance! The Labour Party waste these vast sums but ignore poverty. Labour clearly have a vested interest in sustaining poverty, deprivation and misery.
27

Farky,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:10:24
Only a couple of weeks ago there was the usual scare stories of doom and gloom. How defence contracts would dry up if Scotland were to gain her rightful independence. Ah... They appear to be in great doubt anyway. The benefits of having Westmister holding our hand in this big bad world!
28

Linda,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:20:43
26 and 27 are spot on.

And here was me thinking it was only the SNP and Independence that threathened defence jobs.

It would be impossible for SNP or any other government in an independent Scotland to lose as many defence jobs as has been lost in the last 50 years.
29

oder,

Scotland 27/03/2008 09:30:10
a convincing case for Independence? bug****d if we do and Bug****d if we dont! the biggest threat to Jobs in Scotland is Westminster politicians is there now any doubt?
30

Mr Grumpy,

You missed the point 27/03/2008 09:33:45
The real point is that the Government is using the lives of our soldiers, sailors and airmen as a political football. They threaten to do, or not to do, this or that and the only ones who really suffer are the service personnel who are placed in life threatening situations with the wrong equipment, faulty equipment or none at all.

We need to tell these posturing prats that the military is there to protect us as well as them, and do a really shitty job that the majority of us would baulk at, sometimes in killing other people in hand to hand fighting in the Afghan villages. How do you think these men and women feel about being used in this way? Because they don't have a say in the matter it doesn't mean they don't care.

Politicians need to realise that they are playing with people's lives, (the God complex), and if they want to do that they should be made responsible for the results, like turning up on doorsteps to inform next of kin that a loved one has been lost as a direct result of them being scoring points in the House of Commons, or against the nationalist movement in Scotland. I'd include Alex Salmond in this as well.

That would instill a sense of responsibility in their decision making processes.
31

Publius,

London 27/03/2008 09:36:00
Couple of points:
1. Nimrods. According to the article "Angus Robertson, the SNP leader in Westminster whose constituency includes RAF Kinloss, said there was a pressing need to replace the Nimrods currently in service. They were introduced in the 1980s and one crashed in Afghanistan in 2006 with the loss of 14 lives". Any SNP supporter care to tell us how many Nimrods an independent Scotland will have in its air force.
(2) Aircraft carriers. Unless we are going to fight a conventional war on the other side of the world, we don't need aircraft carriers. The days of empire are long gone so we should abandon this proposal. I think Brown only agreed to it because building the carriers will provide jobs in his own back yard. But we do need frigates, destroyers and submarines to protect the seas around Britain. For the price of two aircraft carriers we could get a lot of these.
32

Mr Grumpy,

Fife 27/03/2008 09:50:10
I tend to agree with Nr 31. I would add that because service men and women can't influence the Government it's up to us to do that for them.
33

oder,

Scotland 27/03/2008 10:05:28
31 Publius,London
Westminster Government says Scotland we make up 9/10% of the UK defence budget, should Scotland go independent all military hardware split up. 10% of how many exist!

your strategic thinking is slightly out as well carriers make your military versatile as it gives them base or if you like Island at sea were they can operate anywhere, politically it prevents governments have to a
depend on foreign governments to assist in any crisis! it is unwise to put yourself in a situation were you can not deal with it,but you might get what you think,there is no one like the British for shooting themselves in the foot.
34

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 10:08:44
31. Publius

I think you miss the point. Angus Robertson was calling for replacement of unsafe, aged aircraft in use - i.e pointing out that service men and women were being put at risk with out of date and unsafe planes and equipment.

35

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 27/03/2008 10:23:55
This story must be wrong, these things will only happen when Scotland becomes independent, wont they?
36

,

27/03/2008 10:24:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Paddi,

27/03/2008 10:29:00
if you want carriers you need escorts, frigates, destroyers and subs to protect these vessels. we aint got any more frigates and destroyers as labour have decimated the Navy.

More broken promises , just like Broon lying about 1500 troops coimg out of their hiding place at
Basra airport.

Where has all or money gone???
38

Hamilton,

27/03/2008 10:57:25
It is possible that Britain will have a new defence policy following this week's visit by the French president.

France is currently drawing up a new policy of its own, on the instructions of President Sarkozy. However he has already announced a new military base in the United Arab Emirates, just across the Gulf from Iran, to help stabilise the region.
39

SeriouslyAmused,

Ayr 27/03/2008 11:49:45
It seems to me Scotland is being pushed around over defence contracts, especially the Clyde. Prior to the election we were fed a constant reminder of the Union dividend in the shape of destroyers being built at BAE Systems with the tantalising prospects of aircraft carriers and MARS ships to come, meaning a boom on the Clyde that would last a generation at least.

What do we have in reality? Half the destroyers envisaged, the MARS vessels will be built in South Korea and an ever slipping schedule for the aircraft carriers.

I guarantee that come nearer any election we will be promised all of these things again, or threats they will never come if we are naughty and don't vote the way London wants. Perhaps it is time to be realistic and stop hanging on for crumbs from London and truly build our nation and support our industries ourselves. Other countries do it, and they don't wait for tidbits from anyone else.
40

Publius,

London 27/03/2008 12:00:13
#31 Oder

I think you are mistaken. Large aircraft carriers are large targets. In 1941/2 are grandparents thought they could maintain the British empire in the Far East through naval power, but the Japanese sunk our battleships and that was the end of the empire. In the 1982 Falklands War it was touch and go whether the Argentinians would sink our aircraft carriers. In the 21st century a large target on the surface of the sea cannot be protected against a determined enemy.
But my point is that the days of empire are over. We need to protect our islands and our trade around the islands. We certainly need a navy to do this but not aircraft carriers. Submarines are probably the best defence. And submarines with Trident are the surext deterrent. An enemy can never be sure of destroying a submarine.
41

Nobby Clarke,

Kettering 27/03/2008 12:28:28
#9 Dave
you are spot on there. This country has had it thanks to mcbroon and bliar and I've been here 60 years, my grandad fought in the navy in ww1 etc etc and I'm wondering what for.
42

Sedov,

Scotland 27/03/2008 12:42:26
As a worker who has in the past been made redundant because of the withdrawal of defence contracts with no alternative work, we need to devise a socialist programme of public works and manufacturing jobs to replace the weapons of mass destruction. We can start with making affordable baby equipment and disabled aids instesd of banging rivets into war ships.
43

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2008 12:44:23
21 Yockel-what could we use to bomb Port Stanley-submarine launched cruise missiles.
23 Astarte-if u think the Falklands shud be given back to their"rightful owners"(???) Argentina then maybe Scotland shud return some of the Islands to the Vikings?

In general I can only think of one word to describe the MoD-pathetic! As for the government in general-they could not run a medium size business succesfully-let alone the United Kingdom
44

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2008 12:47:19
The existing Invincible class vessels are approaching thirty years old. It would not be practical let alone cost effective to extend their lives. the new carriers will have an in service life of forty yrs as i understand it. As to the F35 maybe the MoD shud have looked at an upgraded Harrier rather than this costly option.
45

rovingjourneyman,

anywhen 27/03/2008 13:15:02
To 40 Publius,

The reason that the Japanese managed to sink our Battleships (Repulse & Prince of Wales etc) was that these ships sailed with no aircover. An aircraft carrier with fighters would have provided intelligence on approaching bombers and been able to defend the fleet.

The japanese learned this lesson themselves a few years later when the Yamato was sunk by the Yanks.

Also Pearl Harbour was intended to take out the American Carriers, NOT battleships.. The carriers survived to support landings across the Pacific.
If we want to ba able to go anywhere in support of other nations (Likr so many seem to think we should do) then we need a mobile runway for air support, because we cannot always depend local bases or on the american carriers.
46

Royc,

London 27/03/2008 13:15:22
You need aircraft carriers to provide air cover over RN ships. Escorts are needed on the main sealanes, as our oil, much of our food and materials all come by sea. On their own, the escorts in the Gulf and elsewhere are highly vulnerable to air attack. In any hot situation, there will only be Carrier Battle Groups at sea, comprising an aircraft carrier plus anti-submarine and air defence destroyers and frigates plus a tanker and replenishment ship.

The major problem in all this, apart from the MOD being woefully incompetent bean-counters, is that the Blair government has cut defence spending down to 2.2% of GNP rather than the previous 2.5% or needed 3.2%. Where's the money all gone? - off to pay for schools and hospitals cos there's votes there, even though the money has largely been completely wasted on consultants salaries and so on.

Mind you, the SNP would be if anything worse, their plan is to spend the absolute minimum on defence or equipment, so forget proper equipment or defence jobs, it ain't going to happen under Eck either.

Throw the whole lot out, bunch of useless ingrates.
47

Geoff,

27/03/2008 13:19:22
45 Rovingjourneyman, 46 Royc-both good and informative posts for anyone interested in the debate as opposed to Nat-Uni point scoring!
48

Geoff,

27/03/2008 13:19:23
45 Rovingjourneyman, 46 Royc-both good and informative posts for anyone interested in the debate as opposed to Nat-Uni point scoring!
49

oder,

Scotland 27/03/2008 14:13:43
40 Publius,London 27/03/2008 12:00:13
No I am not mistaken, I made no claim to or for protecting Empire, although it is possible to use it for that but not exclusively for the purpose.
the term I used was crisis that cover`s a wide range of situations.

The US navy operates the super carriers and properly protected you cant get near them the result is none have been lost.

I will however concede that there is a very real danger to British service personnel whose live are in the hands of penny pinching British politicians who are quite willing to risk our service personnel live to make themselves look good for the voter.

The Falkland war was caused by the British Government when they announced that the Ice Patrol ship Endurance was to be withdrawn from service for fiscal reason. (to save money) creating the dangerous situation that Britain was not interested in the Islands. (an invitation to the Argentines to invade) not likely to happen now the UK maintains a credible force there, must be because of the oil reserves.

As for British ship losses in the campaign, had another cost saving idea from British politicians not been
implemented (namely scrapping Britain airborne radar capability) the losses would have reduced considerably.
the British the inventor and world leaders of the airborne radar system had in the beginning, had no airborne radar they did receive later on a three Westland knock up helicopter versions, poor second rate stuff!

As for protecting our trade in the British Islands witch is significant but it pales in comparison to our world wide trade.

there still exist significant reasons both political and strategic for the carriers!
50

Jwil,

27/03/2008 14:46:46
Whether its the Nimrod order or the aircraft carrier order thats abandoned it will be one less reason to stay in the Union.
51

Tris,

27/03/2008 15:40:23
~17. Ayreshire Scot

"Oh, I thought these contracts were only at risk post-independence? David Cairns said so."

Ummm.... I hope you're sitting down Ayreshire Scot... it is just possible that wee Davy was telling us fibs....

Breathe deeply now....
52

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 27/03/2008 16:02:04
#49 Oder.

Aircraft carriers cannot be protected from missiles from near space, so, guess what sort the enemy is going to use!
53

David Ban,

04620 Vera 27/03/2008 16:46:08
#23 Astarte

We really do have the know how to run our country. We need to compete in the markets and build things that the world needs. First of all we must get rid of the Marxist baggage and people need to get off their backside and "WURK"! Most of all we need leaders who believe in Scotland and the Scots- I have to say Wee Eck is a start, but there must be others.
54

David Ban,

04620 Vera 27/03/2008 16:47:25
#23 Astarte

We really do have the know how to run our country. We need to compete in the markets and build things that the world needs. First of all we must get rid of the Marxist baggage and people need to get off their backside and "WURK"! Most of all we need leaders who believe in Scotland and the Scots- I have to say Wee Eck is a start, but there must be others.
55

Stefania Alvarez,

27/03/2008 16:52:26
Number 23 ...
Astarte,Giffnock 27/03/2008 08:37:52

The naive nonsense you spout ... really !!!!!

Yes it would be a lovely world if we did not need military force to defend ourselves
... however the reality of the situation is that we do !!!!

You and stupid pacifists like you simply play into the hands of our enemies.

Your childish stupidity
... and your simplistic opinions

... merely show a lack of any understanding of the real world and real politics.
56

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:20:31
can someone tell me which countries are about to invade these islands that we need to spend so many billions on warfare?
57

pehman,

sussex 27/03/2008 17:23:04
This is what Des Browne was trying to use as a threat last week.

He was trying to say voting SNP would mean no defence contracts for Scotland.

The reality is he's fcuked again
58

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:50:37
I wonder if PM Brown-nose discussed this with the husband of that fashion model at the Anglo-French (as described by the BBC at first) summit meeting this week after the dinner with the queen of England?
59

Andrew Allan,

27/03/2008 17:52:36
Using fear in the areas the government are scared witless of losing votes to the SNP, what's new in that old westminster establishment tactic, just one of the divide and conquer methods used throughout history to hold onto power in areas they shouldn't still have after all this time.
60

boudica,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 17:59:57
is it true Wee Eck is considering osama Saeed as Scotlands Defence Minister ?? hahaha
61

GM,

27/03/2008 18:00:42
It does seem starneg that in the same week this 'newspaper' prints -

1, a story about an independant scotland not getting awarded any defence contracts and then

2, a story detailing how the current labour led government are putting scottish defence contracts at risk


Shurley Shome Mishtake?
62

Andrew Allan,

27/03/2008 18:12:03
#60.,boudica.
'is it true Wee Eck is considering osama Saeed as Scotlands Defence Minister ?? hahaha'

Is it true boudica,that westminster is thinking of england first, and nobody else afterwards ?? hahaha, oh yes!! hahaha
63

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 19:42:53
Is it true that Gordon england-Brown-nose is doing his best to deny that Scotland exists?
64

boudica,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 19:46:45
No it isnt ...Is Wee Eck putting Scotland first when he writes to the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mugabe and you think that the Rest of the UK should ignore this fact The SNP havent changed much in 70 yrs still aligning themselves with those the majority in the UK deem as enemies ..even though the UK Immigration Policy now barrs anyone from outside the EU from coming here ..but what does Wee Eck do ...When told by His Curry resturant Owner mates came out with Racist statements concerning None Asians and their inability to Cook a Curry or Wait on tables that they need Thousands of men a year to come and take up these jobs every year otherwise the Curry Shops will all have to close as they are the only ones that can cook it " Properly " now if it was a White Resturant owner saying only Whites can cook their dishes ..what do you think would have happened ? So Wee Eck waddles down to the Home office to try and intercede for all the Curry Cooks to be allowed to come here ..and why do these Curry houses have such a large turnover of staff each year ? and were do they all disappear to after the year ?..Wee Eck has to keep Osama and his mates happy otherwise he loses a lot of his supporters and he cant have that can he..another thing Wee Ecks Westminster Expenses Claim was £130.000 ...He rarely goes to Westminster so what was he spending around 13.000 a month for by my reckoning he never went near it after the Scottish Election for over 100days and as rarely made an appearance since his election ..and he said he wasnt in it for the Cash ...Right we believe him ..Not ..He has proved himself not only a hypocrit but a Greedy one at that ..
65

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 19:56:58
So you don't like curry, however it is true that Gordon england-Brown-nose is doing his best to deny that Scotland exists or that he could think of himself as scottish (at least until after the next general election) as he wraps himself in the england flag - the union rag which is mistakenly seen by most english as the flag of england, except of course for the english nationalists
66

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 20:08:11
and the english are not fooled by his pathetic speeches about Britain and being british
67

Shamus,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 20:12:44
The Clyde is of course the best place to build the Carriers. But the SNP do not share the same defense values as the UK Gov. The SNP want our defense on the cheap. Hoping that the US will be our salvation like they were in WW11. The uk Gov would have every right to award the contracts to English Yards. The SNP cannot have their cake and eat it. The SNP SHOULD HAVE THE BOTTLE TO SAY they do not want anything to do with NATO and do not want the contracts.
68

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 20:17:48
Shamus

as an indepenedent country Scotland could/would want to be part of NATO.

However who are the US going to save us from? What countries do you think are likely to try to invade us in the next 20 years for example
69

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 20:23:37
got to go, early start tomorrow, but happy in the knowledge that the LondonControlledSoCalledScottishLabour party is still in denial and still in a sulk and heading for oblivion
70

Shamus,

27/03/2008 20:45:48
#68. Who would have thought the Nazis would have had any invasion plans. You are naive. No one knows what is going to happen in twenty years. History has shown you have got to be prepared for anything. You did not comment on the who should get the Carrier contracts.
71

Astarte,

Giffnock 27/03/2008 20:53:30
Oh Dear! I seem to have raised the wrath of the politically unwashed! #55..Stefanie Alverez has assigned naivete to the intention of my remarks and has declared me a member of the league of "stupid pacifists" while reaching to the depths of her limited vocabulary to praise the lord and pass the ammunition.As I have stated before in this column I know a thing or two about the world economy as an business woman in International Commerce. I meet with the movers and shakers of progressive ideas in many countries and this leads me to comment on the stagnant state of our limited resource-based enterprise. I listen to the ideas of big world palyers Stefanie,"Je vais faire tout mon possible pour comprendre et employer les nombres correctement". I retract nothing from my previous remarks.
72

,

27/03/2008 20:59:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

Thistledhu,

Fife 27/03/2008 21:25:27
if the uk breaks up will the contracts for cariers go to scotland no off course not.

Will they go to English yards No not a chance( the only large scale vessal ship yards in England with any credence are on the tyne and the mod took two logistic vessels from them last year as they were so far behind time and sent them to the clyde for completion)

the reality is they would not happen at all England on its own would be on a political strategic and military par with the likes of Holland, sweden, and Italy how many large Aircraft carriers do they have?
74

indune1,

Canada 27/03/2008 21:43:50
68 - Sure hope you are not a financial advisor with your forward-thinking views.

As to an independent Scotland's desire to become a member of NATO - that process is a two-way street.

It would depend on what Scotland proposes to bring to the Alliance. How would her membership strengthen the overall collective deterrence and defence?

That may be a hard sell.

As to the carriers, they should be built but your whole system of defence procurement needs a complete stripdown and rebuild.

Cost overruns - for whatever reason - only give gutless politicians the easy way out.

75

indune1,

Canada 27/03/2008 21:57:28

71- You may move amongst the "movers and shakers" of this world but, judging by your French, seldom in France.

Also, what exactly are the international economic circles that within you purport to be such an important player?

Your views seem to be based on a fairly ignorant understanding of history and a strange mixture of anti-military but pro-capitalist, globalist financing.

As to the BC procurements - you may want to check your facts before you fall flat on your prat in front of your omnipotent "movers and shakers".

BC Ferries placed their order to Flensburger - a German shipyard - two years ago.

I suggest you buy a PC, get on the web or change your social and working circles that seem to have you a bit dizzy.
76

Cartboy,

Canada 27/03/2008 22:06:18
Part of the problem with the proposed carriers has been the inability of Brown in both his present and past capacities to commit to their construction. By pushing the start date further and further into the future, he is increasing the cost and the possibility for future cost overruns. The UK as a state dependent on maritime commerce needs the carriers to defend its interests, which cannot always be solved by polite discourse.
77

Thistledhu,

27/03/2008 22:23:32
Gordon Brown for years was perfectly happy to allow tony blair take the flack for the contrversial desicions and then step forward to take the plaudits for any apparent success.

Gordon Brown is an administraitor not a leader.

Im sure there is a post office he could run somewhere in Fife (if there is any left)
78

Tris,

dundee 27/03/2008 23:02:52

#77... I'm sure there's a post office in the South East of London he could run. We wouldn't want him back here. They probably haven't closed many down there anyway for fear of upsetting all the Tory voters.

And then there's that other house we are paying for in London for him. Wouldn't want him to have to sell it ... not with the state the property market is in due to complete financial incompetence... wooops, remind me, what job did he used to do?
79

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 27/03/2008 23:27:12
To the tune of the old Robin Hood.

Gordon Broon in Rosyth toon
By the lonely docks by the quay (deliberately phœnetic)
He left some naval vessels there & now they're going aweigh.
And when he turned roon they closed Rosyth doon
Gordon Broon, Gordon Broon, Gordon Broon.

That was about the Devenport fiasco but turns aroon comes aroon.
80

indune1,

27/03/2008 23:49:50


Gordon Broon, Gordon Broon,

governin' withoot a ken,

Gordon Broon, Gordon Broon,

with no idea of why or when.


He steals from everyone,

And gives to his own,

Silly bun.

Gordon Broon.
81

oder,

Scotland 27/03/2008 23:53:46
52 Rulesbutnotrulers,Federation, not separation
you said

Aircraft carriers cannot be protected from missiles from near space, so, guess what sort the enemy is going to use!

that`s true for any ship are you suggesting no navy at all? no large carries have been sunk! that's the point!
as for your near space missile quite sure that the US naval defence chiefs are aware of threat and will devise a strategy to combat it. the Vulcan gun system was design specifically for dealing with high speed low level sea skimming missiles and has a high success rate its only a matter of developing the technology something the the Americans are very good at, have to say Rulers your post reminds me of the British governments announcement in 1957 when they said because of the advent of the missile aircraft were obsolete! now thats how to get it wrong!
82

somerferg,

Perth 28/03/2008 00:07:20

#64

Oh dearie me you seem to have your knickers in a twist! The problem with that sweetie is that your post makes you sound like a real idiot! Just ranting on about nothing in particular and insulting Alex Salmond is the MO of the pro-unionist numpties such as AM2. It is really quite entertaining to watch people like you squirm when you know deep down just how good the SNP government has been for Scotland. Perhaps you should just lie down in a darkened room for a while and come back to posting when you grow up.
83

Larry Hallatt,

Chesley Canada 28/03/2008 01:57:09
Air Craft carriers are attack ships that require a flotilla of protection ships, destroyers, missile cruisers and submarines. The cost of a flotila is at least double the cost of the carrier.

Nations today need to pool heavy equipment procurements. Supply aircraft replacements, as well as, Naval task groups should be jointly purchased and jointly manned by a mixture of nations.

Naval task groups today are too expensive for individual modern nations in times of peace.

The UK should consider pooling a European Union task group (Atlantic group) and maybe a Commonwealth task group (Pacific Group) with Canada, Australia, New zealand and India.

Participating nations would pro rate costs based upon population and provide seconded naval personnnel in the same proportion. Senior officers and commands could be rotated.

In times of hostility or conflict any nation that choose not to participate could lease its share of the fleet to the remaining participants engaged in a conflict.

All sailors would be in the Uniform of the Task group not in national colours.

Vessels could be built on a tender bases and procurements balanced out between nations over a five year spending program in proportion to a nations
contributions.
84

Patrick/Edinburgh,

Here and There 28/03/2008 06:42:25
I do have one comment to make and that is something that makes the story credible that we should all take serious. Would it be possible that the estranged woman who desperately looks like she needs to be carried of by a few sailors and is searching for me in the ad that sometimes appears about this story: can this ad be placed in the mens washroom? It really doesnt look good unless we want to help the sailors and given the cost over-runs, could she be the problem? I almost thought these advertisments were going to be placed somewhere else and not embedded with the story.
85

Orpheum,

Port Coquitlam, BC 28/03/2008 09:49:23
Indune # 75. I am a French born Canadian. Not a French Canadian, so please explain to me which conjugation of the verb in Astarte's French you find improper? The structure of the sentence she used is easily understood and bears the feminine conotation. Please reply in French!
86

Steve Deecars,

The Neuk 28/03/2008 10:26:52
This happens everytime with a Labour goverment, I remember in the 1970's forces pay was so bad that the children of married servicemen were entiled to free school meals.
87

indune1,

Canada 28/03/2008 11:02:12
Suggest you first learn to punctuate properly.

Afterwards, I might consider pointing out the obvious in Gernman - a language you French should understand quite well.
88

Annlass,

Toronto 28/03/2008 19:31:55
#87 indune1 ..Stop evading the issue! Please try to construct a sentence before offering a critical view of punctuation. Astarte's French is perfect and Orpheum's structure is pointed. Now pick up the gauntlet and respond en francais per request and assure this old retired French teacher that you understand both the language and the idiom. Now start, and remember the first high school lesson; Vous savez qu'il n'est pas possible de former une phrase sans verbes. I'm waiting, you have four minutes.
89

indune1,

Canada 28/03/2008 22:05:36

85- Je vais faire tout mon possible pour comprendre et utiliser les nombres correctement". That would have been a better sentiment in regard to the context of the article.

I found Astarte's use of the French language in support of her rather muddled and frightening logic, pretentious, pompous and condescending.

By the way 85, you display typical French arrogance and snobbery. You seem to imply that that fact you were born in France makes you eminently more qualified than a French-Canadian to comment on the use of the French language.



87 - I am not avoiding (vice evading) the issue. I just got home from work.

Je croix que vous avez posez la question parce-que vous n'acceptez pas mes sentiments concernant l'histoire.

Ne ruse pas avec moi! Dormez-vous bien et bonne fin de semaine.

By the way, I lusted after my French teacher. First thing I looked for in my Roget's were terms for the female anatomy!

Je m'excuse!
90

indune1,

28/03/2008 22:41:45
*Please enter your comment*
91

indune1,

28/03/2008 22:42:35
90 - that wasn't a a request or plea - I just pressed the wrong button!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In