The UK Government has refuted claims that an independent Scotland would continue to build ships for the Royal Navy.
In the recently released ‘Building a New Scotland: an independent Scotland’s Place in the World’, the Scottish Government set out proposals for an independent Scotland’s place in the world.
On shipbuilding, the paper states:
“Scotland is already home to renowned shipbuilders and has significant shipbuilding capabilities which can be seen by the work undertaken by both BAE[49] and Babcock[50] in delivering world- leading ships for the Royal Navy. This Scottish Government’s intention would be to use the capability of Scottish yards to create the maritime capability for the navy of an independent Scotland.
Companies in an independent Scotland would also be expected to be in a strong position to compete for UK Defence work, following a recent change in UK naval procurement policy. The UK Government published a refreshed national shipbuilding strategy in March 2022, confirming that the procurement approach for all UK naval ships is now to be decided on a case-by-case basis and can be open to single source procurement, UK competition, international competition, or a blended approach comprising UK and international competition.
This Scottish Government firmly believes that the world-leading capability of Scottish yards would continue to be attractive to the UK Government in the period beyond independence and we do not believe the expertise that exists there would be easy to replicate elsewhere in the UK.”
However, I spoke to someone relatively senior in the Ministry of Defence on this, wishing to remain anonymous, she told me:
“The Scottish Government’s expectations for the shipbuilding industry post-independence appear to overlook several considerations. Our policy of commissioning ‘complex’ Royal Navy warships exclusively within the United Kingdom is driven by imperatives of national security and the safeguarding of sensitive technology. Consequently, an independent Scotland would regrettably be positioned outside this established policy framework, rendering the continuation of such contracts highly problematic.
Furthermore, the challenges associated with adhering to international defence regulations, notably ITAR, are substantial. For a newly independent state, these challenges would be formidable. It’s also important to clarify that the procurement of naval tankers from South Korea does not indicate a shift in policy towards the construction of complex warships; it remains a policy firmly applied only to support vessels. Considering these aspects, it appears that the Scottish Government’s optimistic outlook fails to fully engage with the detailed realities of defence procurement and the intricacies of international regulatory compliance.'”
A statement by a previous Defence Minister, Phillip Dunne MP, reads.
“Had the independence vote gone the way that he and his colleagues would have liked, no warships would have been built on the Clyde, because the United Kingdom Government would not have chosen to build them there; we made that very clear.”
More recently, and on the record, the Ministry of Defence themselves told me:
“UK Defence supports more than 12,000 jobs in Scotland and more than £2 billion is spent annually with the local defence industry. Scotland is home to the Royal Navy’s Type 26 and Type 31 frigate building programmes, RAF Lossiemouth and the UK’s submarine fleet, with the nuclear deterrent protecting every person in the UK, every minute of the day. HMNB Clyde is one of the largest employment sites in Scotland.”
It continues to baffle me that, in this age of instantly available information from multiple sources, politicians will repeat easily disproven claims like this.
For over a decade, the SNP has been claiming naval shipbuilding would stay in Scotland after independence, and for just as long the response has been that both internal policy and international law will make that the least likely scenario.
If you put a little bit of thought into your rant you would realise it is disinformation. SNP has never said RN shipbuilding would remain. There are and would be other navies around the world who procure naval ships! RN are not the only ones!
And they’d likely have similar security requirements – or at least strong pressure from local shipbuilders.
Just like the ferrys.
Just like HS2, Ajax, Challenger, the Victoria Line, Track and Trace, London Sewage upgrades, Cross rail and many many more? The ferries were a design and build contract, ie developmental exercise, which has highlighted flaws in procurement processes, just like MoD etc!
Oh, the SNP has never claimed RN shipbuilding would remain? Did you skip over the entire statement in the article above?
“This Scottish Government firmly believes that the world-leading capability of Scottish yards would continue to be attractive to the UK Government in the period beyond independence”.
Take note of the complete absence of a reference to international orders in the full statement. Scottish yards are kept open by Royal Navy orders; given how few export orders for ships the UK has had in recent decades, are you so blinkered as to believe those yards would survive solely on export orders and a handful of OPVs?
If you’re going to accuse me of ranting about disinformation, perhaps don’t do it on an article where the evidence disproving you is on the same page?
Your read too much into obvious comments and assume whatever narrative fits what you want to believe. Being ‘attractive’ is not the same as stating that RN would and should continue to build in Scotland. At present in the current constitutional and economic climate yes a lot of work is undertaken for RN. Nothing to do with being blinkered, if you read I have never stated certainty, which is what you have done. The options are there and in any event if the current yards could not attract further orders then the relatively few jobs in comparison with the population associated with them would need to change. The whole premise of independence is not built around maintaining employment for those 25,000 or so. But other ships are built. The problem is that the arguments base themselves on shipbuilding only meaning naval warships. If RN could get better value from ordering outwith UK then why not? But that is up to them. The other side of the argument is also that Scotland cannot be independent because it would mean having to relocate Coulport and Faslane nuclear and weapons storage facilities to somewhere in England against local wishes, loss of north sea oil, loss of electricity generation, and many other things. Westminster is against because of what they would lose but do not spell that out.
I’m sorry, but how am I the one reading into things and assuming a narrative? I’m quoting an official statements from the SNP and government, referencing official policy, and extrapolating based on recent history and current trends in ship orders.
Meanwhile, you’re denying that the SNP claims Scottish yards will continue to receive UK naval orders, despite regular public claims to the contrary.
As for stating certainties, you stated “SNP has never said RN shipbuilding would remain”. You’re wrong, but you’re stating a certainty nonetheless. Whereas I didn’t even say that RN orders for Indy Scotland were impossible, simply “the least likely scenario”.
The Clyde and Rosyth yards are naval shipbuilders, owned and operated by defence contractors; they don’t build civil ships. Merchant shipping is dominated South Korea and other east Asian nations with far lower manufacturing costs, specialised military yards. Regardless of independence, the UK shipbuilding industry as a whole has already recognised that their commercial future in the civil sector is dependent on small quantities of specialist vessels that leverage the UK’s advantages.
“If RN could get better value from ordering outwith UK then why not?” For the reasons stated repeatedly elsewhere; the security and strategic benefit of being able to design and build your own ships, and the legal requirements of regulations like ITAR.
I’m not arguing about the other aspects of independence, it’s not relevant to whether or not shipbuilding continues in Scotland.
In reality, no Royal Navy or UK work would come to Scotland in the unlikely event of Independence. There’s no way the majority of people in the rUK would stand for it. The events that would play out would see the manufacture and people would go south and to Belfast. That would leave empty warehouses.
Future intentions cannot be predicted with anything like the certainty you make. The reality is that NOBODY has said RN would continue with orders. That is a false narrative spread about by those creating political mischief. You have fallen for it!
There are NO offical statements, policy documents which have ever said that a foreign country (specifically in this case rUK via the RN) will continue to place orders for warships with Scottish Yards. You are completely misreading what has been said. SNP has NEVER said Rn shipbuilding will remain. Do some research and quote from what has actually been said.
Err why not read your own words? “Continuing to be attractive to..” is NOT the same as saying RN would and must still build ships in Scotland? This whole thread is the complete and utter misinterpretation of that statement. How do you know those yards would not continue to survive? And if they don’t – they don’t! The Scottish yards do not exist solely to build RN ships, and being currently structured as they are that is quite obviously what they are ‘best’ at. It does not mean they cannot be re-structured or even compete for international orders. You are assuming that a future unknown situation will definitely occur with that future predicted outcome. While possible it is not fixed or certain. Your rant was based on a point of view of one possibility based on that singular misread statement, which cannot and does not mean any certainty. That is the whole point of my responses. The disproof is contained in your own words!
“Scottish yards would continue to be attractive to the UK Government in the period beyond independence and we do not believe the expertise that exists there would be easy to replicate elsewhere in the UK.” Maybe they haven’t said it _will_, but they seem to strongly believe the UK would continue to.
The fact is other naval forces will have the same issues with using Scotland facilities as the UK navy (based on the comments of the unnamed naval officer)
Your comment may or may not be true at the indeterminate and hence unpredictable future date. Your assumption that a ‘belief’ must be interpreted as a future Scottish Government would be able to require RN to build ships is patently wrong! Nobody, but nobody has said they must or even will. The fact that a facility of proven expertise remains available is not the same as it being required to be used.
So apart from the Type 26 and Type 31 what ships are we building for the Navy’s around the world? the government can even
get 2 ferries built by a company that they own! sorry we the Scottish taxpayers own
The Scottish taxpayer doesn’t own this company, as a united kingdom we all pay towards the tax system
You are going off at a tangent, trying to ‘prove’ something in the future that is based solely on a current situation. Making assumptions about a singular future intention does not mean it will occur. The whole and only fact is true, the capability and expertise, unless asset stripped, will remain available. That is not the same as saying that RN must continue to use them. You are falling for the misleading lines of a third party (unionist) statement trying to create a so-called truism and falsely assigning it to past administrations. Nobody has said that RN would continue to use. They merely say that RN could if they wished do so.
Again ITAR.
If you have equipment onboard a ship that is under ITAR rules then the WHOLE SHIP (!) comes under ITAR rules.
Ask BAe about it and the 400Mil USD fine they received when they flogged the 3 x T23 to Chile and did a few other ITAR no goes.
I deal with ITAR a fair bit and its an admin nightmare. Get it wrong and you (personally and the company) are on the receiving end of massive penalties both monetary and for future access to contracts.
Hi Nick, I take great offence to the claim we’re publishing disinformation.
Two of the last four First Ministers have insisted the building of Royal Navy warships on the Clyde would continue “regardless of the constitutional future of Scotland”, one of them saying so to me at Bute House as part of the Scottish Defence Series we were publishing at the time.
Perhaps most famously, during the independence campaign, Salmond said: “Yes, we will. The Royal Navy will continue to order ships from Scottish yards, based on that these are the best places to produce these vessels”, this is all on record.
I’d also ask you a question: who are these navies, and why haven’t they done so already?
No they haven’t stated it WOULD continue. They may well have stated that it COULD continue, and inferring that the option remains available. I suspect it is more about an inaccurate interpretation of a case. If you think about it how on earth can a different administration assert that another will (or will not) do something, and how can such a third party enforce it. How could an independent country state that another must place contracts with it? While it may well be some sort of wishful thinking that it could continue and there is a logical financial and jointly shared enterprise and shared defence logic behind that position it is a long way from authoritively claiming that it will happen especially when they do not control what contracts are let! Shipbuilding is a concern of course, but a statement that ‘shipbuilding’ will continue is completely different to a case that for RN warships it would. I have not seen any documentation that asserts that RN warship contracts would still come to an independent Scotland. A possibility remains open but that would be up to the people letting any contracts and not for anyone else to commit for or against. I have certainly never ever stated that RN would continue to build ships here, in fact I support the contention they wouldn’t. The issue is conflating shipbuilding in general with meaning solely RN warship building! And not forgetting that an independent Scotland would also wish to build or procure its own warships. I suspect that a number of naive peope also assume that shipbuilding only means RN warship building.
I am not intending to offend. But there is serious misinterpretation of statements. Alex Salmond has not had any authority for 10 years, so anything he may or may not have said then is seriously out of date. On the basis that Scotland may well remain the best place to continue to build there is a substantial economic logic behind the statement. But Alex, Nicola, Humza, John, any other ad-hoc Minister or spokesperson, and any future independent Scottish administration is not, cannot, and never would be in any position to dictate to RN where it would let future contracts. That is known, understood and blindingly obvious to most. There is also a shared and mutual interest in defending all our islands which is another factor. Given that the current and future set of UK administrations is only too happy to export taxpayer funds when it suits and is expedient to do so who is to say what may or may not happen?
I appreciate the discussion, but I must address some inaccuracies in your arguments regarding the future of Royal Navy (RN) shipbuilding in Scotland post-independence.
First, the claim that the SNP has never stated that RN shipbuilding would remain in Scotland is factually incorrect. High-ranking SNP figures, including former First Ministers Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, have explicitly stated that they believe RN shipbuilding would continue. For example, Alex Salmond publicly said during the independence campaign: “Yes, we will. The Royal Navy will continue to order ships from Scottish yards, based on that these are the best places to produce these vessels.” These statements are on record and reflect an official stance.
Second, while the SNP may use the term “attractive” to describe Scottish yards, the consistent message has been that they expect RN orders to continue. This is not merely an interpretation but a clear expression of their expectations. The use of “attractive” does not negate the explicit claims made by SNP leaders that RN shipbuilding would persist.
Third, you mentioned that an independent Scotland would seek to build its own warships. While theoretically possible, the scale and frequency of such orders would not match those of the RN, which currently sustains the industry. The RN’s current orders are critical to the viability of Scottish shipyards, and the loss of these contracts would significantly impact the industry.
Additionally, the international orders you reference are not a viable replacement. The UK has had limited success with naval export orders in recent decades, and international clients often have stringent security and political considerations that would make Scotland a less attractive option compared to established shipbuilding nations.
Regarding the ITAR concerns raised by other commentators, these regulations impose significant restrictions and complications on international defence contracts. Scottish yards would face considerable administrative and legal hurdles in securing international orders for vessels with ITAR-controlled components, which are common in modern naval ships.
Finally, dismissing the historical and strategic context undermines the broader argument. The RN’s preference for domestic shipbuilding is driven by security, logistics, and economic factors that would likely lead them to relocate contracts to other UK yards post-independence.
In conclusion, the evidence and historical context support the view that RN shipbuilding would not continue in an independent Scotland, contrary to the optimistic claims by SNP leaders.
You need to read your own statement! Believe is a pragmatic term based on common-sense and logic but is not the same as saying it will continue. What politicians say is based on immediate context and something someone no longer in authority said 10 years ago is in fact irrelevant. In the current round of statements and arguments who with any authority continues with that stance? Believing is not the same as will. The whole basis of the debate needs to move from historical statements, and as I have said there is a logic in believing that there are many benefits from retaining the current build strategy, but that is not an assertion for continuing. There is nothing in any current documentation or public statements that continues with or supports Alex’ and now Nicola’s historic off the cuff remarks. Given that the Westminster based economic model about ‘value for money’ and their predilection for buying from other countries when it suits who is to say what may or may not happen until the time comes to actually place an order? The whole argument is a waste of time and in fact political misdirection. Discussions about scope and extent of future commitments is also a waste, intentions can remain valid but may or may not be implemented. So given that range and uncertainty about what may or may not happen in future with the unknown circumstances that may or may not prevail at that time it is extremely unhelpful to try and prejudge assertions about what would happen. The whole world, let alone EU and UK has moved on significantly since 2014!
Perhaps also if the arcticles made reference to the ancient and out of date statements it would help put things into context!
I need to address some key points where there seems to be a misunderstanding, particularly regarding your assertion that I need to read my own statement and your question about current authorities maintaining the stance on RN shipbuilding.
Firstly, regarding your comment “You need to read your own statement!”, it seems you may have misunderstood my points. I have consistently referred to direct statements made by prominent SNP figures.
Alex Salmond, for instance, clearly stated: “Yes, we will. The Royal Navy will continue to order ships from Scottish yards, based on that these are the best places to produce these vessels.”
This was not an interpretation or a vague belief but a direct assertion.
Furthermore, your argument that no current authority maintains this stance overlooks recent statements by the SNP. For instance, Nicola Sturgeon, at First Minister’s Questions, explicitly said: “Scotland wins Royal Navy contracts because they are the best at what they do, and that will continue.” This indicates that the current leadership still holds the expectation that RN shipbuilding will persist in Scotland post-independence.
Additionally, a recent submission to the Scottish Affairs Committee from the Scottish Government, to which I contributed, clearly stated that “UK naval shipbuilding will continue” and “flourish” with independence. This submission reflects the official stance of the current Scottish Government and contradicts your claim that no current authority supports this view.
Your distinction between “believe” and “will” is important, but in this context, both Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s statements go beyond mere belief to assert a strong expectation.
This expectation is part of a strategic narrative aimed at reassuring stakeholders about the economic viability of an independent Scotland, specifically regarding RN shipbuilding contracts.
You refer to old out of date history. There has been ample explanation of what was meant and intended since 2014. That is ten years ago. The world has moved on. If you read your statement perhaps you would have realised this. You completely fail to refer to much more recent statements and publications in relation to this matter, which offer far more realistic and pragmatic understanding of the previously promoted situation. You keep harking back to things Alex Salmond said, over ten years ago. Alex Salmond has not played any part in SNP policies since resigning, also 10 years ago. You still misinterpret what was actually said, and ignore current (and therefore the only valid) statements that have been made or published. The situation remains that there is a skillbase which may or may not be used in future by which time people’s positions will possibly be different. It is not possible nor even sensible to try and prejudge what the future will be. We do know that it is a matter of UK policy that warships are assembled in the UK. Nobody is denying that, but the capability in the event of independence remains available, even if unused for political point scoring reasons. If it is not used after that time that is a matter for rUK, and rUK alone, nobody outside can impose any other decision. All that has actually been said is around this last point. If rUK chooses to ignore current and historic association and capabilities to try and save face or more likely to prejudge political objectives that is up to them. That does not mean that shipbuilding will necessarily no longer exist in Scotland, that is all I am arguing. I and many others (including current politicians which is the only political policy decisions that have any meaning) have never asserted that RN shipbuilding will and must continue in Scotland. So arguing and producing media articles around that false fact does not change the situation. Even arguing about the likelihood of ‘foreign’ orders coming to Scotland is pointless as such a future situation and climate is completely unknown. Yes there will be a range of possibilities and outcomes, but crucially none of them are certain and therefore cannot be asserted as never happening. The term shipbuilding is not solely reserved as meaning warship building! The concept of ‘independence’ is not predicated on maintaining RN warship assembly!
I must firmly address and refute your claims that my references are outdated and that I am ignoring current statements and publications.
Here is a detailed explanation of why each point you make is incorrect:
“You refer to old out of date history. There has been ample explanation of what was meant and intended since 2014.”
Rebuttal:
The statements made by Alex Salmond during the independence campaign are not merely historical footnotes; they set the groundwork for SNP policy on this issue.
Importantly, these statements have been consistently echoed and reinforced by subsequent SNP leaders, including Nicola Sturgeon.
The continuity of this policy is evident in the consistent public statements made by SNP leaders over the years, which have reiterated the belief that RN shipbuilding would continue in an independent Scotland. This shows that the strategic vision articulated in 2014 remains relevant and influential in shaping current SNP policy.
“If you read your statement perhaps you would have realised this. You completely fail to refer to much more recent statements and publications in relation to this matter, which offer far more realistic and pragmatic understanding of the previously promoted situation.”
Rebuttal:
Contrary to your claim, my argument includes references to recent statements and publications. Nicola Sturgeon, during her tenure as First Minister, explicitly stated that “Scotland wins Royal Navy contracts because they are the best at what they do, and that will continue.”
This statement is not only recent but directly supports the position that RN shipbuilding is expected to persist in Scotland post-independence.
Additionally, the recent submission to the Scottish Affairs Committee by the Scottish Government reiterates that “UK naval shipbuilding will continue” and “flourish” with independence, reflecting the current stance of the Scottish Government.
These examples clearly demonstrate that my references are up-to-date and aligned with recent policy statements.
“You keep harking back to things Alex Salmond said, over ten years ago. Alex Salmond has not played any part in SNP policies since resigning, also 10 years ago.”
Rebuttal:
While it is true that Alex Salmond has not been actively involved in SNP policies since his resignation, the strategic vision he articulated remains a cornerstone of SNP policy. More importantly, Nicola Sturgeon and other senior SNP figures have maintained this stance, indicating that the policy has not fundamentally changed.
Sturgeon’s recent statements and the Scottish Government’s official submissions continue to reflect the expectation that RN shipbuilding will persist in Scotland.
Therefore, my references to Salmond’s statements are relevant as they are part of a consistent policy trajectory that has been upheld by subsequent leaders.
“You still misinterpret what was actually said, and ignore current (and therefore the only valid) statements that have been made or published.”
Rebuttal:
I have not misinterpreted what was said. The statements by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are clear and unambiguous in their support for the continuation of RN shipbuilding in Scotland. Moreover, I have provided recent and valid references that align with this policy.
The recent submission to the Scottish Affairs Committee and public statements by Nicola Sturgeon explicitly support the position that RN shipbuilding is expected to continue in Scotland. These are current and valid statements that directly counter your claim that I am relying on outdated information.
Your assertion that I am relying on outdated statements is incorrect. The documented evidence shows a clear, consistent, and ongoing position of the SNP regarding RN shipbuilding. Statements by Alex Salmond set a policy direction that has been upheld and reinforced by subsequent leaders, including Nicola Sturgeon.
The recent submissions from the Scottish Government further support the relevance and importance of these statements. The economic realities and dependencies of Scottish shipyards on RN contracts remain unchanged and critical to their viability. Therefore, the argument that RN shipbuilding would not continue in an independent Scotland remains well-supported by both historical and recent evidence, firmly countering your claim that I am relying on outdated information.
Nick, I appreciate your detailed response and your emphasis on the uncertainties of future political decisions. However, I believe there are several critical points where our perspectives diverge, and I’d like to clarify my stance further to address your concerns.
You correctly note that statements from Alex Salmond are now over a decade old. However, the foundational policy vision these statements established has been consistently echoed by subsequent SNP leaders, including Nicola Sturgeon, as recently as during her tenure as First Minister. For instance, Sturgeon stated: “Scotland wins Royal Navy contracts because they are the best at what they do, and that will continue.” Despite these consistent claims, the reality of political and economic circumstances must be considered.
The statements made by SNP leaders are part of a strategic narrative aimed at reassuring stakeholders about the viability of an independent Scotland. However, this narrative does not align with the practical realities of defence contracting and political decision-making. The continuity of RN shipbuilding in Scotland is not just about political promises; it’s grounded in economic and strategic logic. However, this logic also dictates that future RN contracts will likely be awarded based on broader UK strategic interests, which would likely shift away from an independent Scotland.
You rightly emphasise the distinction between belief and certainty. While SNP leaders may express a strong expectation that RN shipbuilding will continue in Scotland, this is not a guarantee. The decision ultimately lies with the UK Government, which will have its own strategic priorities post-independence. Given the importance of national security and logistical considerations, it is highly probable that the UK would prefer to consolidate its defence contracts within its remaining territory.
The political and economic landscape has indeed evolved since 2014, and this evolution underscores the uncertainty surrounding future RN contracts. The SNP’s stance, while optimistic, does not account for the pragmatic considerations that will influence the UK Government’s decisions. The expectation that RN shipbuilding will continue in Scotland overlooks these critical factors and is not supported by the current strategic environment.
In conclusion, while the SNP has maintained a consistent narrative regarding the continuation of RN shipbuilding in an independent Scotland, this narrative does not align with the practical realities of defence contracting and national security considerations. The historical and recent statements by SNP leaders reflect an aspirational vision rather than a guaranteed outcome. The economic and strategic logic suggests that RN shipbuilding would not continue in an independent Scotland, contrary to the optimistic claims by SNP leaders.
Thank you for this engaging discussion.
All the other navies need to look at the Ferry ships that Scotland is building and they will run a mile
Maybe. But they are two little ships of new technology, for which expertise and knowledge was absent from within UK, from a small yard unconnected with warship construction, itself far too small to build large warships. Ferguson’s is not a warship building company.
Basically if the SNP leadership states it, the devoted followers consider it to be fact.
Ship building
Borders
You name it.
The RN ships will not be built in Scotland. End of story!!
Fortunately , the likelihood of independence happening anytime soon ( eg 30 plus years) is very unlikely.
I’ve yet to see any UK plans to transfer the current ship orders south of the border. If there are any the cost in both delivery of ships and the prices would be placed into a complete spin and the SNP knows this. The other issue, ‘skills’ would also be a critical element in moving the programs south. A more likely outcome would be a planned transfer over a ten year period and incentives to take along the Scottish personnel with them.
I haven’t seen any plans to transfer ship building if the Clyde runs dry either, both are about as likely to happen.
Indeed. In the unlikely event independence does happen, it’ll be like Brexit; a drawn out process that takes years to action, with transitional periods for various industries.
Given the build speeds for the facilities at Rosyth and the Clyde, we’d likely be looking at 3-5 years to construct the facilities and transfer enough personnel to begin new ship construction. That’s too long a period to delay existing orders, so any disruption in the T26 or T31 programme wouldn’t be TOO likely.
Why do you repeat this misappropriated line? Nobody in SNP has ever said that RN shipbuilding would and must continue. Shipbuilding will but it is an obvious fact that RN contracts would not, subject to the politics of whoever is letting the contracts. There are other ships than warships! Competitively it is be difficult of course, but an industry employing a very limited number of people is not something to base any wider argument around.
Nice to see you accept facts.
However it is a moot point. Indy is effectively dead
The truth is irrelevant, if you repeat something enough many people will believe it, even if there is good evidence it’s a complete lie. Just look at Donald Trump, the true result of the last US election is irrelevant to his followers, it was as always will be a stollen election…the evidence that this statement is a lie is irrelevant as long as the lie is repeated over and over.
Same with his present Court case it’s political ‘hate’ rather than an independent judiciary and an objective jury finding for was what was a literal fact as the physical evidence shows that he did what he was accused of. And ironically this man physically warped the Supreme Court to his agenda when fate gave him the opportunity to do so, clearly hypocrisy isn’t a subject he acknowledges the existence of either let alone truth.
Your first statement, is one the Propaganda minister Josef Gorebel preached and look where those lies ended.
So are you agreeing with the statement then?
Only the first two lines of Johnathans post
What’s wrong with the other statement ? It’s pretty much on point around what happened to US politics after the 59th presidential election in 2020…completely dominated by what was essentially a big lie told over and over..”Trump, won but he was robbed by a deep state conspiracy”…and no matter the evidence that it was a lie , people believed it and the more it was stated the greater the belief.
I Was just replying the first sentence you wrote was one although slighty different was almost the same as Goerbals wrote and I remembered it from a book I read years ago that was all Johnathan
I think it was from the “ the mind of Adolf Hitler”, Langer 1972…essentially he stated of hitler and the third Reichs creation of the concept of the big lie:
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
But unfortunately the lies always “hold” if repeated enough, no mater the road they may take people down..it’s a sad powerful fact of human society…it’s why China has 3 million people engaged in political warfare activities…spinning out lies into the west…the lies are irrelevant as long as they sow discord and discontent.
What’s the US election got to do with a stolen, which is a type of cake made in Germany and Austria particularly at Christmas?
Trump loves his cake mate.🤣😂
SNP: We can have our cake and eat it.
UKG: The cake is a lie
UKG is a lie as has been demonstrated time and time again. Why do you make a statement like that, or are you hoping that somehow it will turn out to be true. SNP have never said what you have gullibly believed put about by people other than the SNP!
Hmmm, which one of us is delusional I wonder. Must be me because who but the insane can truly judge what is sane and what it not. As for your opinion, I merely summarised the article above for the TL;DR crowd so effectively you are calling George gullible?
The point is that the bald simplistic statement you make is a load of rubbish! Not based on anything real.
There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear.
of course you can eat your cake, [if you own the cake]
but in this instance, you may find ,that they [ snp ] may own or partake in most of the ingredient’s, but the government of the uk. owns the cake.
and will ultimately decide where it is cooked?/
just saying like.
Quite correct, but the SNP have never said that rUK would still place RN orders with Scotland!
That clarifies much Nick. Investment by what are essentially rU.K. corporations in Scottish yards would end. An independent Scotland could look at sub-contracting themselves to European countries once back under Brussels rule.
If Scotland do go back to EU then maybe they could compete with other EU countries for shipbuilding but France sees military contracts as it’s own province.
rUK Corporations will invest where their shareholders are content, exactly as they do at present. Why lump a nation (Scotland) as a sub-contractee? You spoilt a debate by your last sentence. Brussels’ rule! They never did, you just fell for the lies and propaganda. Brussels rules were followed when the civil service and politicians decided. I wonder how much better off ordinary people are now we are out of EU? Those facts speak for themselves. The only people promoting Brexit were those who would benefit financially, (usually the money launderers), and didn’t care about the consequences. You conflate a lot of misinformation and only listening what maintains your narrative. Aside from the thread digression the point is that the SNP and supporters never ever said that RN would still be required to have hulls built and fitted out in Scotland. Only those trying to create diversionary arguments stated the obvious and tried to imply something else.
Not correct that those who promoted Brexit were solely those who would benefit financially. Many voted re the issue of “Sovereignty” having become dismayed by both the quality and quantity of decisions being taken by the bureaucracy in Brussels that affected UK. The move towards a Federal European State was/is unacceptable.
Independence is dead.
SNP Mantra is simply Scotland Good vs England Bad, SNP is Scotland so vote SNP if you hate England / Tory.
So ignore the fact that English Taxpayers subsidise the Scottish Government and Scots pay higher Taxes than English do. And it is a very crude way to try and stir up Nationalism as a counter to the Scottish Labour Party (which may just be about to wallop the SNP).
SNP Mantra is English voters forced Scotland out of the EU and Scotland will re enter the EU following an Independence vote.
So ignore the entire EU entry requirements that insist on certain financial conditions that an independent Scotland couldn’t meet. And also adapting the Euro has been a mandatory requirement since 1992.
SNP Mantra Scotland will keep the £ post independence.
It may be called a £ but it would not be underwritten by the Bank of England so given the financial mess an Independent Scotland would be in the Scottish £ would tank. That’s due to high tax, losing the Barnett Formula, taking on a share of National debt etc and the mass unemployment caused by Industry leaving.
SNP Mantra UK will continue to build Warships for the RN post independence.
Reality is that it would be a necessity to continue the builds in hand or lose capacity for a generation. But nothing else would be ordered and UK would have to generate new SB in England, Wales and NI.
In short they are living in fantasy land and spout garbage, which is why they have never managed to get a majority of population to vote for independence.
I am a Scot, a Unionist and European. In that order !
Lot of assumptions there, English taxpayers do not subsidise scotgov. Every penny earned in Scotland goes to Westminster, we get pocket money back. Only high earners get taxed more. Not everyone. The lowest earners actually get taxed less. The labour party are not about to wallop anyone. Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain part of Europe. Until Scotland regains independence and it’s true worth is revealed who knows which financial requirements could or could not be met? If joining the euro has been mandatory since 1992 then how is it certain EU countries still haven’t adopted it? The Scots pound is older than the English pound. What would your English pound be called? Currently trades as GBP. But if GB no longer exists you would have to change it. Wouldn’t need the Barnett formula, all taxes raised in Scotland would stay in Scotland. Share of debt? Why? Scotland has no debt. What about share of assets? Mass unemployment? Think of all the jobs required in setting up independent Scottish departments. Which industries will leave? Most industries are multi national, why would they leave? Especially if Scotland changes to a more favourable tax regime. Which it could do when independence is regained. Would Babcock or bae be happy to abandon their up to date Scottish facilities and spend millions replicating them a couple hundred miles south just for a slow unreliable drip feed of one or two UK gov orders every few years? In short unionists are living in one dimensional fantasy ok and and spouting garbage which is why the snp have been in power for 16 years and counting. I am a Scot and a European . In that order.
Scotland would never be allowed to go debt-free, they’d be expected to take their share of the UK National Debt
I’ve had discussions before with Nick Cole about the “English Taxpayer does not subsidise Scotland” claim, and it keeps cropping up. The simple facts are that more tax money is spent in Scotland than is raised. Scotland’s budget deficit is 9% of its GDP whereas it is 5% for the entire UK, which would be lower for rUK because Scotland drags it up. Therefore in the event of independence Scotland would have to either spend less money or raise more tax, making your “more favourable tax regime” unlikely if the SNP also wanted more benefits as they have stated. Businesses are more likely to spend in Scotland because it is attached to the large London financial markets, where independence would make Scottish finances less stable and so less attractive to businesses.
You say that Scottish shipyards wouldn’t move because they wouldn’t receive orders from the UK gov anyway. Have you thought about what orders would come from the Scottish government? The SNP say in the paper above that they would want “Frigate-sized vessels” but in the first few years of independence there is unlikely to be money to spend on developing a navy (Scotland would be unlikely to inherit ships, aircraft etc. unless they agreed to take on their share of the debt. That’s fair, because all of them are assets). As a result, there would be no orders for a few years unless industries moved South.
You don’t expect Westminster to publish figures showing Scotland to be richer than England do you? How naive are you? How many poor oil rich countries are out there? Oh wait.. I was forgetting that Scotland’s oil ran out in 2014, or was that a lie!? Surely not!
The figures were from the Scottish Government website, the same one that published the paper. The 9% figure was including oil revenue (higher than usual in 2022-23) , without that it would be 15%.
I’d rather you directly answered the claims I made, rather than making vague aspersions. Go on, have a read of what I wrote. Find a bit that is openly false. I’ve found real statistics to answer yours, so put the effort in.
The thing with the Scottish government website is that it’s run by civil servants, the civil servants in the Scottish government are actually employed by Westminster, it’s not always as clear cut as it would first seem.
So you are suggesting that Civil Servants are corrupt? That is presumably the same group of people who wrote an extensive paper on the assumption that Scotland would function as an independent nation, which seems inherently contradictory.
Not at all. My point is that the civil servants all answer ultimately to Westminster. Any figures put out on website come from UK gov. Just because it’s published on scotgov website does not mean they are SNP figures. It’s all a bit smoke and mirrors.
And why does that demean the value of the statistics?
If that does not reflect the actual state of the country then it’s been falsified and that’s corruption.
If the statistics are correct that validates my point.
Which is it?
Civil servants publish figures given by the politicians . Are politicians corrupt? Yes. They are. They will gladly falsify and be economical with the truth to further their own interests. Protect the union and the Scottish cash cow at any cost. Can you honestly say to me that you think politicians are not corrupt?
That’s why we have the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. They have no political oversight and exist only to provide the real facts to government and the population at large. The politicians choose what statistics to use and where, but they can’t change the statistics themselves.
It’s not politicians responsible for those numbers and you know it.
Why, in a debate about how more money goes into Scotland than comes out, do you insert a snide remark about “cash cow”? That’s entirely the argument I just provided a counter for.
Now build an actual argument based on open evidence and logic rather than insinuations and cynicism.
Not true. SG ministers sign off on anything published on the website. And the data might come from rUK sources, but they are reworked by Scottish officials following SG guidelines, and answerable to SG ministers. I was a civil servant in the SG for a couple of decades.
Go and look at the real figures. Do not make the mistake of assuming that just because the current financial arrangement provides a singular economic model that would apply to everybody else for ever. The facts are that based on the current estimate of Scotland’s resources and GDP it would not need or have a deficit. There is no such identifiable thing as Scotland’s budget deficit. Remember Scotland does not have access to all its financial revenue.
I’m not sure what you think the real figures are if not the Scottish Government website. The figures refer to money spent in or on Scotland relative to money raised in tax from Scotland or businesses based in Scotland, such as oil and gas revenue from the area around Scotland. That’s a pretty fair estimate of what could be expected in the event of Scottish Independence, though if anything income would decrease because of the partial loss of access to the financial markets and spending power or England.
I think it is wishful thinking to just categorically state that there would be no deficit without providing actual evidence to back yourself up.
The overall balance is that Scotland gets more money than it contributes to the UK. It doesn’t matter much that some of the money is pooled and then redistributed because it can be assumed that in the event of independence that money would cut out the middleman and be spent directly.
I’m not sure if your really understand actually how it works. What is spent in Scotland above the block grant is entirely at the whim or otherwise of Westminster, spent on our behalf on things we wouldn’t and often don’t want or object to. Within our GDP and tax revenue we can amply afford to do what we want to do. You make the major mistake of assuming that a future Scotland would continue to do the same things that Westminster deigns to impose on us. Within that level of revenue we have the ability to spend it on what we deem as important not what Westminster spends for us, allegedly on our behalf.
By the logical conclusion of that argument I should declare myself an independent nation and refuse to pay tax to the government because I’d have more money for myself otherwise.
But I’d very quickly lose access to the market of those nearby and actually lose money because a border has been placed between me and the rest of the world that makes it harder to move goods around.
Do you think Scotland is entirely alone? That the rest of the UK is all, always, entirely happy with where money goes? Scotland is not special, but as a geographical distinction it is much easier to make it appear so.
You actually believe the nonsense spouted by the SNP , wow !
You actually believe what politicians tell you? Wow!
No I don’t , you know a politician is lying when you see the lips move
What nonsense? Pots calling kettles black is probably more correct.
It is estimated that the Scottish share of the National dept to be repaid if independence happened is in the region of £23 trillion,how would you pay that back with not much exported??
Realistically the stuff ordered from the independent Scottish yards would be completed as it keeps the skills and gives time while the UK builds up the infrastructure to replace UK shipyards that they had to lose
Look at the facts. For most people on the standard rate they pay actually less income tax. There is no statement that Scotland will reenter the EU, that would be down to public choice when appropriate. Scotland pays taxes too, around half of which are retained by HM Treasury. The other thing the Truss followers completely forget is that taxes are there to pay for public services. Tax cuts mean service cuts, NHS queues, lack of police, potholes, and so on. The Tories (look up how they got that name and what it means) have imposed austerity since 2010, and they still wonder why queues get bigger and look at what Jeremy Hunt did for junior doctors a few years ago. Politics is all about compromise, it is possible for people to prefer one specific policy, but they have to accept all the others including the unconsidered consequences. And aside from anything else if Scotland can’t afford to be independent how on earth do countries like Cyprus, Malta, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and many many more can manage? If all you want is not to pay tax then great but that means accepting the logical outcome.
The worrying thing about the comments about saying ( or thinking) it so it’s true,despite facts to the contrary,are charaçtistics found in Psychopaths and sociopaths .So if these comments are correct! Let’s just hope it’s a lot of blinkered one policy desperate politicians telling fanciful lies. Wokes, fingers in their ears,chanting la la..
The question that needs to be clarified is if Independence happens how long would it take to transfer ship build to England and who would pay for it and how keen would Bae and Babcock be to transferring activities that they have such a commitment in? I presume the SNP are budgeting on the presumption it would not be feasible or at least it would take decades to accomplish. That I’m sure enables them to take this line no matter how specific the response is about not building outside the UK.
If Bae and Babcock wanted to build ships for the UK then they would have no choice to transfer the work out of Scotland . It’s fantasy land to think the UK would allow an independent country to build it warships , it never has in the past and won’t in future
the British government not stupid why do you think they are backing harlands. For rfa fleet. The deal includes a transfer of hi tech from Spain and New apprentice jobs. Belfast will again build ships for navy. It has yards in Scotland can transfer jobs to yards in england and Belfast. Maybe get cheap assets from Scotland if go in dependant.
Are they backing harlands? I’m sure I read last week the whole deal was in doubt because UK gov were withholding loans.
Sensible comments until you get to your ‘presumption’ following which you take that as certainty. If you have to make a presumption it shows you haven’t actually read or researched what they have said. And for the umpteenth time nobody in the independence camp (which includes some Labour and Conservative people) has stated that RN would be required to procure ships from ‘foreign’countries!
So you are in agreement that in the event of independance they wouldn’t be required to procure them from Scotland then- and indeed that delivery would at some point cease?
In which case I can only hope the UK government try to manage that risk and ensure non Scottish yards will be able to meet the demand within a short timeframe
The fact that international corporations decided to invest heavily in Scottish yards gives a very much more reliable guide to the likelihood of Scottish Independence in the medium term than political ambition.
Why on earth is this rubbish still being discussed? Of course any country is in a position to bid for RN contracts, whether they get awarded or not is a politically different matter. Though it has to be said that RN and the rest of the defence sector does in fact buy from around the world already. Whether that is complete ready to go or critical parts and sub-systems. Even the weapon systems on our carriers are not British! Too many people seem to think that shipbuilding only ever means warships.
Sorry but they wouldn’t, Scotland would never get RN warship building contracts as all RN warships are built domestically not in foreign yards due to national security reasons which an Independent Scotland would be a foreign power
Maybe installing some build capacity south of the border would help to reinforce the message. Actions speak louder than words. I always thought it was a mistake to close the Portsmouth build facility. Perhaps something around Liverpool would work.
What message? And yes it makes significant sense to distribute manufacturing capability.
If Scotland were an independent country, it would be bankrupt and a failed state as the UK money would be cut off and then the mass unemployment as all the shipbuilding and military base jobs move south
You fall for the misinformation like so many other gullible people! Why would it be bankrupt and a failed state? Think about it. You make and repeat some fatuous statement with no understanding of the situation.
Because they spend way more than they get in revenue and they get money from the Brits, cut off the Barent Formula money, Scotland will go bankrupt because they can no longer afford their huge spending
Are Scots not Brits then? Not currently paying taxes to UK gov? Interesting.
An independent Scotland would mean a weaker UK and therefore leading to a weaker RN. A weaker RN would, of course, mean less work anyway.
ScotGov has never stated the headline of this article!
Ahem,
“The Scottish Government firmly believes that the world-leading capability of Scottish yards would continue to be attractive to the UK government in the period beyond independence”
The body of the article includes exactly what was said on both sides.
Nick Cole and triple3 = there’s facts that go against what I want to believe lalala!
There’s no dialogue or discussion with zealots. In this case it will always uk/Westminster wrong, snp Scotland right.
Zealots? That argument cuts both ways. Brainwashed and conditioned to tug your forelock to h.m. gov . Westminster right, Scots wrong.
I have no love for Westminster trust me but all Scotland ills are not just down to them. Believing that the UK would build ita ships in Scotland despite all the evidence and statements to the contrary is delusional
Bae are currently hopeful of securing foreign orders for their ships. An independent Scotland would need ships. Where would they be built? The presumption that Scots yard would close is premature. The presumption that any foreign orders would go to English yards that currently don’t exist is also premature.
Nobodies saying that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be capable of gaining orders elsewhere just that thw uk government would not build RN warships there.
Though the fact that the SNP had such little confidence in Scottish shipbuilding that they used Turkish shipyards for their new ferries doesn’t bode well does it?
And given that at the time of the order every Scottish shipyard was working at capacity, which Scottish shipyard would you have chosen? The fact they were at capacity says a lot about confidence in Scottish shipbuilding does it not?
Part of the reason they’re at capacity is their inability to construct ferries without quadrupled costs and years overdue.
This is a shipyard owned and run by the Scottish government. They could have invested more, hired in more staff but could not even trust the yard they own. Instead millions went overseas as the SNP were simultaneously claiming the UK government was betraying Scottish shipyards and that there were no surface ships in Scotland etc etc.
All politicians are liars and hypocrites and the SNP do seem to have a natural talent for it
An independent Scotland, would only be able to afford a few small patrol boats. That won’t be enough to keep Scottish yards open.
How are you sure that you aren’t the one brainwashed? I might be myself but I would never know. All I know is that those Unionists here are able to provide actual numbers and evidence rather than bluster and vague disprovable accusations.
Not Westminster right, Scots wrong, because the majority of Scots made the right decision in a democratic referendum.
Working together right, factionalism and cynicism wrong.
Hypothetically Where would be bae and babcock go? Cammell Laird isn’t big enough for a full warship, and the vacant land next to it has been built on to accommodate a technology park called ‘Ark Royal’. However, i wonder they could be converted for other usese in the future, or the tech park will compliment Cl. Sunderland is looking to turn the dockyard into a studio. Appledore is tiny. However, these are yards would be possibly used for block construction. The only places would be expanding at barrow could be an option. But Harland and Wolff area only seems to be the few options . Is there any other places have I missed?
Jeeze, the arguments.
Has anyone considered that when Scotland leaves, and there is no UK anymore, just England plus really, there won’t be enough money to build any naval ships, other than maybe a few fishery protection vessels?
Ok. That’s not what I asked. Scotland leaves and gets no orders from England so no Scottish ship industry. According to Review of Maritime Transport 2022, South Korea, France, Netherlands, Philippines, Finland, Vietnam Germany, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Japan, Taiwan, Russia, and China. The UK as a whole doesn’t even make it into the 15. Good luck. Scotland has no chance of competing.
.Just because Scotland has an independent syndrome doesn’t mean the rest of us should knock them .Now txt nicely too each other .if not I’ll put a report to Police Scotland and report a possible Hate crime. My Missus Is Scottish its Sunday and the day of rest . I don’t want too wear my Sunday roast
This post is somewhat Sarcastic if you hadn’t of guessed .But she is Scottish
Just to clarify.
Scottish people, are classified under internal and, international laws as British citizens irrespective of any personal views. The country as a whole, all four nations are classified under law as, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Separate to that, England is English not British, Scots are Scottish, Welsh are Welsh and Irish are northern Irish or just Irish but as a whole, one nation we are all classified legally in law, again, irrespective, as British citizens with and all with a British passport.
Scotland has already been told what would happen if it became independent. For example, the World bank and IMF has told the Scottish government it will take part of the national debt calculated on its spending. The EU has stated to be a member it will need to apply like others and there will be a hard border. The U.K. government has stated they will not be allowed to keep using the pound, so too did the EU. So those few examples were pointed out during an independent vote it was also stated and put into law that once Scotland has had the referendum vote, they will not get another vote for another generation. It was signed and agreed upon by the SNP-Scottish assembly and was also voted on by the U.K. Parliament to allow the vote to take place. There will NOT be another referendum on independence for Scotland for many many many, many years to come regardless of what the SNP state! Only the Prime Minister can grant a referendum to take place and only Parliament can vote to allow it to be classified as legal, you all saw how it works the last time and it also needed Royal assent without, any of these steps Scotland can not get independence and that’s the reality.
As for an independent Scotland continuing to build RN ships, this would be a matter for the U.K. government to decide not the Scottish assembly.
They have a job to even build the island ferries
Scots have hardly begun to understand the costs of “independence”. Just start with the Barnett Formula and an immediate cut in public expenditure of 20 %, or a similar increase in taxes, to bring them in line with England.
As Brexit has shown, having your major trading partner turn antagonistic can be painful. Scots should not expect the English to continue to be generous.
And forget the EU. With the deficits it already run, Scotland has a snowball’s chance in hell of qualifying in the lifetime of any of us.
ITAR
Under the ITAR rules if a Ship, Aircraft or Vehicle contains an item that is in the
Munitions List (and it isn’t just munitions!) then the whole item comes under ITAR rules.
MUNITIONS LIST
Scotland will not have any chance of getting ITAR approval for anything for years.
The rest of the UK will be obliged to pull everything out of Scotland PDQ to comply. Anything with ITAR kit in it would need to go or have an export licence approved by the US Govt to move to a third country …they wont give it.
Under the less stringent EAR rules they would be hit for things like maritime radios, life jackets, marine survey equipment, Drilling and exploration equipment (Scottish Oil Industry? Screwed!).
Any claims about Scottish shipbuilding or the defence and oil industry being OK post Indy are not based in real world reality.
If they actually built ships on time, on budget and worked maybe they would get worldwide contracts. But I doubt they can!
There having a laugh, independence is what it says , all shipbuilding for UK with out the Scots should come down south never mind all the bull.
Turn this around is it fair to interpret this as ‘The only reason the MoD buys Scottish ships is political. Should the MoD be freed of this political constraint, would they be free to buy ships that don’t breakdown from either Japan or Korea? In summary, no longer obliged to buy Austin Allegros, instead free to buy Toyota Corollas?