With the issue of Scottish independence again being discussed, the issue of Royal Navy shipbuilding in Scotland has become controversial once again.

One side, the Scottish government, say that naval shipbuilding would continue if Scotland left the UK. The other side, the UK government, say it would not.


This article is a fact checking article, if you believe we’ve made an error you can submit a correction in line with our correction policy.


“No warships would have been built on the Clyde, because the United Kingdom Government would not have chosen to build them there.”

The issue of UK naval contracts in Scotland has been a hot topic both before and after the 2014 Independence Referendum and even more so recently when several groups indicated that the work on complex warships for the Royal Navy would not go to an independent country.

Nicola Sturgeon earlier insisted that it would be a betrayal to go back the promise to build the frigate fleet in Scotland. Sturgeon said:

“Promises were made about orders to these yards and promises were made about jobs at these yards, and I think it is absolutely vital now these contracts are delivered. These yards have been through some really difficult times with a reduction in the workforce, and they thought that that was all part of the process of getting themselves into shape for the Type 26 and securing a level of employment here. This is about jobs and securing jobs in an industry. It would be a complete betrayal of these yards if there was any U-turn or going back on on promises made.”

The original plan for the Type 26 had been eight anti-submarine warfare variants and five general purpose variants, this changed when five if then were cancelled, with the gap in orders having been filled by five River class Offshore Patrol Vessels and Rosyth being awarded five Type 31e Frigates.

For more on what’s going to be built, have a look here.

Doesn’t the UK build ships overseas anyway?

Before the referendum, many were accused of exaggerating how secure the shipbuilding industry would be after independence. This came about due to comments made by Geoff Searle, director of the Type 26 Global Combat programme indicating that they had no back–up plan to the Clyde if a ‘Yes’ vote was returned. However, the Ministry of Defence, the shipbuilding union and BAE themselves all claim that major warship builds would be reconsidered if Scotland left the UK.

Many in industry rejected this interpretation, advocating the position that no alternative plan did not rule out the possibility of the UK Government rethinking investment in the Clyde in the event of independence, something which was later confirmed by ministers.

“The Government is not making contingency plans because we are confident that the Scottish people will vote to remain part of the UK. No Royal Navy warships have been built outside the UK since the Second World War for national security reasons and we have no intention of doing so in future.”

Many have also misconstrued the building of naval tankers in South Korea for the RFA as a break in this policy, that is not the case. Support vessels like this are eligible to be constructed outside the UK as only ‘complex warship’ construction (such as frigates) must stay within UK borders. Besides, no UK yard bid for the work.

RFA Tidespring

Other than procurement activity undertaken during the World Wars, the UK has not had a complex warship built outside of the UK since the start of the 20th century at least. All of the Royal Navy’s new complex warships are being built in UK shipyards and the UK Government says it remains committed to utilising the strengths of UK industry in this specialist and complex area.

American influence

One key factor that could potentially impact the ability of an independent Scotland to continue with its current level of military shipbuilding is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

ITAR is a set of regulations that govern the export of defence-related items from the United States. These regulations are administered by the US Department of State and are designed to ensure that defence-related items are not transferred to countries or organisations that may use them for nefarious purposes.

To comply with ITAR, countries must obtain a license from the US Department of State before exporting defence-related items. This can be a lengthy and complicated process, and it is not clear whether an independent Scotland would be able to obtain the necessary licenses.

Another factor that could potentially impact the ability of an independent Scotland to continue with its current level of military shipbuilding is the UK government’s policy on building warships outside of the UK. Currently, the UK government has a policy in place that requires all warships to be built in the UK, with the exception of certain naval auxiliaries that may be built abroad.

This policy is based on a number of factors, including the desire to maintain a skilled workforce within the UK, the need to protect sensitive technologies and intellectual property, and the importance of ensuring that the UK can build its own warships in times of crisis. If Scotland were to become a separate country, it is not clear whether it would be able to continue building warships for the UK or whether it would be subject to the same restrictions as other foreign shipbuilders.

An independent Scottish state would be a third-party country not covered by existing UK-US ITAR agreements. UK companies would not have the authority to transfer items and information subject to ITAR licence to their subsidiaries or other companies in an independent Scottish state or a Scottish national without US approval any more than it could transfer such material to organisations or individuals in other foreign states.

Every licence held by companies in Scotland working on ITAR-controlled items would have to be re-approved if Scotland became independent. This is a very lengthy process.

Isn’t Scotland the only location in the UK capable of building warships?

Claims at the time of the referendum that the only option for BAE on the event of independence was to continue to build the ships in Glasgow were refuted at the time by John Dolan, GMB convenor at the Scotstoun yard in Glasgow:

“She was saying that the Clyde is the only game in town. I’m afraid it is not. There’s shipbuilders in Cammell Laird in Liverpool. You have got the A&P Group on the Tyne, who are shipbuilders, and you have got Barrow in Furness.

So to say if Scotland goes independent we will still be building Type 26 frigates… listen, I assure you that if we go for independence we will not be building. We have been told quite clearly by the UK government and I have been told quite clearly that will not happen.”

What are the builders saying about this?

Ian King, former chief executive of BAE, had previously indicated in a letter submitted to the Scottish Affairs Committee before the referendum that shipyards on the Clyde would likely have to close if Scotland were to leave the UK. Mr King said BAE would build the ships at a location compatible with the contract awarding process of the Ministry of Defence:

“In the event of a Yes vote, and as we have made clear, we would be required to discuss the future of the Type 26 programme with our customer, the MoD. It would be for the MoD to determine how the vote affects the final decisions they have yet to make on the programme, including the future location of the build of the ships. We would take our customer’s lead in these circumstances. We cannot determine this outcome in advance, or without the direction of the MoD.”

Babcock, however, has been less clear-cut in their response. The firms chief corporate affairs officer confirmed that there are no plans to move the Rosyth Shipyard in the case of an independent Scotland. Babcock’s John Howie said that the firm’s recent £76 million investment into the Rosyth dockyard proved that the site was “a core part of our business strategy” during a Scottish Affairs Committee briefing.

Asked about a second independence referendum, Lockwood said:

“I lived in Scotland for 10 years and it was a rumbling thing then and I think it’s just going to be a rumbling thing. I think in reality there will be plenty of warning if the vote were in favour of independence. There would then be a negotiation period and at the end of the negotiation period there would be an implementation period.

I don’t think there is anything that we can’t manage as a company. When you look at the timelines, there’s nothing we can’t manage as a company. If we had to replicate this in England because we were told we weren’t welcome here – which I think would be a bad mistake for Scotland – but if that were the decision, we can replicate this in three years, and the time window of negotiations is longer than that. It’s not ideal but it is manageable.”

The company suggests it, like BAE, will stay if it can.

The Ministry of Defence, the customer referred to above by Mr King, has recently made clear that leaving the UK would influence the ‘location of the build of the ships’. The full statement, an excerpt of which is displayed at the top of this article, was made by then Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology with responsibility for Defence procurement and Defence exports in response to a question from Brendan O’Hara, MP for Argyll and Bute, regarding the Type 26 frigates.

“What I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman is that, 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. As it is, as I have just confirmed to the House, we will be proceeding with the construction of eight complex Type 26 warships on the Clyde as and when the programme is ready.”

What about Scottish naval vessels?

Scotland would still need a navy, right? Up-to-date facts on what an independent Scotland would operate at sea, let alone what it would build, aren’t easy to come by. The SNP earlier proposed that under independence, Scotland would:

“Take over existing naval, army and air force bases within Scotland and inherit a share of defence equipment in negotiation with the rest of the UK.”

HMS Forth in Scotstoun, the first of five new Offshore Patrol Vessels.

This leaves seemingly little needing to be built, and any ships that would be constructed would likely be a few Offshore Patrol Vessels.

Professor Keith Hartley recently claimed that the Scottish naval shipbuilding industry would likely end if Scotland left the UK.

“An independent Scotland will presumably have a minute Navy—it will be like Ireland’s, for example, with offshore patrol vessels. It won’t have the demand for deep-water frigates and destroyers of the sort that are currently being built in Scotland, such as the Type 26 and Type 31. It won’t have that demand. It couldn’t afford them, anyhow—the unit cost for a Type 31 frigate is £250 million at least.

I do not know the size of an independent Scotland’s defence budget, but it is not going to be large. I do not think it would put a lot of resources into building advanced warships. In short, no, I do not see a future for a Scottish warship building industry in an independent Scotland.”

Given that the already slow drumbeat of MoD orders is barely enough to sustain the yards, this doesn’t bode well for the yard’s future if Scotland chooses to leave. Put simply, a couple of ships are not enough to sustain one of the largest shipyards in the UK.

The above being said… who knows?

So, there are a couple of things that could potentially cause problems for Scotland’s military shipbuilding industry if the country were to become independent. One is ITAR and the other is the UK government’s policy on building warships.

Right now, as explained above, the UK only allows warships to be built within its own borders, with a few exceptions for naval auxiliaries. This policy is in place for a bunch of different reasons, like keeping a skilled workforce in the UK and protecting sensitive technology.

If Scotland became independent, the country would not be able to build warships for the UK. Even if it didn’t build warships for the UK, and with attempts at attracting export builds at Scottish yards largely failing, would the yards survive building solely for Scotland?

Military shipbuilding in Scotland currently supports 7,500 jobs in Scotland directly, with an estimated 9,000 being supported by the industry, many of which are highly skilled. Maintaining this employment, and a flourishing sector, relies on a regular ‘drumbeat’ of orders.

If not, would the industries that might potentially take their place be able to sustain as many high-end engineering jobs? It’s tough to say for sure how independence would impact Scotland’s military shipbuilding industry. There are definitely some potential challenges that would need to be overcome, but it’s impossible to predict exactly how things would play out.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

47 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_824752)
6 days ago

According to the latest Polls the SNP is about to get hammered by Scottish Labour so it may be pretty irrelevant really.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_824754)
6 days ago

Scotland will have to be content building Scotish ships military or otherwise.

Scotland would need to commit to NATO membership prior to independence obviously.

UK ships will be built in the UK.

I suspect this will be one of the last discussions on this topic for some considerable time.

Andrew
Andrew (@guest_824755)
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

I am pretty sure the SNP are about to be taught a lesson by the electorate that will set back their cause/plans by a generation..

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_824785)
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

Maybe. It will be interesting to see what direction the Scots take. Labour seems to indicate a lack of interest in defence & the remaining parties (bar Tories I suppose) suggest a lack of interest in power.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824795)
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

Maybe but not as much as the lesson to be probably inflicted on the increasingly right wing Tory party. The cause and plans you refer to are not the sole preserve of the SNP! Such causes remain regardless of who politically represents them.

The imperative and priority across the whole of the UK is to get rid of the Tories in government, the short term aims and consequences taking precedence over longer term objectives.

Last edited 6 days ago by Nick Cole
Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_825000)
4 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Increasingly right wing Tories? You must be joking. They have merged into the middle’ish. If only they were to the right we might have a choice next month. As far as getting rid of them is concerned do you really believe that Labour are going to make defence any sort of priority once elected. Their policy document issued two weeks ago didn’t mention defence once. Not a word.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825004)
4 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Huh! Do you actually read the news? It is Labour who moved away from the left, the Tories have moved right and vying with Reform and Farage for the most right wing fascists we have seen. To make a valid decision it is necessary to weigh up all the policies not just focus on one or two specific areas.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_825019)
4 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

If you honestly think that the Tories are right wing you must be coming from a very leftist place. As for Labour moving away from the left a good portion of their front bench including Starmer and Rayner acvtively supported Jeremy Corbyn. The strange thing is I hope you’re right when it comes to Labour. If I’m right God help us. 🙄

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825181)
4 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

On what basis do you really think Tories are not right wing! They lurch ever more right with every passing year, and consider the increasing support moving from Conservative to Reform! That alone tells the story.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_825226)
3 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

I’m sorryNick burt I trerally don’t know where you’re coming from. Almost evry political commentator in the U.K. regard Reform being to the right of the Tories.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825241)
3 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Err, Labour left of centre, Liberal who knows, Conservative right moving more right approaching Reform. Compared to Reform Conservative are to their left! But not as far left as Labour who seem to be also heading right! As for Liberals who knows. Greens mainly left as are SNP.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_825277)
3 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

I still don’t agree that the Tories are moving right but as positioning goes what you say is close enough.🙃

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825482)
3 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Have you only just woken up? If all the extreme right wingers in the Tory party move to Reform then your contention will probably be correct. Statistically it means that the remaining molderate Tories are then the less extreme so by definition it is closer to the centre. However, since those extreme right wingers, Truss, Rees-Mogg and colleagues are still members then they are more right wing. The more right they are the more fascist they become! It may even be the case that the average member is not extreme right wing but sadly the leaders and senior figures tend… Read more »

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_825489)
3 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

I’m sorry Nick but enough’s enough. To call any member of the Tory party a Fascist is not only wrong. It is insulting. Conversation over.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825493)
3 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

There are none so blind as cannot see!
The parable of the Emperor’s new Clothes!
Look up the definition of ‘fascism’.
I suggest you read what I said a bit more carefully and don’t respond to something I didn’t say!
Definitely a case of cognitive dissonance!

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824794)
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Sentence 1, yes that has always been the case, though it should more correctly be written ‘on the open market’, dubious as that is globally. Sentence 2, no it wouldn’t have to commit prior to independence, and in any event it would be a command transition/rebadging of existing resources already committed to NATO, not a new start. Sentence 3 is the known current position, which is subject to possible change by whoever is the decision maker at the time. Sentence 4 is hopefully true, since it is a load of hot air based on msinterpretations that were never correct in… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_824803)
6 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Nick Westminster is the decision maker. Westminster will be under great pressure (internationally and domestically) to ensure that most if not all of Europe remains under NATO protection. We do not want any potential Ukraines anywhere near the UK. It would be a danger to the security of the UK, Europe and frankly the world.

Anyway Scotish indepenence is not an option and probably worth forgetting about for some considerable time.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824812)
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Did I say ANYTHING other than Westminster being the decision maker? Your last sentence is your opinion only. What you want is not the final arbiter. Arguing your opinion about other matters and presenting them as defacto certainty does not helop and it blinds you to all the options. And where apart from your mind has anything been argued about Europe not remaining all under NATO protection. You conflate loads of issues many of which are yet to be decided. Why would all of Europe not be part of NATO anyway? And aside from anything else preventing people from making… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_824816)
5 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Nick there are two many problems with Scotish Independence. Firstly the majority of Scots don’t want it as of 2014. Secondly the whole subject distracted from other issues so much that the whole of the UK are now wary about opening that can of worms again anytime soon. Thirdly support for the NATS seems to be on the decline for a number of reasons. I fully understnad you are keen on Independence and some day I’m sure it will happen however it needs support from the majority of the UK and I see no evidence of that. You must remember… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824826)
5 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Aside from your off-thread diversion, before majing statements actually look at the real facts. Firstly there is not a great majority against independence. There is still a desire for it. Ten years after an event t h e w o r l d h a s m o v e d o n, and circumstances have changed. Just as the political direction at Westminster h a s c h a n g e d! Independence does NOT depend on a third party giving permission. You must get a grip on understanding things more roundly. In politics there are swings and… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_824828)
5 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

I’ll give you this Nick you are persistant. A bald NO is an answer and you sticking your fingers in your ears does not change that. Ask yourself what is in it for everyone, not only the Scots, the Welsh, Irish & English, Americans, Europeans etc. You might think of it as an excellent idea but you need to start wondering about everyone else’s perspective. What problems is it going to cause and how can these problems be resolved. You need a win-win situation for everyone. If people are saying NO there is normally a reason. Rishi caused a blip… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824834)
5 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

You have just exactly illustrated why the union is doomed. the arrogant and dismissive NO is the principle problem. Why should anyone not be allowed to choose their own destiny? Win – wins are not gained by sayibng NO. It looks like you are proposing a Westminster based dictatorship, similar to how Putin, Trump, Hitler, Kim and others have done or try to do. Clearly you think you get what you want and completely ignore others’ opinions, wishes and needs. And what is so bad about an independent country? What is so bad about countries getting together mutually on a… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_824864)
5 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Thus far Nick you haven’t convinced the electorate in Scotland never mind the other countries. The UK is sovereign and democratic. Westminster is just where the houses of parliament are (as dictated by a Scotish King I believe). Everyone is represented. You even have your own devolved Government. Yet Nick is saying that those Scotish voters who said no at the last referendum are a bit dim and have had the error of their ways explained to them and therefore now say yes. Nick – NO is what the Scotish voters said – and they meant it. In another 20… Read more »

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_825232)
3 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

As a Scot and a very firm NO voter.
Well said!!

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825242)
3 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

You are aware that history turns, and circumstances change? If we aren’t allowed to question the status quo why on earth do we have elections? What do you think elections are about anyway. Where does 20 or so years come into the equation? What law of physics that counters history and circumstances defines 20 years? The issue is NOT closed, which can ONLY happen when nobody questions it or has any concerns. Issues, wishes, desires do NOT stop just because a handful of people decree and deny. The issue remained open once it became apparent that the Vow and other… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_825411)
3 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

From where I am sitting there is little mention of Scottish independence. There have been many SNP party MPs lately that have achieved nothing. The other parties have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Independence is a dead duck Nick and the vast majority of Scots seem to just want the Scotish Parliament to work properly.

Everyone has to follow the British constitution Nick – without exception.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825478)
3 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Why does someone replying always have to state the obvious and what is not being questioned? Your last sentence is completely pointless. We KNOW what the so-called constitution is – we don’t actually have one though if you did some research you would know yourself. What we have a is a series of conventions that can be broken on a whim, you only need to look at what Johnson did to see that. Instead of looking within your own narrow bubble look outside it. You may not like the idea of independence (though that position is also taken through the… Read more »

Last edited 3 days ago by Nick Cole
Mark B
Mark B (@guest_825502)
3 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Nick the British Constitution does exist and has been shaping our democratic society for generations. You can’t just wish it away. I don’t read newspapers of any type and I don’t obsess over social media. Thus far we have really only been talking about what Nick and probably many of his buddies wants. You need to manage at least a majority of the electorate preferably much better than that. You need to make it work for everyone yet you probably don’t have the first clue about making it work for just Scotland hence the reason the Scots never bought into… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825506)
3 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

We do not have a formal constitution. It exists in name only and is in fact a series of conventions, statutes and judicial decisions. Look it up. As it is not actually specified it can be modified on a whim as we have seen in recent years. A constitution is set of fixed rules that state how rights and responsibilities are enshrined. Nothing to do with wishing anything away, but within what is laughingly called our constitution there is nothing about denying people a right to choose. The ones without a clue are the ones blindly repeating the propaganda without… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_825592)
2 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

😂 Take that one to the supreme court and argue that. It might not be a written constitution but it doesn’t have to be. There are many books on it and it has governed our lives and those of our forebears for hundreds of years. On that basis alone it exists. You seem to be grasping at straws ….

Last edited 2 days ago by Mark B
Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825618)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

So by definition as you have acknowledged the so-called constitution is not set in stone! You are the one blinkered. If the constitution is not written it can be updated and modified as seen fit. The other thing you are blinkered about is that just because something has been the case for a long time is not a reason for it to continue or be updated and modified as circumstances change. You also fail to see that keeping people in a relationship against their will is also illegal and in fact contrary to the UN convention. I am not grasping… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_825922)
21 hours ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Yes Nick the British Constitution is flexible which is one of the reasons why it adapted so well and lasted so long. That is a benefit. It can cater for change and does so on a regular basis.

That said the basis upon which the British Constitution rests are fundamentally democratic across the entire United Kingdom. So you are still left with that hurdle Nick – how to convince the majority of British citizens it’s a good idea.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_825945)
20 hours ago
Reply to  Mark B

So therefore there is no reason why things cannot be changed. It isn’t a question of the majority. Since it is not a written document then there is nothing to argue about. The constitution does not therefore prevent referenda to suit specific questions. It is the whim and opinion of one person, – the Prime Minister. That is not democractic.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_826075)
12 hours ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Things evolve and so does the British constitution – which is why it is so successful. The method of change is defined by the British Constitution as it is and how it has been historically. You must remember that the PM is under the constitution a person who holds the confidence and support of the House of commons – which was elected democratically. If he/she attempts to do someone which the majority of MPs disapprove of they simply make that known to the King (or they simply resign) and the King appoints someone who hasthe confidence and support of the… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_826133)
2 hours ago
Reply to  Mark B

A decision based on the whim of one person supported by a demographically skewed representation. That is not democracy. Democracy is not something that one identifiable group of people can impose on another against their will. The British constitution is not successful. It works but is nothing more than a series of conventions. That is not democratic. You forget that the union of Scotland and the rUK is based on a treaty. Treaties can be renegotiated and there is no time limit on when they can or cannot be re-examined. You are looking through a prism that says there is… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_826140)
1 hour ago
Awaiting for approval
Reply to  Nick Cole

Nonsense. The relationship is built on the British Constitution. It is system we have and were born into. It might not be perfect but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Was it not the Acts of Union 1707 passed by the Scotish & English Parliaments. “United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain“. Let’s face it Nick Great Britain was created in 1707 and the Scots were given a chance to indicate they wished to leave in 2014 which they declined. Great Britain is defined as one Kingdom – not two. I am merely stating… Read more »

Marked
Marked (@guest_824841)
5 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

They can’t leave what they are not a member of.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824849)
5 days ago
Reply to  Marked

I think your geography is lacking. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland as well as England are a member. They all contribute funds (sent by Westminster on everyone’s behalf) and other resources which have also been built up collectively on their behalf. If Scotland isn’t a member then neither is England!

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_824866)
5 days ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

I think what Marked is saying is that we are all British Citizens as individuals. We elect MPs (in the area we live) who represent us in Parliament. Countries don’t really come into it.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824793)
6 days ago

A more realistic article this time around. Well done. Key things are any future decision is entirely up to the decision makers in UK at an appropriate time. The only real thing to note is that there is no direct or even policy expectation that RN would continue using Scottish yards and expertise in the event of independence. In fact there never has been despite some incorrect assertions and individual comments misinterpreted through out of context quotes. In that regard it should be noted that while the SNP clearly advocate for independence it is not ‘owned’ by them and the… Read more »

Marked
Marked (@guest_824838)
5 days ago

At least a week since this question was last asked…no is the answer, as it always has been and always will be.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824848)
5 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Who asked the question? It has NEVER been asked. Just some media person creating mischief, and everybody else fell for it hook line and sinker. There has NEVER been any policy announcements, documents whatever actually saying your misdirected ‘fact’. Even worse some people have taken a verbal statement (on a par with the ramblings ascribed to Johnson, Truss, etc and invariably taken as some sort of messianic truth).

Nick Cole
Nick Cole (@guest_824852)
5 days ago

This whole concept and argument has been started by someone over thinking the verbal ramblings of a range of politicians from many years ago. At no time has any substantiated policy document ever been published supporting the ascribed assertions. In fact it has been based on a misinterpetation of what was said.

Ryan
Ryan (@guest_824991)
4 days ago

If Scotland went independent, could we genuinely see a crisis in UK shipbuilding and the Royal Navy become, if only for a time, non-functional? What yard could take over from BAE Clyde? A&P Tyne? Appledore? Cammell Laird? Do any of them have the space, facilities or workers? Taking into account the investment on the Clyde which would be rendered pointless, the yard at Rosyth as well, that’s the entirety of the future frigate fleet stopped, a delay in the Type 83 and huge sums needing thrown at another site to get it up to speed which would take a few… Read more »

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_825001)
4 days ago

The speed we’re building at the Tory/Reform party will probably be in power by then.🙄

Zac
Zac (@guest_825017)
4 days ago

No one wants Scottish Independence. The Scottish don’t want it. The SNP doesn’t want it. They should start being honest about their intentions of taking Scotland into being run from Brussels by an autocratic institution, not democratically from Edinburgh.

AB
AB (@guest_825557)
2 days ago

We do love recycling articles don’t we, this is like the 7th time youve posted if this would continue… its getting boring lol

Matt C
Matt C (@guest_825804)
1 day ago

If keeping shipbuilding options open is a “betrayal”, all the more so is talk of independence referendums. “Betrayal” cuts both ways.