Scottish independence referendum, plus jokes.

Wings Over Scotland


Reassuring news relocated

Posted on August 19, 2013 by

Even moderately alert readers will recall our expressing slight concern on Saturday at the recent disappearance of a page from the Scottish TUC website, in which the trade-union organisation outlined its view that the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system would result in a net loss of thousands of jobs in Scotland – a position which is strongly at odds with that of the Labour Party.

stucstreet

So we were relieved to be contacted on Sunday evening by the STUC’s Deputy General Secretary, Dave Moxham, who confirmed that the Congress’s opinion hadn’t changed, and that its full analysis could still be found here.

If you don’t have time to read it all, we’ve picked out a few key points.

“The report demonstrates the inaccuracy of claims that upwards of 11,000 jobs would be lost to Scotland if Trident was not replaced. It finds that the reduction in direct, indirect and induced civilian employment across Scotland would be less than 1,800 and that this reduction would not take place until after 2022.”

“In terms of financial cost the report finds that Scotland will be significantly worse off if Trident is continued… Scotland’s share of the investment cost, at £85m a year, will be at the direct expense of existing public expenditure and could place at risk up to 3,000 public service jobs.”

“Meanwhile the existing £1.78bn annual running costs of the Trident system are already part of the defence budget and Scotland’s share, in terms of tax contribution, is approximately £153m a year. Only a portion of this currently comes back to Scotland to sustain the 1,536 direct and indirect civilian jobs and Scottish Navy personnel servicing and staffing Trident in Scotland.

If Trident was not continued, this existing £153m contribution from Scotland could be released to provide alternative employment for considerably more than 1,536.

The STUC, whose member unions provide the bulk of Labour Party funding, has so far declined to support the No campaign. We can’t think why.

Print Friendly

26 to “Reassuring news relocated”

  1. Gordon says:

    Do you not mean “would NOT result in a net loss of thousands of jobs in Scotland”? 

  2. Doug Daniel says:

    Gordon – no, it’s right enough. “the trade-union organisation outlined its view that the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system would result in a net loss of thousands of jobs in Scotland”
     
    So it’s the renewal of Trident that will result in a net loss of jobs, which is why the STUC is against it, and why any Labour politician claiming to support Trident purely on the back of the jobs it sustains is speaking pish :P

  3. Eddie says:

    I’ve given up even listening to Labour politicians in the hope that they will utter a modicum of truth or even sense.  Listening to truth and the electorate doesn’t match up with their Westminster ambitions and sadly, it falls by the wayside. 
     
    Not that I would ever vote for them, but it would be a breath of fresh air to hear some reasoned argument from them that isn’t utter lies.

  4. Shirley says:

    Yes Gordon, if you go back and read the article properly it is about saving money and being able to create more jobs than are lost.

  5. MajorBloodnok says:

    Rev, very interesting indeed that the STUC picked up very quickly on your earlier article and also very heartening that it would take the trouble to contact you directly to make it clear what its position actually is.
     
    Now if the MSM ran with this that would be remarkable and surely it’s the sort of thing the Telegraph would be interested in, although they’d have to square the bad news for the unionist scare-mongerers with an opportunity to drive a wedge between Labour and the Unions (although Ed’s doing quite a good job himself already).

  6. les wilson says:

    It is no surprise that  this is “overlooked” by the MSM and Labour, well forget any truths coming from them, they are the most deceitful party in the case of Scotland.
    This was true in the last referendum, where we were cheated coming from  the dirty hands of labour, there is no doubt, they have not changed. We need to get across this to the public at large, their dingy needs to  be holed.
    People who know what labour do are slowly making the public aware and of course the pro Indy websites are doing all they can, we need to do more, as does  the SNP and the Yes campaign. We all need to do more. Another thing, we need to monitor postal votes as Labour uses them to the hilt, we need to do the same, when the time comes.

  7. Alabaman says:

    Message to the three “other” parties, –stick that in your pipe and smoke it !!.

  8. Red squirrel says:

    How heartening that STUC abides by its principles with policy remaining in the best interests of members and people in Scotland. More of this please.

  9. Murray McCallum says:

    Looking forward to the official Labour Party rebuttal of these detailed but obviously ridiculous STUC claims.

  10. Atypical_Scot says:

    Watch this if you haven’t seen it on twitter this morning.
     
    http://twitpic.com/d95vu6

  11. Rod Mac says:

    O/T but merits a mention I have had a tip off where Johann Lamont has been since Holyrood closed for summer recess.
    No coincidence her location is in Toom Tabbard Brown area.
    It was apparently his favourite place when there was ever a problem he needed to hide from.
    http://www.secretbunker.co.uk/explore_the_bunker.asp

  12. Murray McCallum says:

    Rod Mac
    Wonder if the 300 bunker capacity was specifically designed as such in order to hold Scottish Labour’s projected membership?

  13. faolie says:

    O/T, but did anyone see Blair McD’s piece in the Sunday Times yesterday? He mentions a Panelbase poll (!) but it was probably the ST’s recent one. Thrust of the piece is that the upcoming white paper had better be good because if the Yes vote isn’t already toast it will be when the white paper doesn’t contain any of the answers because “An already sceptical electorate are now even less disposed to believe grand promises contained in the document”. He also sounds a but worried though about a low turnout for the No vote.
     
    Hard to get this onto archive as the ST is subscription only but I clipped it to my Evernote account first and then archived that. See http://archive.is/TBRsr
     
     

  14. X_Sticks says:

    O/T
    I heard an interesting rumour at the weekend. One that might interest Wings.
     
    I heard that the re-design of the Dundee V&A which moves the iconic Kengo Kuma designed building from a prominant position jutting out into the river Tay to a land based location which is nowhere near as stunning as the original design was because of the cost.
     
    The main element of this cost is the exorbitant amount of money demanded by the Crown Estates for the “use” of the sea-shore where the building “floated” out over the river.
     
    I would have thought that for something which is for the greater good for the city of Dundee would have had some sort of exemption from Crown Estates “tax”, but apparently not.
     
    This would suggest that the Crown Estates in Scotland brings in much more for the treasury than we are aware of.
     
    There may be some interesting information to be had here if anyone has the time/resources to investigate.
     
    It’s yet another pile of Scottish treasure that disappears into the westminster maw which seems to be unnacounted for. Along with oil taxation, oil licensing taxes et al.

  15. D says:

    There are lots of reasons the STUC has not supported the no campaign. One of the reasons is the ideological issues thrown up by Scottish labour blindly following in the path of English labour, thus putting it at odds with many union members and STUC policies. However, one of the main reasons is that the STUC as an organisation stands to benefit from independence.

    Currently most Scottish unions are members of both the STUC and the TUC. The STUC membership fee is only for Scottish members. The TUC fee is based on UK members. Therefore Scottish members pay to be members of an organisation which does not operate in Scotland, by necessity, as that’s the only way to be a member of the TUC, and of course employment law is governed from Westminster. Independence would mean greater political clout for the STUC, and increase in funding and  chance to pursue some of it’s policies which would have no chance of making it through a tory, lib  or lab government in Westminster. 

    I know, as someone who works within the TU movement, that this has not escaped the notice of the powers that be at the STUC or indeed the general council members from unions which currently fund the labour party. The Yes campaign, and particularly the SNP (because they’re the most likely party from that campaign to form a government in 2016) must make a concerted effort not only to court the trade unionists who are already convinced, but to make commitments to the trade unions that make it attractive for them to actively promote a yes vote with their members.

    A start would be to make some guarantees about revoking some of the worst anti-trade union laws, going back to the redundancy legislation guarantees which existed until last year (about collective consultation periods), and the introduction of mandatory equal pay audits for businesses with a minimum number of employees. These things would be extremely tempting to the TU movement, and the leadership of the STUC and could earn the yes campaign many veteran political foot soldiers, as well as votes.

  16. Albalha says:

    @X Sticks
    I understood it was due to a lack of commited funding and on the advice of marine engineers, so don’t know. I’m sure someone in Dundee SNP would have the facts.

  17. Clydebuilt says:

    The STUC might still hold to the views expressed in the report. However is it the case that they have removed the report from their website.
    Presumably visitors to the STUC site can no longer see the report or gain the STUC’s opinion on Trident.

  18. MajorBloodnok says:

    Regarding Dundee V&A – it might also have run up against the issue of potential impacts on the River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in that they weren’t able to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive should any Annex I habitat be lost or be unable to meet its conservation objectives, e.g. with regard to Annex I or II species (e.g. Atlantic Salmon).
     
    To get permission they’d have to a) prove an imperative reason of over-riding public interest (IROPI) argument and b) provide suitable compensatory habitat elsewhere.  Not worth the candle probably.
     
    Or, they could have just run out of money.

  19. scottish_skier says:

    He also sounds a but worried though about a low turnout for the No vote.

    And well he should. A campaign which does its damned hardest to put off its own supporters is really something of an oddity.

  20. Albalha says:

    On the BMC article is it neurotic to be concernced by the amount of promise/expectation of this White Paper, after all we can’t know all the answers? That would mean prediciting the bartering, negotiating post a YES vote, elections in 2016 etc.
    I’d rather voters realised we can’t have all the answers before the vote.
     

  21. gordoz says:

    In light of recent comments about a certain B McD
    if you want a laugh at BT have a swatch at this.
    http://nationalcollective.com/2013/08/18/all-quiet-on-the-1966-front/
    nearly brought me to tears.

  22. Barontorc says:

    Yes – a very big question is what are we going to do about the Crown Estates?

  23. Craig P says:

    The V&A is better off not being built on the waterfront on a windy, exposed site. Looks at the Glasgow science centre and transport museum, surrounded by windswept wasteland, the V&A would have been the same. 
    D, that is very interesting feedback re: STUC. 

  24. GP Walrus says:

    @Barontorc: 
    “Yes – a very big question is what are we going to do about the Crown Estates?”
    In the event of a YES, the SG take over Crown Estates along with everything else.
    Of more interest is, will the three unionist parties commit to devolving the Crown Estates in the event of a NO?

  25. Norrie says:

    faolie 
    Sounds to me like he’s trying to hold onto his job, assurances for his London pay masters?

  26. gerry parker says:

    @GP Walrus
    The 3 unionist parties have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to contemplate any implications of a yes vote.  Means they will be running around like headless chickens when the time comes, looking for policies from their London HQ’s.



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box.




↑ Top