Self-evidently, government is a matter of continuity. Issues pass from one parliament to another and from one government to another and it is not unusual to find the sins of one visited on its successor. So it is with Rosyth, the focus for one of the worst of many bad decisions made by the last government. In 1993, for no discernible good reason (although suspicions of plenty of bad ones), the contract for refitting the new Trident submarines was given to the Devonport Dockyard in preference to Rosyth which was well-advanced with preparations to do the work. Public money already spent at Rosyth was
wasted and the many problems of Devonport, mostly known when the contract was awarded, have involved the sinking of more large sums of
public money into the Plymouth yard. As our Defence Correspondent describes this morning, the latest work at Devonport is far behind schedule, and grossly over budget. In this sort of situation, the Labour Government can do no better than be completely honest about the extent of the problem and its possible solution. The public accounts committee will hear evidence of the
situation this week and its members are likely to be shocked. But there is questionable benefit in juggling the operational schedules of submarines in such a way that they will extend their period of service without refit. The danger in that course of action lies in the impossibility of knowing whether the Devonport work will be done in time for the refit, even if it is put back because the first submarine's nuclear reactor is allegedly running so well. The government at least has the luxury of knowing that it did not create the problems, but neither should it compound them. To that end, the consortium which runs Devonport should be told to get back on schedule and absorb all of the extra cost or someone else will be found to run the yard.
Secondly, simple strategic commonsense demands the retention of Rosyth's skills, and the immediate denial of any plans to cancel the refit of S-class nuclear submarines there.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article