ONCE again the remnants of Scotland's once great steel industry faces crisis (“Tata Steel axes 270 jobs and mothballs Scots plants”, The Herald, October 21). It is a story of consistent betrayal as Westminster constantly chipped away at the foundations seeking to justify a policy decision to concentrate production in northern England and Wales.
As we examine any hopes for Dalzell it is worth remembering it is only there because of a massive stroke of good fortune. In the 1990s British Steel purchased a second-hand plate mill from Japan. It did this in secret and planned to build it in Hartlepool. The first ship arrived with half the plate mill and it was secretly stored in crates at Redcar Works. I was tipped off about this and arrived outside Redcar Works to highlight what was going on. A group of journalists and cameras were present and the British Steel press spokesman was assuring them that I was talking nonsense. When he finished I handed my phone to several of the journalists to enable them to speak with a contact in the plant who confirmed what I was saying was correct and naming the exact building within the plant where the plate mill parts were being stored. Eventually I got a phone call from the SNP in Edinburgh to let me know that British Steel in London was now admitting what I was saying was true. I had the pleasure, in front of all the journalists, to advise the British Steel press spokesman to phone head office as apparently British Steel had decided it would have to tell the truth but had omitted to advise their press spokesman at Redcar of the change of policy.
It got its just desserts and the second ship bringing the other half of the plate mill from Japan sunk on the voyage, taking British Steel's plans to the bottom with them. This is but one example of the deceit that has surrounded Scottish steel; I have dozens of them.
The real crunch of course came under Margaret Thatcher when she decided that privatisation was the future. British Steel was early on in the privatisation giveaway programme and it was crucial it went well, so the Government decided to reduce steel making capacity by a huge amount, the idea being that the newly privatised company would be able to sell its entire production easily making big profits on the way. That is why Ravenscraig and Gartcosh were sacrificed.
It didn't work out, the drop in steel-making capacity meant that certain sectors of the market were surrendered to foreign competition. Once these foreign competitors established a foothold in the market they didn't behave as British Steel hoped and gradually expanded into every market sector.
At the time Scotland looked to Labour to defend Scottish steel. It didn't. As recently as the referendum Labour and the unions told steelworkers their jobs would only be safe if they voted No. So here we are again.
Iain Lawson,
27 Ben Lui Drive, Paisley.
ALASDAIR MacKenzie (Letters, October 21) is right that we need a level playing-field when comparing major UK bids with those of foreign competitors, an obvious example being the new Forth crossing steel bought cut-price from China, being surplus to their domestic needs (plus some from Poland and Spain).
Lord Beeching was not alone in considering too narrowly the direct short-term costs rather than indirect, longer-term economic and environmental effects (let alone here any wider national security issues). Contrary to myth, Mrs Thatcher gave state aid of £450million to our steel industry in 1980 and did not privatise it until 1988, enabling British Steel to become a world-leader by the mid-1990s.
Moreover, are we absolutely sure beyond any doubt of the quality, integrity and safety of this Chinese steel? Some months ago there were reports of France's nuclear inspectorate condemning all the Chinese steel for Areva's new reactor, and of concerns on other construction projects due to a particular alloy mix.
With George Osborne, Peter Mandelson et al so keen on China developing our nuclear power plants, such reports are as worrying as potential security concerns over embedded software in nuclear energy installations (viz Volkswagen's, discovered only by chance several years late).
At least the steel closures have not induced the usual "blame Westminster" knee-jerk reaction. With their EU worship, the SNP and Holyrood are in the deep end too.
John Birkett,
12 Horseleys Park,
St Andrews.
IT is sad to see those opposed to the Scottish Government use the closure of the Tata steel work plants at Motherwell and Cambuslang, and the loss of 270 jobs, as a means to pathetically attack it.
The claim made by them is that the Scottish Government is guilty of hypocrisy in that it did not award the contract to supply the steel for the new Forth Bridge to a company based in Scotland. It was instead sourced from China.
Not a single bid for fabricated steel came from a steel company from Scotland or the UK to supply materials for the £790 million Queensferry Crossing. The suggestion is that the condition of the market in the UK meant it did not have the capacity to take on an order of this scale.
A subcontract for steel fabrication was awarded to Cleveland Bridge in Darlington, with raw steel for this subcontract coming from Tata Steel in both Scunthorpe and Motherwell. Tata Steel’s plant in Motherwell manufactures steel plate, it is not a steel fabricator.
Hopefully this has clarified matters and both the Scottish and UK Government’s, as well as opposition politicians, can work together to save our steel industry.
Alex Orr,
Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh.
TATA also makes steel in Corby. It is this "Scottish" town's biggest employer.
Its prospects there will surely be of concern to more than a few readers.
John Gerrard,
41 St Vincent Crescent, Glasgow.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel