The curious timing of the General Election called by Rishi Sunak was always going to ensure this summer was going to be heavy on the politics.
The election and its aftermath have understandably occupied the attention of much of the business community in Scotland and across the UK in recent weeks.
However, there has been plenty of drama too on the Scottish political front, not just in relation to the election result and Labour’s major success in Scotland at the expense of the SNP but also in the context of shipbuilder Ferguson Marine.
This Port Glasgow operation has been owned by the Scottish Government since it was nationalised in 2019. And a £14.2 million investment announced on July 16 by Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes to modernise and improve the productivity of the yard, which is surely most welcome, did not go down well with some critics of the Scottish Government and Ferguson Marine, to put it mildly.
It is early days, but so far Labour’s answers to how it is going to boost UK economic growth given the ties with which it has chosen to bind itself remain conspicuous by their absence.
As noted in my July 5 analysis. in the immediate wake of Sir Keir Starmer’s resounding election victory, “Labour has, of course, made it plain it will remain within the same fiscal framework as the current Tory one”.
This analysis observed the assessment by the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank in the run-up to the election that “Labour has committed to the same debt rule as the Conservatives, and that rule makes no distinction between investment and day-to-day spending”.
The IFS noted at that stage: “It is also the rule that binds.”
READ MORE: Ian McConnell: Time to stop kicking Ferguson Marine shipyard around
And that is, of course, not the only major stricture Labour has imposed upon itself.
As noted in my July 5 article: “It is difficult indeed to see anything proposed by Labour that is going to make a major difference to the UK economy or living standards, with Sir Keir looking to have boxed himself in on various fronts.
“He is refusing to even contemplate rejoining the European single market, something that would provide a major boost to the economy if it were ever to be sought and achieved. To give an idea of the scale of such a boost, we can look at the cost of the Conservatives’ hard Brexit, which has in broad terms been embraced by Sir Keir with his ruling out of rejoining the European Union, single market, and customs union, and with the new Prime Minister also having made it plain there will be no return to free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area.”
READ MORE: Ian McConnell: A huge majority but Starmer has boxed himself in already
The analysis noted Office for Budget Responsibility chairman Richard Hughes had said in spring last year of Brexit’s effect: “We think that in the long run it reduces our overall output by around 4% compared with had we remained in the EU.”
And it observed Centre for European Reform associate fellow John Springford had estimated that Brexit had, by the second quarter of 2022, reduced UK gross domestic product by 5.5%.
It is clear more and more of those who voted for Brexit have been realising they were sold a pup by the ruling Conservatives and other characters on the Brexit bandwagon.
However, the lack of impetus to do anything to redress the huge damage being done by the hard departure from the EU suggests a widespread lack of understanding of what these huge percentage losses mean for the economy and living standards.
And certainly a lack of focus on the issue.
READ MORE: Ian McConnell: Scottish shipyard divides opinion in ferry storm goldfish bowl
This is all the more lamentable given it is proving very challenging indeed for the UK to generate a decent level of growth.
There has, in stark contrast, continued to be plenty of attention focused on Ferguson Marine in the last month.
As observed in my July 17 column in the The Herald: “To say the Ferguson Marine yard at Port Glasgow has been a political football would be a monumental understatement.
“It often seems, sadly, that those kicking this particular football around do not realise, or far worse do not care, that Ferguson Marine provides hundreds of high-quality jobs in an Inverclyde economy which does not have its troubles to seek. This is lamentable.”
With reference to the £14.2m investment plan, the article added: “Many will no doubt pour scorn on this plan, and will likely not even wait to see if it works before deciding it is a case of good money after bad. Such a dismal attitude would chime entirely with all the politically fuelled derision we have seen to date.”
There was indeed plenty of opposition to the investment in the days that followed.
The column observed that Ferguson Marine’s building of two ferries for Caledonian MacBrayne, the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa, has of course been a troubled tale, leading to the shipyard’s nationalisation.
However, it added: “Ferguson Marine is still operating, and it is encouraging to see Ms Forbes and the Scottish Government getting behind it with an investment plan aimed at enabling the yard to win more work.
“There will likely be other major challenges ahead but that, and the recent troubles, are no kind of reasons at all for anyone to give up on this crucial shipyard.
“Hopefully, in time, even those who have been so negative about Ferguson Marine might get behind the positive drive to preserve the yard.”
This is, as has been amply demonstrated from the reaction to news of the investment and specifically the demoralising degree of negativity, a mighty big “might”.
However, that does not make securing the future of the yard, the jobs of the hundreds of people employed there, and the crucial skills any less important.
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