PERCHED on the north west corner of Europe, Scotland has a proud maritime tradition. We occupy a strategically important position on the boundary between the Atlantic and North Sea. We have thousands of miles of coastline, by some measures more than the rest of the UK put together.
Our geography, combined with a skilled workforce schooled in engineering and ready access to raw materials like steel, allowed the Scottish shipbuilding industry to go from from strength to strength, making it the envy of all the world at the peak of the industrial era.
Stories have it that at one point in the early twentieth century, a fifth of all ships in the world were made on the River Clyde in Glasgow.
Shipbuilding plays a key part – an emotional part – in Scotland’s social and economic history. We were, and still are, proud of the feats of engineering and feats of skilled craftsmanship which have given the world such iconic ships such as the Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary and the QE2.
It’s no surprise then that the future of the industry became a key issue during the independence referendum campaign. It was clear to many that the side which could win the trust of the Scottish public on the fate of the industry would be on the way to winning the vote.
That’s why it was so vital to Labour and the Tories, working in partnership under the umbrella of the Better Together campaign, to portray the industry at risk during the campaign.
Week after week of the campaign we saw a procession of Unionist politicians travel to the Clyde to make pronouncements on the future disaster which would befall the industry under independence.
Then Labour leader Johann Lamont was clear. In January 2014, she said that the loss of jobs there would be one of the “real consequences” of a vote for independence that September, and that the only real threat to jobs came from a Yes vote.
“Separation shuts shipyards” screamed a leaflet published at the time by former Glasgow MP Ian Davidson, who was in absolutely no doubt about how only the UK could support these vital jobs.
Former Scottish Secretary John Reid was equally clear when he visited the yard only days before the poll. “A No vote is to protect jobs, it’s for more jobs, it’s for skilled jobs” he said.
These statements were clear and unequivocal. They were absent of subtle nuance or any qualification. They left the workforce in absolutely no doubt about the consequences of the vote, and about the views of the Labour Party.
Events over the past few days have shown up these Labour promises for what they were, worthless politicking from desperate politicians who understood that their time in power was limited. They would have said absolutely anything to cling on to it.
The original plan from the MoD was for 13 Type 26 frigates to be built on the Clyde. This was downgraded to only eight after the Strategic Defence and Security Review published by the Westminster Government in December.
Now with BAe expecting further delays, and Government Ministers unable to come up with a coherent timeline for making progress with the current order when pressed by MPs in the Commons on Monday, jobs at the yard are under threat again.
While the SNP will continue to put protecting Scottish jobs at the front of their priorities, just as we have done in Government for steel jobs in Lanarkshire and workers at Prestwick Airport, Labour have reacted by pointing the finger at others. Their protestations that it’s the bad Tories who have failed to deliver has echoes of playground excuses and is an utter abdication of political responsibility.
It’s no use for today’s Labour leadership in Scotland to try to qualify an argument that was so clearly and deliberately articulated by their colleagues and predecessors. This dereliction of responsibility towards the proud workforce on the Clyde leaves them now to pick up the pieces.
The one positive thing to come out of this sorry situation is that it clarifies the choice facing voters on May 5. The first priority of the new Scottish Government should be to do all it can to protect Scottish jobs and our vital economic heritage.
Voters can give their support to re-elect an SNP Government, under Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister, with a track record of leaving no stone unturned to defend Scottish industry, or a neutered Labour Party who would say anything to win votes, then point the finger at others when their hollow promises are exposed.
Who do you trust to stand up for Scotland?
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here