Today's most viewed
Cost of new Navy carriers soars to £4.2bn
The cost of Britain's two new aircraft carriers has risen by £300m to £4.2bn before the first steel for the ship's hulls has even been cut, The Herald can reveal.
The government is now expected to try to accelerate agreement of the long-delayed joint venture construction contract to ensure that the escalating price tag does not lead to the project being scrapped.
The Treasury pegged the "maximum" cost of the warships at £3.9bn on January 1, 2007, but that figure takes no account of inflation and increases in the cost of labour and materials in the interim.
Both major partners in the venture, BAE Systems and VT in Portsmouth, have still to answer under "due diligence" financial regulations to their own boards and shareholders before they can sign a mutually-binding deal. That, say industry sources, hinges on a number of factors, including MoD recognition of and willingness to meet cost hikes.
However, even if a swift resolution is found, neither HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales are now likely to meet planned in-service dates of 2014 and 2016.
The politically-sensitive carrier contract is designed to underpin about 10,000 British shipbuilding jobs, including 3500 on the Clyde, until the middle to late years of the next decade and is regarded by Downing Street as sacrosanct in the run-up to the next General Election, due between now and 2010.
Whitehall insiders say a manufacturing agreement with the alliance, whose yards on the Clyde and Portsmouth will build most of the modular sections of the ships, is likely to be reached - but still not signed - by later this week or early next.
While this appears to be medium-term good news for the workforce at Govan and Scotstoun and for Babcock's Rosyth yard where the 65,000-tonne warships are to be assembled, it will also inevitably mean delays or cuts in other major MoD procurement programmes.
The Herald has been told that the MoD needs to free up funds for further rises of up to £60m above the £4.2bn before the joint venture can proceed, although there is nothing to prevent the government from awarding the construction contract to a single company in the meantime. The shipbuilder involved could then sub-contract the work to enable construction to begin.
The £2.5bn project to build 11 replacement tanker ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary under the "Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability" program is the first likely victim of delays. Five fleet tankers were due for delivery between 2011 and 2015.
The RFA needs to replace most of its existing tankers in order to meet an amendment to maritime pollution regulations that requires tankers to be double hulled. With the exception of the new Wave-class ships, the RFA has a single hulled tanker fleet which will be become obsolete from 2010, although a waiver can be claimed for government-owned vessels.
A spokesman for BAE Systems said yesterday: "We continue to work with our joint venture partners and await confirmation by the government of its decision to give the go-ahead for the construction contract."
Nicola Sturgeon, deputy leader of the SNP and MSP for Govan, warned earlier this month that up to 400 jobs were already at risk at Govan and Scotstoun because of the delays.
She said: "Even if the contract was signed immediately, and that seems unlikely, work would not begin until July next year at the earliest and that would mean redundancies in the interim as the last work on the final Type 45 destroyer runs out and a gap develops."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 2:20am Tue 13 May 08
[quote]The £2.5bn project to build 11 replacement tanker ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary under the "Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability" program is the first likely victim of delays. Five fleet tankers were due for delivery between 2011 and 2015.[/quote]
The very same MARS Project that [bold]Brown & Browne[/bold] ([italic]those well known fabricators[/italic]) used as emotional & economic blackmail during Labour's scare-mongering campaign 2007 Holyrood Elections.
Yet more trickery with budgets will [italic]Borrower Brown[/italic] never learn
The £2.5bn project to build 11 replacement tanker ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary under the "Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability" program is the first likely victim of delays. Five fleet tankers were due for delivery between 2011 and 2015.
The very same MARS Project that
Brown & Browne (
those well known fabricators) used as emotional & economic blackmail during Labour's scare-mongering campaign 2007 Holyrood Elections.
Yet more trickery with budgets will
Borrower Brown never learn
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 2:30am Tue 13 May 08
[bold]FAO THE HERALD
[/bold]
Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander.
Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies?
I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages.
The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable
[bold]Wardog[/bold]
FAO THE HERALD
Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander.
Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies?
I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages.
The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable
Wardog
Posted by: Beverley, Glasgow on 2:40am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
[bold]FAO THE HERALD [/bold] Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable [bold]Wardog[/bold] [/quote] Well said!
Wardog wrote:
FAO THE HERALD Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable Wardog
Well said!
Posted by: leroy on 4:06am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
[bold]FAO THE HERALD [/bold] Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable [bold]Wardog[/bold] [/quote] Git a grip Mr Editor
Wardog wrote:
FAO THE HERALD Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable Wardog
Git a grip Mr Editor
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
[bold]FAO THE HERALD [/bold] Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable [bold]Wardog[/bold] [/quote] Morning Mr Paranoid! (as we know you will be on this forum rubbing sleepsy's out of your eyes at first dawn, salavating at the prospect of a few slaps on the back from fellow conspiracy theorists - duly delivered by Bev and Leroy!).
Perhaps it is time to consider why the privelage of making comments has been withdrawn from Wendy stories.
In a democrcay it is taken as a given that individuals exercise a degree of responsibility and restraint. You have personally shown in the last 3 or 4 months (since you appeared from a miasma of hot air, bile and bluff in a SNP Web Communications Unit meeting) a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to.
Wardog, it is a low shot for you to continually abuse your opponents with personal critisism and abuse. You abuse me on a seemingly daily basis (even when I have made no contribution to a board), you abuse Wendy Alexander and Jackie Ballie also. You play the man, not the ball.
Perhaps when the nat blog community can concentrate on critising the policy and not the person the likes of the Herald will restore the privelage of commentary on all articles.
It is very frustrating for us genuine bloggers that have a contribution to the debate to be barred due to your antics.
I would like to take this opportunity to make some point about the Wendy story:-
Wendy has displayed a huge amount of ticker in leading Scottish Labour with her own arguments over the last 10 days.
Wendy has the firm support of the majority of Labour MSP's
The last ten days have destroyed the lie that SCOTTISH labour is controlled from London. It is run in Scotland for Scotland and her people.
The SNP's sole policy plank of independence is in dissaray. The SNP have the opportunity to put the question to the people and have neglected it. I predict the next opinion poll will reflect this - the wind is now out of the SNP's sails. They have been shown to negative fight pickers.
Labour, unlike the SNP, is a party of free-thinkers where debate and divergence of view is incouraged and not stiffled. The SNP are a one man band, Scottish Labour are a pluralistic party - open debate and divergence are celebrated as a sign of strength that gives better governmental outcomes.
In short Wendy leads a dynamic and open party, the SNP on the other hand are negative glass-half empty types.
Wardog, when you can contribute non abusive posts maybe then the editor will allow you to comment on important matters.
Wardog wrote:
FAO THE HERALD Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable Wardog
Morning Mr Paranoid! (as we know you will be on this forum rubbing sleepsy's out of your eyes at first dawn, salavating at the prospect of a few slaps on the back from fellow conspiracy theorists - duly delivered by Bev and Leroy!).
Perhaps it is time to consider why the privelage of making comments has been withdrawn from Wendy stories.
In a democrcay it is taken as a given that individuals exercise a degree of responsibility and restraint. You have personally shown in the last 3 or 4 months (since you appeared from a miasma of hot air, bile and bluff in a SNP Web Communications Unit meeting) a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to.
Wardog, it is a low shot for you to continually abuse your opponents with personal critisism and abuse. You abuse me on a seemingly daily basis (even when I have made no contribution to a board), you abuse Wendy Alexander and Jackie Ballie also. You play the man, not the ball.
Perhaps when the nat blog community can concentrate on critising the policy and not the person the likes of the Herald will restore the privelage of commentary on all articles.
It is very frustrating for us genuine bloggers that have a contribution to the debate to be barred due to your antics.
I would like to take this opportunity to make some point about the Wendy story:-
Wendy has displayed a huge amount of ticker in leading Scottish Labour with her own arguments over the last 10 days.
Wendy has the firm support of the majority of Labour MSP's
The last ten days have destroyed the lie that SCOTTISH labour is controlled from London. It is run in Scotland for Scotland and her people.
The SNP's sole policy plank of independence is in dissaray. The SNP have the opportunity to put the question to the people and have neglected it. I predict the next opinion poll will reflect this - the wind is now out of the SNP's sails. They have been shown to negative fight pickers.
Labour, unlike the SNP, is a party of free-thinkers where debate and divergence of view is incouraged and not stiffled. The SNP are a one man band, Scottish Labour are a pluralistic party - open debate and divergence are celebrated as a sign of strength that gives better governmental outcomes.
In short Wendy leads a dynamic and open party, the SNP on the other hand are negative glass-half empty types.
Wardog, when you can contribute non abusive posts maybe then the editor will allow you to comment on important matters.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 6:46am Tue 13 May 08
Scrap th carriers!
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 6:49am Tue 13 May 08
This has Des Browne's lying and procrastination written all over it - he is an incompetent Defence Secretary-the worst since John Nott- Browne cares only for his civil serpents using MOD funds to feather nest them
This has Des Browne's lying and procrastination written all over it - he is an incompetent Defence Secretary-the worst since John Nott- Browne cares only for his civil serpents using MOD funds to feather nest them
Posted by: jomellon, Lodève, France on 7:22am Tue 13 May 08
Is PtbS really The Herald, or really the Labour party? Is here a difference?
Is PtbS really The Herald, or really the Labour party? Is here a difference?
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 7:28am Tue 13 May 08
[quote]Labour, unlike the SNP, is a party of free-thinkers where debate and divergence of view is incouraged and not stiffled. The SNP are a one man band, Scottish Labour are a pluralistic party - open debate and divergence are celebrated as a sign of strength that gives better governmental outcomes.[/quote]
Can't wait until your new book of alternative humour is in print, PTBS, can I place an order now?
Labour, unlike the SNP, is a party of free-thinkers where debate and divergence of view is incouraged and not stiffled. The SNP are a one man band, Scottish Labour are a pluralistic party - open debate and divergence are celebrated as a sign of strength that gives better governmental outcomes.
Can't wait until your new book of alternative humour is in print, PTBS, can I place an order now?
Posted by: Karin, glasgae. on 7:30am Tue 13 May 08
the comments were removed from other articles as well namely the one on local income tax and how you calculate it. This was after i hd commented that i was saving money and the lower your income the less you pay.
I urge everyone if they can comment to put in their comment wether they are buying the herald or not according to how biased the article is or wether comments are allowed.
the comments were removed from other articles as well namely the one on local income tax and how you calculate it. This was after i hd commented that i was saving money and the lower your income the less you pay.
I urge everyone if they can comment to put in their comment wether they are buying the herald or not according to how biased the article is or wether comments are allowed.
Posted by: Karin, glasgae. on 7:31am Tue 13 May 08
PTBS what do you mena like the diveregnece between broon and wendy's friendship.
PTBS what do you mena like the diveregnece between broon and wendy's friendship.
Posted by: Bruce, Ayrshire on 8:02am Tue 13 May 08
The carriers project has been taken over by pen pushers. Millions and millions have been spent on best practice this best practice that with endless rounds of paper shuffling. How long has this gone on? YEARS!
This lot couldn't organise a proverbial in a brewery. Not without legions of consultants anyway. And as to the MARS project - the carrot that was dangled before the Labour electors' eyes.
The carriers project has been taken over by pen pushers. Millions and millions have been spent on best practice this best practice that with endless rounds of paper shuffling. How long has this gone on? YEARS!
This lot couldn't organise a proverbial in a brewery. Not without legions of consultants anyway. And as to the MARS project - the carrot that was dangled before the Labour electors' eyes.
Posted by: John Clark, greenock on 8:22am Tue 13 May 08
Is it TRUE that Wendy married a professor and then, and only then, became a lecturer? Slander is when one tells lies. That is TRUE.
Is it true that her father was connected to the Labour Party hierarchy? Is that TRUE. It is.
Is it TRUE that Wendy married a professor and then, and only then, became a lecturer? Slander is when one tells lies. That is TRUE.
Is it true that her father was connected to the Labour Party hierarchy? Is that TRUE. It is.
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 8:48am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]John Clark[/bold] wrote:
Is it TRUE that Wendy married a professor and then, and only then, became a lecturer? Slander is when one tells lies. That is TRUE. Is it true that her father was connected to the Labour Party hierarchy? Is that TRUE. It is. [/quote] I don't quite understand your point John.
"Is it TRUE that Wendy married a professor and then, and only then, became a lecturer?". Ok John, are you infering any improprietary? Are you suggesting that Wendy has slept her way to the top?
"Slander is when one tells lies. That is TRUE." Well, technically, it is not. Slander is when you 'bad mouth' someone. Don't confuse this with libel, which are you engaging in in a quasi fashion.
"Is it true that her father was connected to the Labour Party hierarchy? Is that TRUE. It is. " Yes, her father knew Donald Dewar I believe, what are you implying?. For your information, Douglas Alexander's father was connected to Dewar also, are you suggesting that Dewar's patronage got Wendy and Doug places they wouldn't have got to by themselves?. The statistical likelihood of that is laughable.
John Clark wrote:
Is it TRUE that Wendy married a professor and then, and only then, became a lecturer? Slander is when one tells lies. That is TRUE. Is it true that her father was connected to the Labour Party hierarchy? Is that TRUE. It is.
I don't quite understand your point John.
"Is it TRUE that Wendy married a professor and then, and only then, became a lecturer?". Ok John, are you infering any improprietary? Are you suggesting that Wendy has slept her way to the top?
"Slander is when one tells lies. That is TRUE." Well, technically, it is not. Slander is when you 'bad mouth' someone. Don't confuse this with libel, which are you engaging in in a quasi fashion.
"Is it true that her father was connected to the Labour Party hierarchy? Is that TRUE. It is. " Yes, her father knew Donald Dewar I believe, what are you implying?. For your information, Douglas Alexander's father was connected to Dewar also, are you suggesting that Dewar's patronage got Wendy and Doug places they wouldn't have got to by themselves?. The statistical likelihood of that is laughable.
Posted by: mt on 8:49am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
[bold]FAO THE HERALD [/bold] Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable [bold]Wardog[/bold] [/quote] Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow
I agree that some of the posts are derogatory and I find some even offensive but that is why you have Quote / Report this post.
If you ban all posts then even ones which are factual and/or offer support are banned.
Wardog wrote:
FAO THE HERALD Can the Herald explain why comments are being continual banned from story's relating to Wendy Alexander. Can you confirm/deny rumours that Scottish Labour are making complaints to the Herald to try and minimise open discussion and criticism of her policies? I think the blogging community on these threads really deserves atleast some kind of explanation on these pages. The papers continued silence on this matter is unacceptable Wardog
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow
I agree that some of the posts are derogatory and I find some even offensive but that is why you have Quote / Report this post.
If you ban all posts then even ones which are factual and/or offer support are banned.
Posted by: mt on 8:58am Tue 13 May 08
"The Treasury pegged the "maximum" cost of the warships at £3.9bn on January 1, 2007, but that figure takes no account of inflation and increases in the cost of labour and materials in the interim."
The Treasury taxes operating costs for business i.e. fuel. Every time fuel increases by 1p, transport costs rise by half a %, purely to cover the fuel increase. This has a knock on effect in the cost of EVERYTHING.
The Treasury have the statistics, so why can't they see this?
After all every housewife (who doesn't have the access to the statistics) can!
"The Treasury pegged the "maximum" cost of the warships at £3.9bn on January 1, 2007, but that figure takes no account of inflation and increases in the cost of labour and materials in the interim."
The Treasury taxes operating costs for business i.e. fuel. Every time fuel increases by 1p, transport costs rise by half a %, purely to cover the fuel increase. This has a knock on effect in the cost of EVERYTHING.
The Treasury have the statistics, so why can't they see this?
After all every housewife (who doesn't have the access to the statistics) can!
Posted by: robmcdonald, East Kilbride on 9:00am Tue 13 May 08
Wardog:
I've complained to the online ed but I don't expect an answer (just like the last time!).
Robert
Wardog:
I've complained to the online ed but I don't expect an answer (just like the last time!).
Robert
Posted by: wisnaeme, wisnae there on 9:03am Tue 13 May 08
Am I surprised or disappointed at this news?
Not really, it was to be expected whenever the magic words" joint venture" is proclaimed. Try it, say " joint venture" whilst labour wave their magic wand and hey presto, watch your fiscal contributions to society disappear into the privateer's hungry maw.
..
.
Am I surprised or disappointed at this news?
Not really, it was to be expected whenever the magic words" joint venture" is proclaimed. Try it, say " joint venture" whilst labour wave their magic wand and hey presto, watch your fiscal contributions to society disappear into the privateer's hungry maw.
..
.
Posted by: subrosa on 9:05am Tue 13 May 08
PtbS
Your unionism is flying high this morning. My condolences. Slander is when a false statement is made concerning a person. False means untrue in my book. I think you're stretching your knowledge of English just a little too far to suit your own ends.
Obviously you are not aware of the close relationship the Rev Alexander had with Donald Dewar. It is widely known in west coast political circles that the Alexander offspring have been given much assistance with their respective political careers from Donald Dewar and the west coast labour party.
Perhaps a little more research would improve your knowledge of the situation. Then again perhaps not as you have no ability to see anything other than a unionist's viewpoint.
PtbS
Your unionism is flying high this morning. My condolences. Slander is when a false statement is made concerning a person. False means untrue in my book. I think you're stretching your knowledge of English just a little too far to suit your own ends.
Obviously you are not aware of the close relationship the Rev Alexander had with Donald Dewar. It is widely known in west coast political circles that the Alexander offspring have been given much assistance with their respective political careers from Donald Dewar and the west coast labour party.
Perhaps a little more research would improve your knowledge of the situation. Then again perhaps not as you have no ability to see anything other than a unionist's viewpoint.
Posted by: Luigi, Aberdeen on 9:07am Tue 13 May 08
Well, I suppose, since we are an awesome (assistant) superpower and we really need those carriers to "rule the waves" and maintain our status. By the time they are built, they will have cost £10 billion each.
Ah never mind, Battleship Broon will have his war chest full of 10p tax hikes, stolen pensions, oh and of course, another 30 years of North Sea oil revenue - that should cover it - just!
RULE BRITANIA !
Well, I suppose, since we are an awesome (assistant) superpower and we really need those carriers to "rule the waves" and maintain our status. By the time they are built, they will have cost £10 billion each.
Ah never mind, Battleship Broon will have his war chest full of 10p tax hikes, stolen pensions, oh and of course, another 30 years of North Sea oil revenue - that should cover it - just!
RULE BRITANIA !
Posted by: Free Thinker, North Lanarkshire on 9:09am Tue 13 May 08
Why bother spending billions of funny money, taking up the precious time and misdirecting a loyal workforce who could have better and more secure careers? If you want to trash a country just get the Rothschild banking conspiracy to fire off a couple of fax transfers… Kerching!
[bold]I won’t be purchasing the Herald today due to editorial nonsense.[/bold]
Why bother spending billions of funny money, taking up the precious time and misdirecting a loyal workforce who could have better and more secure careers? If you want to trash a country just get the Rothschild banking conspiracy to fire off a couple of fax transfers… Kerching!
I won’t be purchasing the Herald today due to editorial nonsense. Posted by: soloman, Stirling on 9:10am Tue 13 May 08
The politically-sensitiv
e carrier contract is designed to underpin about 10,000 British shipbuilding jobs, including 3500 on the Clyde, until the middle to late years of the next decade and is regarded by Downing Street as sacrosanct in the run-up to the next General Election, due between now and 2010.
This is an out & out disgrace, escalating costs that will be paid for by the electorate and all down to the ditherers in Westminster trying to look important as they make these big decisions, when all along all they are doing is using the delay as a politacal weapon!
Wakey wakey everyone.
It's Time, to build Scotlands own fleet.
The politically-sensitiv
e carrier contract is designed to underpin about 10,000 British shipbuilding jobs, including 3500 on the Clyde, until the middle to late years of the next decade and is regarded by Downing Street as sacrosanct in the run-up to the next General Election, due between now and 2010.
This is an out & out disgrace, escalating costs that will be paid for by the electorate and all down to the ditherers in Westminster trying to look important as they make these big decisions, when all along all they are doing is using the delay as a politacal weapon!
Wakey wakey everyone.
It's Time, to build Scotlands own fleet.
Posted by: subrosa on 9:10am Tue 13 May 08
Karin, I too will be better off under LIT and posted that on the link. I find it rather petty that they remove coments when they don't like the posts but this is the Scottish media and things will only get worse in the next couple of years. Be prepared.
As for the navy, by the time these ships are ready there will be few staff left to man them. Skilled and professional staff are leaving in droves as they are from the military.
Karin, I too will be better off under LIT and posted that on the link. I find it rather petty that they remove coments when they don't like the posts but this is the Scottish media and things will only get worse in the next couple of years. Be prepared.
As for the navy, by the time these ships are ready there will be few staff left to man them. Skilled and professional staff are leaving in droves as they are from the military.
Posted by: Free Thinker, North Lanarkshire on 9:16am Tue 13 May 08
Talking of media...
Anyone any idea's for an independent website or publication or leaflet drop?
Is there anywhere where people can collaborate idea’s away from these blogs?
When the sh!te starts we'll have to organise a thorough boycott of the errant media involved.
Talking of media...
Anyone any idea's for an independent website or publication or leaflet drop?
Is there anywhere where people can collaborate idea’s away from these blogs?
When the sh!te starts we'll have to organise a thorough boycott of the errant media involved.
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 9:18am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]subrosa[/bold] wrote:
PtbS Your unionism is flying high this morning. My condolences. Slander is when a false statement is made concerning a person. False means untrue in my book. I think you're stretching your knowledge of English just a little too far to suit your own ends. Obviously you are not aware of the close relationship the Rev Alexander had with Donald Dewar. It is widely known in west coast political circles that the Alexander offspring have been given much assistance with their respective political careers from Donald Dewar and the west coast labour party. Perhaps a little more research would improve your knowledge of the situation. Then again perhaps not as you have no ability to see anything other than a unionist's viewpoint.[/quote] LoL thanks for clarifying things subrosa.
'Bad mouthing' = 'when a false statement is made concerning a person' - no?
I tried to couch my statement in a way that would have maximum cut-through in foggy nat minds
subrosa wrote:
PtbS Your unionism is flying high this morning. My condolences. Slander is when a false statement is made concerning a person. False means untrue in my book. I think you're stretching your knowledge of English just a little too far to suit your own ends. Obviously you are not aware of the close relationship the Rev Alexander had with Donald Dewar. It is widely known in west coast political circles that the Alexander offspring have been given much assistance with their respective political careers from Donald Dewar and the west coast labour party. Perhaps a little more research would improve your knowledge of the situation. Then again perhaps not as you have no ability to see anything other than a unionist's viewpoint.
LoL thanks for clarifying things subrosa.
'Bad mouthing' = 'when a false statement is made concerning a person' - no?
I tried to couch my statement in a way that would have maximum cut-through in foggy nat minds
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 9:22am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Free Thinker[/bold] wrote:
Talking of media... Anyone any idea's for an independent website or publication or leaflet drop? Is there anywhere where people can collaborate idea’s away from these blogs? When the sh!te starts we'll have to organise a thorough boycott of the errant media involved. [/quote] Free Thinker - welcome aboard!
The Scottish Labour Party has a long and proud tradition of debate, idea generation, discussion, dissection, collaboration, enhancement, policy and effective government.
Free Thinkers (not Blinkards) most welcome.
Where do you live?
Free Thinker wrote:
Talking of media... Anyone any idea's for an independent website or publication or leaflet drop? Is there anywhere where people can collaborate idea’s away from these blogs? When the sh!te starts we'll have to organise a thorough boycott of the errant media involved.
Free Thinker - welcome aboard!
The Scottish Labour Party has a long and proud tradition of debate, idea generation, discussion, dissection, collaboration, enhancement, policy and effective government.
Free Thinkers (not Blinkards) most welcome.
Where do you live?
Posted by: Big Eye, Paisley on 9:22am Tue 13 May 08
Continued censorship to protect the Labour Party is unacceptable and enormously damaging to the Herald's reputation for fairness that was built up over any years.
It is truly sad to see this happening and it will only accelerate the fall in the papers circulation.
Times have changed, news information is available from a wide range of sources at a touch on the keyboard and people will not tolerate manipulation of this kind.
Spinning stories for the Labour Party has become a dead end profession in Scotland which can only result in job losses and perhaps even the future viability of the Herald.
Do yourselves a favour and stop this nonsense now!
Continued censorship to protect the Labour Party is unacceptable and enormously damaging to the Herald's reputation for fairness that was built up over any years.
It is truly sad to see this happening and it will only accelerate the fall in the papers circulation.
Times have changed, news information is available from a wide range of sources at a touch on the keyboard and people will not tolerate manipulation of this kind.
Spinning stories for the Labour Party has become a dead end profession in Scotland which can only result in job losses and perhaps even the future viability of the Herald.
Do yourselves a favour and stop this nonsense now!
Posted by: soloman, Stirling on 9:23am Tue 13 May 08
Free thinker:
Go on to google find domain names, pick a domain name that will be easily recognised ie 'Scottish news comments' Probably won't cost much, however you may have to renew every few years to keep the name.
Find someone who knows how to construct a website similar to this one and hang up the headlines for all to comment.
Depending on the number of hits you get then the advertisers will come to you and not the Herald.
I will be happy to visit.
Good luck!
Free thinker:
Go on to google find domain names, pick a domain name that will be easily recognised ie 'Scottish news comments' Probably won't cost much, however you may have to renew every few years to keep the name.
Find someone who knows how to construct a website similar to this one and hang up the headlines for all to comment.
Depending on the number of hits you get then the advertisers will come to you and not the Herald.
I will be happy to visit.
Good luck!
Posted by: ron Oliver, edinburgh on 9:29am Tue 13 May 08
the way things are going in the MoD these vessels will be manned (?) by admirals because there are now more admirals than ships in the RN. is the UK (so sorry England) still fearful that France will rule the waves rather than waive the rules as they do in the national interest?
do we actually need these behemoths and the new Tridents? i still think that Scotland should lease Rosyth to the USA and Faslane to Russia then they could help us protect the remaining oil when we are independent.!!!! as we could re-fit their boats and ships locally.
;-}
the way things are going in the MoD these vessels will be manned (?) by admirals because there are now more admirals than ships in the RN. is the UK (so sorry England) still fearful that France will rule the waves rather than waive the rules as they do in the national interest?
do we actually need these behemoths and the new Tridents? i still think that Scotland should lease Rosyth to the USA and Faslane to Russia then they could help us protect the remaining oil when we are independent.!!!! as we could re-fit their boats and ships locally.
;-}
Posted by: soloman, Stirling on 9:30am Tue 13 May 08
Proud to be Scottish:
The Scottish Labour Party has a long and proud tradition of debate, idea generation, discussion, dissection, collaboration, enhancement, policy and effective government.
Should read The Scottish Labour Party has a long and proud tradition of debate
DISCUSSION, DISSECTION ,DECEIT.
Proud to be Scottish:
The Scottish Labour Party has a long and proud tradition of debate, idea generation, discussion, dissection, collaboration, enhancement, policy and effective government.
Should read The Scottish Labour Party has a long and proud tradition of debate
DISCUSSION, DISSECTION ,DECEIT.
Posted by: Scamp on 9:50am Tue 13 May 08
We don't need new carriers.. We do however need a new heavy lift vessel for installing offshore wind turbines.
We don't need new carriers.. We do however need a new heavy lift vessel for installing offshore wind turbines.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 10:05am Tue 13 May 08
When will [bold]our[/bold] representatives in Parliament stop face the fact that the sun has set on the British Empire?
Why are we pouring money down the drain on “sabre-rattling” when poor Wendy is distraught with worry about our poor and disadvantaged?
Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute.
When will
our representatives in Parliament stop face the fact that the sun has set on the British Empire?
Why are we pouring money down the drain on “sabre-rattling” when poor Wendy is distraught with worry about our poor and disadvantaged?
Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute, Does-not-compute.
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 10:06am Tue 13 May 08
For someone who claims such pride in his (I can't imagine a female posting such inane drivel) Scottishness PtbS doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of Scots Law. There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.
For someone who claims such pride in his (I can't imagine a female posting such inane drivel) Scottishness PtbS doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of Scots Law. There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 10:15am Tue 13 May 08
Do they really think that a couple of carriers will stop the “bogeyman” getting us? We need a defence force that is part of the EU effort with the emphasis on defence rather than offence. Do our other European partners have similar fleets?
If the government is worried about jobs, it could give every potential employee in this project a couple of million each, wave them goodbye and still have change!
Do they really think that a couple of carriers will stop the “bogeyman” getting us? We need a defence force that is part of the EU effort with the emphasis on defence rather than offence. Do our other European partners have similar fleets?
If the government is worried about jobs, it could give every potential employee in this project a couple of million each, wave them goodbye and still have change!
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:17am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Neil[/bold] wrote:
For someone who claims such pride in his (I can't imagine a female posting such inane drivel) Scottishness PtbS doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of Scots Law. There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.[/quote] You cheeky, insular so and so!
I was responding to an empty posting from a nat! who started banging on about libel.
If you could keep your sexist remarks to yourself please Neil.
Sexism and racist anti-Englishness in one post - is there a gong we can nominate Neil for?. As a well known member of the nat 'intelligensia' (ahem) you should watch your remarks - no?
Neil wrote:
For someone who claims such pride in his (I can't imagine a female posting such inane drivel) Scottishness PtbS doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of Scots Law. There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.
You cheeky, insular so and so!
I was responding to an empty posting from a nat! who started banging on about libel.
If you could keep your sexist remarks to yourself please Neil.
Sexism and racist anti-Englishness in one post - is there a gong we can nominate Neil for?. As a well known member of the nat 'intelligensia' (ahem) you should watch your remarks - no?
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 10:19am Tue 13 May 08
proud to be a sh*t stirrer
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
z
proud to be a sh*t stirrer
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
z
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 10:20am Tue 13 May 08
[bold]pledgebank.com/binth
escotsman[/bold] - REMEBER THIS? IT needs your support
pledgebank.com/binth
escotsman - REMEBER THIS? IT needs your support
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:21am Tue 13 May 08
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am today
Can you confirm that the ALL comments have been removed from story's because of "a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to" PtbS, or are you making that up?
I particualr liked the way, you slander me before stating that this activity is what has got the comments removed. Anyone actually reading the comment son those two story's last night will know that the discussion was actually better than usual with a lot of misinformation being fully aired and clarified.
Your attempts at smear and propaganda are incredible.
[bold]Can you confirm whether it is you that is making complaints to the editors to have comment shutdown?[/bold]
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am today
Can you confirm that the ALL comments have been removed from story's because of "a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to" PtbS, or are you making that up?
I particualr liked the way, you slander me before stating that this activity is what has got the comments removed. Anyone actually reading the comment son those two story's last night will know that the discussion was actually better than usual with a lot of misinformation being fully aired and clarified.
Your attempts at smear and propaganda are incredible.
Can you confirm whether it is you that is making complaints to the editors to have comment shutdown?
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 10:24am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Proud to be Scottish[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Neil[/bold] wrote: For someone who claims such pride in his (I can't imagine a female posting such inane drivel) Scottishness PtbS doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of Scots Law. There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.[/quote] You cheeky, insular so and so! I was responding to an empty posting from a nat! who started banging on about libel. If you could keep your sexist remarks to yourself please Neil. Sexism and racist anti-Englishness in one post - is there a gong we can nominate Neil for?. As a well known member of the nat 'intelligensia' (ahem) you should watch your remarks - no?[/quote] Proud to be Bool SHOITE
Neil is rascist for saying english ?
whereas your not by obviously being a mocking parody of a scot........
Have your testicles dropped yet? I just note your maturity indicates they may still be up.....
Proud to be Scottish wrote:
Neil wrote: For someone who claims such pride in his (I can't imagine a female posting such inane drivel) Scottishness PtbS doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of Scots Law. There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.
You cheeky, insular so and so! I was responding to an empty posting from a nat! who started banging on about libel. If you could keep your sexist remarks to yourself please Neil. Sexism and racist anti-Englishness in one post - is there a gong we can nominate Neil for?. As a well known member of the nat 'intelligensia' (ahem) you should watch your remarks - no?
Proud to be Bool SHOITE
Neil is rascist for saying english ?
whereas your not by obviously being a mocking parody of a scot........
Have your testicles dropped yet? I just note your maturity indicates they may still be up.....
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 10:27am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am today Can you confirm that the ALL comments have been removed from story's because of "a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to" PtbS, or are you making that up? I particualr liked the way, you slander me before stating that this activity is what has got the comments removed. Anyone actually reading the comment son those two story's last night will know that the discussion was actually better than usual with a lot of misinformation being fully aired and clarified. Your attempts at smear and propaganda are incredible. [bold]Can you confirm whether it is you that is making complaints to the editors to have comment shutdown?[/bold] [/quote] I have noticed a corellation between "it's" chatter and the frequency to which comment is dissallowed.
Labour are trully getting desperate if this is the only tactic they can deploy to prevbent people talking about the car crash politics happening lately.
Wardog wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am today Can you confirm that the ALL comments have been removed from story's because of "a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to" PtbS, or are you making that up? I particualr liked the way, you slander me before stating that this activity is what has got the comments removed. Anyone actually reading the comment son those two story's last night will know that the discussion was actually better than usual with a lot of misinformation being fully aired and clarified. Your attempts at smear and propaganda are incredible. Can you confirm whether it is you that is making complaints to the editors to have comment shutdown?
I have noticed a corellation between "it's" chatter and the frequency to which comment is dissallowed.
Labour are trully getting desperate if this is the only tactic they can deploy to prevbent people talking about the car crash politics happening lately.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:29am Tue 13 May 08
Isn't is strange that story's of UK Labour are still allowing comments (however derogatory of policy or a particular minister) but only the one's relating to Scottish Labour or policies (LIT / Attendance Allowance) that they either are confused on or simply strongly disagree with have been censored?
[bold]Does anyone else smell Simon Pia?[/bold]
What's the story Herald, isn't it about time that a statement was made and an open honest anser was given?
Isn't is strange that story's of UK Labour are still allowing comments (however derogatory of policy or a particular minister) but only the one's relating to Scottish Labour or policies (LIT / Attendance Allowance) that they either are confused on or simply strongly disagree with have been censored?
Does anyone else smell Simon Pia?
What's the story Herald, isn't it about time that a statement was made and an open honest anser was given?
Posted by: Bruce, Ayrshire on 10:35am Tue 13 May 08
Posted by: Free Thinker
There is one, but I don't think it would be permitted to post the URL.
Posted by: Free Thinker
There is one, but I don't think it would be permitted to post the URL.
Posted by: subrosa on 10:40am Tue 13 May 08
[italic]Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 9:18am I tried to couch my statement in a way that would have maximum cut-through in foggy nat minds[/italic]
How insulting. On occasion my mind may be foggy (I put that down to the loss of the 10p taxation thus depleting my small pensions even further) but at least it is capable of hearing all sides of a debate and making an informed decision rather than convincing myself that my opinions are always correct.
I have yet to hear any reasoned argument as to why my country should stay in the union and I assure you I have searched. The independence movement are light years ahead of you unionists with their arguments and many have written excellent essays on the subject.
It would please me if you could give some links to reasoned unionist writings. Google can't find any.
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 9:18am I tried to couch my statement in a way that would have maximum cut-through in foggy nat minds
How insulting. On occasion my mind may be foggy (I put that down to the loss of the 10p taxation thus depleting my small pensions even further) but at least it is capable of hearing all sides of a debate and making an informed decision rather than convincing myself that my opinions are always correct.
I have yet to hear any reasoned argument as to why my country should stay in the union and I assure you I have searched. The independence movement are light years ahead of you unionists with their arguments and many have written excellent essays on the subject.
It would please me if you could give some links to reasoned unionist writings. Google can't find any.
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am today Can you confirm that the ALL comments have been removed from story's because of "a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to" PtbS, or are you making that up? I particualr liked the way, you slander me before stating that this activity is what has got the comments removed. Anyone actually reading the comment son those two story's last night will know that the discussion was actually better than usual with a lot of misinformation being fully aired and clarified. Your attempts at smear and propaganda are incredible. [bold]Can you confirm whether it is you that is making complaints to the editors to have comment shutdown?[/bold] [/quote] LOL
Wardog, you are the second nat to put forward the notion of 'slander' on these boards today.
As Neil from Aberdeenshire, so rightfully points out, with charectaristic zeal supported by racist and sexist defamation, 'slander' does not exist as a legal concept in Scotland.
What a parody - you claiming I have defamed you when I am crisicising your defamations.
And for the record Wardog I have only once contacted the the moderator or 'editors' at the Herald after being called a Mc*unt
by Juankerr or someone of similar intelligence or name.
Closing down the debate is something nat bloggers do when they lose the arguement.
It's quite unfortunate, The Herald should smell the coffee and see that the rumblings of the average nat only serve to strengthen opposing positions. As far as I'm concerned there should be no moderator, people should have to log onto the boards and comment in a user only forum. No holds barred, this would display the desert that is nat idealogy for all to see in it's barren and brutish ugliness
Wardog wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am today Can you confirm that the ALL comments have been removed from story's because of "a disregard for the standards most of us others adhere to" PtbS, or are you making that up? I particualr liked the way, you slander me before stating that this activity is what has got the comments removed. Anyone actually reading the comment son those two story's last night will know that the discussion was actually better than usual with a lot of misinformation being fully aired and clarified. Your attempts at smear and propaganda are incredible. Can you confirm whether it is you that is making complaints to the editors to have comment shutdown?
LOL
Wardog, you are the second nat to put forward the notion of 'slander' on these boards today.
As Neil from Aberdeenshire, so rightfully points out, with charectaristic zeal supported by racist and sexist defamation, 'slander' does not exist as a legal concept in Scotland.
What a parody - you claiming I have defamed you when I am crisicising your defamations.
And for the record Wardog I have only once contacted the the moderator or 'editors' at the Herald after being called a Mc*unt
by Juankerr or someone of similar intelligence or name.
Closing down the debate is something nat bloggers do when they lose the arguement.
It's quite unfortunate, The Herald should smell the coffee and see that the rumblings of the average nat only serve to strengthen opposing positions. As far as I'm concerned there should be no moderator, people should have to log onto the boards and comment in a user only forum. No holds barred, this would display the desert that is nat idealogy for all to see in it's barren and brutish ugliness
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:52am Tue 13 May 08
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am today
Do you have an explanation why it is only story's relating to Scottish labour's Woes that have been censored?
[bold]
Alexander's dilemma after report on personal care for elderly
Residents asked to calculate how much new tax would cost them[/bold]
No banning of this story (yet) or indeed ANY of the story's on the UK Labour Party despite the very same people commenting on them.
Is that not inconsistent PtbS?
[bold]LIT Alternative Discussion[/bold]
For anyone not aware, this is the link to Glasgow City Council's LIT Calculator. Try it out for yourself whereever you are to get a guide to how much you might save or how much you extra your hosuehold might have to pay.
www.glasgow.gov.uk/A
F3int/an/default.asp
x/RenderForm/?F.Name
=EVYys4iyhHj
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am today
Do you have an explanation why it is only story's relating to Scottish labour's Woes that have been censored?
Alexander's dilemma after report on personal care for elderly
Residents asked to calculate how much new tax would cost them
No banning of this story (yet) or indeed ANY of the story's on the UK Labour Party despite the very same people commenting on them.
Is that not inconsistent PtbS?
LIT Alternative Discussion
For anyone not aware, this is the link to Glasgow City Council's LIT Calculator. Try it out for yourself whereever you are to get a guide to how much you might save or how much you extra your hosuehold might have to pay.
www.glasgow.gov.uk/A
F3int/an/default.asp
x/RenderForm/?F.Name
=EVYys4iyhHj
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:57am Tue 13 May 08
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am today
PS - I think you'll find 'slander' is included in every dictionary as both a legal definition and as a word used in standard language to describe....
[quote]
[bold]A false and malicious statement or report about someone[/bold]
www.thefreedictionar
y.com/slander
[/quote]
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am today
PS - I think you'll find 'slander' is included in every dictionary as both a legal definition and as a word used in standard language to describe....
A false and malicious statement or report about someone
www.thefreedictionar
y.com/slander
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:58am Tue 13 May 08
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]5:12am[/bold] today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]8:48am[/bold] today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]9:18am[/bold] today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]10:17am[/bold] today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]10:41am[/bold] today
[quote]....as we know you will be on this forum rubbing sleepsy's out of your eyes at first dawn, salavating at the prospect of a few slaps........[/quote]
[italic]Breathtaking[/italic]
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on
5:12am today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on
8:48am today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on
9:18am today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on
10:17am today
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on
10:41am today
....as we know you will be on this forum rubbing sleepsy's out of your eyes at first dawn, salavating at the prospect of a few slaps........
Breathtaking
Posted by: subrosa on 10:59am Tue 13 May 08
[italic]Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 10:06am today
There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.[/italic]
Thanks for reminding me Neil. I've obviously spent too many years in England in the past! Anyway as far as I understand the dead can't be slandered or defamed.
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 10:06am today
There is no such thing as libel or slander under Scots Law, there is only defamation, which covers written or spoken statements. Keep your English legal concepts to yourself in future.
Thanks for reminding me Neil. I've obviously spent too many years in England in the past! Anyway as far as I understand the dead can't be slandered or defamed.
Posted by: Jimmythejinx, Railway Cuttings on 11:09am Tue 13 May 08
..............and why doesn' t The Herald invite comments for their football articles?
..............and why doesn' t The Herald invite comments for their football articles?
Posted by: DougtheDug on 11:14am Tue 13 May 08
£4.2 Billion for the carriers? That's just part of the cost.
These carriers are designed for the F35B, a US STOVL, (short takeoff and vertical landing), aircraft and the costs to put a full complement of 36 of these planes on each carrier is about $4.3 Billion, roughly £2 Billion. ($60 Million apiece)
The only naval planes that the Fleet Air Arm has at the moment are Harrier GR9's, one squadron of, who are currently operating in Afghanistan. The RAF provide another two squadrons of GR7's for use on the current carriers.
These new carriers don't have the capability to launch conventional take-off planes so launching early-warning radar planes is going to be a problem unless they can also do a vertical take-off and if the F35B fails to deliver then there is no real fall-back option. The boats will be two big floating helicopter platforms unless the Navy retrofits a steam catapult for conventional planes which will be difficult as the engines in the boats are gas turbines.
There are already some queries about how efective the STOVL version of the F35B plane is going to be and it is still in development in the US. So far the UK has already ploughed about $2.5 Billion into the development costs for the F35B in the US.
tinyurl.com/48m8zc
I see two large costly white elephants looming out of the gloom.
£4.2 Billion for the carriers? That's just part of the cost.
These carriers are designed for the F35B, a US STOVL, (short takeoff and vertical landing), aircraft and the costs to put a full complement of 36 of these planes on each carrier is about $4.3 Billion, roughly £2 Billion. ($60 Million apiece)
The only naval planes that the Fleet Air Arm has at the moment are Harrier GR9's, one squadron of, who are currently operating in Afghanistan. The RAF provide another two squadrons of GR7's for use on the current carriers.
These new carriers don't have the capability to launch conventional take-off planes so launching early-warning radar planes is going to be a problem unless they can also do a vertical take-off and if the F35B fails to deliver then there is no real fall-back option. The boats will be two big floating helicopter platforms unless the Navy retrofits a steam catapult for conventional planes which will be difficult as the engines in the boats are gas turbines.
There are already some queries about how efective the STOVL version of the F35B plane is going to be and it is still in development in the US. So far the UK has already ploughed about $2.5 Billion into the development costs for the F35B in the US.
tinyurl.com/48m8zc
I see two large costly white elephants looming out of the gloom.
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 11:16am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am today PS - I think you'll find 'slander' is included in every dictionary as both a legal definition and as a word used in standard language to describe.... [quote] [bold]A false and malicious statement or report about someone[/bold] www.thefreedictionar y.com/slander [/quote] [/quote] I couldn't really care Wardog.
It's not me who is getting his knickers in a twist here!
Tried to post a response to yours at 10.52-
What is consistent is that the Herald cannot run a story about Wendy without it attracting the crackpot comments from over on your side. Perhaps UK and International stories do not attract the same 'passion' (ahem) from nats and therefore do not get shut down!?
It seems the papers policy is to avoid threads on Scottish politics at the moment as there are too many bams out at the moment, as you so often gloriously illustrate.
However, I do agree a statement from the Herald could help to de-mist things, that is if it dosen't further entrench 'gottenatnats' in their view of media bias which would not be a healthy outcome quite obviously.
Wardog wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am today PS - I think you'll find 'slander' is included in every dictionary as both a legal definition and as a word used in standard language to describe.... A false and malicious statement or report about someone www.thefreedictionar y.com/slander
I couldn't really care Wardog.
It's not me who is getting his knickers in a twist here!
Tried to post a response to yours at 10.52-
What is consistent is that the Herald cannot run a story about Wendy without it attracting the crackpot comments from over on your side. Perhaps UK and International stories do not attract the same 'passion' (ahem) from nats and therefore do not get shut down!?
It seems the papers policy is to avoid threads on Scottish politics at the moment as there are too many bams out at the moment, as you so often gloriously illustrate.
However, I do agree a statement from the Herald could help to de-mist things, that is if it dosen't further entrench 'gottenatnats' in their view of media bias which would not be a healthy outcome quite obviously.
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 11:23am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]5:12am[/bold] today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]8:48am[/bold] today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]9:18am[/bold] today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]10:17am[/bold] today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on [bold]10:41am[/bold] today [quote]....as we know you will be on this forum rubbing sleepsy's out of your eyes at first dawn, salavating at the prospect of a few slaps........[/quote] [italic]Breathtaking[/italic] [/quote] Your quite a tonic Wardog!
You have obviously scrolled down through the thread, notepad at hand, pen poised, eyes darting, tingling with anticipation looking for my posts and noted the time.
As you say - breathtaking!
Anyway's good night all, night shift finished, might check by with a wee schnifter inside me a bit later
Wardog wrote:
Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 5:12am today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 8:48am today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 9:18am today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:17am today Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 10:41am today ....as we know you will be on this forum rubbing sleepsy's out of your eyes at first dawn, salavating at the prospect of a few slaps........
Breathtaking
Your quite a tonic Wardog!
You have obviously scrolled down through the thread, notepad at hand, pen poised, eyes darting, tingling with anticipation looking for my posts and noted the time.
As you say - breathtaking!
Anyway's good night all, night shift finished, might check by with a wee schnifter inside me a bit later
Posted by: realist, Scotland on 11:34am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]DougtheDug[/bold] wrote:
£4.2 Billion for the carriers? That's just part of the cost. These carriers are designed for the F35B, a US STOVL, (short takeoff and vertical landing), aircraft and the costs to put a full complement of 36 of these planes on each carrier is about $4.3 Billion, roughly £2 Billion. ($60 Million apiece) The only naval planes that the Fleet Air Arm has at the moment are Harrier GR9's, one squadron of, who are currently operating in Afghanistan. The RAF provide another two squadrons of GR7's for use on the current carriers. These new carriers don't have the capability to launch conventional take-off planes so launching early-warning radar planes is going to be a problem unless they can also do a vertical take-off and if the F35B fails to deliver then there is no real fall-back option. The boats will be two big floating helicopter platforms unless the Navy retrofits a steam catapult for conventional planes which will be difficult as the engines in the boats are gas turbines. There are already some queries about how efective the STOVL version of the F35B plane is going to be and it is still in development in the US. So far the UK has already ploughed about $2.5 Billion into the development costs for the F35B in the US. tinyurl.com/48m8zc I see two large costly white elephants looming out of the gloom.[/quote] STOVL stands for Short Take Off vertical landing, so "vertical take offs" are not an issue. RAF test pilots are raving about the F35 at the moment. The two carriers are bigger than the Charles de Gaulle which operates conventional Rafale aircraft so can easily be adapted to conventional use. Steam for catapults is produced seperately to propulsion which is going to be direct electric propulsion not gas turbines. hence the investigations of an EM catapult.
DougtheDug wrote:
£4.2 Billion for the carriers? That's just part of the cost. These carriers are designed for the F35B, a US STOVL, (short takeoff and vertical landing), aircraft and the costs to put a full complement of 36 of these planes on each carrier is about $4.3 Billion, roughly £2 Billion. ($60 Million apiece) The only naval planes that the Fleet Air Arm has at the moment are Harrier GR9's, one squadron of, who are currently operating in Afghanistan. The RAF provide another two squadrons of GR7's for use on the current carriers. These new carriers don't have the capability to launch conventional take-off planes so launching early-warning radar planes is going to be a problem unless they can also do a vertical take-off and if the F35B fails to deliver then there is no real fall-back option. The boats will be two big floating helicopter platforms unless the Navy retrofits a steam catapult for conventional planes which will be difficult as the engines in the boats are gas turbines. There are already some queries about how efective the STOVL version of the F35B plane is going to be and it is still in development in the US. So far the UK has already ploughed about $2.5 Billion into the development costs for the F35B in the US. tinyurl.com/48m8zc I see two large costly white elephants looming out of the gloom.
STOVL stands for Short Take Off vertical landing, so "vertical take offs" are not an issue. RAF test pilots are raving about the F35 at the moment. The two carriers are bigger than the Charles de Gaulle which operates conventional Rafale aircraft so can easily be adapted to conventional use. Steam for catapults is produced seperately to propulsion which is going to be direct electric propulsion not gas turbines. hence the investigations of an EM catapult.
Posted by: Duns Scotus, The Borders on 11:43am Tue 13 May 08
[bold]Proud to be Scottish[/bold] @ 5:12 am says,
[quote]Wendy has displayed a huge amount of [bold]ticker[/bold] [/quote] Would you please explain the meaning of this phrase?
I'm a Scot born & bred and I study languages. This is a new one on me and i am in my 7th decade. Is it an auld Scots saw that you are proud to use, or a new invention?
The richt Scots wurd is "hairt" and if you are proud to be Scottish (when previously challenged to explain what makes you so, you failed to answer), then you would know the meaning of "[italic]Pit a stout hairt tae a stey brae[/italic] ." Why anglicise your pride?
Is it used because she is an awful "tocker". Aye, that's it, ticker-tocker - [bold]It's Time[/bold] !
Proud to be Scottish @ 5:12 am says,
Wendy has displayed a huge amount of ticker
Would you please explain the meaning of this phrase?
I'm a Scot born & bred and I study languages. This is a new one on me and i am in my 7th decade. Is it an auld Scots saw that you are proud to use, or a new invention?
The richt Scots wurd is "hairt" and if you are proud to be Scottish (when previously challenged to explain what makes you so, you failed to answer), then you would know the meaning of "
Pit a stout hairt tae a stey brae ." Why anglicise your pride?
Is it used because she is an awful "tocker". Aye, that's it, ticker-tocker -
It's Time !
Posted by: subrosa on 11:44am Tue 13 May 08
Well done Wardog (with regard to your 'discussion' with PtbS). I seldom respond to his posts as I consider he contributes nothing of value and no information that can be substantiated. Mind you, wasn't the best day for him to call me foggy :)
Well done Wardog (with regard to your 'discussion' with PtbS). I seldom respond to his posts as I consider he contributes nothing of value and no information that can be substantiated. Mind you, wasn't the best day for him to call me foggy :)
Posted by: Paulo on 12:16pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Duns Scotus[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Proud to be Scottish[/bold] @ 5:12 am says, [quote]Wendy has displayed a huge amount of [bold]ticker[/bold] [/quote] Would you please explain the meaning of this phrase? I'm a Scot born & bred and I study languages. This is a new one on me and i am in my 7th decade. Is it an auld Scots saw that you are proud to use, or a new invention? The richt Scots wurd is "hairt" and if you are proud to be Scottish (when previously challenged to explain what makes you so, you failed to answer), then you would know the meaning of "[italic]Pit a stout hairt tae a stey brae[/italic] ." Why anglicise your pride? Is it used because she is an awful "tocker". Aye, that's it, ticker-tocker - [bold]It's Time[/bold] ! [/quote]
If u are so keen on Scots...why's ur user name in Latin???
I'm a Scot born & bred and I study smart ****..Boy ur a prize exhibit!!
Duns Scotus wrote:
Proud to be Scottish @ 5:12 am says, Wendy has displayed a huge amount of ticker
Would you please explain the meaning of this phrase? I'm a Scot born & bred and I study languages. This is a new one on me and i am in my 7th decade. Is it an auld Scots saw that you are proud to use, or a new invention? The richt Scots wurd is "hairt" and if you are proud to be Scottish (when previously challenged to explain what makes you so, you failed to answer), then you would know the meaning of "Pit a stout hairt tae a stey brae ." Why anglicise your pride? Is it used because she is an awful "tocker". Aye, that's it, ticker-tocker - It's Time !
If u are so keen on Scots...why's ur user name in Latin???
I'm a Scot born & bred and I study smart ****..Boy ur a prize exhibit!!
Posted by: subrosa on 12:28pm Tue 13 May 08
[italic]Posted by: Paulo on 12:16pm today
[/italic]
Oh dear Paulo you obviously haven't studied even English have you. To have to introduce offensive language to your post takes it to gutter level. Also using mobile phone language shows a certain degree of laziness on such forums. Call me old fashioned ...
Posted by: Paulo on 12:16pm today
Oh dear Paulo you obviously haven't studied even English have you. To have to introduce offensive language to your post takes it to gutter level. Also using mobile phone language shows a certain degree of laziness on such forums. Call me old fashioned ...
Posted by: Duns Scotus, The Borders on 12:28pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Big Eye[/bold] wrote:
Continued censorship to protect the Labour Party is unacceptable and enormously damaging to the Herald's reputation for fairness that was built up over any years. It is truly sad to see this happening and it will only accelerate the fall in the papers circulation. Times have changed, news information is available from a wide range of sources at a touch on the keyboard and people will not tolerate manipulation of this kind. Spinning stories for the Labour Party has become a dead end profession in Scotland which can only result in job losses and perhaps even the future viability of the Herald. Do yourselves a favour and stop this nonsense now![/quote] Cut & paste of my post on the Gordon Brown thread. I wonder when Newsquest will step in?
Check this link to The Times which is a serious warning to Messrs Fraser & Young:
[quote]"Grim news for Scotsman and The Herald"
"Advertising revenues are falling"
tinyurl.com/5y5smb
I posted this yesterday and it was removed. I suspect The Herald now has a censor (PtbS) patrolling the threads to zap unfavourable comments. This is another form of denial, a practice raised to an art form b
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (127)
