tonnage. In order to launch the "QE2" at Clydebank, the opposite side of the river bank had to be continually dredged. We should remember that this ship was only 58,000 tons and is certainly much shorter in length than today's oil tankers. In fact it would be absolutely impossible without the most massive investment to modernise all these yards and undertake the capital development of the river itself which would be necessary to enable them to compete on the world market. In simple terms we can only conclude that the "progress" of world capitalism in relation to this industry has far outstretched the bounds of the thinking or potentiality of the British shipbuilders.
A recent edition of the Financial Times suggested that £5 million should be put into the modernisation of the Clydebank Division. This is an utterly fanciful suggestion. Half the capital equipment in this yard is more than 40 years old. The cost of modernisation has been grossly underestimated in regard both to the yard itself and to the limitations imposed by the river. It is absolutely clear that John Brown's will close in the very near future with the eventual phasing out of the other yards comprising the UCS. By this method the Tories will succeed in finally concentrating all shipbuilding production on the Clyde in the Lower Reaches (Scott-Lithgow of Port Glasgow & Greenock).
Even to the most naive observer the plans to close down UCS should come as no surprise. The Tories' ideas on this have been no secret for a long time. In the Guardian, June 15th, it was reported that Mr. Nicholas Ridley, now UnderSecretary at the Department of Trade and Industry, had said before the last election that the Cabinet should put in "a Government butcher to cut up UCS and to sell cheaply to Lower Clyde and others the assets of UCS". It was further reported "the plan foresaw that after the dispersal of UCS assets the Government would sell the public's 48.4% share of UCS 'even for a pittance"'."
Mr. Ridley's concluding plans were: "1 believe we should do the following on assuming office: (i) Give no more public money to UCS; (ii) Let Yarrow leave UCS if they want to and facilitate their joining Lower Clyde if they still wish to do so; (ili) This would mean the bankruptcy of UCS. We should accept this in which case Lower Clyde will take over one or two of the yards. (iv) After liquidation or reconstruc tion as above we should sell the Government's holding in UCS even for a pittance."
TORY OPTIONS AND PLANS The Tory Government has been faced then with either (i) attempting to continue phased subsidies to keep the yards going; (ii) sinking tens of millions of pounds into a few of them; or (iii) suffering the political consequences of doing neither. The Financial Times also reported rumours which have been circulating on Clydeside to the effect that the 2,600 employed at Brown's would be transferred to Govan and Linthouse and placed on a double shift system. However it is fairly clear that the majority of workers would not accept this move since not only has this system been rejected before, but it is extremely likely that a 3-shift system would be imposed eventually.
It looks obvious from the above that the Tories' plans are first to close Brown's, then Connell's and finally the whole of the UCS. At the moment there is a large differential between the wage rates in the UCS and those at ScottLithgow on the Lower Clyde. The future redundancies envisaged for the UCS will mean that Scott-Lithgow can employ skilled labour at lower wage rates, holding the heavy stick of the lack of jobs over the heads of redundant UCS workers.
Connell's, or as it is now known, the Scotstoun Division of UCS, is undoubtedly the next yard to be threatened after the Clydebank Division. At this moment, reports from the yard confirm this prediction. The management 120000 have announced the suspension of work on one of their "Clyde" ships, which means that a surplus of labour will occur, creating inevitable redundancies.
Some of the bourgeois newspapers still cling to the idea that what is needed is some individual to come along and help UCS out of its troubles. We had lain Stewart, who attempted to sort out Fairfield-Rowan and only managed temporarily to shelve the problem after many concessions by the trade unions. We have Kenneth Douglas (who became managing director after gaining the reputation of having saved Austin Pickersgills on Wearside) and Anthony Hepper, with a further figure added now in the familiar shape of Lord Robens. The newspapers are now asking for the return of "Sir" lain Stewart.
The "great individual" theory never did warrant serious consideration. The decision about the future of UCS will not be taken by one or two men -it will be resolved through a struggle between different classes of the population. Right now it is plainly obvious that for the British capitalist class and their Tory governmental representatives, the UCS has become redundant. The pumping of huge sums of money into industry is only done by such governments when the prospect is that at some point in the future they will themselves reap their owners worthwhile profits. No such prospect exists for UCS. In fact one of the most indicative features of the situation has been the way in which the old the RID NOT