Diageo - some hard truths
A multi-billion pound multi-national company spends many months using internal confidential information to develop a business plan that they believe will save them large sums of money.*
Cue outrage from politicians who then present an alternative business plan in a few weeks without access to the confidential information; and despite the promises of big grant cheques, the cobbled together plan is rejected outright.
End of story. Closure of plant.
Part of the problem, and a big part of the problem, is the disjointed thinking from Holyrood about the entire policy that they are following, and the blunt 'sod off' message from management makes it clear just how amateurish the 'rescue' attempts have been.
Why there was this attempt to retain jobs in Kilmarnock and Glasgow, rather than move some of them to Fife is a mystery, if you disregard the obvious partisan party politics implications. It would have been better to work with the company to try to make the new plant bigger and better and to employ extra staff from the closed plants. It is always easier to nudge people onto a different course if you are moving in the same direction.
But the other dichotomy is the attitude to alcohol about which I have commented on a number of occasions.
Minimum alcohol pricing, restricting hours, new laws restricting off sales, an end to happy hours and numerous other puritanical quasi-prohibition supporting moves. Except that every policy is accompanied by the soto voce "except whisky". How that is going to fly past the EU is a mystery that no-one can explain, as protecting your national product at the expense of imported products is simply illegal.
Except, of course, if the nanny state believes that none of us can be trusted to drink sensibly, but it is hypocritically acceptable to sell this misery-bringer to foreigners.
* This could so easily refer to QinetiQ and the rocket range in Uist, but it that case our MP got a year's notice to allow a contra-case to be developed. It was just that he didn't bother to do anything about a contra-case until it was almost too late.
Cue outrage from politicians who then present an alternative business plan in a few weeks without access to the confidential information; and despite the promises of big grant cheques, the cobbled together plan is rejected outright.
End of story. Closure of plant.
Part of the problem, and a big part of the problem, is the disjointed thinking from Holyrood about the entire policy that they are following, and the blunt 'sod off' message from management makes it clear just how amateurish the 'rescue' attempts have been.
Why there was this attempt to retain jobs in Kilmarnock and Glasgow, rather than move some of them to Fife is a mystery, if you disregard the obvious partisan party politics implications. It would have been better to work with the company to try to make the new plant bigger and better and to employ extra staff from the closed plants. It is always easier to nudge people onto a different course if you are moving in the same direction.
But the other dichotomy is the attitude to alcohol about which I have commented on a number of occasions.
Minimum alcohol pricing, restricting hours, new laws restricting off sales, an end to happy hours and numerous other puritanical quasi-prohibition supporting moves. Except that every policy is accompanied by the soto voce "except whisky". How that is going to fly past the EU is a mystery that no-one can explain, as protecting your national product at the expense of imported products is simply illegal.
Except, of course, if the nanny state believes that none of us can be trusted to drink sensibly, but it is hypocritically acceptable to sell this misery-bringer to foreigners.
* This could so easily refer to QinetiQ and the rocket range in Uist, but it that case our MP got a year's notice to allow a contra-case to be developed. It was just that he didn't bother to do anything about a contra-case until it was almost too late.
28 comments:
Why was there an attempt to retain jobs in Kilmarnock rather than move them to Fife?
Don't be daft. Because of the effect on Kilmarnock of losing all those jobs.
Also - minimum alcohol pricing will make sod all difference to drinks manufacturers. What it will do is stop retailers selling booze at a loss to increase footfall.
I see you are at it again , knocking our hard working MP, who, after sitting on his hands for two years after being told about the potential job losses, has succeeded in getting the obscure Tory MP, Robert Key (who he?), an ordinary member of the defence select committee, to visit the Uist Range. He could not even persuade the chair of the committee, anoter tory, one James Arbuthnot MP, who might conceivably have some influence.
Pity help us.
Uibhisteach.
Our MP has the cheek to invite a useless Tory MP to the Range. This after he did not have the decency to attend the Task Force meeting, or the visits of the Forces Minister or the Scottish Secretary. Believe me we will not make him welcome when he visits the Range with this Fat Tory.
You are full of pish Angus. The MP knew as much as was told to the Comhairle at the same time, which was a vague statement about a review which may lead to job losses (or not). Because you have your personal grudges against the MP and his party you cannot now be impartial in looking at these issues. When are you joining the Labour party?
lol lol lol -
New Labour Party Trolls.
Do you all worship Thatcher like your un-elected leader Brown does?
Too late now for ABM faithful,no matter which way it goes in Uist those that are left will remember at the ballot box.
Former labour member
It is well seen it is not your jobs that are at risk like ours. You obviously don't know what your talking about as our useless MP knew a lot more than the council did, and we have seen the evidence. It is well seen that he does not give a shit about the Western Isles, unlike D J Macsween the Labour PPC. I can guarantee you if the people of Uist elected him 4 years ago we will be voting him out next year.
So Former labour member I suggest you ask someone from the Range before you come out with this crap.
8.22
If you have the evidence perhaps you would like to make it public, maybe even allow Angus the opportunity to present it in his forum here and you can still hide behind your anonymity
8.22
Remember what party which actually is proposing these cuts
NEW LABOUR
Remember which parties have given assurances they dont support this
ALL THE OTHER ONES
So - a vote for NEW LABOUR means you obviously support the government which wants to sack you.
Well done clever chap...
It is well seen that our MP is a real Tartan Tory. Also Anon 12.54. The Labour government are looking at what has been proposed by QinetiQ and will look in to this to see what other options they have.
The point Anon 8.22 is making is that our current MP did nothing about this despite knowing 2 years ago.
Angus it seems that you have hit a raw nerve with the other Tartan Tories on the blog.
I love it when newLabourites squirm and try to spin something. The decision lies with Quentin Davies MP (Lab) and his party of government (Lab) who, it would seem, were less informed of what is going on in their department than an opposition MP. This is surely evidence of a government that has run out of ideas and no longer controls the civil servants.
Don't you just love those Tartan Tories who vote SNP, as they are to ashamed to show their true blue colours.
I think this quote from the MoD press office on the 23rd of June, 2009 is self explanitory.
"Angus MacNeil MP and Alasdair Allan MSP, Malcolm Burr of Western Isles Council and the National Trust for Scotland all received letters on 5 July 2007 outlining the study that was starting at the ranges and the possible implications for the sites and workforce.
“Mr MacNeil visited the range sites on South Uist and Benbecula on 4 February 2008 and St Kilda on 20 February 2009. He met with the management team and staff, discussed the possible outcomes of the study and was briefed on the potential impact on jobs. He also met with defence minister Baroness Taylor in February 2008 to discuss the job implications, and other ideas for the ranges.
“Alasdair Allan arranged to visit the ranges in March or April 2008 but a specific date was never agreed with his office. There was slight confusion last week as to whether that visit had gone ahead. An MoD spokeswoman spoke to Mr Allan who confirmed that he hadn’t visited the ranges recently but had received the letter and was aware of the proposals. The spokeswoman apologised for the mix-up, invited him to visit the ranges soon, and stressed he could contact the team to discuss the proposals. In fact Mr Allan is visiting St Kilda with the National Trust for Scotland in July, which will include an informal visit to the MoD premises there. This visit was arranged in May this year."
You couldnt make it up. No wonder the workforce are feeling so betrayed.
Lone Ranger
Sir Humphrey,
You are right that the initial decision lies with Quinten Davies and ultimately with the Labour Government.
But the strong suspicion is still doing the rounds in Uist that our MP knew far more than he cares to let on about this, with briefings from ministers and a visit to St. Kilda in February this year.
We are also very concerned that the does not bother to attend meetings of the Task Force, unlike his colleague, Alasdair Allan, who has apparently attended or been represented at every meeting.
I must admit to feeling slightly sorry for our MP, who must now be fearing for his job, like many of us here, perhaps thats why he has taken to sitting as far away as possible from the common people when he rushes through the airport at Benny.
8.39 is obviously anti SNP (or at least anti AB) but are they pro Labour who are the only party still committed to losing the jobs at the range
Sir H.
Obviously with an independent Scotland we would not have a Range in Uist. The SNP policy has always been to pull out of NATO. So they would be quite happy to see the Range close.
haha
New Labour spin spin spin.
cant wait to see them out of office - theyve degraded so much about this country - and destabalised global relationships.
As for jobs - Jim Murphy should put his on the line and resign if his government cuts 125 in Uist.
Anon 4.23
And has Kenny "the terrorist lover" Macaskill resigned after freeing the mass murderer Al Megrahi. I don't think so. Also your joy in seeing Labour out of office will not be more enjoyable than seeing Salmond and his puppets out of office in Scotland.
They have been in for 2 years and already they have messed it up.
I look forward to the usual crap from the poisonous Nats of blaming the Labour government at Westminster for all their wrong doings. I am sorry but it no longer washes with the public.
Lone Ranger here again.
I see no one has taken my quote from the MOD press office seriously, and some have resorted to accusing me of political bias.
For the record, I voted SNP at the last three elections, and right up until this summer I was reasonably happy with my representatives, but the events of the past few months have made me change my mind, especially for Westminster.
As someone who has close connections with the Range, I now see the danger of voting SNP, who as a previous post pointed out, have a policy of pulling out of NATO, and possibly ( not sure about this but was told so by an SNP activist) expel all "English " troops and bases from Scottish soil.
The notion that the Range would prosper in an independent Scotland is nonsensical.
I wonder if the Task Force considered this in their submission, and whether the Janes report had anything to say on the issue.
Last Post from Lone Ranger.
It will not be forgiven or forgotten that MacNeil remained silent for a year after a Ministerial meeting at which he "discussed the job implications and other uses for the range". His apologists can bluster as much as they like but that is unforgivable behaviour for any MP of any party.
9.01
Is it less unforgiveable then to go ahead and cut the jobs as the Labour party wants to do than to ,apparently, know information that the Defence Minister denied knowing.
How long did the Labour candidate know about this? He is after all a councillor and must have been told the same info as the MP!
6.51
What about the New LAbour / Lib Dem alliance executive that let out a child murder into glasgow? What about the last 30 releases under comassionate leave!
As for your "SNP out of office" smirk - look in the papers today - SNP riding high in the polls - 7 points ahead of New Labour. Transformed into seats its between 20 - 25...
New Labour are finished - and you can tell by the filthy rats in Westminster trying to jump ship into Holyrood to keep themselves in a job!
As for Lone Ranger - look at the policies insted of listening to Hear say! Nato withdrawal I dont think is a polciy of the SNP - A scottish Defence force is.
We will still have armed forces.
We will not be an antagonistic country like the UK and USA - invading other countries illegally.
I went in to buy a bottle of wine for a lunch visit t'other day and saw the sign stating that no-one could buy alcohol before 10 o'clock. As I had to leave town there and then, just after 9, I had to come back in later in the morning just for the bottle of wine.
If the main aim of this ban is to discourage the hardcore boozers from drinking at 8 o'clock, will the effect of it not be to make those boozers so thirsty by 10 that they'll neck even more superlager? Or, equally bad, will they not now form a new habit of buying/borrowing/stealing more booze the night before in the hope of it lasting until 10 next morning (which of course it won't)?
I agree with most of what the SNP government has done recently to crack down on the 'booze culture', but this move is a bad one.
One of the reasons why people like me voted for devolution is that we thought the time was overdue for our fellow-Scots (and ourselves) to begin to take responsibility for our own errors - rather than continually load them onto the shoulders of our neighbours down south.
However, it seems old habits die hard. The local members of the SNP still want to shift the blame for the Range fiasco onto anyone but themselves and AB - the new Don Quixote, a man who tilted at windmils rather than do the more mundane and meaningful aspects of the jobs.
Is there anyone among them who is grown up to admit that he made a gross and stupid error? Or are they all content to remain like Sancho Panza shaking his head in dismay but bearing the handsome knight's shield till the end of the day?
12.25
It is a reserved issue after all - so how is it anything to do with devolution?
IT is a UK government decision.
Therefore it is a Labour decision. To support Labour, you support the cuts in the Hebrides range - as well as the Iraq war, Trident replacement, and extorsionate fuel costs (amongst other things).
I see the UK Government is already advertising for someone to de-comission the Hebrides range... Despite Labours "assurances" - theve already made up their minds.
Re 8.31
I am not disputing it was a 'reserved decision'.
I am only pointing out that Our Man In Westminster did nothing when he was told about the Government's plans, failing to defend the interests of his constituents. (His job!! Governments of any political complexion have a wider responsibility than this.)
And still the local Nats deny the facts, showing a blind faith in their Local Leader that is out of place in either the present circumstances or anywhere outside a One-Party-State?
When are they going to lose their current response to trouble? When things go wrong, are they always going to run around complaining;
'A Big Boy Did It And Ran Away'?
So the reserved matter being decided by the LABOUR government is the fault of the SNP because the civil servants gave more information to the MP for the Western Isles than they gave to the LABOUR minister in charge of their department. Oh how my eyes have been opened!!!
Re Local Nat
I fear your eyes are never going to be opened - due to your persistent willed blindness. Clearly too you're never going to get beyond the use of capitals. So I'LL START WITH A FEW ...
The LABOUR minister has a wider responsibility than simply the Western Isles constituency. The SNP member has the remit for that -but failed to act upon the information he had been given, one that affected the place he was 'supposed' to represent. Instead, he chose to campaign for other matters - such as David Davis, a Conservative Home Secretary who does not believe in the Human Rights Act and his celebrated cash-for-honours crusade. (It makes a change from cash-for-bus-schedules!) The only result from all this is that he alienated everyone who could have worked with him - including the local council.
Forgivable behaviour from a little boy who likes to dress up as Batman.
But from a grown man ...?
Post a Comment