[Closed] Grangemouth refinery dispute

So the petrochemical plant is to close but the refinery stays open for the moment. What a disaster! Looks like INEOS has taken the tanks off the lawn and parked them in the kitchen

Ineos only know how to use a hammer so they seem to be trying to convince everyone that the problem's a nail. Some folks seem to swallow that but most seem to have seen through it.

Crazy stuff, can't see any good outcomes tbh, even if by some miracle they'd got things going again with a halfway mutually acceptable answer nobody at the plant would ever trust them again. Would you invest in that? Totally broken.

The site is losing £10,000,000 a month.

According to figures provided by INEOS but not agreed or verified by anyone else. Unfortunately I also can't see any positive outcome the refinery remains shut down at the moment and it's very likely to be closed permanently soon.

Okay, if it was making money generally it'd make NO sense to shut down would it. They'd give in/just to get it up and running asap. They obviously NEED to make changes.

There was a Sunday Times article a few weeks back explaining the history of the dispute and something like when the owner nearly lost Ineos a few years back Unite were very unhelpful and put the boot in. So, crushing Unite (and shutting the plant if necessary) is just pay back time...

At the end of the day, the plant doesn't make a big difference to Ineos P&L so they can easily afford to close it, whereas the workers have a lot more to lose, so I see them as Turkeys voting for Christmas at the moment.

This is the way things are going. As a teacher we voted to reject the next round of imposed pension/condition changes.The reply from COSLA was to shelve the 1% they had offered us this year and tell us we weren't getting it next year either. "Teachers will not have anything extra in their paypackets this xmas thanks to a militant few." was the Governments quote. Business rules, workers suck it up.

Its probably so run down and needs a lot of investment, just like the plant down the road from here, where you can cycle through on a nice cycle path,but investment the companies share holders dont want to put into the site, also the possibility that a load of scots may actually vote for independancce will be seriously worrying a lot of scots based companies, one of many to exit in the next few months probably.

hora - Member

Okay, if it was making money generally it'd make NO sense to shut down would it.

Nah, if they feel they can either leverage this situation to make more money in future, or go off and make more money elsewhere.

Remember how this started- it wasn't about profitability or terms and conditions at all, despite what they'd now like you to think- it was a straight attack on a union official (who's since been cleared by everyone else, after police involvement, but who they're still after)

The economics of it are a mess... Grangemouth makes a fortune for people, shutting the forties pipe cost 50 million per day last time apparently. So there's no shortage of money here. If Ineos can't run the plant in profit it shouldn't be up to the workers to take the hit for their failures.

Mad Eric has been scathing:

Ineos has been flagging likely cuts for months but instead of engaging with the situation and organising a coherent plan to save jobs, Unite called a strike over a pathetic and petty issue related to Labour Party internal politics. By the time the union woke up to the reality workers faced, it was too late.
Of course the threat to the refinery itself is palpable, and of course local MPs, MSPs and ministers will do everything we can to try to find another buyer for the closed plant. But what’s the proposition as it stands? Come and enjoy a non-relationship with a militant union acting with its workers’ interests at the bottom of its priorities?

http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/united-in-calamity/
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/2081/
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/grangemouth-tragedy/

The unions refused to negotiate on pay / pensions.

The average across the whole workforce was over £50K base pay and employer pension contributions exceeding £30K a year.

Grangemouth is the most expensive site in Ineos' network on operational costs and has been losing money for a while - with wages being one of the biggest costs today's outcome can't really have come as a surprise to the employees or their union representatives.

As an outsider it's really hard to understand why the workforce / union chose not to negotiate when the most likely outcome would inevitably be the loss of all the jobs and everyone having to either face unemployment or finding new jobs further away that will most likely pay a huge amount less in salary and pension. It's a very sorry state of affairs for the workers and for Scotland so I just hope that this is not the last round of something akin to high stakes poker.

I've not seen a split in profitability between the petrochemical site and the refinery. I guess INEOS aren't looking to share that particular nugget of information.

robdixon - Member

The unions refused to negotiate on pay / pensions.

Er... Ineos have refused to negotiate with them. An ultimatum was put on the table, this is the result, there's been no attempt at negotiation.

they spend 10 million a month on pensions? I dont think so

I've not seen a split in profitability between the petrochemical site and the refinery. I guess INEOS aren't looking to share that particular nugget of information.

Doesn't make any difference.

If X side of a business is making £10m profit, and Y side of a business is making £10m loss you don't shift the money from X to Y to prop it up (not long term anyway).

You either change Y, close it down or move into another market.

Certainly has a huge implications for the referendum but which way remains to be seen. That's a matter for another thread maybe. INEOS bought the plant from BP and signed up to a contract to take all the gas from the pipeline which is now more costly than they thought so the losses are in a large measure down to mismanagement by Jim Ratcliffe/INEOS. I would like to see INEOS accounts audited but that's not going to happen.

Insane!, perhaps the long term outcome is that the site will be acquired by another operator and the workers hired again on lower pay and worse terms. If I was a worker there I would want a deal to be done!

Ineos accounts are audited by PwC. Amongst other things Ineos have applied for a license to convert North American Shale Gas at Grangemouth (alleviating the problem with existing cost of gas supply). That won't happen now though as a liquidator has been appointed today.

djglover - Member

If I was a worker there I would want a deal to be done!

Yup. But there's an element of "negotiating with terrorists" here- now they know Ineos are willing to just shut it all down on a moment's notice and issue a list of demands to be accepted without question, what future can they depend on? What happens next month, or next year? You can't effectively run a workforce by blackmail.

For that matter, as an investor or a customer how much would you want to deal with this company?

It is basically a disaster for all concerned, and no apparent way back.

Another great success for Unite - supporting their members by getting them all laid off. I suspect they'll exonerate themselves of course....

Yup. But there's an element of "negotiating with terrorists" here- now they know Ineos are willing to just shut it all down on a moment's notice and issue a list of demands to be accepted without question, what future can they depend on?

Nothing sudden about this, the issue of the site has been going on for some time, it's just come to a head in the last few weeks.

Of course. But Ineos's decision to make it an ultimatum under threat of instant closure was issued last week and enacted today. No negotiation, no discussion- not even a polite pretense. (other than trying to link the change of conditions to the previous strike threat, which I don't think anyone has fallen for- people can only believe that if they really want to, and even then you need to take a run up)

so a liquidator has already been appointed and a buyer already being sought?

Seems like the plans were always in place and the industrial dispute is a smokescreen

can't understand people blaming the union here? It is the Union's job to defend it's members. The action taken today shows that the company had no intention of negotiating any sort of deal

can't understand people blaming the union here? It is the Union's job to defend it's members. The action taken today shows that the company had no intention of negotiating any sort of deal

If they'd agreed to move from final salary to money purchase pension scheme, they'd have kept their jobs.

Liquidator is for the PC plant, not the refinery - hence my question above.

only one precedent that sets footflaps and it isn't a good one for any employee anywhere. What is the point of having a union if employers should be allowed carte blanche to hit employees with 'take it or leave it' ultimatums?

I listened to Pat Rafferty on BBC4 this morning. He claimed the union were willing to negotiate. It seems clear the company was not.

You see this as the fault of the Union whereas as see it as the fault of the employer

Weellll... It's the union's job to protect their employees interests, that doesn't always mean fighting for the best deal today. We can't know, but it could be that if they'd hardballed a bit less last time round over the pension scheme, today's dialogue would be very different. Certainly their detractors will blame the breakdown of relations on the last strike. It's not really possible for a union to have a clean victory.

Though, it's probably just as possible that accepting the conditions cuts last time round would have just led to the same place today- it's been reported that the original drop in conditions wouldn't have been enough to stop the plant losing money. So there'd be another set of demands on the table sooner or later.

Option the third- if the petrochemical plant was always doomed under Ineos, then nothing the Union could do would save those employees. But if the petrochemical plant closes and the refinery stays open then caving on conditions for the whole workforce could be a very bad move for the survivors.

Who really knows? You can look at conduct today but there's always a bigger picture.

This for example:

footflaps - Member

If they'd agreed to move from final salary to money purchase pension scheme, they'd have kept their jobs.

Who else thinks it's that simple?

I predict Alex Salmond, Scottish politician and current First Minister of Scotland to step forward as the saviour of Grangemouth, backed up with tax payers money as the plant will be seen as a strategic UK asset. Jim Ratcliffe, or should that be ‘Sir’, will reluctantly accept ‘our’ taxpayer money and be seen to be magnanimous. (my mate Dave will have a word behind the scene to smooth things through) The plant infrastructure will be upgraded and UNITE will advise its members to do-a-deal which will screw new employees to the plant. All will be well in the world, after the spin doctors sprinkle their fairy dust....

Long live the 1970’s

Well they now have no jobs, so I don't see what they had to lose by accepting to a cut in pension rights. As it is, they'll lose much more now they're unemployed....

To me it seems like a case of cutting off their noses to spite their faces....

I accept that INEOS do have accounts that they post. However an independent study of the accounts was done at Unites request and found them very unclear. A compromise would have been a sensible option but as many have pointed out the owners refused to negotiate. It seems that a liquidator has already been appointed so I am not inclined to believe INEOS ever intended to negotiate. The company has worked in a similar way world wide buy existing plants and drive down costs.
http://www.youroilandgasnews.com/ineo s'+global+workforce+stand+side+by+side+with+grangemouth+workers_95421.html

Who else thinks it's that simple?

Of course not - perhaps if the union rep had spent a little more company time building relations with the management, instead of playing at labour party internal politics, they might have been able to find a way forward?

I reckon chances are that:

-- Ineos closes site.
-- Much flapping by Salmond.
-- SNP fails to find buyer for site.
-- SNP offers large bribe (sorry - development grant) to keep site open.
-- Workers are reemployed by Ineos on reduced pay and pension terms.
-- Certain Unite officials are not reemployed (coincidence that...)
-- Site reopened by Ineos.

Ineos aren't a charity, if they think it makes more business sense to shut a plant, that's what happens. Unite behaved as if they had all the cards. Whilst it's a real shame they all lost their jobs, I see Unite as having a large part to play in the plants closing.

This is just classic British industrial relations bullshit. Have the management and unions learned nothing in the last fifty years. Everyone loses yet all stand around blaming each other.
Just total crap

Well no one can say it is a surprise that they've closed surely, after all the warnings they gave, perhaps a bit sooner than expected though. I'm sure Salmond will pump some tax payer money into it to keep his dream alive one way or another. Politics and business hey!

Ineos aren't a charity

Even if they were it wouldn't change much, charities have also been known to change pension schemes on an accept it or leave basis.

footflaps - Member

Well they now have no jobs, so I don't see what they had to lose by accepting to a cut in pension rights.

Really? The problem is that they'd have accepted a change in terms and conditions in 2008, and now might well be in the same boat, just worse off. The idea that accepting 2008's demands would have averted 2013's problems is unconvincing- the plant's problems are far deeper than that.

Union guarantees no strike action

Asks for clarity of published accounts

States willingness to discuss rescue plan to keep plant open

Ineos is not a charity but an employer has an obligation to look after the people who make it money. In this case the company claims large losses are being incurred through current wage structure. If the plant needs 300 million in investment then perhaps some of the claimed losses could be attributable to this lack of investment?

From what I can see the Union has been open in stating it's committment to dialogue. Of course, none of us know what goes on behind closed doors but it seems that the company offered a take it or leave it settlement to the workers.

What would the workers do in two or three years if faced with a similar situation?

What footflaps proposes is just a race to the bottom for everyone. I could understand where you are coming from if the Union had stated no intention to compromise or discuss but they haven't done that.

with wages being one of the biggest costs today's outcome can't really have come as a surprise to the employees or their union representatives.

I find it VERY difficult to believe that the staff costs are one of a refinary's biggest costs. There will be massive pressure coming down from on high to sort this out as there are significant implications for oil and gas revenue for the UK as a whole.

As for the losses, didn't INEOS write down the value of it's assets this year to make it look like a loss when in fact it was making money? There have certainly been some accusations of creative accounting going on. The plus side is of course that this right write down will lower any sale price!

As for the pensions, I suspect that this will be a hangover from the BP days. When BP sold the Forties field there was a requirement that whoever took it on would maintain the final salary pension scheme for transferred employees.

Whats the betting that the company directors werent volunteering to change thier pension scheme to match the one they were offering to employees?

What footflaps proposes is just a race to the bottom for everyone.

and losing your jobs and becoming unemployed is not reaching 'the bottom'?

If the plant was wondrously profitable and the jewel in Ineos' crown it would still be open. The fact it is shut suggests that the business case wasn't that strong, in which case why would you keep it running?

you seem to be ignoring the various points many other people have made which points to this decision having already been made regardless.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest you think teachers are greedy for wanting to preserve their pensions and that they get too many holidays?

I'll go out on a limb and suggest you think teachers are greedy for wanting to preserve their pensions and that they get too many holidays?

Not at all, and it's hardly a valid comparison. Teachers are public servants and don't have to make a profit.

Grangemouth is a privately owned plant in a competitive industry. If it makes more sense for the owners to mothball it than keep it running, that's what happens.....

you seem to be ignoring the various points many other people have made which points to this decision having already been made regardless.

Given they could just shut the plant regardless, why bother with the hassle of the recent negotiations? Ineos are privately owned, they can pretty much do as they please (within the law) and there is no law saying Grangemouth must stay open. Unite didn't seem to realise this.

I feel sorry for all the staff. Know how they feel. In this case it seems the company are guilty of gunboat diplomacy. I am a bit surprised at the speed of development. Ineos may or may not be losing money at the plant but seem very keen to shut it.

footflaps - Member

Given they could just shut the plant regardless, why bother with the hassle of the recent negotiations?

Which recent negotiations were those?

There were negotiations, they said they were going on through the night on the news last week anyway.

I find it VERY difficult to believe that the staff costs are one of a refinary's biggest costs. There will be massive pressure coming down from on high to sort this out as there are significant implications for oil and gas revenue for the UK as a whole.

I remember a programme on the Radio a couple of years back that was saying that there was pretty much no money to be made in the refining business (for reasons that I can't recall), and predicting that there wad a good chance of several going bust in the very near future.
You'd have thought it was a fairly simple business to make money from, but apparently not.

The rumour is that there will be no redundancy pay . If that is true you really wonder what protection the law provides employees.

[quote=footflaps ]
Given they could just shut the plant regardless, why bother with the hassle of the recent negotiations? Ineos are privately owned, they can pretty much do as they please (within the law) and there is no law saying Grangemouth must stay open. Unite didn't seem to realise this.
It would appear that the PC plant and the refinery are quite separate corporate entities. I'd guess that it will cost INEOS less to liquidate the plant than to pay standard redundancy packages to all of those involved if they'd simply "shut" it.

bigjim - Member

There were negotiations

The ones where they delayed the date for ACAS meetings until the plant would have to shut regardless, and offered no concessions or compromise at all?

Gordimhor. Government stat redundancy pay. What you get depends on age, current salary and length of service. It is capped however and hardly an earth shattering amount.
Will also have to claim any outstanding pay and holliday pay. These are again capped.

well footflaps you can perhaps excuse my cynicism when you point the finger a a trade union whilst all the evidence in the public domain would suggest closure was a foregone conclusion.

Scapegoat Stevie Deans (already exonerated by Labour and Police Scotland for having done nothing wrong in the by-election candidate selection process) - force workforce to take industrial action to defend colleague who has done nothing wrong (see above) - blame workforce for putting fuel supplies in jeopardy - pre-empt strike by closing down plant - keep plant shut despite union cancelling strike - make union offer it knows it can never accept - refuse to negotiate - shut plant.

Yup, bloody unions right enough

Here's a shocking thought, the business owners and managers own and manage the business. If they want it to do well they need the support their employees, secure employees are generally more productivity.

However if the employers / owners have had enough it's their business to do with as they please (within the law). The unions and employees need to realise they only have any power if they are valued by the employer, push too hard and the employer holds the whip hand.

Might not be morally right but it's a reality hence the reason a lot of manufacturing has long since departed these shores.

Isn't the Ineos beef with Deans related to unsanctioned time off from work (and therefore only loosely related to the Falkirk by-election fiasco)?

Ineos is not a charity but an employer has an obligation to look after the people who make it money. In this case the company claims large losses are being incurred through current wage structure. If the plant needs 300 million in investment then perhaps some of the claimed losses could be attributable to this lack of investment?

They also have an obligation to the shareholders (who may well include the pension fund). If they make crap investment decisions then the pension goes down further, allong with a lot of other peoples (i.e. you and me).

£300 million buys a fair ammount of plant, why invest it in the UK where there's relatively little growth, when £300 million goes a lot further in India, where there is growth. Whether they'd make a profit from Grangemouth with further investment is almost irelavent if they can make more profit from that investment elsewhere.

Ineos held all the cards, UNITE called a strike anyway (initialy over the sacking of someone involved in the corruption surrounding the Labour elections, not pay), Ineos (appear to have) made a decision that the plant isn't worth opperating anymore.

And I'm saying that as someone involved in the industry so that many extra pairs of hands competing for fewer jobs is ultimately going to hit my pay packet too.

So it's closing
A fine example of UNION industry destruction
And a fine example of MANAGEMENT/OWNER incompetence.

i disagree. It's not theirs to do what they please with. Especially if they have been manipulating accounts to show a money-making enterprise is running at a loss.

We'll never know as they refused to allow an external audit of the accounts to see if the claims were justified.

The Union claims the company wrote off the value of that plant to show a loss and that, actually, the plant operated at substantial profit in 2011 and 2012.

lostneverfound. Can I ask why you think it is an example of union industry destruction?

btw, nor do I see it as management incompetence. I think they have been extremely cunning.

Athgray was just wondering how ineos intend to avoid paying redundancy pay to those who may be entitled to it if the rumours are correct.

i disagree. It's not theirs to do what they please with. Especially if they have been manipulating accounts to show a money-making enterprise is running at a loss.

I think you'll find that as the owners, it very much [b]is[/b] theirs to do what they please with, regardless of whether its making a profit or a loss!

Athgray was just wondering how ineos intend to avoid paying redundancy pay to those who may be entitled to it if the rumours are correct.

IIRC, there's a 'force majeure' clause that allows companies to pay statutory redundancy, rather than custom and practice (e.g., in the past, redundancies from the company might have been 1 month/year - stat is more like 1 week/year)

I remember a programme on the Radio a couple of years back that was saying that there was pretty much no money to be made in the refining business (for reasons that I can't recall), and predicting that there wad a good chance of several going bust in the very near future.
You'd have thought it was a fairly simple business to make money from, but apparently not.

Worldwide there is overcapacity in refining as well as specifically overcapacity within Europe so that is one reason why it is difficult to make money. Another is that the price of the raw material, oil, has risen sharpely (by a factor of 10 in that last decade or so) as has the cost of energy and this is very enegy intensive process. With all those factor conspiring to push costs up and prices down it is easy to see why it can be difficult to make money and that's before you start being creative with accounting practices. There are of course other factors at play, like the desire many countries have to limit its relience on other countries for fuel so for the sake of fuel security retaining an otherwise loss making facility makes good political sense.

Specifically for this case however there is the added complication that the Forties Pipeline system relies on this refinery for its utilities so if it closes there is a further knock on effect on north sea oil, which is still a very significant source of income for the UK government.

Im not 100% on the facts around this. But if a union asked to have an external audit done on my accounts then id tell them where to go too

of course, you are correct about that, Ninfan.

I should have written that it SHOULD not be theirs to do with as they please when they use complex accountancy procedures to show a loss - or minimal profit - when the company is doing rather better and to avoid paying tax or to use it as a tool to hammer a workforce into accepting lesser conditions.

Should be a nationalised industry in my opinion, run for national benefit.

But if a union asked to have an external audit done on my accounts then id tell them where to go too

If it were a random thing then yes you would have a point. If you were claiming that you were making a loss and had to make significant changes to your staffs T&Cs then that is different matter.

Ordinarily perhaps i'd agree with you Sancho but I think it would depend on the reasons behind the request and the scale of the problem. In other words the alleged loss making at Grangemouth is being laid at the door of the workers because they are being paid too much and their pension conditions are too expensive. The workers are disputing this and are standing up for themselves asking for justification of this claim as they claim the operation is profitable and so why should they be forced to accept lesser conditions with the threat that if they don't their jobs will be lost.

In this context I don't think it is an unreasonable request for Unite to have made.

Sorry I should have said I was wondering how INEOS intend to avoid paying statutory redundancy pay to those who are entitled should the rumours be correct.

gonefishin beat me too it

Grantus - I think you are missing the point re the accounts and the 'write off'.

The statutory accounts of the entity are required to be independently audited, and have been, by PwC. There is no obligation on Ineos to allow another 'independent' audit as the only people with a right to request that are the shareholders.

However, the PwC audited accounts are historical so are completely silent upon future forecasts of profit or loss. The fact the plant was profitable in 2011 and 2012 tells me little about 2013. Where the unions and management must disagree is on the forecast profitability of the plant, so the PwC audit is irrelevant here.

The 'write off' in the accounts is also entirely irrelevant and unfortunately shows the union's lack of understanding. For one thing it doesn't affect the calculus of how profitable Grangemouth is - any write off would be recognised in the accounts of the company that purchased Grangemouth and is an accounting entry only (not a cash loss).

Furthermore it is entirely possible that the investment could be written off even if Grangemouth was profitable, for example if Ineos purchased the site for£100m in 2007 on the expectation that it would make £10m profit a year, you would have to recognise an impairment if profits failed to meet that level, even if the plant was still profitable (in other words £1m a year wouldn't justify your original £100m purchase price).

All this boils down to the fundamental issue - Ineos bought the plant with certain expectations about future profitability which have proved to be wrong (there are huge structural issues in this market at present and many closing refineries etc.). It is presumably now not worth keeping, especially with a bolshie workforce.

I'm surprised any heavy industry bothers with the UK at the moment because of the insane green and energy policies of successive governments, which prevent energy intensive industries from being economic here (especially compared to the US with shale gas).

[quote=gordimhor ]Sorry I should have said I was wondering how INEOS intend to avoid paying statutory redundancy pay to those who are entitled should the rumours be correct.
I guess that if there is no money left in the kitty, then it's the liquidators role to sell off enough assets to pay that redundancy (hence my point about the PC and refinery being separate corporate entities). In any case, it's going to be cheaper for Ineos to do that than to pay them whatever had previously been agreed.

ok i'm not an accountant but the point is if - as Unite claims - the plant operated at a profit of around 30 million in 2011 and 2012 then how can it go to losing 10 million a month now as a result of workforce conditions? the conditions haven't changed since that period (as far as I can gather).

The issue with the write-off is not whether it is procedurally correct or not - more to do with the fact that it has been claimed by the other party that this has been done to deliberatley paint a bleak picture as to the viability of the plant i.e. to sow the seed for closing the plant down not, I guess, because they are losing money but because 30million a year isn't enough for them

I think that is right Scotroutes although employees will have to stand in line for money with other creditors. They may find thenselves near the back of the queue. IIRC then funds from one part of an organisation do not have to be redirected to fund another if they are registered as seperate businesses.

I've never seen unions do anything worthwhile.

regarding the redundancies - I don't understand how that can happen? If Ineos is the parent company of ineos grangemouth or whatever it's called then how can they absolve themselves of responsibility to pay redundancy to the workforce if they decide, for commerical reasons, to shut one of their plants?

From what I've read they have lost a number of customers so arenot operating at enough capacity to make profit but overheads have remained the same hence the losses and the attempt to process the American shale gas

From what I've read they have lost a number of customers so arenot operating at enough capacity to make profit but overheads have remained the same hence the losses and the attempt to process the American shale gas

and the attempts to reduce costs by negotiating the terms of the pensions.

But Unite saved the day and has won a moral victory so we can all rejoice!

Since there's lots of wild opinion being chucked around, here's another.

Ineos's main concern isn't actually changing terms and conditions. The way they've gone about this shows that- they've entered into no real discussions, engagement or negotiations, none of the things you do if you want to make a mutually satisfactory change. Instead they created a massive distraction, and orchestrated the closure of the plant, followed by a 3-day ultimatum and summary death sentence.

So what are they actually doing? Do they just want to close it no matter what? Presumably not- why make it more complicated? They're within their rights to close it after all.

So. The threatened (and cancelled) strike action was all to do with a dispute about Ineos's treatment of a single union worker. Not pensions etc. But what they learned from that is that if they act unreasonably and try to bully their staff, the union will act and the workforce will back them.

Conclusion- their requirement for keeping the plant open isn't pension cuts or changes of shifts, per se. They don't want a negotiated settlement, in fact they've taken steps to make that impossible. The only thing they want is a cowed and bullied workforce that'll take whatever shit is shovelled at them, regardless of how badly they're treated. Learning that they don't have that, they're taking their ball home.

I predict Alex Salmond, Scottish politician and current First Minister of Scotland to step forward as the saviour of Grangemouth, backed up with tax payers money as the plant will be seen as a strategic UK asset. Jim Ratcliffe, or should that be ‘Sir’, will reluctantly accept ‘our’ taxpayer money and be seen to be magnanimous. (my mate Dave will have a word behind the scene to smooth things through) The plant infrastructure will be upgraded and UNITE will advise its members to do-a-deal which will screw new employees to the plant. All will be well in the world, after the spin doctors sprinkle their fairy dust....

Well said that man,grangemouth will be sold to the tax payers as a national scotish asset, as scotland is hoping to make all its money from oil revenues, a bit difficult when you dont have anywhere in scotland to measure and charge for its import and export.Otherwise alltmhe fuel and petro chemical product will need to be imported.

It will also be a nice bribe to some of the guilible scots ,look what (sir) alex has done for us,best vote for him.

Given they recently moved the Grangemouth plant into a separate UK company so it could qualify for regional aid and started negotiating for said aid, this suggests the plant closing wasn't a foregone conclusion as moving assets between companies isn't 'free' and takes up lawyers and accountants times.

To me it looks like they were hoping for some flexibility from the staff and instead just got stubbornness from Unite, so thought bugger this we'll invest somewhere else.

Well said that man,grangemouth will be sold to the tax payers as a national scotish asset, as scotland is hoping to make all its money from oil revenues, a bit difficult when you dont have anywhere in scotland to measure and charge for its import and export

As far as Grangemouth is concerned the oil landing facilities are at Kinnel, a separate entity that is still owned and operated by bp. There is also Sullom Voe and then there are the pipelines that land in England too (these currently land oil from Norway so taking oil from another country won't be an issue) so this won't actually be a problem as far as oil production is concerned.

Fuel security would be another issue though and I do fear that it could be spun to appear as a pro independance point.

footflaps - Member

To me it looks like they were hoping for some flexibility from the staff and instead just got stubbornness from Unite,

That doesn't really make any sense, considering the lack of discussion and negotiations on the subject.