fanciful variations on this theme). The total number of workers who left their factories and offices has been estimated at 150,000, bringing the Glasgow area to an almost total halt.
The size and militancy of the demonstration becomes even more impressive when it is remembered that this arose out of a more or less spontaneous call from the UCS shop stewards to other shop stewards in the area and without any important organisation being done through the official channels of the trade union movement; further that it took place within a matter of only a few days from the announcement of the liquidation of UCS. The response to the call showed clearly that the working class in most sections of the movement feel that the fight to retain the jobs of the UCS workers is their fight. They recognise furthermore that the plight of UCS is only the most spectacular aspect of the entire Tory attack on the working class and its organisations.
The reasons why the fight over UCS has become a symbol for the workers of the West of Scotland becomes clear on examining the general employment situation in the area. Numerous well-known firms who have been major employers are now beginning to feel the pressure of the present recession. Rolls Royce have made approximately 1,000 workers redundant, Burroughs Machines 1,500, Singers about 1,000. (There used to be 15,000 employed in this multi-national monopoly's Clydebank factory, now there are 6,000). Babcock and Wilcox paid off 1,400 workers when they moved from Dalmuir to Renfrew. Here we have mentioned only a few of the larger redundancies. There are of course numerous smaller concerns which depend to a large extent on supplying ancillary equipment and components and who are liable to be badly hit in the present periodfor instance the marine engine builders, Kincaid and Barclay Curle, J & T. Lawrie, Weir Pumps, etc.
Now we know that the Albion Motor works at Scotstoun, employing 2,700 workers, is in serious financial difficulties. The Burroughs factory site at Strathleven has a lease of 22 years due to run out at the beginning of 1972. No doubt the remaining workers will find themselves queuing at the local "buroo". Babcock and Wilcox at Renfrew are threatening to pay off a further 500. Plessey at Alexandria has just announced plans for total closure. The Financial Times has reported the "one bright spot" as being "John Brown Engineering (Clydebank) Ltd., hived off from the shipyard at the time of the formation of UCS". There has been an increase in its labour force since its formation from 1,000 to about 1,400. However even this company, which has won the Queen's Award for Industry for two successive years, had the audacity at the time of the latest presentation to declare that a general cutback would take place in the near future. This threat looks likely to be made good with pay-offs certain in August of this year. All this will take place in a firm whose return on capital invested currently stands at 21%.
Altogether therefore the future in the West of Scotland looks bleak for companies-even those supposedly doing well. The latest unemployment figures for the area illuminate the particularly disastrous situation. According to the fiaures published on 24th June, there are in Scotland as a belt and particularly the Clyde Valley area. In this area, containing just under one half of the population, 67,000 are unemployed. Of these, 36,000 are in Glasgow alone (male unemployment rate 10%). In Clydebank the overall rate (males and females) is 10%-if John Brown's shipyard (the Clydebank Division of UCS) closes down this will immediately increase to 17%. Other areas with rates well above the (Scottish) national average are Greenock/Port Glasgow and North Lanarkshire. It is worth mentioning further that all available evidence from the experience of the "depressed areas" of other European countries indicates that when Britain enters the Common Market, Scotland's relative position will be worsened by the centrifugal forces which will tend to concentrate industry within the wider community nearest to the largest centres of population (the Birmingham/Ruhr/Turin triangle so frequently quoted by economic experts).
THE STRATEGY OF BRITISH CAPITALISM So much for the general background to our economic position within Britain. How then did UCS find itself in such a state and what are its prospects? We cannot begin to answer this question without first taking a brief look at the specific problems of British capitalism and the strategy of the capitalist class and their governmental allies in attempting their solution. Throughout the world most countries are facing the difficulties caused by inflation-nowhere does this create more acute problems than in Britain. Indeed it is causing a soir EAN A FEW QUID ARVATION HERE'S A FORCE head. The urgent need is for massive investment in new capital equipment to shore up British industry's everdeclining competitiveness. Naturally this investment is to be paid for, not by the capitalists who skimmed off such handsome profits in the past but by a structured attempt to depress the living standards of the working class.
If the capitalist class in general in Britain is in acute difficulties, that section involved in shipbuilding is in an even more pressing predicament stemming from the particular problems of that industry.
POST WAR SHIPBUILDING In the post-war years there was a big boom in shipbuilding to replace war losses. British yards took advantage of this and made huge profits, but never ploughed them back into the industry so that capital equipment is now possibly the most out-date of any industry. In particular they never made the necessary investments to adapt to production of the new selling lines in shipping-tankers, bulk carriers, etc. The result was that Britain, which in 1938 produced more than a third of all ships built in the world, now produces about 5%.
One of the most noticeable features of the yards is their absolute inability to produce a ship on time. Most ships are based on fixed price contracts with penalty clauses for late delivery (some contracts now have clauses to deal with cost inflation). It is therefore of the utmost importance that to compete with foreign shipyards and to maximise profits, the time taken to build a ship is minimised. Because of the archaic nature of the UCS yards, this problem is more than ever incapable of solution. The liners "Kungsholm" and "Q.E.2" lost E4 million and £3 million respectively because of late delivery.
While the various governments have pumped money into the UCS, they have only done so at the expense of the workers. The sums of money invested have all been on condition that the trade unions are willing to "rationalise". The facts of rationalisation are that while the throughput of steel in 1970 averaged 867 tons per week, the throughput this year is averaging 1,300 tons achieved with a 16% reduction in the steel work force (it had reached 1,450 tons per week before liquidation). The number of ships