Agenda:

In Glasgow, though, we might want to reflect on the implications of what BAE Systems announced yesterday.

I was privileged to be part of the Clyde Shipyards Taskforce set up by the Scottish and UK Governments, which reported in 2002.

This brought the opportunity to be close to the workings of Govan and Scotstoun, and compare them at first hand with two yards in Hamburg and Wismar, Germany.

These visits clarified the extent to which the Clyde yards had specialised in the construction of highly sophisticated ships, and just how advanced the Glasgow yards had become.

There was an economic prize in securing the Type 45 destroyers contract and 10 years of productive engineering on the Clyde. That has since turned out to be 13 years, with the addition of the aircraft carriers.

However, for some time there has been a serious debate about two major issues.

First, where would the next generation, the Type 26 global combat ships, be built? There was a clear choice to be made between the Clyde and Portsmouth.

Secondly, irrespective of the decision on the Type 26 build, a gap had developed between the delivery of the Queen Elizabeth carriers and the beginning of the Type 26 work.

That meant there was a threat to the retention of the existing capability needed to do that work.

The announcements from BAE Systems and the MoD contain answers to both these questions and the answers are essentially good news for the Clyde.

BAE Systems has chosen the Clyde as its location for the Type 26 and the MoD has agreed to place an order for three patrol vessels that will help bridge the gap after the completion of the carriers. In essence, we have confirmation that BAE Systems intends to make the Clyde the UK's primary centre of excellence for building sophisticated warships.

I have argued before that this was a logical decision, given the expertise in building complex vessels that has been developed on the Clyde over many years, and the recent track record in delivering on the D class Type 45 destroyers.

Yes, jobs are being lost as the carrier order winds down. But we have to remember that this order was among the biggest allocated to UK shipyards and it was inevitable there would be some adjustment when it was completed.

There is time to prepare for these job reductions and to help those affected with special programmes of support where they are needed.

The fact that the MoD has recognised the need to take action, too, to avoid a more dramatic reduction is to be welcomed.

The building of the three patrol vessels has been the result of long and complex negotiations. It recognises the practical importance of keeping a workforce together instead of short-term lay-offs followed by anxious attempts to re-recruit when the work is available. Too often the skills drift away forever along with the experience that makes those skills effective.

So we can once again say with some confidence (if we set aside all the politics) that the Clyde has a long- term future in warship building and that the decisions to confirm that future are based on solid commercial arguments.

And I recognise that I write quite lightly "if we set aside all the politics". We are going to hear time and again, often with very limited insight, just what the constitutional debate means for the Clyde.

Let us hope that the decisions BAE Systems have made are rewarded with steady, profitable work, excellent new warships and a satisfied workforce.