Forget the war of words.
Forget personal agendas and political motives. The fact of the matter is that Grangemouth is on the brink of closure. After losing £579 million in the last four years and currently losing £1 million a day, the lights are about to go out.
Ineos has invested £1 billion in the site since 2006 and is now being asked to put in another £300 million over the next three years to what is essentially a failing petrochemicals business.
Without this critical investment, the petrochemicals business - employing 800 of the 1350 Ineos staff at Grangemouth - will close not later than 2017 and probably a lot sooner.
The solution - an ambitious project to bring low-cost US shale gas to Grangemouth and transform the company - is a huge leap of faith by Jim Ratcliffe, the owner of Ineos, with absolutely no guarantee of a return on his investment.
So why would Ineos invest such a large amount of money into a failing business, particularly given that the union, supported by its members, seems determined to bring the site to its knees? At the same time, they have launched an intensely personal campaign against Jim Ratcliffe and the company.
The answer is because Grangemouth management has convinced Ratliffe and the other shareholders that Grangemouth is worth the fight and, on the condition that the site can become sustainable and competitive, they have pledged their support and money.
Patience is, however, wearing thin and time is running out. There is now a serious doubt that Grangemouth petrochemicals will ever start up again if the current dispute is not brought to a swift conclusion.
It is not rocket science to work out that a business losing £150m per annum, with a pension deficit of £200m, and which is currently shut down while the union continues to deny reality, is on the brink of closure.
The worrying thing is that some people still think Grangemouth can't close. They said the same about Ravenscraig. And MG Rover. And Coryton. And, sadly, they were wrong.
Grangemouth is a business and has to behave like a business. It can't keep on losing money and expect to survive.
Management has presented a survival plan to employees that includes the ending of an out-of-date and off-the-scale pension plan plus a package of changes to terms and conditions. These changes collectively acknowledge the distressed nature of the business and bring the site more in line with today's market conditions.
The company has not proposed cutting the basic salary, which remains double the Scottish national average for take-home pay. The company has also put together an attractive alternative money purchase pension scheme, which is much better than most.
On the back of these changes, the shareholders are offering to provide finance to secure the long-term future of the site.
It is now or never for the petrochemicals business at Grangemouth. The choice facing employees at the site is simple. The site is financially distressed. It will close unless the survival plan is adopted. Employees must now decide whether they sign up to our vision of the future and accept the challenges ahead or not.
If they decide Ineos Grangemouth is not for them, then - at the end of the 45-day consultation period - they will leave. If they decide they want to be part of the new future, then everyone will come together to build a successful and prosperous company for the coming years.
It remains to be seen whether employees will sign up to the future and if shareholders' patience will run out before the union wakes up to reality.
We moderate all comments on HeraldScotland on either a pre-moderated or post-moderated basis. If you're a relatively new user then your comments will be reviewed before publication and if we know you well and trust you then your comments will be subject to moderation only if other users or the moderators believe you've broken the rules, which are available here.
Moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours. Please be patient if your posts are not approved instantly.