Chameleon Magazine

Ineos, once ready to hit the eject button, now clutches a £120 million government golden parachute—and 500 jobs live to see another spreadsheet.

🧪 Chemical Romance: Government Falls for Grangemouth (Again)

Just when the Grangemouth petrochemical plant was starting to look like a soon-to-be Netflix docuseries—“Shutdown: The Death of British Industry”—in comes the UK Government, love-struck and waving a taxpayer-funded bouquet worth £120 million. ❤️💷

Sir Keir Starmer calls it “an investment in good jobs and a modern economy.”

Translation: “We just paid a billionaire to keep the lights on in Falkirk.”

Meanwhile, Sir Jim Ratcliffe—self-made chemical tycoon, Brexiteer, Monaco resident, and connoisseur of low-tax regimes—graciously accepts the cash. And to be fair, he did put in £100 million of his own to keep the place running while he eyed the exits.

Now, in a twist that smells faintly of PR-grade ammonia, both sides are smiling for the cameras:

• The government gets to claim industrial heroism.
• Ineos gets a plant facelift and a few million reasons to stay.
• And workers? They get… continued employment and the joy of wondering what “strategic importance” smells like in the next budget cycle.

Bonus round: the government even secured a slice of future profits! Which sounds great—until you realise we’ve seen this movie before. (Spoiler: profits disappear faster than a minister caught with a burner phone.)

Oh, and remember when Ratcliffe slammed UK energy policies? Now he’s singing duets with Downing Street. Strange how £120 million can hit the right note. 🎵

🧨 Challenges 🧨

Do you call this industrial strategy or just a billionaire subsidy dressed in PPE? Should we be handing public cash to companies that were ready to pack up and ghost us? Spill your hot take in the blog comments — the real debate starts here. 👇💬

📢 Post your thoughts, like it, share it, and tell us what you think Grangemouth really produces: jobs, chemicals… or political theatre?

📝 The sharpest comments will be featured in our next issue—no bailouts required.