A PRESSURE group fighting plans for ship-to-ship crude oil transfers in the Cromarty Firth has accused the Scottish Government of deliberately blocking their own scientists’ response to a consultation on the issue six days before it closed.
Documents obtained by Cromarty Rising under freedom of information laws show an invitation was sent to the head of Marine Scotland’s licensing operations team, on behalf of the Scottish Government, on December 9 2015, and scientific reports were compiled as part of a draft response. The group said Transport Scotland staff advised Marine Scotland not to respond to the consultation. An email from January 2016 said this was “in line with a previously established Scottish Government position”.
An internal email the following week confirmed no response had or would be made, which Cromarty Rising said meant the Scottish Government had blocked their own scientists’ response six days before the consultation closed.
A press statement from the Rural Affairs Secretary on February 23 read: “The Scottish Government is not aware of being directly approached by the UK Government during the consultation on the Cromarty Firth oil transfers... Marine Scotland was made aware of the proposal through informal contact by the Port of Cromarty Firth.”
A Cromarty Rising spokesperson said: “Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish Government Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy, in a statement to the Scottish Parliament on May 2 2017 failed to include key parts of the consultation process which had in fact already taken place.
“He failed to inform Parliament that a legally correct, formal invitation to consultation – with full supporting documentation – had been received by the Scottish Government which actually followed the requirements of the regulations to the letter. He also failed to inform parliament that the Scottish Government had made a policy decision not to respond to that consultation. Instead he implied that they had not been consulted at all. We believe those omissions give the wrong impression of the Scottish Government’s role in the consultation process.”
The group said the decision not to respond was a failure by the Scottish Government in the protection of what is possibly Scotland’s best known Special Area of Conservation for its bottlenose dolphin population and sub-tidal sandbanks.
A Scottish Government spokesman said it was not invited to respond by the Department of Transport during the original application process.
He added: “As has already been made clear, Marine Scotland officials were included in a mass email from environmental consultants, and are not statutory consultees.
“There is no evidence to support these allegations and it is simply wrong to suggest a response was blocked. As is normal practice, civil servants in different policy areas discuss and exchange views on matters of overlapping interest.
We have made abundantly clear that these powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
“Until such time as the powers are devolved, we expect the UK Government to both ensure the concerns of local interests are fully considered and to formally invite the Scottish Government to respond to any future ship-to-ship oil transfer applications.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here