THE architect behind the so-called “Boris Bridge” between Scotland and Ireland has launched a furious defence of the project, describing it as “an investment in the true north”.
Professor Alan Dunlop’s “Celtic Bridge” plan was first unveiled by The National back in 2018, and has won the support of some powerful people, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.
READ MORE: Alan Dunlop: Doubt the Celtic Bridge? Look what’s being done abroad
On Monday, a Number 10 spokesman confirmed that “a range of government officials” were looking at a scoping report on the project which it is estimated will cost between £15 billion and £20bn.
Johnson’s spokesperson told journalists: “The Prime Minister has said it would have some merit – as a result you would expect government to be looking into it.”
There is, however, a fair amount of scepticism about the practicalities of building the bridge. Both Labour and SNP politicians have suggested the project is being used to divert attention from Johnson’s domestic difficulties.
His own Scottish MPs or MSPs have been keeping unusually quiet about the project.
The sea between Scotland and Northern Ireland isn’t the easiest place in the world to build a bridge.
In a letter to the Sunday Times –which soon went viral – James Duncan, a retired offshore engineer from Edinburgh, said the bridge to Ireland was “about as feasible as building a bridge to the Moon”.
“Many long bridges have been built,” he wrote, “but none across such a wide, deep and stormy stretch of water. For a great part of the 22-mile route the water is more than 1000ft deep.”
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon says bridge funding should be sent to Holyrood
Duncan claimed the bridge “would require about 30 support towers at least 1400ft high to carry the road deck across the deepest part and above the shipping channel. In total the bridge would require 54 towers, of heights never achieved anywhere in the world”. He said Beaufort’s Dyke, a 30-mile long and two-mile wide trench in the North Channel, used by the British military to dispose of old explosives after the end of the Second World War, would be a particular problem.
“The Ministry of Defence estimates the total dumped at more than 1.5 million tons. There are no maps of their locations,” he wrote.
“No sane contractor or responsible government would consider building such a bridge,” Duncan said, “and because of the weather conditions it would probably have to be closed for considerable periods if it did.”
“The proposal is just another thoughtless soundbite,” he added, “this is typical Johnson.”
Yesterday in the Commons, the SNP’s Alison Thewliss (above) asked Johnson if he could “abandon the project and give the money to the Northern Irish and Scottish Governments directly so that we can invest in priorities for Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than his fantasy plans”.
The Prime Minister replied: “We will bring forward proposals in due course.”
The prospect of a bridge was, however, welcomed by the DUP’s Sammy Wilson who said it would connect “the thigh bone, the knee bone and the ankle bone” of the UK to the “red hand of Ulster”.
READ MORE: WATCH: Boris Johnson urged by SNP MP to ditch 'fantasy bridge' plan
Writing in today’s The National, Professor Alan Dunlop, who first floated the plan for the connection, said a road and rail crossing from Larne to Portpatrick is “architecturally possible and would boost tourism and trade for both sides of the crossing, while providing an extra needed physical link after Brexit”.
He suggested that Beaufort’s Dyke could be passed over with “floating bridges, to overcome the depth and non-contact with the sea bed".
Dunlop added that failure to progress with the bridge would indicate a real lack of political vision. The case for the connection is not only “about economic benefit to the Ayrshire and Antrim coasts or Cowal peninsula but also about establishing closer social, cultural and political relations between Scotland and Ireland in the shifting post-Brexit climate,” he said.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel