SCOTTISH Secretary Alister Jack has said he favours the building of a tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland – and claims the Prime Minister is “on the same page”.
Speaking during an evidence session in the Scottish Parliament, Jack took a different view from that previously outlined by Boris Johnson, who had said serious consideration was being given to building a bridge between Portpatrick and Larne.
READ MORE: WATCH: Scottish Secretary says 'Boris Bridge' is a 'euphemism'
Jack said a link between the two countries would boost the economies of Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland, while also strengthening the union.
He also said a tunnel would not face the same problems posed to any potential bridge project by the Second World War munitions dump at Beaufort’s Dyke in the Irish Sea.
When asked by SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson about the idea of a bridge, Jack said: “I’m very keen on it now, but it’s not a bridge that I’m keen on, it’s a tunnel.
READ MORE: Alister Jack: Optimism and hard work will make Brexit a success
“It’s no different to the tunnels connecting the Faroes, it’s not different to the tunnels underneath the fjords, and it deals with the problem of Beaufort’s Dyke and the World War Two munitions. The bridge for me is a euphemism for a link, which is a tunnel.”
READ MORE: Is Boris Johnson about to sack Scottish Secretary Alister Jack?
Speaking to journalists after his appearance before Holyrood’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, Jack said it could even be the case that a crossing is made up of sections of both bridge and tunnel.
He added: “But I think the best solution if we’re going to bridge Scotland with Northern Ireland is a tunnel, and I’ve had conversations along those lines with the Prime Minister.”
Jack also said he and the Prime Minister are “on exactly the same page” when it comes to the idea of an underwater crossing.
READ MORE: Alister Jack 'abandons' Scottish workers and blames free market for job losses
According to the Scottish Secretary, he has been told by a number of engineers that a tunnel would cost less than a bridge. Jack described the plans as being in the “discussion phase”, and it would be for the Prime Minister to “push the button” and move forward with a full feasibility study to test if the proposals are possible.
READ MORE: Jackson Carlaw backs Boris Johnson's 'vanity' bridge
When the initial plans were made public, the Scottish and Northern Irish Transport Secretaries wrote to Johnson and called for the estimated £20 billion cost to instead be given to the devolved administrations to improve infrastructure – a position First Minister Nicola Sturgeon agreed with.
Jack refused to reveal any costings he had been quoted for the crossing, but did say it would be “quite achievable” to have the tunnel built by 2030, adding: “Since the Channel Tunnel, costs have come down and techniques have improved dramatically. The problem is not about whether or not it’s feasible, it’s about how quickly you do it ... If you’re going to do it you should get on and do it.”
READ MORE: WATCH: Boris Johnson urged by SNP MP to ditch 'fantasy bridge' plan
The idea of a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland was first raised by architect Professor Alan Dunlop in a front page article in The National in January 2018. It was later supported by Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, and the Scottish Government Cabinet minister Michael Russell.
But critics have suggested an infrastructure link linking Scotland and Ireland is a fantasy. The Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer said: “These proposals might be headline grabbing but let’s face it, they are pure fantasy, just like the Tory approach to Brexit which Mr Jack so spectacularly failed to explain to the committee. Just moments earlier the Secretary of State told us his Brexit plans are based on optimism rather than his government’s own analysis, something he described as ‘wrong’. His idea that ‘gumption’ and ‘optimism’ alone will protect our jobs and rights is the same dangerous fantasy that makes out Brexit Britain represents some kind of ‘Empire 2.0’.”
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