THE UK Government Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has claimed the "Boris Bridge" is a "euphemism" for a tunnel.
Last year it was reported that the Prime Minister had told government officials to explore the possibility of building the bridge, an idea first put forward by Professor Alan Dunlop and revealed by The National.
Appearing in front of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, Jack said that he wanted to be "clear" that the plan was instead for a tunnel.
Alister Jack says the 'Boris bridge' is 'a euphemism'... for a tunnel.@ScotSecofState says tunnel connecting Portpatrick to Larne in Northern Ireland would be cheaper & avoid issues at Beaufort's Dyke, which is full of dumped munitions pic.twitter.com/wHG2J4HI7c
— Representing Border (@ITVBorderRB) March 5, 2020
He said: "The bridge for me is a euphemism for a link … which is a tunnel. Just to be clear about that. Actually tunnelling techniques now are quite advanced. And certainly to go from south west Scotland to Northern Ireland, it would be less expensive, knowing what we know of the geography of the north channel, it would be less expensive to tunnel it."
Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently floated the idea of a “Union Bridge” connecting Scotland and Northern Ireland.
However Jack said Johnson is "on the same page" as him regarding a tunnel.
READ MORE: Boris Bridge: Why plans to connect the Union should go further
The proposed bridge would have run from Portpatrick in Dumfries in Galloway to Larne.
Several concerns have been raised about the route, specifically Beaufort’s Dyke, where huge amounts of military waste were dumped – as much as 1.15 million tons after both world wars – as well as radioactive waste.
READ MORE: Why Ireland link could be a bridge too far even for Boris
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