BORIS Johnson is considering building a tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland instead of a bridge, the Scottish Secretary has said.
Alister Jack said a tunnel would boost the economies of both regions and strengthen the Union, and could be built by 2030.
He insisted it would also better address some of the problems associated with the deep, stormy North Channel – part of which was used as a Second World War munitions dump.
Mr Jack said: “The Prime Minister and I have had a number of conversations about it and I would say we’re on exactly the same page.”
He made the comments while giving evidence to Holyrood's Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee.
The Prime Minister has previously said serious consideration is being given to building a bridge between Portpatrick and Larne in Northern Ireland.
But Mr Jack said a tunnel would be cheaper and better suited as a link.
When asked by SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson about the idea of a bridge, Mr Jack said: "I'm very keen on it now, but it's not a bridge that I'm keen on, it's a tunnel.
"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."
He added: “And 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.
“It goes without saying that if there’s going to be a tunnel, before there’s a tunnel there will have to be an upgrade of the A75 and the A77.
“I see a huge advantage in the tunnel for that. I see a huge advantage in the tunnel for south-west Scotland’s economy.”
Speaking to journalists later, Mr 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."
Mr Jack said he has been told by a number of engineers that a tunnel would cost less than a bridge, which was previously estimated at £20 billion.
However, he would not be drawn on ballpark figures, adding: “I have had various people write to me – engineers have given me their advice.
“The numbers have varied dramatically, so until we get something professional done, and as I say that will be for the Prime Minister to push the button on that, I wouldn’t be quoting any numbers.”
Mr 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.
The Scottish Secretary told journalists: “I would think that 2030 would be quite achievable.
"Since the days of the Channel Tunnel, costs have come down and techniques have improved dramatically.
“It’s not about whether you would be able to do it, it’s about how quickly you can do it.”
He said there had been “informal discussions” with authorities in Northern Ireland.
He said: “The Prime Minister has raised it more than once. I don’t know if there have been any formal discussions, but there have been informal discussions with people in Northern Ireland about it."
Mr Jack said he understood Northern Irish First Minister Arlene Foster is "very enthusiastic" about the idea.
The Herald previously revealed that senior figures in the UK Government favoured a road tunnel over a bridge.
However, Mr Jack's latest comments were quickly rubbished by political opponents.
Scottish Green 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."
A spokesman for First Minister Nicola Sturgeon also poured cold water on the idea.
He said it would be a "gigantic undertaking" requiring "colossal" amounts of money, which could be better spent elsewhere.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel