A bridge to Scotland would have some hurdles to cross, but economic case deserves a closer look

THE first thing I did when I read your report on the proposed bridge between Scotland and Ireland was to check the calendar in case it was April 1.

The sense of disbelief mounted when I read the £12bn construction cost is onetenth of the estimate for the ‘Boris’ Channel Bridge, despite it being half its length.

The physical — not to mention explosive — obstacles of the 300m-deep Beaufort’s Dyke on the Portpatrick option and the four-hour drive if the Mull of Kintyre is the starting point, are also potential showstoppers.

But these challenges aside, the economics are worthy of consideration. Based on population, Scotland’s share of an English Channel Bridge would be around £10bn (8.5%) and, assuming the £12bn construction cost is right and we are still in the UK, our contribution to a ‘Celtic Connection’ Bridge would be £1bn.

That’s if the name itself doesn’t provoke outrage.

And when you look at the export figures the cost benefits are similar. We export around £1.3bn to the 6 million consumers in Northern Ireland and the Republic (£200 per person) and £12bn to 500 million continental EU consumers (£24 per person).

Incidentally, Scotland’s £50bn exports to 60 million consumers in the UK are around £800 per consumer, 32 times what we sell to “the world’s biggest trading bloc”, as Nicola Sturgeon calls the EU.

So the cost to Scotland of both bridges in terms of exports are roughly the same, ie our Channel Bridge share is £10bn and exports are £12bn, and the Celtic Bridge would cost £1bn to get £1.3bn in exports.

The only snag with this is if Scotland became independent, thus making the business case a non-starter.