Solid reasons why a tunnel between Scotland and Ireland is a real non-starter

A lister Jack, secretary of state for Scotland, has suggested building a tunnel from Portpatrick to Larne, rather than the bridge suggested, in a less than lucid moment, by Boris Johnson.

There is no doubt that the idea has some merit compared with the bridge as it would not be affected by weather and it could be tunnelled deep below the million tonnes of obsolete ammunition dumped in the Beaufort Dyke about 12 miles off Portpatrick, and it would be about the same length as the Channel Tunnel.the Channel Tunnel cost about £5 billion when it was built (about £13bn today), but was bored through the soft strata of chalk which extends from England to France, probably the easiest material to tunnel through.

On the other hand, the rock between Portpatrick and Larne is very hard granite or basalt, which would be much slower to cut through, with huge cost implications.

It is most unlikely that drivers of trucks and cars would be permitted to drive through the tunnel and so it would be necessary to load vehicles on to shuttle trains at each end, like the Channel Tunnel.

Unlike the Channel Tunnel the rail links from Portpatrick to the rest of the UK are poor and all rail traffic from the south has to go up to Glasgow and then down the coastal route to Stranraer, although there has been vague talk of reinstating the Dumfries to Stranraer line, which would cut 100 miles off the route from the South.

A tunnel could certainly be built if cost was not a consideration, but the hard rock and the need for new rail links and shuttle trains would probably put the cost up towards £20bn or more.

For a fraction of the cost, new road links and larger ferries could be built.

JAMES DUNCAN Rattray Grove, Edinburgh

While Alister Jack’s comments on his desire for a tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland rather than a bridge have naturally made the headlines, his comments on EU immigrants coming to the UK to get access to our benefits and NHS are equally ridiculous. In its assessment on the value of EU citizens to the UK, Oxford Economics highlighted the value of EU citizens to the British economy. It noted that when it comes to the public finances, European migrants contribute substantially more than they cost, easing the tax burden on other taxpayers.

Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the Exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult. Over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits – while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero.

UK proposals to limit immigration will therefore not only damage the economy through impacting on the workforce but taxes will have to rise as EU nationals pay far more to the public purse than Britishborn residents.

Unfortunately, as with many things Brexit, the facts have been cast aside in favour of small-minded British nationalism.

ALEX ORR Marchmont Road, Edinburgh