Letters / Dundee. What’s not to like about it?
“Change of Destination” to Dundee: a long-term solution for Shetland’s burgeoning freight and passenger transportation requirements well into the future?
Surely an obvious development, but who might be against it?
Aberdeen may feel threatened by the loss of revenue from the ancillary freight and passenger services associated with Shetland’s traffic – pilotage, harbour dues, wharfage fees, shopping etc – but a shift to the Southport would release berth space at the former, freeing up the area for future commercial business activity for the city’s benefit – with air quality improved due to the reduction in traffic.
Southport might need investment to accommodate a service to Shetlandwhich could impinge on the quest for revenue from oil/energy and cruise ship developments there, but paradoxically it would then allow smaller ones to berth at the city allowing tourists easy access to Union Street to everyone’s benefit.
And Dundee? Excellent prospects should emerge to develop newbusinesses which would not interfere with oil/energy traffic at Aberdeen’sSouthport.
Everyone’s a winner – what’s not to like about that?
At Dundee: Investment opportunities for road rail air infrastructure etc. Ariverside berth would be more suitable (for good maritime reasons) thanentering the docks system, by constructing a small jetty to allow accessto roro traffic from ferry bow doors.
The question is: who would pay/finance it? Dundee Harbour (owners Forth Ports) and/or the Scottish/UK governments? Forth Ports have recently been granted ‘Freeport’ status from the UK Government with its associated tax breaks/treatment.
Shetland/Dundee could well do with some of that to build a Fit for Purpose terminal.
A shift to Dundee should be attractive to Shetland and the UK- largervessels could be accommodated and indeed to Scotland/UK as a whole, in keeping with the much trailed plans for infrastructure and quest for “growth” etc, but Holyrood may plead poverty whilst bowing to entrenched interests, including the possible concerns of Aberdeen based local politicians.
In summary the Scottish Government of whatever colour or hue and itsTransport Scotland quango and Aberdeen Harbour Trust might be initialstumbling blocks against a move to Dundee but that would contrary tothe long-term interests of Shetland and the UK.
The SIC might say that the destination of the ferries to Scotland hasnothing to do with them as it is the operation of a private shippingcompany.
Not so: They are owned by the taxpayer, that’s us. HoweverShetland’s transportation requirements are not a private matter, butdemands public attention, and support of a move to Dundee would bein Shetland’s long-term interest and development, or otherwise what arethey elected for?
The vessels operating on the link to Scotland are owned by the ScottishGovernment quango (funded by us the taxpayer). The taxpayer needsvalue for money which includes larger freight/passenger vessels fit forpurpose and destination Dundee fits the case.
If Shetland’s transport requirements continue to be constrained by theentrenched attitudes of vested interests of the existing destination, trafficoperator, the Scottish Government, its Edinburgh political parties or itsquangos, Shetlanders should ask themselves, what is the justificationto remain connected politically or commercially to Scotland.
The UK Government should now step in promptly to progress mattersexpeditiously for the common good.
If not Dundee, then Hirtshals in Denmark might appear attractive where a market already exists for fish and passengers. Faroe has done so – why not Shetland, who still has a shareholding in Smyril Line with the Norröna.
Cecil Robertson
Inverness
