Troubled Scottish ferry scheme faces fresh delays in new blow for SNP
An original delivery date of last October for the Isle of Islay had already been put back amid a shortage of steel from Ukraine and reduced staffing after Turkey's 2023 earthquake.
Transport Scotland called the latest delay 'disappointing' but said the Turkish yard had been hit by supply chain and labour challenges afflicting similar sites around the world.
In its letter, Caledonian Maritime Assets (CMAL) said that the yard south of Istanbul lacks sufficient commissioning engineers to sign off on the vessel's various systems.
Painting of the ship's hull has also been delayed by freezing conditions in Turkey, with sea trials not now expected to begin until May, pushing back delivery until June at the earliest.
CMAL said: 'We fully appreciate this is not the news the island communities, or indeed anyone, wants to hear.'
The 3,200 residents of Islay together with whisky and seafood exports worth tens of millions of pounds a week are reliant on the ferry service, while 45,000 tourists use it to visit the island each year.
Duncan Mackison, the CalMac chief executive, said the delay to Isle of Islay was 'disappointing news' and that everyone involved in the build is 'aware of how desperately she's needed in the CalMac fleet'.
The delivery of three more vessels – the Loch Indaal, which is slated to serve neighbouring Jura, the Lochmor and the Claymore – will now follow at six-month intervals, rather than the four months previously anticipated, CMAL said.
Fiona Hyslop, the Scottish transport secretary, revealed last month that she was considering nationalising Ardrossan Harbour in Ayrshire in order to fund its enlargement.
The Glen Sannox is too big to dock at the primary port for Arran and is currently having to sail from Troon, adding 20 minutes to the crossing.
South Uist in the Outer Hebrides has meanwhile seen sailings cut to three a week with a journey time that is two hours longer after its usual vessel was diverted elsewhere. The replacement can currently take just 45 passengers due to a fault in its evacuation system.
Mr Mackison said problems with several vessels had presented CalMac with 'difficult choices' in terms of service provision. He said passenger volumes would be monitored but that the South Uist service was currently sufficient to meet demand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Remember when having women in power was supposed to change everything?
Nicola Sturgeon was always afraid of failure. But it was a very particular kind of failure she feared; one that follows a very particular kind of success. Living up to the fact of being Scotland's first female first minister became, she writes in her new memoir, 'almost an obsession', which is arguably unhealthy but not unreasonable. To be the first woman (or indeed the first minority) in any field is to be uncomfortably aware of being on probation: the test case that sceptics will use to decide whether women in general can really hack it, but also the yardstick by which other women will judge whether representation actually makes a difference. You daren't betray anything that looks like a sign of weakness, yet at the same time you're endlessly under pressure to spill your guts on all the intimate stuff – miscarriage and menopause in Sturgeon's case, pregnancy in high office for New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern, also the author of a recent memoir – lest other women feel you're either holding out on useful information, making it all look too infuriatingly easy, or failing to do your bit to break some taboo. (Even Sturgeon, in an interview this week with the midlife women's podcast The Shift, expressed surprise that, when she was figuring out how to manage menopausal symptoms in office, she couldn't find anything to read about how other senior politicians had coped.) Suddenly, you're not just a woman but an everywoman, supposed to magically embody every female voter who ever existed, even on issues where women in real life are impossibly divided – as they were over trans rights, the issue that ultimately holed Sturgeon's premiership below the waterline. Representation can be a blessing and curse, even for a politician as gifted as Sturgeon undoubtedly has been. But is it also ultimately a distraction? Her book completes a trio of recent memoirs, alongside those of Ardern and Germany's Angela Merkel, which feel like a final full stop on the end of an era in which putting a woman in power was expected somehow to change everything. All three at their peak were somewhat romantically held aloft as examples of a kinder, more emotionally literate politics: Merkel for opening her arms to Syrian refugees; Ardern for the unifying way she led her country through the immediate and potentially divisive aftermath of the Christchurch terrorist massacre; and Sturgeon for being the remain voter's feminist yin to Boris Johnson's laddish Brexiter yang. All three functioned at times as queens across the water for English leftwingers, wondering wistfully why they couldn't have a leader like that. During the 2015 televised election debates in which Sturgeon took part, viewers furiously Googled whether it was possible to vote SNP south of the border. Merkel's principled pushback against Donald Trump in his first presidency – remember that iconic image of her looming commandingly over a seated Trump at a G7 summit? – was as much admired and envied in parts of the UK as Ardern's 'zero Covid strategy' of sealing borders, at least until the latter was overwhelmed by new variants. Yet all three became bitterly polarising figures in time, as Sturgeon herself acknowledged to The Shift's Sam Baker. The nature of the tribe in charge might have changed, but not the angry tribalism endemic in politics: so much for the patronising Barbieworld fantasy that if women ran the world, peace and love would rule the day. With hindsight, though, what all three of those pioneer female leaders really represented was a longing for someone to break the mould, and that hasn't gone away. If anything, the impatience and frustration with mainstream politics building up in younger women suggests it is intensifying. The Scottish journalist Alex Massie wrote this week of the English tendency to idolise Sturgeon from a distance, even as Scots who experienced her government's failings up close were losing patience with it. As an English journalist, I have to concede some truth in that. From a distance, it's too easy to get hung up on the performance of leadership, at which she genuinely did excel, and forget about what it actually feels like to be governed by someone day in and day out. During the pandemic, I remember envying the way Scottish lockdown restrictions took into account children's need for play, but more broadly the thought and seriousness that seemed to be going into Sturgeon's policymaking when Johnson was still making jokes about squashing sombreros or turning a blind eye to drunken parties. Yet death rates in Scotland weren't noticeably better than in England, for reasons the Covid inquiry is still exploring. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, Ardern was failing to hit her much-vaunted targets on child poverty, a reminder that personal values don't necessarily trump the realities of a post-lockdown economy. The obvious moral to be drawn from all of this is that putting women on a pedestal simply because they're women makes no more sense than taking lumps out of them for the same reason: that in a mature democracy, they would be judged simply on results. Since the least interesting thing about Kemi Badenoch's increasingly erratic leadership of the Conservative party is her gender, perhaps it's not too much to hope that we're moving in that direction: that the joy of being the third or fourth or fifth woman through the door is that eventually people simply cease to care. But, if so, it will be the Sturgeons and the Arderns and the Merkels, with all their flaws, who paved the way. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. Frankly by Nicola Sturgeon (Pan Macmillan, £28). A Different Kind of Power by Jacinda Ardern (Pan Macmillan, £25). Freedom by Angela Merkel (Pan Macmillan, £35). To support the Guardian, order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Tories accuse Sturgeon of breaking ministerial code over indyref2
The SNP's former Dear Leader Nicola Sturgeon released her memoir this week – but it has not quite had the reception she anticipated. The trailed excerpts prompted Alex Salmond's allies to accuse Sturgeon of besmirching her former mentor's name, brought her failed gender reform bill to the fore and confused pro-independence supporters after the Queen of the Nats hinted she was considering a move to, er, London. Now another admission in the 450-page tome has led the Scottish Tories to write to the Scottish Permanent Secretary to examine whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code. Craig Hoy posted his letter to Joe Griffin on Twitter today, fuming that Sturgeon's memoir had revealed the former first minister had 'wasted taxpayers' money on a doomed court case for party political reasons'. In his letter, Hoy stresses: In the book, the former first minister stated that the Scottish government's reference to the Supreme Court on whether it had the power to hold an independence referendum unilaterally was 'in all likelihood impossible' to succeed. The Scottish ministerial code states that ministers and officials should 'ensure that their decisions are informed by appropriate analysis of the legal considerations and that the legal implications of any course of action are considered at the earliest opportunity'. If the then-first minister has now publicly admitted that she thought it was 'impossible' for this court reference to succeed, yet proceeded with it anyway, this constitutes a clear failure to follow the legal implications of her chosen course of action at the earliest opportunity. Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the reason she proceeded with the reference was because she was 'in a bind' with her party members and supporters. The Supreme Court reference ended up costing taxpayers a quarter of a million pounds. This political use of public money is in clear violation of paragraph 1.4(i) of the ministerial code which states: 'Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes;'. He went on: Nicola Sturgeon is no longer first minister, so action can no longer be taken against her under the ministerial code, but could you as Permanent Secretary confirm whether you believe this spending complied with the requirements laid out in the code, given Ms Sturgeon's recent comments? If not, will the Scottish government be taking any action to recover the public funds that were spent at the direction of Nicola Sturgeon for what were clearly party political purposes? Good heavens! Has Sturgeon landed herself in hot water over this rather revealing confession? Stay tuned…
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
Watchdog: 'Inaccurate' use of Supreme Court sex ruling risks rights
The court ruled in April that the definition of 'woman' under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex as opposed to gender, in a case brought against Scottish Ministers by gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland. Four months after the judgement, the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has issued a statement, warning that implementations of the ruling could put the rights of both transgender and non-transgender individuals at risk. READ MORE: Scottish Government slaps down Tory MSP over Nicola Sturgeon memoir claims 'The Scottish Human Rights Commission has taken time to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case 'For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers' in the context of the human rights framework', the statement reads. 'While we do not believe that the judgment itself directly violates human rights, inaccurate interpretation and implementation of the ruling could put rights at risk.' It continues to acknowledge fears over how individuals' rights will be 'protected and upheld' following the judgement. 'We are concerned that basic rights to dignity and respect for all may be undermined. It is our view that the judgment itself does not directly violate any human rights', the SHRC said. 'However, the interpretation of this judgment and the resulting changes in policy, public discourse and the behaviour of duty-bearers are highly likely to have an impact on the rights of people in Scotland.' The SHRC has powers to recommend changes to law, policy and practice and primarily deals with raising 'awareness, understanding and respect for all human rights in Scotland'. It has advised the Scottish Government to 'immediately conduct an audit' of all policies relating to the Supreme Court judgement and to do so with a 'human rights-based approach' to avoid regressing on the protection of rights. The watchdog flagged concerns over the impact of the ruling on policies covered by the Equality Act, including police search powers, access to domestic violence shelters and single-sex accommodation in both prisons and healthcare facilities. It also noted that the Equality Act does not 'exist in isolation', referring to the fact that any policies formed under the Act must also fall in line with the Human Rights Act 1998. 'Taking a narrow lens to compliance with only one piece of legislation may risk non-compliance with human rights standards', the statement says. Following discussions between the SHRC, legal experts and academics, the watchdog says 'practical' and 'context-based' policies should be put in place to protect the rights of both trans and non-trans individuals. The statement continues: 'Without clear policies, decisions about, for example, how and when to accommodate individuals in services cannot be made consistently or with sufficient consideration of the issues and legal obligations at play. 'Nor can rights-holders expect to have a clear understanding of how their rights should be protected, or how complaints arising from practice should be addressed. This is a risk both to rights and to the ability of individuals to seek appropriate redress.' The SCHR also expressed the need for the human rights of different groups to not be seen as 'mutually exclusive or a zero-sum game'. 'Human rights are about more than the letter of the law; they should uphold dignity and humanity', it said. (Image: PA)Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman (above) reaffirmed her support for the trans community, saying: 'The Supreme Court ruling has raised many more questions than answers and it has put trans people and others in an intolerable position. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon defends Kate Forbes amid Fringe venue banning row "Trans people are effectively being removed from spaces and services that they have used for decades. Their rights to access such places and go about their daily lives with dignity are being breached. 'Some of the most right-wing, reactionary and bigoted forces in our country have celebrated while trans people have found their worlds becoming smaller and more hostile. 'Trans people have always been with us. They are our friends and neighbours, our children and partners. They know their own minds. They cannot be erased and nor can their experiences. I will always stand in solidarity with trans people.'
