John Swinney can't brush off £1 billion ferry fiasco with a cynical £10 million pre-election bribe
The beleaguered state of CalMac is a scandal that should see the SNP punished at the ballot box, but it probably won’t
Pre-election cynicism is not an unknown phenomenon but it still took a rare degree of brass neck for John Swinney to turn up on an island this week with an offer of glittering beads for the natives. These came in two purses. The first contained the promise of a £10 million “ferries resilience fund” as compensation to island businesses, conditional on Mr Swinney being in a post-election position to deliver.
Island communities have lived with the ferries debacle for four or five years, at greater cost to some than others. The collective losses to local economies run into hundreds of millions. The contribution to depopulation and plummeting morale is inescapable.
It took until last year for the Sturgeon/Yousaf/Swinney governments to agree to any compensation at all. It was then supposed to be £4m but the criteria were so tight that the fund was under-subscribed and the payouts miserly.
The latest round of breakdowns and maintenance delays has led to Caledonian MacBrayne describing it as the most serious crisis they have experienced. There could have been an immediate response from Edinburgh. Instead, there is a post-election bribe. Judge for yourselves.
READ MORE: SNP's latest campaign trail calamity highlights the disarray of Scotland's public services
Swinney’s ferry-to-Damascus conversion
Mr Swinney’s second purse was even more audacious. “It is clear to me,” intoned Honest John, “that ferry services need to be more understanding of and responsive to the needs of our island communities. That is why I can confirm that the SNP government will take steps to ensure the boards of both CalMac and David MacBrayne have proper representation of island residents.”
Leave aside the detail that the boards of these two entities are one and the same. Maybe he meant the board of CalMac and procurement quango CMAL? Or maybe not? When words are cobbled together on the back of an envelope while crossing the Minch, they tend to get confused.
More important is the fact that, for more than a decade, the governments in which Mr Swinney was a key player pursued the diametrically opposite policy to the one which, on the ferry to Damascus, became “clear” to him. In reality, the sinews of government have been strained to ensure islanders are kept off these boards.
Throughout the critical years, there was not a single islander dependent on lifeline services on the board of CalMac or CMAL. Random individuals on the quango circuit with no knowledge of either islands or ferries were preferred in the face of all protestations about the absence of first-hand knowledge or experience.
The most egregious example which can hardly have escaped Mr Swinney’s notice is that throughout this period, the key figure on these boards has been a resident, not of Colonsay or Castlebay, but of Copenhagen. As recently as last year, Mr Erik Østergaard was reappointed by Mr Swinney’s government as chairman of David MacBrayne/CalMac. Why, Mr Swinney? Why?
Mr Østergaard – who, to this day, has hardly set foot on most of islands served by CalMac, far less the vessels which serve them – was chairman of CMAL throughout the period of the ill-fated Ferguson Marine order. He is the man who knows where the bodies are buried in that affair, a credential which doubtless weighed heavily with subsequent ministers.
When Mr Østergaard’s time with CMAL was finally over, he was – quite incredibly – appointed to the same role in CalMac. In other words, he was put in charge of the operator which his previous board had failed to supply with the vessels required to deliver a service. And when Mr Østergaard switched to CalMac, his deputy – an Edinburgh lawyer – took over at CMAL. Thus was omerta ensured.
Why no inquiry?
None of this will be sorted by a couple of ‘trusties’ being stuck onto these boards after a decade of contempt for the principle of islanders being allowed near decision-making. A different structure is required which reunites procurement and operations in a single entity, at arms-length from government and political interference, while transferring accountability to the islands which it exists to serve.
The cost of building the two Ferguson ferries and associated infrastructure is now close to the £1 billion mark – a vast sum of wasted money that could have been transformational for fragile island communities (or many other useful purposes).
Yet Mr Swinney has repeatedly refused an inquiry which would get to the bottom of the whole murky business, with lessons to be learned. No minister or civil servant was ever obliged to resign. That’s a truer reflection of his political priority – self-protection.
I am under no illusion that the likely political impact of the ferry saga will not be proportionate to the headlines it attracts. Relatively few people or places are affected. Even within the Outer Isles, the ferry between Ullapool and Stornoway functions pretty well and that is where most of the traffic goes. The islands most cruelly affected are small in terms of population or influence.
SNP’s lip-service
In every other CalMac constituency, islanders are in minorities. They have little political clout. I know that and so does Mr Swinney. Where we differ is in my belief that the treatment of Scotland’s island communities should not be counted in votes or patronised by absurd last-minute promises.
It should be based on political decency and respect. It should be part of a cohesive philosophy towards safeguarding Scotland’s periphery, based on an understanding of its social, cultural and economic fragility and value. None of that exists.
The beleaguered state of Caledonian MacBrayne is a scandal in its own right which, in a fairer world, would merit political punishment. It is even more significant as a symptom of a centralising mentality in which peripheral places will never be short of lip-service, as they continue to decline, while actions tell the true story.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.