BLUEMOMENT

From the "Hebrides News"

The UK Government’s cost-cutting move to axe the Minch coastguard tug ended up “wasting” money.

The price for a temporary tug to cover coastguard duties around the Hebrides was £80,000 a month more compared to the coastguard tug contract it replaced.

Last week the Scotland Office announced an U-turn on the decision to withdraw funding for the lifeline service and launched a new procurement process for a reduced, single vessel cover.

In the meantime, taxpayers will continue to pay for the temporary contract which was introduced last October.

Figures show that it cost £3,783,212 to temporarily reinstate the tug service for seven and half months after the original service was terminated last October.

The average monthly payment was more than £80,000 higher than in 2010/11 when the total full-year contract cost £5,048,743.

SNP Westminster Transport spokesperson Angus MacNeil, who led the campaign against withdrawal of the service, said the Scotland Office still had questions to answer over the fiasco. Mr MacNeil pointed out that Ministers had not confirmed if cancellation of the original contract incurred any penalties.

Mr MacNeil said: “Only Westminster could make cuts in the name of cost cutting but, after two years of uncertainty, land taxpayers with an even bigger bill for half the service.

“This has been a farce from start to finish and the Scotland Office still have serious questions to answer - whether, for example, cancellation of the original contract incurred any penalties.

“If the UK Government had listened to our warnings two years ago all of this cost and risk could have been avoided. We have been left with half the service we previously had to patrol Scotland’s 10,000km of coastline.

“From small issues like pasties to big issues like the future of emergency towing vessels in our waters, the UK Government is making really bad decisions. We would make better decisions in Scotland and not leave it to Westminster.”

Still a heck of a lot of money to pay for a tug which has never been seriously needed. Are they that desperate for job creation schemes in Stornoway?

Yes, yes, Braer, I know. Our national special subject in Mastermind: Fighting the Last War.

It would appear we have different definitions of "seriously".

marisca wrote:It would appear we have different definitions of "seriously".

How many Braers has the Stornoway tug prevented? How many ships has it actually tugged?

ubergeekian wrote: How many Braers has the Stornoway tug prevented? How many ships has it actually tugged?

According to the MCA 8 vessels were towed by the Stornoway ETV between 2005 and 2010 including HMS Astute and the 56,000 ton Yeoman Bontrup. Without the ETV, had the Astute performed her consummate act of navigation in more severe weather, I imagine the result could have been "interesting" with over 30 hours waiting time for a tug. The Yeoman Bontrup was prevented from sinking at her moorings blocking (and probably closing) the Glen Sanda quarry with leakage of 900 tons of fuel oil into the relatively enclosed Lynns of Morvern and Lorn. I'm not sure why I should google this information for you when you could have just as easily done the same and added substance to whatever the point you are trying to make is.

I would like to point out that my house hasn't been burned down yet nor have a variety of other risks I have insured against occurred - I intend to continue the cover.

marisca wrote:

ubergeekian wrote: How many Braers has the Stornoway tug prevented? How many ships has it actually tugged?

(snip)
I would like to point out that my house hasn't been burned down yet nor have a variety of other risks I have insured against occurred - I intend to continue the cover.

That's interesting, I have cancelled non-compulsory insurances from time to time over the years in order to reduce outgoings to a manageable level. My house still didn't burn down, nor did my dinghies kill anyone or sink. I also don't carry any personal risks insurance. One has to remember that Insurnces make money out of betting that you won't claim.

Arghiro wrote:

marisca wrote:

ubergeekian wrote: How many Braers has the Stornoway tug prevented? How many ships has it actually tugged?

(snip)
I would like to point out that my house hasn't been burned down yet nor have a variety of other risks I have insured against occurred - I intend to continue the cover.

That's interesting, I have cancelled non-compulsory insurances from time to time over the years in order to reduce outgoings to a manageable level. My house still didn't burn down, nor did my dinghies kill anyone or sink. I also don't carry any personal risks insurance. One has to remember that Insurnces make money out of betting that you won't claim.

This is perfectly true, and provided you can stand the possible loss then it makes sense not to insure. Most people, however, would probably struggle to meet the rebuilding cost of a house out of ready cash.

marisca wrote: According to the MCA 8 vessels were towed by the Stornoway ETV between 2005 and 2010 including HMS Astute and the 56,000 ton Yeoman Bontrup.

OK, so one minor accident and a bit of expense to the MoD saved. How useful was the tug when that fishing boat piled up on Rum?

I would like to point out that my house hasn't been burned down yet nor have a variety of other risks I have insured against occurred - I intend to continue the cover.

That's very sensible. I presume that, like me, you regularly review the cost of the cover to check that it's commensurate with the risk. My Hunter has 3rd party insurance through Basic Boat, not fully comp with Pantaenius...

The tugs were put in place on two basic assumptions: (1) that accidents like the Braer were likely to happen again and (b) that they could be prevented if a single tug could get anywhere on the coast within four hours. After a few years it makes sense to review these assumptions.

It's all confused by the traditional government desire to shovel money at the outer fastnesses. That's the sort of thinking, disguised behind "the need for local knowledge" which is retaining local knowledge of a few windswept rocks in the North Atlantic at the expense of local knowledge of the far, far busier waters further south. "Och, your having a wee bit pother in the Clyde, are you? Chust so, chust so. Now, where iss that exactly? If Dougie wass here he would tell me himself."

ubergeekian wrote:It's all confused by the traditional government desire to shovel money at the outer fastnesses. That's the sort of thinking, disguised behind "the need for local knowledge" which is retaining local knowledge of a few windswept rocks in the North Atlantic at the expense of local knowledge of the far, far busier waters further south. "Och, your having a wee bit pother in the Clyde, are you? Chust so, chust so. Now, where iss that exactly? If Dougie wass here he would tell me himself."

Ah, the desire to shovel money at the outer fastnesses to avoid further island evacuations, you mean? The bizarre concept that there may be some merit in keeping remote communities alive?

Shocking waste of money. It's what those daft Norwegians do. Basically we should just let everywhere north of the Central Belt die a natural death. After all, James Lovelock the darling of the environmental movement, now reckons we should all live in air conditioned cities.

It is the 'windswept rocks in the North Atlantic' that are likely to do the most damage. Sometimes Ug I wonder if you are real, or just a clever Turing troll.

If the near total loss of a 56kton ship and the avoidance of £60M environmental damage is "minor" in your book then I understand why you don't insure your boat against loss. Yes, I have full cover from Pantaenius - I race and single-hand and am self-aware enough to have reservations about my skills and ability to avoid cock-ups, plus I couldn't afford to replace my boat, so the premiums are, to my mind, worth it.

The Donaldson Inquiry made recommendations which were implemented and if another similarly authoritative inquiry had been held which found that the risk/cost analyses were no longer valid then, while I might disagree, the decision would be made on considered evidence. What we got was one of the many imbecilic, ill-considered cost cutting measures that this government specialises in (VAT on pasties; tax on charities?) and like so many other of their "savings" it has suffered a u-turn with added cost.

If you had bothered to check the figures you would have found that the Stornoway ETV towed more vessels in 2010, the last year I found figures for, than the Dover ETV which is tasked by both French and UK CG. There is more coastline in the Clyde estuary than the whole of the south of England but to you are just "windswept rocks" of no consequence.

Nick wrote: Ah, the desire to shovel money at the outer fastnesses to avoid further island evacuations, you mean? The bizarre concept that there may be some merit in keeping remote communities alive?

Shocking waste of money. It's what those daft Norwegians do. Basically we should just let everywhere north of the Central Belt die a natural death.

If people don't want to live in these places, and if they don't have viable economies, then I see very little reason to maintain them as glorified theme parks. That goes as much for rural south west Scotland as for the windswept outer fastnesses, by the way.

These communities survived in the old days because there was, by and large, nowhere else for the young people to go. You were born on Wof, you gre up on Wof, you fished around Wof until you grew too old for it, you farmed on Wof thereafter, you died on Wof and you were buried on Wof. Nowadays the young of Wof have far more opportunity. They can stick to the local industries or they can spread their wings with a far, far greater range of opportunities than their grandparents had. It's hardly a surprise that so many of them choose to move elsewhere.

Is that a bad thing? Sure, for the community as whole it is. They lose their young people and both language and culture decline. But for the young people involved it's a huge improvement on how things were. Gaelic is dying in large part because of the improved opportunities for young people.

What do we do about it? How much money do we have to throw at someone to persuade her that waulking tweed for life is a more attractive prospect than working as an aerospace engineer?

I'm all in favour of encouraging and pump-priming new industries, whether on Wof, in Galloway or in Cumbernauld. I am not in favour of trying indefinitely to maintain communities and lifestyles which simply are not viable any more. Every time I go to my boat I drive through Patna and Dalmellington in the Doon ("Ye Banks and Braes") valley. These towns exist as a result of a coal mining industry which is, bar one open-cast operation, long gone. Two at least of the towns there, Waterside and Polmaddy, have all but vanished, but the other two struggle on with blimey all industry and blimey all prospects.

Why? They grew up because coal was mined. Now that coal isn't mined there, why do we spend vast amounts of public money trying to keep them going. Let them wither, shrivel and die as the people move to places with real prospects. Help them with that move if necessary, but don't try to stuff and mount dead communities and pretend they are still alive.

It is the 'windswept rocks in the North Atlantic' that are likely to do the most damage. Sometimes Ug I wonder if you are real, or just a clever Turing troll.

At least you used the word "clever", there. What damage to the windswept rocks do, by the way, except to the bottoms of wayward ships?

Oh, I seem to have gone on a bit. Sorry.

marisca wrote:If the near total loss of a 56kton ship and the avoidance of £60M environmental damage is "minor" in your book then I understand why you don't insure your boat against loss.

I don't insure that boat against loss because it's worth about as much as a new 6hp outboard. Jumblie, on the other hand, is fully covered by GJW. It's all about balancing costs and likely losses.

The Donaldson Inquiry made recommendations which were implemented and if another similarly authoritative inquiry had been held which found that the risk/cost analyses were no longer valid then, while I might disagree, the decision would be made on considered evidence.

Agreed. It's a shame that, as with the coastguards, the politics of job creation and subsidy are drowning out the more reasoned analyses that need made. It might be, for example, that two smaller tugs, in, say, Ullapool and Mallaig, would be a better bet.

No large oil tankers had been lost around the north of Scotland before the Braer, yet the Donaldson enquiry assumed that further losses were likely enough that a tug was necessary. Maybe it was a reasonable precaution to take, but in the absence of any further losses or potential losses (I'll take that £60m with a very large pinch of salt, since quantification of environmental damage is dodgy to say the least) since then, I see no reason to continue funding these things indefinitely and without review.

If you had bothered to check the figures you would have found that the Stornoway ETV towed more vessels in 2010, the last year I found figures for, than the Dover ETV which is tasked by both French and UK CG.

And operates in an area very well supplied indeed with commercial tugs.

There is more coastline in the Clyde estuary than the whole of the south of England but to you are just "windswept rocks" of no consequence.

Does the Stornoway ETV spend much time in the Firth of Clyde? I haven't seen it around much, though I suspect we have an order of magnitude more shipping movements than the windswept rocks.

marisca wrote: According to the MCA 8 vessels were towed by the Stornoway ETV between 2005 and 2010 including HMS Astute and the 56,000 ton Yeoman Bontrup.

The only accident report I can find on the Yeoman Bontrup is this one. In that case the Anglian Sovereign only assisted with the firefighting. She arrived on the scene one and half hours after the immediate danger had been declared over. It's possible that she did the subsequent tow away, a few days later, but there would have been ample time to get a commercial tug there so I suspect it was simply a matter of convenience.

Summary: the presence of a fire fighting ship was useful but not essential and the presence of a tug was irrelevant.

If I have missed another misadventure by the Yeoman Bontrup, one in which emergency towing was required, then I apologise.

ubergeekian wrote:No large oil tankers had been lost around the north of Scotland before the Braer, yet the Donaldson enquiry assumed that further losses were likely enough that a tug was necessary. Maybe it was a reasonable precaution to take,

The environmental impact if one were to ground in the Minch would be horrific- as would the economic damage done to the whole of the west coast so for those reason they must maintain some form of defense.

Better still would be to ban tankers and dangerous cargos from the Minch entirely.

wully wrote: Better still would be to ban tankers and dangerous cargos from the Minch entirely.

Seems fair to me.

Ian