The House of Commons Transport Select Committee this week convened a second hearing into the UK Government’s plans to ‘modernise’ the Coastguard service by closing ten coastguard stations – including both of Scotland’s central belt stations at Forth and Clyde – and replace them with a call centre in Hampshire.
In this renewed expression of concern at the safety of the plans, Scotland’s voice has, again, been disgracefully mute.
We remain angrily bewildered by a government aiming to take Scotland into independence which has nevertheless sat on its hands while the UK government demolishes the infrastructure of Scotland’s coastguard service, replacing it with a call centre in Hampshire.
Is this another keepsie to be added to the list of continuing dependencies of the proposed ‘independent’ Scotland?
To ceremonial control through the head of state, fiscal control through the Bank of England, political control through Brussels, defence control through NATO, this SNP government is adding the ceding of control of our coasts to a call centre on the south coast of England?
In negative terms at least, it has to be said that they are consistent.
Ministerial ignorance and disregard
In yet more evidence of lack of knowledge and regard on the part of the Westminster government, it emerged at a hearing of the Transport Select Committee this week that new Shipping Minister, Stephen Hammond MP, has made no effort to acquaint himself with the Coastguard service.
The committee was, for the second time, investigating the security of the government’s plan to modernise the Coastguard service. Under questioning, Mr Hammond admitted that he has not met any coastguard officers nor has he visited a single coastguard station.
Yet he now presides over a plan which has recently closed down Forth Coastguard prematurely and in breach of safety assurances given by government; and which plans to close nine more nine Coastguard rescue coordination centres – at Clyde, Brixham, Liverpool, Yarmouth, Swansea, Thames and Portland.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the safety of the government plan – in which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been typically compliant – is insecure and is, on the evidence, not even a priority.
The Forth betrayal
The evidence shows that Forth Coastguard, the first to be axed, was closed in short order despite assurances from the previous Shipping Minister; Mike Penning MP, that no stations would close until the replacement centralised call centre had been fully tested for robustness.
The new centralised call centre at Fareham in Hampshire stands empty, un-staffed and is not planned to be operational before 2014 at the earliest.
But Forth Coastguard is gone and Clyde Coastguard is due to follow by the end of the year.
Speaking on behalf of the National Coastguard SOS Campaign, Dennis O’Connor insists that ‘specific assurances were given to members of the House of Commons and these assurances have not been honoured by the DfT or MCA.
‘Forth Coastguard was closed despite the new system being nowhere near operational and coordination duties have passed to Aberdeen Coastguard who are suffering significant staff shortages.
‘Now we have a situation where officers who are not fully aware of vital local knowledge of this additional area of responsibility are having to assume coordination duties somewhat blindly, whilst being short staffed. This is wholly unacceptable’.
‘The Transport Select Committee also expressed concerns to the Minister that the station closure programme had begun without the promised testing of the controversial call centre in Fareham.
‘It is clear that the Transport Select Committee (TSC) have grave concerns about the plan by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) and Department for Transport (DfT) to close stations.
‘This is the second such inquiry the TSC have conducted and it was obvious from Ministerial responses that, whilst there may well be plenty of determination to close stations, there appears to be very little ability to formulate and implement a plan which is both credible and safe.’
The Transport Select Committee hearing
Those giving evidence to this second Transport committee hearing included representatives of the PCS and Nautilus Unions, who were heard first, before the questioning of UK Shipping Minister, Stephen Hammond and Maritime & Coastguard Agency CEO, Sir Alan Massey.
Despite public and professional maritime concerns, the Minister insisted that the modernisation plans are safe. From his admitted lack of knowledge and understanding of the service, it is hard to know quite where such confidence is seated.
Following a call by the TSC for fresh evidence of concerns, a total of 28 submissions have been received, including evidence from the National Coastguard SOS Campaign group. All submissions are being considered by members of the committee before their announcement on the future of HM Coastguard which is expected in a matter of weeks.
Campaigners insist that the closure plans remain ‘dangerously flawed’. The evidence appears to support this view and concerns are mounting at the apparent indifference of the Shipping Minister and the MCA chief towards public safety and the future of the service.
Mr O’Connor says: ‘The first announcement of station closure plans was made almost two years ago and despite this, there appears to be no direction by senior MCA staff or Government Ministers and no sense of urgency to address very valid concerns of Coastguard officers and campaigners.
‘Judging from their inability to answer simple questions, the MCA do not appear to know exactly how to implement their plan or if it will be workable and safe.
‘We cannot allow the MCA and DfT to bumble along blindly whilst experienced Coastguard officers are being put under impossible stresses as a result of uncertain futures.’
Campaigners are outraged by Mr Hammond’s apparent disregard for the service and question his ability – from his severely limited information base – to oversee such important and widespread changes which will ultimately affect the safety of coast users across the UK.
The general public feel safe with the Coastguard service.
They do not feel safe with the prospect of a call centre on the south coast taking the place of no fewer than ten coastguard stations around the country – or with responsibility for their particular sea area held by stations a long way away and with sea areas of their own to deal with as well. And why should they?
Note: The photograph at the top was taken during the Flare Friday Flotilla demonstration at Greenock in support of Clyde Coastguard’s campaign to remain in service. The photograph illustrates the range of simultaneous uses of coastal waters kept safe by the coastguard service.
There seems to be an analogy with ‘aunty’ BBC, where the big bosses were saying with voices of great authority (and apparently believing) one thing – and repeating it in imperious ignorance – until found out big time and now in disarray.
Just replace abuse of minors with death of seafarers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This should be another nail in Chairman Salmonds coffin.
He’s happy to let infrastructure controlled by Westminster fall apart, affecting thousands of people and probably compromising people’s safety, without a fight so he can say in a couple of years, ‘Look what the English have done to us. You’ll all be better off with me as your Great Leader.’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is pejorative nonsense. Can you point to s single strand of evidence that “He’s happy to let infrastructure controlled by Westminster fall apart”.
Like most in the SNP I am incensed by what continues to happen to my country in the hands of successive Westminster Governments.
I challenged Alan Reid about the coastguard to be told he was powerless as Labour had not forced a vote on the matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A strange headline – blaming the SNP for a matter they have no influence over. The Coastguard is a reserved matter, and the Scottish government can no more ‘cede’ control over the coastguard than they can assume control over any other aspect of it. The headline is even more bizarre when the body of the article reveals no SNP complicity but instead places the blame squarely where it belongs – with the cuts-obsessed coalition at Westminster.
The SNP – particularly the MP for the Western Isles, Angus MacNeil, have called for responsibility for the Coastguard to be devolved to Westminster on more than one occasion. Needless to say this call has fallen on deaf ears. However, a vigourous campaign in which Mr. MacNeil played a big part did result in Stornoway CG being reprieved – otherwise the whole of the West Coast including the Minch would have been run from Aberdeen.
If we want the Scottish government to have control over our Coastguard service then the remedy is clear. Vote YES in 2014.
If however you do want vital Scottish services to be run from call centres on the South Coast then keep right on using every news story, however inappropriate, as a stick to beat the SNP with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The issue here is the silence and the inaction – which this headline absolutely accurately reflects.
The Scottish Government is trotting out the mantra of ‘It’s Westminster’s fault’ at every opportunity – yet here is an issue which is absolutely and only Westminster’s responsibility and there hasn’t been a serious peep out of them.
Keith Brown made a belated statement to the BBC after the Clyde Coastguard demonstration but had done nothing before and has done nothing since. It’s all words.
Forth Coastguard has already closed – under his nose in Edinburgh. Its sea area is being run from Aberdeen, already understaffed and already, with the oil industry, a busy station. And Aberdeen has had to take this over with no support from the Fareham call centre, which remains inoperative and will be until 2014 at least.
Imagine the situation should the CHC Puma ditching off Shetland have happened while the tugs with the barge AMT Trader were making their approaches to Rosyth with the last block of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier – and something had gone wrong? With Forth gone, Aberdeen occupied and nothing at all at Fareham, where would the focused control in response coordination have come from?
As this article says, we remain angrily bewildered at the Scottish Government’s detachment and passivity on this issue. This is about the security of safety on Scotland’s coasts, with the two main east and west coast ports [and their substantial sea areas - Clyde's is massive] left with inadequate support; and with personnel and skills wasting to irrecoverability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So you believe the Scottish government should spend vast amounts of energy – and taxpayers’ money – fighting matters over which it has no control whatsoever.
Is this in addition to or instead of the day to day business of running the country using powers it DOES posess plus preparing for a referendum which will return these vital missing powers to Holyrood?
In fact, if you bothered to do a little research you would see that the SNP have repeatedly sought to bring pressure on the Westminster government sionce long before you even became aware of the issue.
PM challenged over coastguard cuts
Isles MP speaks out in coastguard debate
SNP bid to stop coastguard cuts
Support for coastguard services
New Transport Secretary must save Clyde Coastguard
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your position is weakened by two facts: the Scottish Govenrment is doing very little governing these days. It’s eyes are on the 2014 horizon, Proof of this is its need to put back the t3ndering of the Clyde and Hebridean ferry sercices contract to 2016 – producing a full seven year process from consultation to contract and with the policy document, the Scottish Ferries Review still unpublished. The National Marine Plan has also had to be delayed until after the 2014 vote.
And on the matter of waste of public money, how would you defend the First Minister’s engagement of legal process to prevent the publication of legal advice which had not even been sought and did not exist?
A serious campaign by the Scottish Govenrment to retain the Scottish Coastguard stations would have succeeded at Westminster for political reasons alone. Proof of this is that the campaign, which it did fight, to save Stornoway Coastguard in the cultural touchstone of the Western Isles, was successful.
All the Government did for the rest of the country was release a few platitudinous words from time to time. Westminster knows how to read the runes as well as anyone. Job done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What rot SR.
The time to try influence is NOW, regardless of whether the power is devolved. I find it strange the SNP are not all over this, but I would place money on them suddenly talking about it in about a years time….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“However, a vigourous campaign in which Mr. MacNeil played a big part did result in Stornoway CG being reprieved – otherwise the whole of the West Coast including the Minch would have been run from Aberdeen.”
Would it not have better if politics had not played a part and the small Stornoway base was closed and larger Clyde retained to do the whole West coast? One important factor with call centres like these is that there must enough capacity for others to take over in the event of a major failure at one call centre. All the radio stations are remotely operated so presumably can be controlled from any call centre and incoming telephone calls will be able to redirected anywhere.
It seemed a case of Stornowaay making more noise and being retained and Clyde leaving it too later before they started their campaign.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Could the relative impact of unemployment on the local community also have been a factor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it was to do with sea areas. Is the Clyde area not coming under Belfast (Bangor)? If so it’s not that far away from a new centre, compared with the Tweed/ Northumberland area from Aberdeen or the Humber.
Stornoway and Shetland were not originally going to be retained. There was only going to be Aberdeen in Scotland sharing sea areas with Belfast and Humber.
Stornoway and Shetland are also remote Coastguard Helicopter stations and I’m sure that had a bearing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a disgraceful, untruthful, headline.
You should be ashamed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
100% Westminster fault thanks to Tories austerity plans caused by the Labour’s mismanagement of the UK finances , Nothing the Scottish Government can do other than voice their anger at these life threatening actions. Simple answer vote Yes in 2014
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The simple fact is that if the SNP Scottish Government had fought to save these stations by, amongst other things, voicing the anger of the Scottish people, they would absolutely have commanded attention from Westminster in the current political situation. They didn’t bother.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They did bother – many times, as I have pointed out in the links in my previous reply to you.. Westminster did not listen. They did not need to – it is a devolved matter and there is no UK election in the offing.
Why not stop looking for sticks to beat the SNP with and instead get behind the only game in town that offers us a hope in hell of regaining control over our coastguard?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There will be no coastguard left to recover, after this laissez faire irresponsibility. And the fact that they won the Stornoway reprieve, which they did make an effort to fight, proves the point you simply choose to disregard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: ForArgyll Now Moderating Comments From Scots Renewables ? | Scotland's Renewable Energy Blog
Newsroom, have you read SR’s links? Appalling headline, disappointed in you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This entire article is one of the most extreme examples of contrived, dishonest, logic-defying anti-SNP propaganda I have ever encountered. The author doesn’t even appear to be aware of the meaning of the word “cede”. And he/she definitely knows nothing about reserved powers.
Appalling stuff!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes — story is misleading rubbish, just a boring SNP bashing rant
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SNP bashing?…that’s a laugh!…they do all their own suicides , no need for anyone else to do it for them. It won’t be long before the need the …—… signal themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Honestly Peter, there is far worse of what you describe being published regarding the SNP on a daily basis everywhere throughout the UK. Newsroom like many many others with a similar responsibility will use this platform to mislead, twist and misinform to attempt to strengthen the, in my opinion, weaker case for a ‘no’ vote come 2014 regardless of balanced research and opinion. It genuinely gives me no pleasure to be so critical of Newsroom as some of the other articles/reports are excellent, very informative indeed. I do not recall a single positive article regarding any SNP policies or performance since being voted into power first term, then by an overwhelming majority second time around. Strange that there is nothing even slightly positive to report yet voters in Scotland deserted Labour and the others in such high numbers up and down our country during their recent landslide victory. Really, what chance do the electorate have in comming to their decision in 2014 fully armed with the facts on both sides of the debate when we get this sort of relentless misinformation. Thankfully we have some excellent posters on this site who know their stuff contributing with very good counter-arguments to these accusations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is dismal, really bent ill-thought out article.
Factually incorrect. Morally bereft pathetic attempt at point scoring.
Pitiful.
Up your game or give up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m afraid this site has now become no more than a crude and naive anti-SNP propaganda instrument.
The SNP has none absolutely nothing about the nights drawing in either.
Do you really think the Government of an independent Scotland would pass control of the safety of our waters to Hampshire and Belfast?
As things stand there is absolutely nothing the Scottish Govt can do.
The coastguard fiasco should, however, be a resigning matter for Alan Reid MP as he supports the government who are implementing it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Editor,
I read with concern your recent article criticising the SNP Government’s response to the proposed closure of the Clyde Coastguard by the UK Government. I take issue with a number of statements that you have written, I do not believe they in any way accurately depict the SNPs involvement in this matter.
Firstly, you state “Scotland’s voice has been disgracefully mute.” I disagree completely with this statement and I will outline why. As an SNP MSP for West Scotland, in which Clyde Coastguard lies, I have been a vocal critic of the UK Governments plans to close the coastguard facilities. I have fought both on a local and national level for its continued operation. I have provided a lengthy submission to both UK Government consultations on the matter, I have spoken at public meetings, I have led a Scottish Parliament debate on the matter, I have contributed to my colleague Alasdair Allan MSP’s members debate on coastguard closures, I have met with Scottish Minister for Transport Keith Brown MSP, I have met with the First Minister Alex Salmond MSP, I have written to the current UK Minister for Transport and the previous Minister for Transport outlining the case for retaining Clyde Coastguard and I have engaged with management of Clyde Coastguard. I know first-hand that the SNP Government have been extremely supportive of the Clyde Coastguard and that as a party and Government we have fought to maintain coastguard services on the Clyde, whilst the UK Government seems determined to put lives at risk by removing them. To say the Scottish Government has “Sat on its hands” is simply untrue and is incredibly misleading to your readership to say the least.
The decision to replace the Clyde Coastguard with a call centre in Hampshire is one made completely by the UK Government. The Scottish Government, unfortunately, has no power over this decision and can only fight long and hard from the sidelines while the UK Government rips apart Scotland with its austerity measures. This is surely a prime example of why we need independence. In an independent Scotland it would be the Scottish Government, elected purely by the people of Scottish, that would control coastguard services. I am sure in an independent Scotland we would not be putting such a valuable service at risk in the way the UK Government are doing presently. This is yet another example of Scotland being ripped off, is this the Union dividend that Unionist claim benefits Scotland so much?
The Scottish Government has engaged fully on this matter and, like me, is determined in its belief that Clyde Coastguard should be retained. If only the same could be said for the UK Government and the unionist parties. I know who I would rather have defending Scotlands interests.
Yours Sincerely
Stuart McMillan MSP
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whatever a government says and whatever submissions it makes, it is always perfectly clear whether it is serious in its determination to win a specific campaign.
We live in a world where gesture politics is the name of the game.
In this issue the Scottish Government was serious only about saving Stornoway – which, like Clyde and Forth – should never have been listed for closure.
The Westminster government understood perfectly the difference between the gestural elements and the reality and Stornoway was saved.
It also has to be said that political support for Clyde Coastguard’s last hurrah – the Flare Friday Flotilla – where it needed everything it could get – was thin to invisible.
We do not doubt your own commitment to Clyde Coastguard and are well aware of support it received from you and from individual politicians of other parties.
But the Scottish Government did not try to WIN this. It simply worked to be seen to engage. There is a substantial difference between the two.
If it had tried to win, it would have done.Matters of this gravity do not devolve upon reserved powers but upon natural authority and the Scottish Government would have had the people behind it had it chosen to fight powerfully on this and had it recruited that endorsement.
On the matter of devolved and reserved powers, the Scottish Government was asked by the National Coastguard SOS campaign to commission studies on coastal safety – which are within its powers and whose results could have been significant – and it chose not to bother to exercise those powers in the interests of maintaining Scotland’s coastguard service.
This has been a serious failure of responsibility on the part of the Scottish Government. That it has come from an SNP administration beggars belief. This was an issue where they should have gone to the barricades.
It is more likely than not that Scotland will remain in the UK. This will see us with our Coastguard stations closed without anything resembling a fight from our own government. This really is the ultimate irresponsibility in a government elected much less to bring about independence than to govern Scotland in Scotland’s interests.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since ever the MCA was formed in 1998 it has invested in technology which has allowed it to reduce the number of coast guard stations without, so far, endangering life at sea. On each occasion stations have closed you and your predecessors, spurred on by people who mostly had not the slightest idea of how the CG operate, far less which end of a boat is which, go through the motions and move on.
If, and it’s a big if, you were interested in safety at sea, you would be wondering what was happening to the other half of the MCA? The MCA was formed from the amalgamation of two agencies; Coastguard and Marine Safety. The cost-saving pressure on the latter agency will be as great. The MCA are required to inspect specific “at risk” vessels with the intention, eventually, of getting rid of them and, at least, 25% of all others. This work is highly labour intensive and can be difficult to manage when a target vessel may enter port without notice. The Paris MOU covers these activities and used to have a database reporting port detentions and inspection results which anybody could access and was illuminating in helping you understand why the vessels which sank, say, in the Pentland Firth could be better understood by their inspection record.
So, whilst bashing the front door, watch the back door; there’s alot more to safety at sea than you might think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘….used to have a database…’ – has it been ‘buried’, or is it still accessible somewhere else?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is some time since I accessed the MOU but, from a quick google, this URL seems to be the current one.
http://www.parismou.org/inspection_efforts/inspections/inspection_database_search/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For all of the SNP stalwarts above who complain at the criticism of the government, just remember the very same government’s disgraceful behaviour in the matter of the leisure development north of Aberdeen.
Hanging the local residents out to dry, under threat of compulsory purchase for a bloody golf course, and effectively deposing the chair of the planning authority.
I’ve voted SNP, but there’s no way any political party deserves (or benefits from) the sort of mindless, unquestioning, amoral loyalty that’s more at home in the ranks of the mafia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robert,
Why bring up a totally unrelated matter in an attempt to defend the nonsensical and indefensible headline and premise of this article?
Are you really saying the SNP isn’t perfect so any and all attacks on it are fair enough even if based on false premises and totally unjustified? Surely not!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does the SNP not have MPs in Westminster? What part have they played in this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SNP or otherwise, once an MP has supped the Westminster Kool Aid, Scotland is just a doormat under their feet. Look at Salmond and Robertson and their Nato antics last week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SR: I don’t think that they are entirely ‘false premises and totally unjustified’.
Look closely at the government response to the Edinburgh City Council trambungle over the last few years, and I think you’ll see that there was a tendency to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of other politicians steering a worthwhile project over a cliff, without taking account of the overall impact on public finances and, it has to be said, national credibility until very late in the day.
On a smaller scale, the gross neglect by SPTE of the Rosneath peninsula ferry link appears to be suffering from the same government attitude of ‘hahaha see them screwing up’ – where it’s the people who are suffering from, and paying for, scandalous official negligence.
And the Trump affair destroyed my trust in the integrity of the SNP top leadership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry Robert,
Nothing you have said above has any bearing on the subject matter of this thread. I am sorry that other things the SNP leadership has done have destroyed your trust in them, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on the matter of the coastguard.
Sensible discussion seems to have gone out of the window here. You seem to have decided – along with Newsroom – to simply sling huge amounts of random mud whenever the SNP are mentioned in the hope the some of it will stick.
Now, could you please say whether or not you think it is the Scottish government’s fault that Clyde Coastguard is being closed, and if so explain how they could have prevented it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘..simply sling huge amounts of random mud whenever the SNP are mentioned..’ – Time to get off your cloud, SR.
It seems to me that the temptation to watch the Westminster government get in trouble by damaging the coastguard service was irresistable, and that the senior SNP leadership is quite ruthless in exploiting any opportunity to be able to demonstrate how much better off Scotland would be if independent, with the SNP running everything.
If people get drowned due to the reorganisation the chickens will be coming home to roost, but will all the blame attach to Cameron & co?
I can’t help thinking that the reorganisation of the coastguard is so ill-conceived that the Westminster SNP contingent could have joined forces with the LibDems and Labour to stop Cameron & co dead in their tracks – if the will had been there. I think SNP and LibDem opportunism, combined with Labour’s visceral hatred of the SNP, allowed Cameron & co to get away with it ‘scot-free’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robert,
Your suggestion that the SNP deliberately did nothing because they expect people to die and will then be able to gloat as a result ascribes a cartoon wickedness to the Scottish government that makes you look, quite frankly, like the maddest of conspiracy theorists.
I used to think you were worth arguing with. Your ‘contributions’ on this topic have reduced the worth of your opinions to near zero I am afraid and I no longer intend to respond to any of your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SR – you’re over-egging it in your passionate defence of all things SNP, but I just don’t believe that their senior leadership shows enough commitment to the basic rights of the ‘common man’ in this country, and that they’re too easily swayed by the blandishments of ‘big money’ and of point-scoring against their opponents.
They certainly didn’t give a damn for the people living at Balmedie, and seem to have turned their back on the unfortunate users of the Rosneath ferry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been loathe to express my views on this matter as it has become highly political ( this does not apply to wind turbines ) but I was an RYA Sailing Instructor for 20 years on the West Coast. I retired about the same time as Oban Coastguard was absorbed by Clyde and Tony Gill was unfortunately made redundant. I don’t listen to VHF any more but have to say that the outcry when Oban was closed was totally misplaced and very much in line with this topic. To my knowledge – with modern technology – no problems have occured since Oban was shut. There was a great hue and cry over the loss of ‘local knowledge’ which was more emotional rather than practical.
On the internet you can ask a question and have it answered from California in less that 2 seconds. In Coastguard the same super efficiency in supplying information also exists.
These people are professionals – they are trained to cope.
Air traffic control has an amazing responsibility – they don’t have to have intimate knowledge of every airstrip in the country – but they always have very essential knowledge to hand.
To get an idea of the very few ships that are actually in our waters, download the free Ship Finder app
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm,
For once we agree. I was apalled when they closed Oban, but since then the only incident of any concern (as far as I know) was the confusion over the helicopter dispatch to the Aquila when she capsized off Ardnamurchan.
I still believe that it is a false economy to close so many stations,and wojuld prefer Clyde to remain open – but the dramatic nonsense we have seen here about the Scottish government doing nothing over a reserved matter to deliberately score points needs to be shown for the ridiculous hyperbole it is.
As a sailing instructor myself I am of course used to listening to and talking to Clyde, and I will miss them – , but I have also talked to and listened to Belfast and Stornoway on many occasions, and they are fine as well.
(Channel 16 is NOT going to be monitored by a call centre in Hampshire when Clyde shuts, no matter what Newsroom says – Belfast and Stornoway will be covering the area)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm, I have to agree with you. Things have changed dramatically since we went to sea. Charts and maps covering the whole of the uk can be accessed in seconds from anywhere. Most craft going to sea on our wild west coast will have some form of electronic navigation, even kayaks, and these give a position to three places of decimals.
The real local knowledge is in the hands of those on the ground, the local volunteer Coastguard teams, together with the Lifeboat and helicopter crews. They are the ones who actually do the rescuing and they’re not being cut.
The skills of the Ops room staff are different but equally crucial, for they work on calculable probabilities of the set and drift of casualties and a lot more too and can send resources to the correct search area (which may be miles from the last given position of the casualty) with very high probability of success. When I was involved the CG was the only service able to communicate with all the other rescue services, and that’s their job – to coordinate all resources to gain maximum effect. And they do it very well.
In theory, it’s possible to do that from Hampshire.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We have a volunteer Coastguard station in Dunoon.
Anyone know what is to happen to it?
Are there plans to set up similar volunteer Coastguard units elsewhere or are their similar volunteer stations already in existence scattered around Argyll?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This government release says that there will be a Coastguard coastal operational hub in the Clyde area, so all is not doom and gloom,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20111122a/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All Coastguard rescue teams will remain unaffected. It is the operations centre at Greenock which is to close and whose responsibilities are being transferred to a much smaller station at Belfast. Re. the press release quoted, I’m sure the staff at Greenock will be delighted to ‘progress their careers’.
From the dole office.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We can agree surely that the responsibility for Coastguard services rests with the UK Government and not the Scottish Government.
That being so, it is for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament as a whole to lobby and make representations, but ultimately it’s for the Scottish MPs of all political parties to take that message to Westminster, speak to it and ask questions.
Had the Scottish parliament and all of our MSPs been capable of putting aside their tribal and partisan personal and party interests they could have spoken with one voice on this matter giving weight to the case. So too the MPs, in fact particularly so, because as a reserved matter it was for them to make the running on this.
As it stands the article headline is misleading and inaccurate. This isn’t a failure of the SNP alone here, all the political parties are equally culpable and derelict. Our elected representatives, all of them, have let us and themselves down.
Sorry Newsroom but by your own bias in this, and your willingness to take a cheap shot, you’re no better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No doubt you think Holyrood are also to blame for the loss of Nimrod SAR cover, the closure of the Maritime Incident Response Group (MIRG) to assist ships on fire around UK coasts and the threat to remove the ETVs or Emergency Towing Vessels (ie tugs) all implemented by this UK government but strangely absent from their manifesto, whether Tory or LibDem. Each of these issues constitutes a real degregation of safety at sea. As the Shipping Minister represents Wimbledon perhaps we shouldn’t be holding our breath waiting for him to rectify these matters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With Scotland having over twice as much coastline as England and many many times more sea area, the decision to locate the emergency call centre in deepest Hampshire puts things into perspective. Disgraceful, well not if you operate on the Westminster vision of how things should be done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0