Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

A9 dualling: All you need to know as Holyrood probe hears ‘explosive’ evidence

Alex Neil was in charge of transport policy for the SNP when the project was promised. Here we take you through the revelations and what it means for Humza Yousaf's government.

Alex Neil A9
Alex Neil signed off on the plan to deliver the road by 2025. Image: PA

The SNP minister responsible for committing to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025 appeared before MSPs with “explosive” new evidence about the government’s failure to deliver.

Long after he stepped down from parliament, Alex Neil was back on Wednesday morning to tell a Holyrood inquiry that excuses on timescales were “utter nonsense”.

One of the MSPs in the committee is Fergus Ewing – the SNP politician suspended by his colleagues for rebelling.

Mr Ewing, who served in government with the former minister, said his input was “informative, revelatory and really quite explosive”.

In a session with plenty of highlights, MSPs heard:

  • Claims that the 2025 target for completion were only ever “aspirational” branded utter nonsense.
  • Previously unheard details of times to dual each section of the A9 between Inverness and Perth.
  • How the project was to be funded and the financial cost of failing.
  • Why he thinks the government failed to keep its promise to Highlanders.

Here are four stand-out revelations and claims from the committee session.


1. Transport Scotland claim ‘utter rubbish’

Mr Neil said the “realistic” and fully-costed plans were set out by government agency Transport Scotland officials in May 2012, on his instruction.

Explaining how to 2025 commitment was made, Mr Neil said: “I asked them to be realistic, Transport Scotland, and they assured me that both physically and financially it was perfectly feasible to achieve the dualling of the A9 between Inverness and Perth by 2025, and Inverness and Aberdeen (the A96) by 2030.”

A9 dualling map shows the sections being upgraded.

Senior officials at the roads agency handed him a “detailed plan”.

He added: “This was not aspirational. A lot of work was done both before it went into the plan.

“Before they could advise me by 2025 was the reasonable date when we could do this financially and physically, they clearly had to do a lot of work themselves to work that out – and they did.”

2. Times revealed for dualling A9

Mr Neil was allowed to access to government papers, because of his role in the administration at the time, which have previously not been released to the public or the committee.

This included papers from senior officials which gave him a “detailed plan” for the project in May 2012 setting out the timelines for when each part of the A9 would be dualled.

He told MSPs he was forbidden from sharing the information physically – so he read it out.

The timings he said should have been followed are:

  • Luncarty to Birnam – 2018/19 (completed)
  • Birnam to Ballinluigg – 2024
  • Pitlochry to Killiecrankie – 2022
  • Killiecrankie to Glen Garry – 2024
  • Glen Garry to Crubenmore – 2024
  • Crubenmore to Kincraig – 2025
  • Kincraig to Dalraddy – 2017 (completed)
  • Dalraddy to Slochd – 2025
  • Tomatin to Moy – 2021

3. How the project was funded

Mr Neil said funding would have relied on uncommitted capital funds between 2011 and 2030.

Tomatin to Moy section of the A9.Image: Sandy McCook/DC Thomson
Tomatin to Moy section of the A9.<br />Image: Sandy McCook/DC Thomson

He said that if it had been delivered on time, even allowing for a Covid-related delay, then the project could have potentially come in under budget.

But because of delays, he said it is likely it would cost at least £1 billion more to complete.

4. Why the SNP failed to keep the promise

Mr Neil took a clear swipe at Nicola Sturgeon in his explanation of why things might have gone off track.

“I think one of the things that may have happened is that with the change in cabinet secretary, that my successors have perhaps not tracked this as well as they could,” he said.

Ms Sturgeon took over the infrastructure brief in a reshuffle, before taking over as first minister after the 2014 referendum on independence.

Humza Yousaf, the current first minister, has also been in charge of transport since Mr Neil.

Mr Neil was made Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being after the commitment was made. Image: PA

Mr Neil also said he “suspects the foot was well and truly taken off the accelerator”.

He accused the Scottish Government of “betraying a promise” to the Highlands and Islands by putting the project on the backburner.

We have put these claims to the Scottish Government.

Perthshire MSP says evidence ‘devastating’

Mid Scotland and Fife MSP Murdo Fraser described the evidence as “devastating”.

Mr Fraser said: “This shocking evidence demolishes the argument from the SNP that the reasons for delays in dualling the A9 and fulfilling long-standing promises of completing the dualling programme were down to the Covid pandemic and rising construction costs.

“People in Perthshire and the Highlands are rightly furious that SNP politicians have betrayed them by not dualling the A9 road.”

A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: “We were always clear that 2025 was an ambitious target but also a feasible one.

“The advice provided to Ministers in 2012 reflected this and this was the publicly stated position at that time. For example, in the press release of June 26 2012 Mr Neil said ‘… we have always said that delivery by 2025 was challenging but achievable’.”

“As with all major infrastructure projects, the programme was subject to the timely and positive outcome of a range of factors such as the completion of public and stakeholder consultation, statutory approval processes, market capacity, supply chain availability and the availability of funding.”

Conversation