The road to an Inquiry is long, only to be undertaken by those with exceptional stamina or who are paid to attend. No one would relish the daunting prospect of a formal Inquiry. But if that is the only way to have a thorough examination of the process and decisions that informed the choice of the design and alignment of the Refined Scheme, an Inquiry is essential.

A Reporter has already been appointed for the Killiecrankie to Glen Garry section of the A9 project. He is to consider the evidence from various parties and compile a report based on these findings. That is sent to the Scottish Ministers. They can heed the Reporter’s recommendation or ignore it. The ultimate decision is entirely theirs.

For easy reference, here is a route map to the Killiecrankie Inquiry:

2011 Scottish Government commits to complete the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025.

2014 Stage 1 completed.

May 2016 Stage 2 completed. Various route options were considered and widening on the northbound carriageway was chosen.

November 2017 Stage 3 completed. The preferred route had been developed and was proposed by Transport Scotland.

January 2018 Transport Scotland receives 173 objections from statutory and non-statutory individuals and groups.

31 October 2018 Refined Scheme presented to public on completion of a programme of extra historic and archaeological investigations and further dialogue with Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT).

30 November 2018 Transport Scotland receives written Feedback from 19 individuals or groups.

22 January 2019 HES withdraws most of its objections.

7 February 2019 PKHT withdraws its objection.

22 February 2019 Cairngorms National Park Authority withdraws its objection.

12 March 2019 Killiecrankie to Glen Garry A9 dualling case referred to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) to be decided by Inquiry

11 April 2019 Mr Scott Ferrie appointed Reporter

The drop in volume of feedback to the Refined Scheme compared with objections to the original proposed scheme does not necessarily mean that the objectors have lost interest or are willing to accept the latest plan. The fact is that many, if not most, of the objections to the first scheme are still applicable to the Refined Scheme.

While many of the objections were directly copied from the template available on the Killiecr
Ankie1689 website, others took the template as inspiration to formulate their own reasons. The very least that this exercise has demonstrated is that the subject of battlefield protection is emotive. Relating place to people is powerful. Indeed, it is one of the reasons behind the creation of the Inventory of Historic Battlefields. “Scotland’s historic battles are an important part of our identity and culture and today they are not only remembered through memorials, music, poetry and literature but also through the Inventory.” Thus many clans rallied. Objections were submitted by clan societies and by individuals whose forefathers fought at the battle in 1689.

The Scottish diaspora, particularly in Canada, responded with outrage. Tourism chiefs should note that some overseas objectors mentioned that either they had visited Scotland – in particular the Killiecrankie area -- to trace ancestry while others mentioned that they intended visiting to do so.

Once upon a time, Scotland aspired to be seen as an international exemplar of how a small country can care for its historic environment. This scheme betrays that aspiration. Killiecr
Ankie1689 is not satisfied that the Refined Scheme is the best that can be produced. Our objection still stands.

If you are equally unconvinced that we need to accept a road scheme which will have a significant adverse impact on the battlefield, increase the sense of severance, damage the landscape and compound the damage that was done by the original construction much more than is necessary, please support us. Do not withdraw your objection. Killiecr
Ankie1689 will present the case to an independent Reporter.