Scottish Independence White Paper - Railways

[LNW-GW Joint]

The White Paper is here: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ref-whitepaper/scotland+future+white+paper+november+2013.pdf
Railways, and transport generally, are discussed in the section starting on page 123.
The key statements are on page 127:

There will be an opportunity to decide the best way to structure
and support our railways, including the best ownership model
for rail and track for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Government is currently procuring a ten-year
Scotrail franchise with a five-year review and a separate Sleeper
franchise. Both procurement exercises are being expertly run
under existing devolved powers by Transport Scotland and have
attracted healthy interest. We are confident that they will bring
better services to passengers. However, the current franchise
model is unnecessarily constrained by the limits imposed by UK
legislation. In the future, an independent Scotland will be free to
pursue legislation that enabled alternative approaches, including
public-supported and not-for-profit models. Enhanced borrowing
powers will also provide more options for the delivery of rail
infrastructure or rolling stock supporting better value for money.
In addition, independence will give Scottish governments a
role when franchises are awarded for cross-border services
– currently the Scottish Government has very limited input to
these decisions which are made by Westminster alone. This
will ensure Scotland’s interests are fully represented.

It all seems very unthreatening and evolutionary.
The intention is to stay with the current structure initially (with Scottish representation on the various regulatory bodies like ORR) but to migrate to a different structure as and when Scotland sees fit.
Similarly the CAA, NATS and DVLA-type bodies will continue for the time being.

Note the remarks about cross-border services, with Scotland wanting its say.
There seems to be no plan to alter the terms of the 2015 Scotrail franchise contract award.

 

[Manchester77]

Regarding more say in cross boarder franchises (so ICWC, ICEC & TPE) it'll probably be (especially so in the case of ICEC) the promise of trains to London so retaining the Highland Chieftain etc. not sure what it'd be for ICWC maybe franchisee has to proved X tph from Glasgow.

 

[6Gman]

Regarding more say in cross boarder franchises (so ICWC, ICEC & TPE) it'll probably be (especially so in the case of ICEC) the promise of trains to London so retaining the Highland Chieftain etc. not sure what it'd be for ICWC maybe franchisee has to proved X tph from Glasgow.

This does look like the SNP wanting to have their cake (independence) and eating it (having a say on what goes on over the border!). If they want genuine independence and full control within their own borders then surely that implies an acceptance of a loss of control beyond those boundaries?

 

[IanXC]

Similarly the CAA, NATS and DVLA-type bodies will continue for the time being.

They'd best expect to pay through the nose then! I don't see why the remaining UK would provide these services without making a profit!

 

[HowardGWR]

This does look like the SNP wanting to have their cake (independence) and eating it (having a say on what goes on over the border!). If they want genuine independence and full control within their own borders then surely that implies an acceptance of a loss of control beyond those boundaries?

Of course but I gather that they are just saying it takes two to tango. Sounds OK to me. The key is being part of the EU community. I'm English (in England) so have no axe to grind.

 

[paul1609]

Of course but I gather that they are just saying it takes two to tango. Sounds OK to me. The key is being part of the EU community. I'm English (in England) so have no axe to grind.

I reckon you are being nieve in believing that England will remain in the EU with the massive conservative majority after independence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This does look like the SNP wanting to have their cake (independence) and eating it (having a say on what goes on over the border!). If they want genuine independence and full control within their own borders then surely that implies an acceptance of a loss of control beyond those boundaries?

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Clearly, in the event of independence, the franchising of cross-border trains will need to be a shared responsibility between both Governments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I reckon you are being nieve in believing that England will remain in the EU with the massive conservative majority after independence.

I would imagine that if Scotland does become independent, that would be bound to have a considerable impact on the debate about membership of the EU for the rest of the UK. It's true that losing Scotland would be likely to mean a higher proportion of conservative/anti-EU people in any later referendum. On the other hand, UK-minus-Scotland is somewhat smaller than UK-with-Scotland, and that might impact people's perceptions of our ability to go-it-alone in Europe, which could shift the balance more in favour of remaining in the EU.

 

[OLJR]

[controversial]
Surely after independence, which won't happen but if it did, the track would still be owned by the then English Network Rail? Unless the Scottish government or their nominated body purchased the track of course.
[/controversial]

 

[Monty]

After reading the section on defence I'm finding it very difficult to take the white paper seriously (I mention it as the armed forces may be one of the only examples where it's mismanaged and underfunded more than the railways). There are an awful lot of gaps and questions to where the additional funding will come from.

 

[thenorthern]

Don't get why an independent Scottish government would need to have a say in ICWC franchise, most trains that pass the border only call at Glasgow Central and its only 2 trains per hour that cross the border anyway compared to 3 that run to Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

After reading the section on defence I'm finding it very difficult to take the white paper seriously (I mention it as the armed forces may be one of the only examples where it's mismanaged and underfunded more than the railways). There are an awful lot of gaps and questions to where the additional funding will come from.

Questioning the dear leader Salmond means you are a shill of the Westminster Corporate Machine! :roll:

It is getting a little ridiculous when anyone who says anything that doesn't support the SNP is dismissed as scaremongering

 

[chris89]

Questioning the dear leader Salmond means you are a shill of the Westminster Corporate Machine! :roll:

It is getting a little ridiculous when anyone who says anything that doesn't support the SNP is dismissed as scaremongering

Avoid the /r/Scotland sub reddit on reddit at all costs, if show you are pro union, some members will ignore what you say completely and go on about scaremongering or know nothing.

Also agree, with the ICWC, ICEC & TPE i wouldn't understand why the Scottish Goverment in a case of Indepence would require a say what happens for them.

As for these things, best to see what happens next year. For all areas, Nato & EU will be interesting as well.

 

[ainsworth74]

After reading the section on defence I'm finding it very difficult to take the white paper seriously (I mention it as the armed forces may be one of the only examples where it's mismanaged and underfunded more than the railways). There are an awful lot of gaps and questions to where the additional funding will come from.

It was rather a hoot I thought. Perhaps the biggest thing missing was where all the training for the Scottish Defence Force was going to come from. Especially considering they now want Typhoons, I assume that they're going to be expecting the RAF to train their pilots. What's the old saying? Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics? I rather suspect the SNP are falling into this trap.

Then there was the suggestion that the UK would continue buying ships from Scotland after independence which seems highly unlikely. The carriers would be the last warships built for the Royal Navy that came from Scotland and that would be it.

Then of course there's the whole 'we'll renounce nuclear weapons and demand the UK remove them' all whilst joining NATO and therefore enjoying the nuclear guarantees that being a NATO member provides.

As with the whole independence discussion so far the SNP have been laying out the perfect future where they get their own way in absolutely everything and the UK, EU, NATO and others all lay down and give into all their demands. If it actually came down to negotiating their independence I suspect they might be in a rude awakening and that the independence agreement the Scottish people were sold on would not be the one they'd actually get...

As for the railways I'm not sure why the Scottish Government would have much of any say on the matter. How much influence does the French Government have on DB services to Paris? Or vice versa? And the disposition of the infrastructure would be an interesting one. Network Rail, which technically is a private company, owns the track so can they be compelled to give it up? Or does Scotland either have to pay them to operate it or buy it outright? And if they do buy it who maintains it if Network Rail take all their kit home with them?

 

[paul1609]

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Clearly, in the event of independence, the franchising of cross-border trains will need to be a shared responsibility between both Governments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I would imagine that if Scotland does become independent, that would be bound to have a considerable impact on the debate about membership of the EU for the rest of the UK. It's true that losing Scotland would be likely to mean a higher proportion of conservative/anti-EU people in any later referendum. On the other hand, UK-minus-Scotland is somewhat smaller than UK-with-Scotland, and that might impact people's perceptions of our ability to go-it-alone in Europe, which could shift the balance more in favour of remaining in the EU.

Scotland isnt a significant part of the UK probably 8 to 9% of GDP, the London economy is currently growing at over 3%. Loss of Scotland is unlikely to change peoples perceptions about the EU

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

[controversial]
Surely after independence, which won't happen but if it did, the track would still be owned by the then English Network Rail? Unless the Scottish government or their nominated body purchased the track of course.
[/controversial]

Network Rail is not "English", any more than the BBC or Royal Mail or the Army.
It is a UK construct, so Scotland has a share in what happens to it.
Similarly with ORR and any other part of the UK rail industry, like the franchises that reach into Scotland.
NR's debt is also shared, of course, as well as the assets.

 

[IanXC]

Network Rail is not "English", any more than the BBC or Royal Mail or the Army.
It is a UK construct, so Scotland has a share in what happens to it.
Similarly with ORR and any other part of the UK rail industry, like the franchises that reach into Scotland.
NR's debt is also shared, of course, as well as the assets.

I'm afraid that's not how international law sees it. The Scots would be succeeding from the Union, this is not a Czechoslovakia style divorce!

You're right that they are UK constructs, however if Scotland leaves, that doesn't change the ongoing existance of the UK in its new borders.

 

[DownSouth]

I'm afraid that's not how international law sees it. The Scots would be succeeding from the Union, this is not a Czechoslovakia style divorce!

You're right that they are UK constructs, however if Scotland leaves, that doesn't change the ongoing existance of the UK in its new borders.

I agree, international law is very clear on what happens when one sub-national region secedes from a sovereign state. If Scotland secedes they will have even fewer rights than if Western Australia seceded from the Commonwealth or Texas seceded from the USA, Scotland not being a state within a federal structure that retains its own sovereignty.

Practically, the way things would have to work is that a provisional government would be established by the authority of the UK Parliament, the secession would take place and then it would be immediately followed by the immediate signing of a previously negotiated treaty outlining which assets would be transferred to Scottish ownership and which liabilities would also be transferred in the absence of any other form of payment.

The Scottish leaders would be well advised to not get too greedy, the UK would have the unfettered power to veto their membership of the European Union, NATO and the United Nations.

The nuclear issue would be sorted out pretty easily, the UK would simply set the price for training Scottish defence personnel at the same per-year level as a long-term lease of the various UK defence facilities within Scottish territory.

 

[WatcherZero]

Being pointed out in media that despite the Scottish Government asking for months for Westminster to commit to extending HS2 to the Scottish Border they have not made such a commitment themselves to build a line to England in their own white paper.

 

[thenorthern]

A couple of years ago the SNP stated they wanted to stop trains from England running north of Edinburgh, it got rejected in the end but if Independence happens I wouldn't be surprised if it was brought in.

I would reckon that Transport Scotland in any case would have about as much say as Merseytravel do in WCML services and what Nexus do in XC and ECML trains and they would only be able to set a minimum number of trains reaching Scotland.

 

[Bodiddly]

[controversial]
Surely after independence, which won't happen but if it did, the track would still be owned by the then English Network Rail? Unless the Scottish government or their nominated body purchased the track of course.
[/controversial]

Where in any of the company documentation does it say that NR is an English company? Can you point me towards it or are you "scaremongering"?

 

[IanXC]

Where in any of the company documentation does it say that NR is an English company? Can you point me towards it or are you "scaremongering"?

I'm not sure that outcome is likely, however Network Rail is a company limited by guarantee, under English law... Whilst it does have this independant legal structure, its hard to see a situation where the assets north of the border would not be handed over as part of the settlement.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Being pointed out in media that despite the Scottish Government asking for months for Westminster to commit to extending HS2 to the Scottish Border they have not made such a commitment themselves to build a line to England in their own white paper.

The new today was quite interesting, picking up on some quite good points. It also appears as though quite a few Scottish have read the white paper and realised, oh god, how do we pay for all this?

 

[Golden Gripper]

I think quite a lot of people haven't read their newspapers properly, or perhaps the paper they do read is so biased they don't give a reasoned account.

I have no axe to grind on Scottish independance (though it would make life more interesting) but there is nothing exceptional in their defence proposals. Quite a few countries are members of NATO but don't have nuclear weapons on their soil (ie Denmark and Norway). Why wouldn't England have surface warships built in Scotland, a lot of counties get their ships built aboad? Scotland might even ask for Barrow to build some submarines. These shipyards are not 'English' or 'British', they're owned by a multinational company called BAE.

When it comes to 'international' train services both countries must co-operate (which is how I read the proposals), and I don't see why they shouldn't. Both sides have everything to gain through co-operation. Also, I think it's a little premature for a Scottish Government to put together proposals for an HS2 extention; It isn't even going to reach Manchester and Leeds until 2032, wait until then before getting down to the nitty gritty of extending it into Scotland.

Scotland could be, economically, quite successful. The only reason the British economy is growing is because of a housing boom, which will be as disastrous as the last one. The Westminster government, in spite of much hot air, is refusing to rebuild any of our manufacturing capacity, relying instead on financial services to make the running again. If Scotland decided to make manufacturing a priority it would transform their economy; they have the skills and the capability.

Finally, reading some of the comments made I can understand why so many Scots want independance. They are full of arrogance and condescension.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A thoughtful and balanced post there, Golden Gripper.

 

[tbtc]

I have no axe to grind on Scottish independance (though it would make life more interesting) but there is nothing exceptional in their defence proposals. Quite a few countries are members of NATO but don't have nuclear weapons on their soil (ie Denmark and Norway). Why wouldn't England have surface warships built in Scotland, a lot of counties get their ships built aboad?

Westminster has traditionally used UK manufacturing for new planes/ boats/ submarines etc, because it keeps a number of jobs in the UK, it would be political suicide to import them from a "rival... look at the Westland saga.

If Scotland becomes independent then ships built on Clydeside are going to be just as "foreign" to Westminster as ships built in Slovakia.

So Westminster would have to decide whether to go for ships built in somewhere like Portsmouth ("saving English jobs" etc etc) or to go for the cheapest possible option elsewhere (which probably isn't going to be Scotland).

But then the whole business of buying army/ navy air force equipment has always been a bit of a fiddle where the Government try to keep enough bids sloshing around to keep enough manufacturing jobs in the UK to avoid political embarrassment (just like fixing the railway tenders to justify giving expensive orders to Bombardier to "save" a few jobs in Derby - he says, desperately trying to drag this back onto talking about railways).

 

[Proud Salopian]

Why wouldn't England have surface warships built in Scotland, a lot of counties get their ships built aboad? Scotland might even ask for Barrow to build some submarines. These shipyards are not 'English' or 'British', they're owned by a multinational company called BAE.

The main naval powers try to build as many of their ships as possible at home. It's to do with sovereign capabilities (ie naval shipbuilding). The UK has such a policy - the only ships the Royal Navy has that weren't built in the UK are the two icebreakers (built in Norway). The UK government has stated that they would continue this policy in the event of Scottish independence as Scotland would be a foreign country and the Royal Navy should not have to depend on foreign shipyards (as I said - it's about sovereign industrial capabilities).

The other reason is to do with EU law. Governments must put out to tender any order for work and must make that process open to all companies in the EU. Defence equipment however is allowed to not be tendered but only if it's to maintain sovereign capabilities - ie the work is to be done in the country in question. If the UK government wanted to acquire ships from BAE in an independent Scotland they could only do so if they tender the work out to all EU companies. Now, BAE in Scotland may well get the work, but on the other hand considering their record of cost overruns and delays in many projects, they may not.

So as you can see, the SNP's simplistic "oh the UK government will still build their warships here in Scotland" line really is far from the truth. Either the UK government will continue to retain sovereign industrial capability (and not tender out work) in the UK (ie England, Wales and NI), OR the UK government has to (by EU law) tender out the work to all EU companies and then there's only a small chance that Scottish yards get the work.

 

[Monty]

The policy regarding to Royal Navy ship building refers to warships ie Destroyers, Frigates, Submarines and Aircraft Carriers. Vessels such as our icebreakers and the new MARS tankers being built in South Korea for the RFA do not count as such as they are not to be considered warships (ie a ship that can blow stuff up).

I also find it very difficult to believe Scotland would ever order submarines from the rest of the UK for two reasons:
1. It wouldn't go down well in Glasgow when their own shipyards will be struggling for orders.
2. Britain has built a Diesel Electric boat in some time and the only design offer (subject to the UK MOD granting an export licence) would be a Nuclear powered Asute Class coming in at £1.1 Billion each which is completely unaffordable. And on a side note after all the fuss the SNP has made about Trident and Nuclear powered submarines I doubt it would look good to order a fleet of their own.

Oh and while we are on the subject of their defence budget, they expect to be able to operate an amphibious assault ship, 2 frigates, two Ocean going Patrol Vessels (OPVs), 4 minesweepers and a whole host of other miscellaneous support ships combined with a squadron of Typhoons and six hercs on £2.5 billion budget (and that is before we start talking about the land forces).

They also expect to acquire four (yes four) of the new Type 26 Frigates being designed now and receive maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) from the RAF that have not even been ordered yet (it's also still very much touch and go if such an order will happen).

Utter fantasy

 

[Squaddie]

I'm afraid that's not how international law sees it. The Scots would be succeeding from the Union, this is not a Czechoslovakia style divorce!

You're right that they are UK constructs, however if Scotland leaves, that doesn't change the ongoing existance of the UK in its new borders.

But if secession means losing ownership of UK entities such as Network Rail then, logically, the UK's debts must remain with the UK. I can't imagine the Westminster government agreeing to that.

 

[Wolfie]

I have no axe to grind on Scottish independance (though it would make life more interesting) but there is nothing exceptional in their defence proposals. Quite a few countries are members of NATO but don't have nuclear weapons on their soil (ie Denmark and Norway). Why wouldn't England have surface warships built in Scotland, a lot of counties get their ships built aboad? Scotland might even ask for Barrow to build some submarines. These shipyards are not 'English' or 'British', they're owned by a multinational company called BAE.

Now we are getting into my area of expertise!

The key difference between Denmark/Norway and Scotland is that the former have bene members of NATO, a body which has a policy based on at least the possibility that nuclear weapons may be used, since it was formed and have never had such weapons basde on their territory. The latter would be a new entrant, seeking to shelter under the NATO nuclear umbrella while at the same time demanding that part of that umbrella was removed from its territory where it has been based for years - there is no guarantee that NATO would even accept an application to join from Scotland! Spain for one won't make it easy (see the Spanish PM's comments over Scottish EU membership today) as they are worried about the precedent potentially set for Catalonia.

The reasons why residual UK (NOT England, me thinks your own biases are showing there!) would not have warships (aprat perhaps from minor vessels) built in Scotland are very clearly set out in one of HMG's own papers on the implications of Scottish independence (see link). You do realise, I assume, that the RN has NEVER (with the exception of a number of vessels acquired from the US in WW2) procured foreign warships? A little marking called "UK eyes only" gives the reason why!!!
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...654/Scotland_analysis_Defence_paper-FINAL.pdf

Scotland operate submarines - an even bigger joke - their postulated defence/security budget will get nowhere near to funding that - if you want a reality check from a well informed source on things maritime defence and Scotland see link:
http://www.thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/assessment-on-proposals-for-scottish.html

 

[HSTEd]

There is only one reason the shipyards in the UK have survived as long as they have.

It is imperative that the nation not lose its ability to produce warships at home, it would be rather embarassing if we ended up in a major war and had no ability to replace losses to the fleet.

If Scotland is another country then shipyards there have nothing to recommend them over shipyards in France or even in South Korea, both of which are likely to be far more competitive.