HS2 future northern extensions

[edwin_m]

Come on Edwin, you are making design assumptions about a theoretical design problem for a scheme that's theoretical at best right now and hasn't got any thread of funding at this time - if you were designing from first principals, having a reverse halfway along a route that could possibly have 4-6 trains per hour, it would be designed out at feasibility, not accommodated :-/

I'm actually trying to explore making maximum use of the existing infrastructure. I don't think anyone has suggested an alternative east-west option that wouldn't require a longish and expensive tunnel under a large part of Manchester.

Edit: I'm also assuming it's not a theoretical scheme but one that would take advantage of other infrastructure that already exists or can be assumed to be in place by the time it happened. This includes the east-west part of the HS2 Manchester branch, which would offer enough time saving over existing routes to offset the time cost of the reversal.

 

[HSTEd]

Tunnels - cost of land in East Manchester and the urban sprawl of West Yorkshire is a world apart from the megatropolis that covers any flat surface in Japan - which is why tunnels are economic there.

And yet we see a similar effect in Germany and now in the UK.
What is the HS2 tunnel length up to now? It seems to climb every time I look.
Lets not going into the fact that the Shinkansen line seems to cost less per kilometre than HS2 despite the very large number of tunnels.

There is also the fact that HS2-1 would almost certainly have started construction by now if the planners had just bitten the bullet, paid a few billion more and shunted the entire thing into a tunnel - it might sound very much more expensive but once you price up the economic costs of all these delays and the extra upgrades on the WCML that would be unnecessary if the load was removed several years earlier I imagine you will come up with interesting figures.

HSR cost something like £30m/km in open countryside, so the multiple that tunnels are more expensive is not as large as people think

Crossrail as a whole project is costing nearly £15Bn, that includes just 21km of tunnel, 9 new stations and "just" £1Bn on rolling stock... Piccadilly to Leeds is 65km - all in tunnel ? Really ?

TBM drives are cheap.
The stations cost the money - the Tottenham Court Road Crossrail station costs a billion pounds by itself.
If you strip out the cost of all the new underground stations you will find yourself with about ~£100m/route.km for the actual railway.

Turning trains around - just because you can, doesn't mean you should by design - why on earth would you design a train reversal in on a new route, that's just silly !

Of the Transpennine Trains to Leeds, most reverse at Manchester Picadilly and proceed to other places simply to clear the platforms in the station and to provide a 'link' to Manchester Airport from wherever.
It is unlikely that such services would continue to run if the platforming restrictions were removed and there was an intensive service available to Manchester Airport in their place.
Most trains to Leeds would likely terminate in Manchester. Currently only 1 of 4tph runs from Liverpool to Leeds.

 

[Haydn1971]

Looking around for a wall to bang my head against

 

[NotATrainspott]

Relying upon the HS2 spur to Manchester might also be a little bit short-sighted for the future capacity requirements of HS2 itself. Once Phase 1 is filled up, and Phase 3 has been constructed to Scotland and Newcastle, the next step for north/south capacity is a second line from London to the East Midlands which would free up many more paths on HS2 for Manchester and Leeds services from London. When services are going going to take around an hour and a bit from London there won't be as much need for long layover periods as there is today so it might even be possible to squeeze even more trains per hour out of the planned platform face numbers.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they placed it all in tunnel wouldn't that also be better from a track alignment point of view. They'd probably be able to have longer straight sections (geography permitting) and so higher speeds might be possible

 

[Altnabreac]

Now I’m usually the first person to condemn enthusiasts calling for reopening old lines for nostalgic reasons when we should be designing new lines from scratch to fit current needs. But having thought about what we want a Transpennine HSR to achieve I reckon the Woodhead route has some potential.

First we’ll define our existing infrastructure assumption. I’m going to assume HS2 is built as planned to Leeds/Manchester, a HSR spur into Liverpool from Culcheth is added on (doesn’t matter for our assumptions whether it’s mainly on existing lines or fully segregated) a northern extension of HS2 from Garforth – Newcastle with a station on Teesside and a HSR line to Scotland (either Wigan – Scotland or – Newcastle – Scotland, doesn’t matter for our purposes here).

Let’s now think about what markets a Transpennine HSR could serve. Here are the built up areas of the UK, north of Birmingham with a population of more than 350,000, for HSR purposes I’ve combined Tyneside/Sunderland and Liverpool/Birkenhead:

1. Greater Manchester 2,553,379
2. West Yorkshire 1,777,934
3. Greater Glasgow 1,195,200
4. Liverpool & Birkenhead 1,189,386
5. Tyneside & Sunderland 1,110,306
6. Nottingham 729,977
7. Sheffield 685,368
8. Leicester 508,916
9. Edinburgh 491,360
10. Teesside 376,633

We can see straight away that the 2 big conurbations on each side of the Pennines are Manchester/Liverpool to the West and Leeds/Sheffield to the East. Any line will need to allow these 4 city pairs to be connected. Given the geography of the east it is likely to require separate Leeds/Sheffield services whereas Liverpool is probably going to be served via Manchester.

The central belt of Scotland and Tyne&Wear/Teesside are each about the same market size (1.5m people) as these big conurbations and whichever HS route is chosen to serve them will continue to have demand for the other side of the pennines (Newcastle – Manchester via EC or Scotland – Leeds via WC for example). So connecting the 2 northbound HS lines to the new pennine HS network is a priority.

The third axis is towards the East Midlands where Nottingham/Leicester/Derby are another major market of around 1.5m people. A connection from this area to the west of the pennines is likely to make sense as well.

So our Pennine HS service patterns are probably something like:

• Liverpool – Manchester - Leeds
• (Scotland) – Preston – Manchester – Leeds
• Liverpool – Manchester – North East England - (Scotland)
• Liverpool – Manchester – Sheffield – Toton – Leicester

So our route choice is what you might call a Pennine Y. We want to connect the existing High Speed infrastructure at Manchester Piccadilly with the North – South HS axis through Yorkshire by as short a route as possible.

However the route will need both a northbound connection to access Leeds and the line on to North East England and a southbound connection to access Toton – East Midlands, preferably having served the city centre of Sheffield first.

With these parameters set I reckon the Woodhead route is a pretty good fit. I’d envisage a mixture of existing track upgraded, former track rebuilt/realigned and some limited dedicated new line:

• 6 miles rebuilt track (at 125mph?) Manchester – Hyde junction
• 6 miles upgraded track (at 75mph?) Hyde junction – Hadfield
• 16 miles rebuilt/realigned track, with new summit tunnel bores (at 140mph?) Hadfield – Penistone
• 5 miles rebuilt track (at 100mph?) Penistone - Deepcar
• 8 miles upgraded track (at 100mph?) Deepcar – Sheffield

The Leeds/NE England route would branch off south of Penistone (around Thurgoland) and provide a 5 mile link to HS2 just north of Hoyland.

• 5 miles new track at 140mph Thurgoland – Hoyland.

You then have 22 miles or on HS to Leeds, lets time it for 140mph operations although obviously the first 14 miles or so of that is capable of faster speeds.

This gives a Manchester - Leeds time of around 30 minutes and Manchester – Sheffield in 25 minutes.

All this for only 5 miles of entirely new railway alignment seems pretty good to me.

To run the desired service pattern you would also need a north facing diverging junction off HS2 around Killamarsh, allowing the Manchester – Sheffield trains to join HS2 heading south to Toton. This junction could also allow London – Hull via Doncaster services on HS2.

You then need a south facing junction at Toton, this allows your Manchester – Sheffield services to continue on existing tracks to Nottingham or Leicester.

You would need to reverse Liverpool and Preston trains at Manchester Piccadilly but I don’t see this as an insurmountable problem and the journey times would still be faster than running via Chat Moss all the way.

Now you could obviously achieve slightly faster journey times by building a completely new, dedicated HS line, but at a much larger cost and for a relatively small addditional benefit as for journeys like Newcastle - Manchester a large part of the benefit will come from the use of HS2 to Barnsley and a slightly slower cross pennine journey time will not hugely decrease the benefits.

 

[clc]

Alex Salmond in a speech yesterday announced that the Scottish Govt would establish a feasibility study to explore in detail the options for building high speed rail from Scotland to England.

He also said they wanted to improve journey times on the WCML and were funding the development of a business case for investment at Carstairs to add capacity, improve reliability and increase the speed of the line.

If the Scottish Government's proposed HSR line bypassed Carstairs as expected would there be any point in making improvements there?

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/Speeches-Briefings/First-Minister-St-George-s-Day-2014-speech-bbf.aspx

 

[Altnabreac]

I reckon the Carstairs improvements could still have a reasonable business case even with a shortened usefulness. HS is at least 10 years away and the lines at Carstairs are painfully slow. It would cut journey times for both Edinburgh - Carlisle and Glasgow - Newcastle via Edinburgh so it has a double whammy of benefits.

Certain traffic including freight and the sleeper would probably continue to use the line through Carstairs even post HS line opening. So on balance I expect it to happen despite the HS plans.

 

[HSTEd]

Well you could make an argument for running the Highland sleeper up the HS2 lines, the higher quality of the railhead would let them roll at 110mph which would significantly reduce the travel time and allow the Highland sleeper to leave Euston at a similar time to the Lowland.

That is probably worth something.

 

[Altnabreac]

There would have to be a balance between benefits for sleeper traffic and overnight maintenance requirements on HS lines. Could certainly see some usage of HS lines by sleepers but maybe not all the way.

I also suspect that if you get HS line all the way from Scotland to London with journey times circa 2 hours 30 mins, the lowland sleeper would probably not be either viable or required.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

For any trains passing over the border it needs to be remembered that you'll probably need a passport if Scotland becomes independent

 

[po8crg]

For any trains passing over the border it needs to be remembered that you'll probably need a passport if Scotland becomes independent

You almost certainly won't, actually.

Unless the EU or the rest of the UK are incredibly petty, Scotland will become a member of the Common Travel Area (with the UK, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) which means no passports.

If you've ever crossed the land border between Ireland and the UK, then you didn't need your passport.

Now, sure, theoretically, the EU could force Scotland into Schengen, or the UK could refuse to admit it to the CTA, but that would just be petty spite. I don't put it past our politicians, but I do think it's very unlikely.

 

[Gareth]

Why is it any more petty than having passport checks between rUK and, say, France? Is it because Scotland is British? Now there's a thought.

Also, the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border is not the same for obvious political reasons.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Why is it any more petty than having passport checks between rUK and, say, France? Is it because Scotland is British? Now there's a thought.

Also, the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border is not the same for obvious political reasons.

Why would the iScotland/rUK border not be the same as the NI/ROI border, for obvious political reasons?

It would be petty because there is a land border that has never been secured. It is not possible to travel between the UK and France other than on a plane, a train or a boat and all three are conducive to passport checks being possible. Unless rUK wanted to spent billions of pounds on a border fence with iScotland with checkpoints at every one of the road crossings, the border would never work and it would still be possible to get around them with absurd ease. The UK is different from Europe in that Europeans do not have as many issues in being required to carry ID on their person at all times. With a porous border, you would need all rUK citizens to hold valid ID on them at all times so that any devious iScots could be identified and sent packing if they crossed over the border where there was no checkpoint. Even then, it will be a logistical impossibility to remove the UK passports of iScots because there is no way of actually dividing people up in a way that will not cause outrageous headaches for everyone everywhere, so iScots themselves would still be able to get into rUK.

 

[Gareth]

Oh please...

EDIT: Response before above post was edited.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Oh please...

No, please tell. Some people might not know about these 'obvious political reasons'.

 

[Gareth]

Okay. Let's make it fun. You guess and I'll tell you if you're right or not.

EDIT: Oh wait. You've edited your post. Even more fun.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be petty because there is a land border that has never been secured. It is not possible to travel between the UK and France other than on a plane, a train or a boat and all three are conducive to passport checks being possible. Unless rUK wanted to spent billions of pounds on a border fence with iScotland with checkpoints at every one of the road crossings, the border would never work and it would still be possible to get around them with absurd ease. The UK is different from Europe in that Europeans do not have as many issues in being required to carry ID on their person at all times. With a porous border, you would need all rUK citizens to hold valid ID on them at all times so that any devious iScots could be identified and sent packing if they crossed over the border where there was no checkpoint. Even then, it will be a logistical impossibility to remove the UK passports of iScots because there is no way of actually dividing people up in a way that will not cause outrageous headaches for everyone everywhere, so iScots themselves would still be able to get into rUK.

What about every other land border on the planet? What about US/Canada, Laos/Vietnam, China/Russia...? They exist for a reason, to have control of who comes in and who comes out. That's why we have a border with France, not because "you probably need ID anyway" to get on a boat. What about the porous border between Russia and Finland? At the end of the day, if Scotland becomes a foreign country, then it needs to be seen as one. That's not petty. We'll be good neighbours, like we are with France. That said, I don't see them leaving in 2014, though I sadly don't rule out it happening in the next 30 years or so.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The only justification for border controls being necessary would be that iScotland would be forced by the EU to join Schengen and be removed from the Common Travel Area. Seeing as how Better Together are obsessed with the fact that Spain would deny us entry to the EU, that point is moot to begin with. In reality iScotland would be in the EU, either through an accession process or through a treaty amendment, the question being then whether it is in the interests of the European Union to actually force iScotland be part of Schengen. Yes, that would involve a reduction in border controls for people travelling from the rest of Schengen to iScotland, but that would involve creating controls on the frontier with rUK where they had previously not existed. There may be a limited increase in iScotland-Schengen trade but there would be a greater drop in iScotland-rUK trade that would be far larger. As a result, the overall economic output of the EU would drop, damaging the EU as a whole. The only way of travelling from Scotland to Schengen right now is on a plane. On a plane, verified ID (passport or state ID card) is still required for flights within Schengen and as a result there would be no actual change in what would be needed. iScottish/rUK citizens will always get through the Schengen border controls without a problem because of the EU freedom of movement - the only people that are turned away are people who have no immediate right to travel there.

The EU plan for all states being made to join Schengen was written without the possibility of Scotland becoming an independent state - even though the separatist movement has existed for a long time, it is still a different case from what appeared to be the more likely Catalan or Basque movements because they border (and are) Schengen states already. No one would have expected this vote to happen as quickly as it has post-devolution and no would would ever have expected that a Yes vote is now a possibility, even Westminster when they gave permission to have the referendum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about every other land border on the planet? What about US/Canada, Laos/Vietnam, China/Russia...? They exist for a reason, to have control of who comes in and who comes out. That's why we have a border with France, not because "you probably need ID anyway" to get on a boat. What about the porous border between Russia and Finland? At the end of the day, if Scotland becomes a foreign country, then it needs to be seen as one. That's not petty. We'll be good neighbours, like we are with France. That said, I don't see them leaving in 2014, though I sadly don't rule out it happening in the next 30 years or so.

What about the border between France and Germany? They are different countries. They have different languages and systems of government and they were the main antagonists in the past two World Wars. Why not control who comes in and out of them? Why not block off the border to Spain? Why not keep Germany divided into East and West? If you want to control who goes over the borders why not just erect borders everywhere? Why doesn't the UK want to control who goes over the border to the ROI? The border was kept open even though there were elements within the ROI who actively supported terrorist campaigns against the UK.

These borders were eradicated for a reason, despite the countries being legally distinct. Superfluous border restrictions are not the way that European countries now deal with each other. It is the great European project of the post-war era to prevent them destroying one another once again. That is not to say that they must all be one country; it is to say that they can be independent countries which work together to improve all of them.

 

[Gareth]

Oh right, you're a Scottish separatist. That puts your posts into perspective. I thought you were being whimsical and a wind up for the sake of it. But like most separatists, you're in denial about the fact an independent Scotland would be a foreign Scotland to the rest of the UK. You can make as much of a rational for having no passports checks as you like but it won't be the newly freed Scotland's decision. The rUK will be able to put up border checks and not need to justify it to anyone if it doesn't feel like it. That the thing you and the rest of the Yes gang need to understand: if you get your way, you'll be free from the rUK but it will be free from you too and won't necessarily bend over backwards to accommodate you. That rings true with everything; the currency being the biggest one.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Oh right, you're a Scottish separatist. That puts your posts into perspective. I thought you were being whimsical and a wind up for the sake of it. But like most separatists, you're in denial about the fact an independent Scotland would be a foreign Scotland to the rest of the UK. You can make as much of a rational for having no passports checks as you like but it won't be the newly freed Scotland's decision. The rUK will be able to put up border checks and not need to justify it to anyone if it doesn't feel like it. That the thing you and the rest of the Yes gang need to understand: if you get your way, you'll be free from the rUK but it will be free from you too and won't necessarily bend over backwards to accommodate you. That rings true with everything; the currency being the biggest one.

And being a staunch Unionist would be intrinsically better?

If there is Yes vote this year, which I still feel is unlikely at this point in time, what then matters are the raw, hard facts rather than the bluff that gets spouted about during the campaigns. It would not be beneficial to rUK to impose unnecessary border controls. It would not be beneficial to iScotland to impose unnecessary border controls and the SNP know this, which is why at no point have they even considered doing so. An Iron Curtain attitude to iScotland would be a complete reversal of everything that the UK and the EU have worked so hard to foster between European countries and it would be extremely damaging to England north of Preston and Newcastle.

The Republic of Ireland is a foreign Ireland to the rest of the UK yet the two countries never denied each other rights and responsibilities. That's one hell of a precedent when the ROI for all intents and purposes actively supported the Republican side of the Troubles after a war with bloodshed and a unilateral declaration of independence at its foundation.

 

[Gareth]

First sentence, don't know what your talking about.

As for the rest of it, the rUK would not be taking the decision about whether border checks are instated or not based on whether it benefits Scotland or not. It would be whether it's in the interests of the rUK or not. You and most of the Yes gang seem in denial about that. If a normal border frontier between two separate countries is an iron curtain, then there are iron curtains all over the planet. And most of the planet does fine. Another thing you're in denial about.

As for the Republic or Ireland border, there were border checks there for much of its history, even though Irish and UK citizens were allowed to settle either side of the border. They were only removed entirely around 20 years ago and that was to placate Irish nationalists who didn't recognise the border and want a unified Ireland; especially the ones who liked to use guns and bombs to express their grievances over it. That is why the ROI/UK border is different. It is an extraordinary situation. A rUK/Scotland border wouldn't be. If the whole of Ireland unilaterally left the UK in 1917, then there'd be no open border. That would've been the case even if there was a land frontier.

 

[NotATrainspott]

First sentence, don't know what your talking about.

As for the rest of it, the rUK would not be taking the decision about whether border checks are instated or not based on whether it benefits Scotland or not. It would be whether it's in the interests of the rUK or not. You and most of the Yes gang seem in denial about that. If a normal border frontier between two separate countries is an iron curtain, then there are iron curtains all over the planet. And most of the planet does fine. Another thing you're in denial about.

As for the Republic or Ireland border, there were border checks there for much of its history, even though Irish and UK citizens were allowed to settle either side of the border. They were only removed entirely around 20 years ago and that was to placate Irish nationalists who didn't recognise the border and want a unified Ireland; especially the ones who liked to use guns and bombs to express their grievances over it. That is why the ROI/UK border is different. It is an extraordinary situation. A rUK/Scotland border wouldn't be. If the whole of Ireland unilaterally left the UK in 1917, then there'd be no open border. That would've been the case even if there was a land frontier.

And again, the question is why would it be in the interests of the rUK to Iron Curtain its border with Scotland. How could it be justified to spend billions on making it secure when those billions could be spent on something that would actually benefit the rUK like health or education or tax reductions? There is this belief that the iScotland and rUK governments afterwards would be polar opposites with iScotland attempting to become a new social-democratic-Nordic-Model paradise and rUK turning into a UKIP-dictated V for Vendetta-land, that really isn't going to happen. There is no need for an Iron Curtain so why are you insisting that it could happen?

The UK is renown world-wide for being able to solve issues in a reasonable way and it is the intention of the Yes campaign for that to remain. As much as the opposite may be believed, it is the case that Scotland theoretically could reciprocate the tit-for-tat actions of the rUK throwing a temper tantrum. Every single essential physical element of the nuclear deterrent is located within Scotland - submarines, facilities and the nukes themselves. All that is needed to neutralise this completely would be to 'accidentally' block off Coulport and Faslane from the road and rail networks and some minor ship scuttling in the Holy Loch. Remember that the armed forces do not pledge allegiance to the UK - they pledge allegiance to the Queen and she isn't going to let her country collapse over this kind of thing. The oil industry is important to the UK economy as a whole and it is located effectively entirely within Scottish borders as well, so there are more things which could be done. Unlike Wales, which is dependent upon England to continue functioning as a country, Scotland does have the territorial integrity and infrastructure necessary to continue functioning as a separate state with or without support from elsewhere.

 

[Gareth]

Why's it in the UK's interests to 'Iron Curtain' (nice verb by the way) its borders with France? What about the US/Canada border? Is that an iron curtain too?

In short, you and most of the Yes gang want to be shut of England (and I say 'England' quite deliberately) yet you want the rUK to still see you as fellow Brits. It's called having your cake and eating it. It's not a temper tantrum at all. It's merely adjusting from Scotland being a part of the British nation to it being a foreign country, like Sweden or Slovakia. Are we being unreasonable to them too? No one's arguing for visa restrictions or anything like that. You'd simply provide either a passport or some other sort of valid ID. Hardly the end of the world if you see the rest of the UK as foreign. If it is a big issue, then you might need to do some soul searching about whether breaking up this country is actually what you want because it's a big decision and one taken at peril by having one's head in the sand.

And tit-for-tat? Who's throwing a tantrum now? Trident would almost certainly be moved anyway. I can't see the UK's biggest military deterrent staying in a foreign country. Same with the shipbuilding and other things. That's not throwing a tantrum, that's just standard relations between foreign countries, even with good relations. Spin it all you like: tantrums, iron curtains but any decisions made would be for the interests of the rUK, not an independent Scotland or any other foreign country. You and anyone not legally resident in the rUK would not have a say in that. If you believe independence outweighs the negatives you foresee in that, then fine, but don't kid yourself that the rUK would do everything you want it to.

 

[Emyr]

Can we talk about railways again now?

 

[Gareth]

Nope.

 

[HSTEd]

Well the Maple Leaf does take hours at the border between the US and Canada for customs checks (especially southbound).

It has killed it as a reasonable way to travel between NY and Canada.

EDIT:

And if Scotland goes independent, what is best for Scotland is no longer the rUK's concern.
They would no longer be 'family' but just another load of foreigners in the global race who want our jobs.
Border checks and a fence would do negligible damage to the British economy - most easily relocatable industries as well as all defence supported industries would rapidly decamp south of the border.
England loses almost nothing.

 

[pablo]

If it came to pass I think England might annexe Coulport, Faslane and Holy Loch........hock:

...and then get the inhabitants to vote for it.

 

[Altnabreac]

Enough nonsense about border controls.

There would be economic costs for both countries in imposing them and little benefit.

While the referendum debate is ongoing we'll see nonsense from both sides but once it's over both governments go back to the everyday work of dealing with each other to mutual best interest.

Border controls will only be erected if they provide a benefit to one side. I agree the downside of controls would be worse for Scotland but rUK aren't going to put borders in out of spite.

The only scenario where border controls make sense is if Scotland implement a vastly different visa regime to rUK but this would be avoided in the same way Ireland currently follows similar visa rules to the UK to avoid issues with the CTA.

I'm no Scottish nationalist (actually I'm an Englishman living in Scotland) but some posters from south of the border do seem to have a very odd vision of a post independence Scotland where rUK actively attempts to sabotage Scotland even at the expense of the rUK which doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[CheshireCrusty]

I believe the Westminster administration has for some years planning for an independent Scotland in a way that would protect the interests of the taxpayers in the rest of the UK.

In this respect I believe the current proposal to expedite HS2 as far as Crewe and no further is to give the Westminster Government leverage to negotiate with a future independent Scottish Government on a cost sharing arrangement for an extension of HS2 from Crewe to the Scottish border. The Westminster argument being that there would be insufficient economic benefit for it provide an upgrade over the WCML North of the Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds axis and hence if the Scottish government wished a HS line to the South they should meet the cost of not only the Scottish section but also the link to the existing English HS network.

In the meantime any possibility of an east coast HS2 to Newcastle will be left on the back burner.

With regard to the question of border controls - there will need to at least be an opportunity to undertake customs checks on the border between England and an independent Scotland, if only to provide random checks on the self-declarations made on all cross border trade which every business (both in Scotland and in any other EEA (EU+) country) have to complete and which have to be declared on an EC Sales List. The EC Sales Lists includes the details of all cross border transactions (goods and services). Under the governing treaties all Governments (including those within the EU) are required to demonstrate that they have robust controls in place to ensure that all cross border trade is accurately recorded (from whom to whom and at what value). I think we can all imagine how this will be interpreted post independence by Westminster.

With regard to passenger traffic, the pressure comes from the "English" pre-occupation with immigration. There will be enormous pressure on Westminster to have controls in place to prevent illegal immigration occurring through Scotland (as the then only land border with England). This distinguishes it from the Northern Ireland situation, where the existing checks made on both airline passengers out of Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK and at the ferry ports, such as Stranraer. which do not currently involve crossing a national border should be noted. I would therefore suggest it is likely that a "Eurostar" type arrangement would apply between England and Scotland rail services if there is not an actual border control stop.

 

[Gareth]

Border controls will only be erected if they provide a benefit to one side. I agree the downside of controls would be worse for Scotland but rUK aren't going to put borders in out of spite.

Why does anyone ever put borders up anywhere then? At the end of the day, countries leaving their borders open is the exception not the norm. And personally, I don't believe in people coming into and out of the country unchecked. What if the rUK leaves the EU, or at least ends the freedom of movement, which is very possible? What if Scotland has to join Schengen, which, as things stand, it would be obliged to? The only way I'd personally find it acceptable would be if the foreign Scotland closely followed rUK immigration and visa policies, as well as giving significant access to intelligence. It's not about sabotaging Scotland. The very idea suggests that Scotland wouldn't be able to cope. Far smaller countries manage but if you believe Scotland is that vulnerable, then is independence such a good idea?