Trains in an independent Scotland?

[Gareth]

Greenland is not remotely comparable to Scotland.

 

[hooverboy]

It all depends on the relationship between the two nations after independence. There may be some whose hostility to the other camp leads them to express a desire to "raise the drawbridge" but in reality I suspect pragmatism would prevail. Long before the Schengen Treaty and the Euro the frontiers between the Benelux nations were all but invisible. Scotland rejoining the EU would complicate things but then again despite BoJo's grandstanding it remains to be seen just how the current UK's relationship with the EU will develop.

i don't think pragmatism would come into it at all given the current political clique.

for scotland:
loading gauge would be the same, but train manufacture would be european
defence policy- non nuclear, dassault or thales procurement of rafale/mirage airforce(in truth not bad planes at all..very capable and pilots love them, but not cuting edge at all....like putting USAF v danish or swedish airforce, a bit one sided)

between airforces USAF do have a grudging respect for UK military(all theatres),they know we still pack a punch even with our older gear.they certainly do respect our training and operations.
that would not be the case with an EU sourced defence component-I think the adage of "designer uniforms,but no guns" was used.
speaks volumes of what they think of europes desire or capability to face up/down an opponent.
navy.non existent. uk vanity projects now moved to barrow/portsmouth/ tyneside to keep bojo's new voters sweet

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Schengen is a scheme to ease travel over continental European borders. While on paper it's a mandatory condition for prospective EU members, Scotland would be unique as a prospective EU member in that it shares no land border (or sea border?) with the Schengen zone. Hence the EU would have no reason to demand it. While any reasonable post-Independence situation would have Scotland within the common travel area. Not that there wouldn't be border issues, but in terms of passengers things would likely continue as normal.

As for Network Rail, infrastructure etc, the idea that Britain would try to retain ownership or hold assets hostage is nonsense.

 

[snookertam]

Greenland is not remotely comparable to Scotland.

In what sense?

EDIT: It doesn't have to be. The point is that the EU demonstrated flexiility in providing a solution when it voted to leave the EU despite not being an independent state.

 

[Peter Kelford]

First of all, what would happen to Avanti West Coast, LNER, CrossCountry and TransPennine Express services? Because surely they would then be travelling internationally, in and out of the UK for services such as Euston-Glasgow, Kings Cross-Edinburgh, Manchester/South West - Scotland? Would they be severely reduced? Passport enforced?! Withdrawn altogether and England and Scotland’s railways cut off from each other?!

There would still be scope for trains from London to a Brussels-sized city of Glasgow. Bruxelles Capitale has the same population or thereabouts as Greater Glasgow.

 

[Chester1]

I am sorry, but the reason for UKBA not wanting on-train passport checks (and therefore not even quoting for it) is pretty well known - the UKBA do not want undocumented/incorrectly documented persons to set foot on UK soil, due to the difficulty/expense of deporting many such people ( asylum seekers/economic migrants etc) back to their home country (not the country they have just come from).
If an independent Scotland were in Schengen rather than the CTA, I would expect Anglo-Scottish trains to operate more like E* (with juxtapositioned controls) and probably a lot less through trains. (Probably have to change at Newcastle or Carlisle and pass through passport control, with a few non-stop through trains per day to major English destinations)

I am a big fan of Eurostar and am annoyed by the limitation on expansion caused by passport controls but its blindingly obvious why the controls are done where they are! It is by far the most secure option.

An independent Scotland may or may not get an opt out from Schengen but there will need to be a customs border in event of Scotland joining the EU (because England would be outside the EU customs territory and Scotland would be within it). Trains could probably be granted an exemption but with baggage limits etc. I don't think passport controls would end large scale cross border rail travel because the scale of traffic is sufficient to fund passport controls at major stations. I think post HS2 and in the event of an independent Scotland joining Schengen there would be passport controls at Euston, Birmingham Curzon Street, Birmingham International and Crewe. Possibly Old Oak Common and Preston. On the East Coast maybe an hourly St Pancras to Edinburgh service (Eurostar controls and the link to the ECML) calling at Newcastle only. I can't see smaller cross border services surviving the implementation of passport controls.

Border controls and immigration controls are connected but they are not the same thing. UK has right to rent and right to work check laws precisely to be able to make it easy for people to visit UK but hard for them to work illegally. The effect of an independent Scotland's immigration policy on cross border services would be miminal to nil. Anyone that Scotland deemed suitable to live there would almost certainly be acceptable to allow into England and Wales as a visitor (and vice versa). Its worked with Ireland for nearly a century (there was a customs border but not passport controls).

 

[Gareth]

In what sense?

EDIT: It doesn't have to be. The point is that the EU demonstrated flexiility in providing a solution when it voted to leave the EU despite not being an independent state.

There are endless differences between Scotland and Greenland. Greenland is an autonomous territory, thousands of miles from its parent power, more or less runs itself bar defence and foreign relations and so pretty much governs its own economy, which has a quite different profile from Denmark's.

Scotland is and integral part of the United Kingdom, more akin to a state or province in a federation; although the UK remains a unitary state. It is contiguous with England, thus forms part of the UK mainland and the economy is very much entwined with the rest of the UK.

Greenland, if anything, would be closer to something like the Falklands. The comparison doesn't entirely stack up but it's far closer than Scotland.

Btw: there was never any proposal that Scotland could stay in the EU while the UK as a whole was outside. The SNP suggested Scotland staying in the customs union and single market. But this was trolling on their part. Scotland is economically integrated with the rest of the UK and does far more trade within the UK than outside it. Also, not being an EU member state, it would have had no say on the rules.

The EU suggested Northern Ireland remain in the customs union, using the Irish border and the legacy of the troubles as an excuse. The EU was also trolling here. They assumed the UK would find such a thing politically unacceptable and so the whole UK would remain in the customs union. They were amazed when the May government took the idea seriously.

As for trains, most of Scotland's network is separate from the rest of Britain (unlike its economy) so for most of it, there would be little difference. The crossborder stuff would probably be spun into a joint company, a bit like Enterprise in Ireland. The presence of border checks would depend on Scotland's immigration policies. It's a big leap of faith to assume that the EU would allow Scotland an opt out from Schengen if it were to apply for membership.

 

[Chester1]

There are endless differences between Scotland and Greenland. Greenland is an autonomous territory, thousands of miles from its parent power, more or less runs itself bar defence and foreign relations and so pretty much governs its own economy, which has a quite different profile from Denmark's.

Scotland is and integral part of the United Kingdom, more akin to a state or province in a federation; although the UK remains a unitary state. It is contiguous with England, thus forms part of the UK mainland and the economy is very much entwined with the rest of the UK.

Greenland, if anything, would be closer to something like the Falklands. The comparison doesn't entirely stack up but it's far closer than Scotland.

Btw: there was never any proposal that Scotland could stay in the EU while the UK as a whole was outside. The SNP suggested Scotland staying in the customs union and single market. But this was trolling on their part. Scotland is economically integrated with the rest of the UK and does far more trade within the UK than outside it. Also, not being an EU member state, it would have had no say on the rules.

The EU suggested Northern Ireland remain in the customs union, using the Irish border and the legacy of the troubles as an excuse. The EU was also trolling here. They assumed the UK would find such a thing politically unacceptable and so the whole UK would remain in the customs union. They were amazed when the May government took the idea seriously.

As for trains, most of Scotland's network is separate from the rest of Britain (unlike its economy) so for most of it, there would be little difference. The crossborder stuff would probably be spun into a joint company, a bit like Enterprise in Ireland. The presence of border checks would depend on Scotland's immigration policies. It's a big leap of faith to assume that the EU would allow Scotland an opt out from Schengen if it were to apply for membership.

Border controls and immigration controls are connected but they are not the same thing. The UK and Ireland have no passport controls between each other despite having two different immigration systems, which will become substantially different next year. The same is true on a large scale with Schengen countries although they have partially reintroduced borders due to the migrant crisis. The presence of customs checks is very likely but it is linked to an independent Scotland's trade policy. Passport controls are dependent on whether Scotland wants to stay in the common travel area, have their own controls or join Schengen. In theory all new member states are obligated to join Schengen but unlike the requirement to eventually join the Euro, an opt out could be granted to match Ireland. Schengen is about visit visas and passportless travel not immigration.

 

[Gareth]

Ireland is a very particular situation.

The EU granting Scotland membership with an opt out from Schengen is possible but far from a given.

 

[Chester1]

Ireland is a very particular situation.

The EU granting Scotland membership with an opt out from Schengen is possible but far from a given.

I agree, but in the event of Scotland joining Schengen, passport controls would not be due to Scotland's immigration policies. Schengen visas are visit visas and do not allow work or visits longer than 90 days. An independent Scotland could theoretically join Schengen before joining either EU or EFTA / EEA.

 

[Gareth]

I don't think Scotland would voluntarily join Schengen for the sake of it. Also, it's not clear that a non-EEA/EFTA country would even be eligible.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I am a big fan of Eurostar and am annoyed by the limitation on expansion caused by passport controls but its blindingly obvious why the controls are done where they are! It is by far the most secure option.

It is secure but it doesn't need to be that secure. The alpine stations are good examples of how remote immigrations checkpoints can function. Unfortunately, they are the most vulnerable to Brexit.

Its worked with Ireland for nearly a century (there was a customs border but not passport controls).

I wouldn't call terrorism and army checkpoints 'working'. For the last 20 years, yes.

an opt out from Schengen if it were to apply for membership.

Practically speaking, there are no land borders so it would seem to me odd that the EU was too bothered about this.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Ireland is a very particular situation.

The EU granting Scotland membership with an opt out from Schengen is possible but far from a given.

Why?

What benefit would Scotland's membership of the Schengen zone be to anyone?


It's clear that no-one wants any border controls between Scotland and the rest of the UK in the case of independence. It's absolutely not in anyone's interests to have them, and with the level of cross border traffic and integration it's impractical. Brexit (despite its best efforts) has not destroyed the Common Travel Area. There are no border checks for individuals between the UK and Ireland and there will not be any time in the foreseeable future. There is a customs border between the UK and Ireland, but by agreement of the UK, Ireland and the EU this is not in the form of a hard border, and most people won't even notice it.

In the event of Scottish independence things will carry on as usual. Talk of Eurostar style passport control or reduced train services really are alarmist and beyond even the worst case scenario envisaged on the Northern Irish border should the Common Travel Area collapse. For the most part it's likely that unless you're a business owner or HGV driver then little to nothing will change.

 

[Gareth]

In the event of Scottish independence things will carry on as usual.

You seem supremely confident of that. Bet your life?

Your assumption rests on two things: the EU will be willing to give you an opt out from Schengen; and the UK will be willing to create a common travel area for Great Britain. You need both those horses to come home and neither will be in Scotland's gift to grant.

It's plausible but not certain by a long shot. It's hardly alarmism and considering the endless crap we've heard about Brexit causing everything from Mars Bar shortages to World War III and a pandemic of super-gonorreah, the alarmism bar has been set very high.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Your assumption rests on two things: the EU will be willing to give you an opt out from Schengen; and the UK will be willing to create a common travel area for Great Britain. You need both those horses to come home and neither will be in Scotland's gift to grant.

Scotland may get an opt-out from Schengen seeing as it's so remote anyway. However, it's implausible that the UK will be willing to co-operate with an newly independent Scotland.

 

[RT4038]

However, it's implausible that the UK will be willing to co-operate with an newly independent Scotland.

I am not sure that this right - the UK was not at all happy with Southern Ireland getting independence in 1922, but the CTA survived. This after years of atrocities, which hasn't (so far) happened in Scotland.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

You seem supremely confident of that. Bet your life?

Your assumption rests on two things: the EU will be willing to give you an opt out from Schengen; and the UK will be willing to create a common travel area for Great Britain. You need both those horses to come home and neither will be in Scotland's gift to grant.

It's plausible but not certain by a long shot. It's hardly alarmism and considering the endless crap we've heard about Brexit causing everything from Mars Bar shortages to World War III and a pandemic of super-gonorreah, the alarmism bar has been set very high.

States and Supranational organisations make decisions based primarily on what is in their interests.

There would be no benefit to the EU to insist on Scotland joining Schengen. It would also not be in the interests of the EU to do something that would purposely weaken a potential member state. It's touted as a common prerequisite for EU membership but there's no logical reason to insist on Scotland joining it.

It is in the mutual interests of a hypothetical Independent Scotland and the UK to keep things on the border as frictionless as possible. If the UK Government wanted to discourage independence they might play some brinkmanship with it, but they have better/less risky ways to play politics and in any case both sides recognise that a "hard border" would be a disaster. Strong, heavy handed borders have never been the norm in Europe, even beyond Schengen there have always been ways to manage borders without resorting to that. The UK's arrangement with Ireland demonstrates that there is clear scope for such an arrangement.

Brexit has been chaotic because it effectively involved redefining every aspect of the UK's interactions and relationship with the EU in a very short time frame. This isn't insurmountable but combined with domestic unrest in the UK (and unrest in Government) over whether we actually should leave the EU, the extent to which we should distance ourselves to them it became quite difficult. Mix in a lot of vague and ill defined populist talking points like "Brexit Means Brexit", demands for a "Hard Brexit" without actually stating what that is, and government weakness leading to a strong Pro-Europe lobby and the whole thing became basically unmanageable.

Scottish Independence is - ironically - much more simple.

 

[Peter Kelford]

States and Supranational organisations make decisions based primarily on what is in their interests.

There would be no benefit to the EU to insist on Scotland joining Schengen. It would also not be in the interests of the EU to do something that would purposely weaken a potential member state. It's touted as a common prerequisite for EU membership but there's no logical reason to insist on Scotland joining it.

I would concur here. Seeing as that in the absence of the Johnson bridge there would be no land transport with other EU member states (and with Ireland a CTA-like agreement could be found), and in the current climate flights, Schengen or not would need long queues for security and check-in anyway so check-in staff checking passports would make a negligible difference to ease of travel.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Forum Staff have let the wider discussion on border issues run as it is clearly relevant to railway services in an independent Scotland. However we are concerned that we're wandering away from discussing the impact of independence and post-border arrangements on rail travel into wider arguments about Scottish independence and even Brexit. So I'm going to have to ask that we start moving back towards discussing border in the context of its potential impact on rail services. This thread isn't intended for discussion of Scottish independence in general. Only in one very specific context.

I appreciate that that might be a hard ask but please do try

Thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[Gareth]

Apologiest the mods in advance but the following can't just be blithely stated with no pushback; last comment on this, I promise.

Scottish Independence is - ironically - much more simple.

Sorry but no.

If you think leaving a unitary state that has existed for over three centuries, plus a further century of personal union immediately prior; where the country is completely and utterly integrated economically, socially and culturally and which will involve the separation of defence, foreign policy, national security, currency, citizenship, customs and, in reality, borders; alongside things like broadcasting, pensions, assets and sovereign debt is "much more simple" than leaving an aspiring federation that has only really existed in its current form for 28 years and acquired much of its contemporary spheres of influence more recently than that even - then you need to be honest, at least with yourself, about why you insist on believing that.

It's not even that I'd oppose Scottish independence if the majority voted for it; the only caveats being that I'd be sad as I believe we're compatriots and you think we're foreigners; plus the fact there was a referendum only a few years ago which went the 'wrong' way and within days the separatists wanted a do-over (and if a second referendum went the same way, they'd want a third). If you believe in Scottish independence in principle, regardless of any pros and cons, and that England is just another country like France or Norway, fine. But be honest about it and face the task of achieving such a thing with eyes open. You probably also want to seriously consider whether rejoining the EU is compatible with such a goal. Perhaps it's not actually about independence in itself, rather just wanting away from the English. Just a thought.

Getting back somewhere vaguely trains-related: the one certainty is that it would not be exactly the same; even if the UK was as supplicant as you insist on saying it would be. The island of Ireland has two distinct rail systems. Cross-border services are a joint venture by the two parties. If the whole of Ireland had left the UK or didn't leave at all, then it wouldn't look like that at all. Do you honestly think DfT specified TOCs are going to simply continue running hourly/half hourly services into Glasgow and Edinburgh, as they currently do? Nobody thinks that. So things will change, to a lesser or greater extent.

There are plenty of variables at play in regards to what the rail system in Scotland would look like in the advent of independence. The ScotRail network is largely self-contained and could largely carry on as is, that being as a franchised TOC. However, Network Rail would need to be replaced with Network ScotRail or something similar. Alternatively, vertical integration and nationalisation are other options that could happen. The 'international' stuff would depend largely on what Scotland agrees with the UK and what its relationship with the EU might or might not be.