24 March 2021
Dear Grant,
UNION CONNECTIVITY REVIEW – INTERIM REPORT
Further to our call on 8 March, when we discussed the publication of the UK Government
Union Connectivity Review Interim Report, I am writing to you to set out why the Scottish
Government disagrees with the premise of the Review; the way in which it was established;
the lack of consideration given to the role of the devolved administrations in relation to
transport investment; and the ways in which the UK Government could use its role to
improve transport connectivity to Scotland, without encroaching on devolved powers.
PRINCIPLE OF THE REVIEW
The UK Government established the UCR without meaningful discussion, set the scope and
dictated the terms of reference. You have not sought to work with the devolved
administrations and we expressed this to you in our joint letter dated 16 September 2020.
Despite your reply in October, we have little confidence in your willingness to work with us in
a collaborative way. If it was the UK Government’s intention to genuinely address a missing
piece of transport connectivity, the Review would have considered in detail the transport
investment planning the Scottish Government has done to date and continues to undertake,
and would have focussed on those areas where the UK Government have powers rather
than encroaching into areas of devolved responsibility.
There is no evidence in the UCR interim report to support the UK Government’s assertion
that the purpose of the Review is to fill a gap in transport investment which exists due to
each of the devolved nations having an inward facing focus. . The reality is, the Scottish
Government does consider outward connectivity within our own investment decision making,
to either invest within our own responsibility or further the case for investment in areas which
are not devolved to Scotland, based on evidence.
I re-iterate my comments that this Review, along with powers the UK Government has given
itself through the Internal Market Act and initiatives such as the Levelling Up Fund, are
moves to undermine devolution. The Review seeks to dictate funding priorities to the
Governments of the three devolved nations and attempts to bypass our decision-making
powers. Without meaningful involvement of the 3 devolved nations, the Review has little
legitimacy.
UK STRATEGIC TRANSPORT NETWORK
The primary outcome of the Interim Report appears to be the emerging recommendation for
a new UK Strategic Transport Network. The methodology set out in the report for
considering a Strategic Transport Network and assessing potential enhancements to that
network is lacking in detail, however and is not consistent with the approach taken in
Scotland. Our approach takes into account a wider range of factors, including safety,
wellbeing, social inclusion, rural considerations and high level strategic objectives, including
Scotland’s world leading climate change targets. These strategic, environmental and
transformational objectives look beyond the quantified benefit-cost ratio, and have been
emphasised in Scottish transport appraisal for some time, a change your Interim Report
highlights, has only recently been made by HM Treasury.
It is not for the UK Government to determine what constitutes a strategic road in Scotland,
that is for the Scottish Government to decide. The Scottish Government requires assurances
that a UK strategic network is not another way to undermine devolution.
INVESTMENT IN SCOTTISH TRUNK ROADS
The Report, in its interest in the A1, M74/M6 and A75, fails to recognise that Transport
Scotland has already completed two separate preliminary studies, namely the Borders
Transport Corridors Study and South West Scotland Transport Study as precursors to the
ongoing second Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2). These two studies, which
are extensively evidenced and have been published for some time, identified the A1 and A75
routes as potential candidates for future transport investment. In the case of the A1, the
potential investment would effectively complete the dualling between Edinburgh and the
border; and in the case of the A75 the potential investment was for a series of targeted road
and safety improvements.
Alongside the publication of the Report you announced £20 million for the development of
some schemes, albeit in advance of the final conclusions of the UCR. One of those
schemes mentioned was the A75. Given Transport Scotland is already undertaking this
work it is not clear why you chose to reference this in the press release associated with the
fund and instead stated we agreed to work together on this, which is untrue. Future
decisions on the investment in Scottish strategic roads will be taken by the Scottish
Government and we are identifying that through STPR2.
AVIATION
The Scottish Government is acutely aware of the importance of air connectivity between
Scotland and the rest of the UK, particularly in relation to routes where rail is not yet a strong
alternative for business travel. While the Scottish Government believes domestic aviation
will recover more quickly than international aviation post-Covid, we do not believe that every
route previously operated will restart. I will be happy to discuss further the suggestions that
Public Service Obligations may be a feature in restoring connectivity where there is a
demonstrable need for a particular route and where it may be unlikely that the route will
restart on a fully commercial basis.
I welcome the fact that the report notes the significance of the Scotland-Heathrow (LHR)
routes. While our reliance on LHR for international connectivity has reduced as we have
helped Scotland’s airports secure many more direct international routes, good connectivity
with LHR remains an essential part of our transport infrastructure. We have been clear that
domestic capacity needs to be protected as LHR expands and the market recovers.
RAIL
The main mass transit mode between Scotland and England, in terms of passengers and rail
freight, relies on two increasingly overloaded rail arteries (the West Coast and East Coast
mainlines). It is imperative that we find solutions to deliver greater capacity on these routes
to ensure longer-term economic sustainability and connectivity. Accordingly, I want the UK
Government to accelerate and expand HS2 to Scotland, via the West Coast and East Coast,
potentially by means of dynamic bypassing of the existing lines as a credible and affordable
strategy in addressing modal shift and emissions reduction, as well as improving capacity
and connectivity. Also, to reiterate the agreement UK and Scottish Ministers have already
made to identify options that could reduce the Anglo-Scottish rail journey time to a 3 hour
target, rather than the 3 hour 38 minute journey time achieved by the baseline HS2 Anglo-
Scottish service specification.
It is imperative that all nations and regions of Britain benefit from the sustainable growth and
prosperity that HS2 will deliver both in its construction and its implementation. I look forward
to a commitment from your Government to commence design and development activity to
deliver infrastructure that provides greater rail capacity throughout the routes of the West
Coast and East Coast corridors.
With regard to strategic rail freight, I have long argued, for rail freight to achieve its economic
potential and our environmental objectives, the rail network requires all of its routes to
Britain’s container ports to be electrified. The same issue now holds true in respect of
connectivity to all the newly designated Freeports. Accordingly, I would welcome your
commitment to address infill electrification on port routes as a matter of urgency.
FIXED LINK TO NORTHERN IRELAND
In the Interim report, you have set out that a feasibility study on a fixed link between Great
Britain and Northern Ireland will now commence, and do so with little rationale for why this
may be needed in the first place, therefore going against the advice of your own review and
HM Treasury - that firstly Government should look at the strategic case for investment. As I
have stated, just because it may be possible to construct, it does not mean it is necessary.
ENGAGEMENT
Finally, I would emphasise my disappointment that the Interim UCR Report was shared with
my officials and I just hours before publication and that you wished to discuss the outcomes
with me before receiving. This is indicative of the approach the UK Government have been
taking to the Review and encapsulates the disrespect for the role of the devolved
administrations in setting transport priorities for all of the UK. I have consistently indicated
my willingness to work constructively with the UK Government. All devolved administrations
have agreed that there is a need to address the historic underfunding of transport
infrastructure and to promote growth in all parts of GB and NI. Our processes for identifying
transport investment priorities are not undertaken in isolation and are in place to allow
assessment of cross-government spending priorities across a whole host of other portfolios.
Example of this are the Infrastructure Investment Plan and the approach to Comprehensive
Spending Reviews.
Clarity is needed from the UK Government, on when and if sufficient capital funding will
made available to allow decisions on infrastructure priorities to be taken by each devolved
government. Despite the Chancellor announcing a £27bn real terms increase in UK capital
expenditure since 2019-20, the Scottish Government’s capital budget was cut by over 5% in
the UK Spending Review for 2021-22, exacerbated by the announcement ahead of the UK
Budget that the levelling up fund would not provide consequentials for the devolved
administrations.
Transport infrastructure investment should focus on projects that improve lives, boost our
economy, support communities and work towards Net Zero. That is how we are planning
Scotland’s future transport infrastructure investment through the second Strategic Transport
Projects Review.