Would an independent Scotland change the railway?

[Wolfie]

He would indeed be so entitled. Every European country treats every European citizen the same way they treat their own citizens for the purposes of healthcare.

RUBBISH!

See:
http://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/Healthcareabroad/pages/Healthcareabroad.aspx

What you say is true IF AND ONLY IF the countries are EITHER both members of the EU or EEA OR they have a bilateral reciprocal agreement.....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The precedent of Eurostar suggests that means sealed stations (a la St Pancras) with border control points and sealed, limited stop, trains. Were such a strategy not adopted Eurotunnel, Eurostar and the French and Belgian governments could and likely would litigate against rUK for discrimination.....

It's not that simple.
The regulations covering transits through the Channel Tunnel are not the same as Schengen controls.
There are security regulations which will not apply to a surface land border between England and Scotland.
These are derived from the airline/ferry rules which don't apply to roads/railways.
There is in fact no precedent for a surface UK/Schengen land border.

There is likely to be a passport check of some kind, but it might easily be done on board, especially if Scotland maintains good external borders as now.
There is unlikely to be a customs check (although they still apply over some Schengen borders, like Germany-Denmark).

Or we could all join Schengen.... fat chance with the current xenophobes in charge.

 

[PermitToTravel]

RUBBISH!

See:
http://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/Healthcareabroad/pages/Healthcareabroad.aspx

What you say is true IF AND ONLY IF the countries are EITHER both members of the EU or EEA OR they have a bilateral reciprocal agreement.....

Given the context of the thread, I don't think it was unreasonable to use "European countries" instead of "countries in the EU".

 

[thenorthern]

I think we have learned the lesson from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after partition and the railways but I can't see cooperation between the two countries being anything like it is today in terms of railways.

One thing though would the Sleeper be the same as it is now? I can see a need for a London to Edinburgh/Glasgow sleeper but sleepers from London to Aberdeen/Inverness/Fort William I can't see being required simply because demand would decrease because less people would want to travel to a "foreign" country, just my view anyway.

 

[oldman]

One thing though would the Sleeper be the same as it is now? I can see a need for a London to Edinburgh/Glasgow sleeper but sleepers from London to Aberdeen/Inverness/Fort William I can't see being required simply because demand would decrease because less people would want to travel to a "foreign" country, just my view anyway.

I guess there would be fewer MPs (none actually) and civil servants on the sleeper, but personally I am not planning to reduce the frequency of my visits to England if the worst happens.

I was on a far from busy TPE from Penrith to Edinburgh yesterday (I counted 18 people in coach D after Carlisle) and I wonder whether people in the south will feel that they are in some way subsidising Scotland with the current frequencies.

 

[petersi]

I wonder if Scottish independence could affect the IEP program. I remember reading that at one of the scot rail franchise renewals the suggestion that all cross border trains being cut back to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

If a the future Scottish administration decided that cross border services would be terminated at these two cities. It would reduce the need for Bi-mode by possibility eight units and mean that total number of unites could be reduces by maybe 4 unites.

Could the GW use the spare unites?

 

[Hornet]

With all the talk of various Banks and Business concerns moving their HQ's south, what if the various leasing companies move stock south if they feel that they can get a better return on their investment. I'm sure the North West would like to have some of those nice EMU's and DMU's that are rattling around Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I wonder if Scottish independence could affect the IEP program. I remember reading that at one of the scot rail franchise renewals the suggestion that all cross border trains being cut back to Edinburgh and Glasgow.
If a the future Scottish administration decided that cross border services would be terminated at these two cities. It would reduce the need for Bi-mode by possibility eight units and mean that total number of unites could be reduces by maybe 4 unites.
Could the GW use the spare unites?

I think the constitutional issues at stake are rather larger than where a few unbuilt trains might go in 5 years' time.
The ICEC franchise will be let under current rules in a few weeks' time, on its present route structure in Scotland.
Things might have changed by the time the XC franchise is renewed.

 

[HH]

The interesting thing will be how they split Network Rail, especially as lots of tasks are currently centralised.

 

[ainsworth74]

The interesting thing will be how they split Network Rail, especially as lots of tasks are currently centralised.

This is what I'm thinking. I mean how do you divide up the test train fleet for a start? Cut 950 000 in half? One NMT power car each? Or will the UK keep the fleet but Scottish Network Rail (or whatever) will sub-contract UK Network Rail to run their testing regime (surely the most sensible)? Same goes for maintenance equipment like the high output track renewal train who gets them?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's the small matter of the NR Route boundary on the West Coast route, between LNW and Scotland Routes.
The operational boundary at the moment is 3-4 miles north of the geographic border, at the point where Carlisle PSB control area interfaces with Motherwell and Dumfries areas.
Thus Gretna Junction, Gretna Green station and Quintinshill loops are in LNW territory, but in Scotland.
No doubt some equable deal will be made.

The East Coast LNE/Scotland Route boundary appears to be exactly on the geographic border.
It is also the boundary between Tweedmouth and Edinburgh signalling areas.

 

[route:oxford]

He would indeed be so entitled. Every European country treats every European citizen the same way they treat their own citizens for the purposes of healthcare.

If that were true, there would be no need for travel insurance in Europe.

 

[JohnB57]

If that were true, there would be no need for travel insurance in Europe.

Not all EU countries have a comprehensive tax funded healthcare system, many being funded through mandatory insurance schemes, especially for extended treatment. So it is true but travel insurance, which covers far more than healthcare of course, is definitely needed to ensure full cover.

 

[aylesbury]

If independence happens maybe more money will be available for NR in England and Wales.Then we shall see a surge in investment with more electrification and upgraded trackwork so we could benefit just what Scotland will do is a mystery.

 

[dcsprior]

The interesting thing will be how they split Network Rail, especially as lots of tasks are currently centralised.

This is what I'm thinking. I mean how do you divide up the test train fleet for a start? Cut 950 000 in half? One NMT power car each? Or will the UK keep the fleet but Scottish Network Rail (or whatever) will sub-contract UK Network Rail to run their testing regime (surely the most sensible)? Same goes for maintenance equipment like the high output track renewal train who gets them?

When Lothian Regional Council ceased to exist, their ownership of Lothian Region Transport (now Lothian Buses) was divided up between the 4 unitary authorities (Edinburgh, Midlothian, East Lothian and West Lothian) without splitting up the bus company.

Could this solution work for Network Rail?

 

[Abpj17]

I guess there would be fewer MPs (none actually) and civil servants on the sleeper, but personally I am not planning to reduce the frequency of my visits to England if the worst happens.

I was on a far from busy TPE from Penrith to Edinburgh yesterday (I counted 18 people in coach D after Carlisle) and I wonder whether people in the south will feel that they are in some way subsidising Scotland with the current frequencies.

Some of the northernmost MPs fly down - often on the same plane

From the other post, not sure why Aberdeen would suffer much - that's international business/oil money. I think it would suffer disproportionately less than Edinburgh and Glasgow.

 

[thenorthern]

When Lothian Regional Council ceased to exist, their ownership of Lothian Region Transport (now Lothian Buses) was divided up between the 4 unitary authorities (Edinburgh, Midlothian, East Lothian and West Lothian) without splitting up the bus company.

Could this solution work for Network Rail?

Doubt it it would be majority owned by the rUK government where by far which would mean that the Scottish owned part would be an irrelevance compared to the rest of the company not to mention the complicated ownership structure of Network Rail. Plus I think the SNP would more likely than not want to nationalise a Scottish railway.

 

[HH]

Doubt it it would be majority owned by the rUK government where by far which would mean that the Scottish owned part would be an irrelevance compared to the rest of the company not to mention the complicated ownership structure of Network Rail. Plus I think the SNP would more likely than not want to nationalise a Scottish railway.

I agree; from my conversations with people from TS and NR Scotland, I'd say it was nailed on that there would be a separate "NR Scotland". Quite how that would work is the question.

 

[anme]

I think if Scotland fully nationalised the train operator then they would be prevented for operating in England but as long as the Scottish government doesn't own the operator 100% they would be allowed to operate in England.

Why? Deutsche Bahn (for example) are allowed to operate services in the UK. Why would a nationalised Scottish operator not be allowed to do so?

A "Scottish Rail" could even bid for UK franchises, in the same way that the nationalised operators from France, Germany, etc do.

 

[cogload]

Why? Deutsche Bahn (for example) are allowed to operate services in the UK. Why would a nationalised Scottish operator not be allowed to do so?

A "Scottish Rail" could even bid for UK franchises, in the same way that the nationalised operators from France, Germany, etc do.

It could do, but it will be a cold day in Hell before it wins one. I would expect Stagecoach to be eased out quietly and hints dropped to First Group to move from Aberdeen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The "Scotland's Future" prospectus put out by the SNP government last year says that the current UK-wide rail-related institutions will continue after independence on a contracted basis (eg ORR, RSSB, NR) until Scotland decides anything different.
It says the same thing about institutions like the CAA and DVLA, with replacement Scottish agencies being ready "at the end of a first Scottish independent parliament" - or about 2020.
There doesn't seem to be any urgency about putting a different model for the railways in place.
Regardless of the formal EU membership issue, I'm sure Scotland will continue to use EU rules, like Norway does, to ensure a trade deal and inclusion in the Single Market.

This from p131 of Scotland's Future":

Which is in contravention as I understand it to European Union Law. Contrary to popular belief Scotland does not abide by the Acquis Communitaire - the EU rulebook - in more than a few areas. Some of these are technical, some are major. The UK has secured Opt outs and an indy Scottish government will have to negotiate with the Commission and the existing governments for those to continue. If Scotland wants to rejoin the EU for 2016 then it will need an equivalent of an ORR/CAA to be in place on the day of independence. It cannot piggyback on another member state as I understand it. If I am wrong then there is a good opportunity for the UK govt to rake in a few million in fees.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would there be border guards? Scottish terrorists coming down south? Smuggling haggis in exchange for black pudding?

Regardless of a yes or no vote in the coming weeks will probably see no changes whatsoever, despite what is written in various tabloid newspapers. At worst I think the situation would be similar to that between Northern Ireland and Eire.

Of course there are going to be changes regarding who pays for what and what has control, but that'll be part of any negotiations between Scotland and the UK whether for independence or further devolution.

But that aside it appears we are entering the silly season for news regarding the referendum: Cameron is "begging" Scotland to stay, Milliband want a US-Mexico style, armed border, Farage probably wants Scotland to enter the EU, I have no idea what the Liberals want (and neither do they it seems), the Greens will be saying that an an Independent Scotland will cause further, irreversible global warming/cooling etc etc etc...

A referendum vote however is not binding and a 'yes' will just mean that the electorate have voted in favour of independence and not that Scotland *will* become independent.

t.

Ian

Liberals want a federal system - "home rule". Has been establisjed party policy for about 100 years and not changed.

 

[dysonsphere]

On the subject of passports have you tried geting on any plane even London to Belfast without one I guess the same would apply to rail travel very quickly. I feel the SNP has not really thought it through. Cross border shopping and smulgging is huge in NI and Erie it will be even worse UK to Scotland or the reverse depending on how prices and curency move.

 

[Abpj17]

It could do, but it will be a cold day in Hell before it wins one. I would expect Stagecoach to be eased out quietly and hints dropped to First Group to move from Aberdeen.

Why? French and German companies operate in the UK. And First Group operates in at least five different countries. Travel companies don't present the same financial risks as banks or other financial services companies. In the case of rUK, franchises can be seized back if there are major issues?

 

[HH]

I doubt very much that Scotland would 100% nationalise the railways; it would send out the wrong message to the business community. It is also against established EU policy and I agree with the point that if Scotland want to be part of the EU they are unlikely to get away with the exemptions that the UK currently enjoys.

I don't see DfT easing out Stagecoach or telling First to move from Aberdeen (which they have largely done anyway as I understand it).

 

[plymothian]

The government seems in favour of state control of the railways ... as long as it's not the UK state in control (ie through DB, Abellio etc running franchises). So Scottish companies would probably have more chance of getting more.

 

[northwichcat]

Why? Deutsche Bahn (for example) are allowed to operate services in the UK. Why would a nationalised Scottish operator not be allowed to do so?

I've already explained that twice. The German government are majority shareholder of DB, they don't own the company outright. The same is true of Abellio and Keolis being part government owned. If the Scottish government 100% owned a train operator they would not be able to operate in England unless it was in partnership either with the British government (like the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland trains) or a non-government owned company (as I've just given 3 examples of.)

 

[NotATrainspott]

The UK-ROI opt-out on Schengen is based upon the reality that is it easier for them to secure the small number of border crossings than it is to run a national identity card/mandatory ID possession system that most Schengen countries must do. If Scotland were forced to join Schengen, it would make the rUK opt-out untenable on that basis. The EU treaties may say that all new states must join but that is because they never expected a successful secessionist movement - all new states would be new ones, bordering Schengen already so the total number of controlled borders in Europe would go down. If Scotland were forced to join and the rUK allowed to stay out of Schengen, it would increase the number of controlled borders in Europe, which is a clearly counterproductive step and is totally absurd.

 

[anme]

I've already explained that twice. The German government are majority shareholder of DB, they don't own the company outright. The same is true of Abellio and Keolis being part government owned. If the Scottish government 100% owned a train operator they would not be able to operate in England unless it was in partnership either with the British government (like the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland trains) or a non-government owned company (as I've just given 3 examples of.)

Why is an operator 100% owned by a state not allowed to operate in England - where does this rule come from? (Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know the source) What is the threshold of state ownership for this rule to be applied? I mean, could a symbolic single share in a state company be given away to a third party so that the company is not 100% state owned?

Also, apologies for all the questions, but can you point me towards some definitive information about DB's ownership? Some sources such as Wikipedia say it is majority state owned (which could mean less than 100%) but don't give any further details, while other sources say it *is* 100% state owned (e.g. see this report by credit rating agency Moody's https://www.moodys.com/research/Moo...on-Deutsche-Bahn-following-outlook--PR_251342).

 

[thenorthern]

There was something on BBC Breakfast about if Scotland votes yes it would be the end of the Sleeper.

 

[class26]

I doubt very much that Scotland would 100% nationalise the railways; it would send out the wrong message to the business community. It is also against established EU policy and I agree with the point that if Scotland want to be part of the EU they are unlikely to get away with the exemptions that the UK currently enjoys.

I don't see DfT easing out Stagecoach or telling First to move from Aberdeen (which they have largely done anyway as I understand it).

but only yesterday they threatened to Nationalise BP for taking the "NO" position

 

[NotATrainspott]

but only yesterday they threatened to Nationalise BP for taking the "NO" position

Jim Sillars did, yes. Not the Yes campaign itself. He represents Yes as much as Nigel Farage represents No.