Metropol

Alexia wrote:

robschneider wrote:Is it just me, or is this why I am a little surprised at the Tories backing the continuation of the Union? It's fashionable to hate the Conservatives right now, but we all know that there are "no Conservatives in Scotland". Surely the Conservatives have everything to gain by Scotland not being an issue, so to speak?

Because politics has never made any sense.

Of course it makes sense. It only seems vague and mysterious if you're not privy to the super-objectives.

Follow the money. Can you seriously envisage Westminster holding on to Scotland unless our billions made in taxable oil and whiskey wasn't there? Not bloody likely.

The Tories' full name is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Clue there for a start. They believe in Unionism as an ideology rather than a practicality.

Only in Scotland Wales and NI does the party still have that name.

Gavin Scott wrote:Of course it makes sense. It only seems vague and mysterious if you're not privy to the super-objectives.

Follow the money. Can you seriously envisage Westminster holding on to Scotland unless our billions made in taxable oil and whiskey wasn't there? Not bloody likely.

I think that's a little cynical. I've been to Scotland twice. Once I was there for about 4 hours, on the other occasion I stayed overnight (in Inverness, so it was probably about a day in total on Scottish soil). Despite that, I still like to consider it in some way part of ours, while still having its own identity. That's not me wanting your oil money, that's me wanting to continue to 'have' Scotland together with Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Derbyshire etc.

Regional democracy is great, and I'd love to see more devolution not only to Scotland but also to the English regions.

Then you must support the Belgium modal, and we end up with full blown federalism. The only difference would be an English parliament.

WillPS wrote:I think that's a little cynical. I've been to Scotland twice. Once I was there for about 4 hours, on the other occasion I stayed overnight (in Inverness, so it was probably about a day in total on Scottish soil). Despite that, I still like to consider it in some way part of ours, while still having its own identity. That's not me wanting your oil money, that's me wanting to continue to 'have' Scotland together with Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Derbyshire etc.

What you're describing is perfectly legitimate - a feeling of togetherness and connection; precisely what Eddie Izzard said at his gig at the Festival Theatre in town on Friday. There was no heckling or booing, despite his fears, I'm told. I get that. I feel the connection too.

But the vote isn't about an intangible notion. It's not about how we feel, its about the nuts and bolts of government - not the incumbents at Westminster and Holyrood but all future governments. Political parties and leaders will come and go on both sides of the border, but in an independent Scotland we'd at least get the party we vote for.

Different parts of the UK have really very different needs. I watch Question Time these days and, frankly, its like another country already. Between the 'normalisation' of UKIP and the clamour over immigration - clearly a one-size-fits-all approach isn't fit for purpose.

What of the regions of England? The north? Do you feel well served by the London money pit?

Izzard said, “I say have the parliament, have the more power, but be with us. Like David Bowie said, ‘Stay with us Scotland’ and I’m saying the same – don’t go.”

We're not *going* anywhere, we just want a full government.

For the two (possibly) more visits you make to Scotland, will you really feel different?

And does it matter if you do?

Gavin Scott wrote:

WillPS wrote:I think that's a little cynical. I've been to Scotland twice. Once I was there for about 4 hours, on the other occasion I stayed overnight (in Inverness, so it was probably about a day in total on Scottish soil). Despite that, I still like to consider it in some way part of ours, while still having its own identity. That's not me wanting your oil money, that's me wanting to continue to 'have' Scotland together with Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Derbyshire etc.

What you're describing is perfectly legitimate - a feeling of togetherness and connection; precisely what Eddie Izzard said at his gig at the Festival Theatre in town on Friday. There was no heckling or booing, despite his fears, I'm told. I get that. I feel the connection too.

But the vote isn't about an intangible notion. It's not about how we feel, its about the nuts and bolts of government - not the incumbents at Westminster and Holyrood but all future governments. Political parties and leaders will come and go on both sides of the border, but in an independent Scotland we'd at least get the party we vote for.

Different parts of the UK have really very different needs. I watch Question Time these days and, frankly, its like another country already. Between the 'normalisation' of UKIP and the clamour over immigration - clearly a one-size-fits-all approach isn't fit for purpose.

I agree. Although I'd comment the 'normalisation' of UKIP is sensationalised slightly. I'd be surprised and horrified in equal measure to see their opinion poll ratings convert in to anything in 2015. They'll continue be a waste of EU seats (where they do nothing but complain about the organisation rather than actually acting in their constituents' interests) and council seats (where they have pretty much no policy).

Gavin Scott wrote:What of the regions of England? The north? Do you feel well served by the London money pit?

I don't know how I'd split the regions. Probably North, Midlands & East, South East and a generously drawn South West. I probably wont feel particularly well served by any government in truth, which is a slightly disheartening thought. But yeah, I live in Sheffield, which like Scotland has pretty much no Conservative support - so a Tory government does feel as though it serves a majority which is dark matter.

I have to admit I'm struggling to think of what power I'd prefer Westminster retained but it's late and I'll come back to you on that.

Gavin Scott wrote:Izzard said, “I say have the parliament, have the more power, but be with us. Like David Bowie said, ‘Stay with us Scotland’ and I’m saying the same – don’t go.”

We're not *going* anywhere, we just want a full government.

Gavin Scott wrote:For the two (possibly) more visits you make to Scotland, will you really feel different?

I certainly hope to once I have a motor, maybe more than twice.

Well, it would appear probable that I'd need to visit a Bureaux de Change (or more likely give my bank a call). That's a difference.

It's probable that things would change over time. Subtleties like road signage or even basic driving rules would change. A bit.

The truth is, we don't really know how much things will change (which will directly affect how different I feel).

Will Hadrian's Wall be reinstated? Probably not.

Will I still be able to get direct trains to Scotland? Probably.
Will I still be able to get direct trains to Inverness? Probably not.

Again, this is all as it falls off the top of my head.

Gavin Scott wrote:And does it matter if you do?

Probably not in the grand scheme of things.



My overall feeling is that strength in numbers is possible between countries with similar economies and moral values. In a world of growing powers it would seem a strange choice to splinter off to form a country with a populous of less than a tenth of the country it is detaching itself from.

WillPS wrote:Will I still be able to get direct trains to Scotland? Probably.
Will I still be able to get direct trains to Inverness? Probably not.
.

Railways and TOCs transcend national borders easier than most other forms of infrastructure; perfect example is NI/RoI and of course Eurostar. I see no reason why XC can't continue serving Scotland and the current destinations it does post independence.... Who knows, if First (a Scottish company of course) get the East Coast franchise, destinations north of the border could be expanded. The Caledonian Sleeper is about to become its own franchise which also may lead to possible expansion of destinations to try and tempt people off aeroplanes....

Alexia wrote:

WillPS wrote:Will I still be able to get direct trains to Scotland? Probably.
Will I still be able to get direct trains to Inverness? Probably not.
.

Railways and TOCs transcend national borders easier than most other forms of infrastructure; perfect example is NI/RoI and of course Eurostar. I see no reason why XC can't continue serving Scotland and the current destinations it does post independence.... Who knows, if First (a Scottish company of course) get the East Coast franchise, destinations north of the border could be expanded. The Caledonian Sleeper is about to become its own franchise which also may lead to possible expansion of destinations to try and tempt people off aeroplanes....

For what you're saying to be true, I would expect that the East Coast, West Coast and CrossCountry (as well as TransPennine) franchises would all need to be decided jointly by the governments of Scotland and Westminster. I cannot see the government handing over any power over three of the five InterCity operations to Scotland.

Is Westminster likely to see the EC and XC services that continue north of Edinburgh to be a decent use of scarse paths through England?

From the SNP website:

"Independence will not result in any immediate change to rail services. However, future governments of an independent Scotland will have greater flexibility over the budgets available to support rail services and over franchise arrangements and ownership models.Since 2005, powers to specify and fund work on the Scottish rail network have been devolved. However, discussion about the overall structure of the rail industry remains reserved to Westminster, along with safety and standards."

A bit wishy-washy with regards to Network Rail and who would be responsible for infrastructure in Scotland. However, with regards to TOCs....

Will cross border services still run?
"Yes. Cross-border rail services operate throughout Europe every day, linking cities and people across national boundaries. Governments work in partnership to deliver rail services of economic and social importance. Scotland and the rest of the UK will be no different in that respect."

So I think that the SG will be sensible about this, realising that as the majority of the line/service is in England, it will retain control of franchising WC, EC, XC and TPE. Caledonian Sleeper - not so sure. The TOCs themselves won't want to lose trade north of the M8....

EDIT : Source : http://www.scotreferendum.com/topic/tra ... transport/

And why would Westminster continue to allocate the scarce stock and paths to cross-boundary services? Why wouldn't they concentrate on the services which will primarily benefit their own electorate and economy?

WillPS wrote:And why would Westminster continue to allocate the scarce stock and paths to cross-boundary services? Why wouldn't they concentrate on the services which will primarily benefit their own electorate and economy?

"I think that's a little cynical."

Gavin Scott wrote:

WillPS wrote:And why would Westminster continue to allocate the scarce stock and paths to cross-boundary services? Why wouldn't they concentrate on the services which will primarily benefit their own electorate and economy?

"I think that's a little cynical."

It definitely isn't, it's realistic. Although governments love to pretend they're not doing it any more (under the guise of privatisation) they basically run the rail network. It's them who set staffing levels and divvy up who gets what in terms of old stock and new stock.

Given that, does it strike you as surprising that Northern have a fleet of many vehicles which were officially considered "life expired" at the time of privatisation? Does it also surprise that for the last 10 years it's been let on "no growth" terms which effectively allow the government to ignore it/run it on the cheap; regardless of how busy the trains actually are?

Another example. When Central Trains was split up, does it surprise you that the Western half received *all* the post-1991 stock, even though most of it had been specifically ordered for a route on the "other half"? To top it off, they were also given the order for new trains to replace the old stuff they still had.

Both these moves conveniently have a positive effect on areas with more swing seats. There are more.