UK Connectivity Review

[BrianW]

Another all talk no walk document- yawn. Sorry to be cynical.

Worse than the Integrated Rail Plan, in that it makes no specific recommendations beyond further study of the options for connectivity improvements.
None of it is funded, and the funding is/will be contested by the devolved administrations.
Improvements to the HS2 connections at Crewe (to North Wales) and Golborne (to Scotland) are extremely vague and don't address the likely business cases.
It's a list of areas for further study, not a plan in any meaningful sense.

Peter Hendy evidently got a warmer reception in Dublin than in Edinburgh and Cardiff.
Though I think the Welsh position is manageable, as there is much common interest in the solutions.

Would be fascinating if these reviews and plans had to be open about the cost to produce these. Easily several million pounds of tax payers money to produce this document!

I hope so. You wouldn’t want it done by someone who gets paid nothing.

The Report includes two pages of Acknowledgements (which does not include the Scottish Government or Transport for the North for instance)- that's a lot of time spent by many, most of which will be paid.
Nine and a bit pages of References- 181 in number- that's a lot of Researchers' time, most of which will be paid too.
22 pages of titles or full-page photos of trains, planes, ships, electric automobiles, bridges and viaducts.
All for so much hot air.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

As I said in the other thread, on what planet do you think the elected government of a country wouldn't have an interest in strategic transport networks for that country? It's not "bullying" nor "working with" - it's doing the job of governing the country...

But even if that wasn't the case, the UK is not a federal country. It is not a bottom-up system, it's a top-down system, whereby the central body (Westminster) gives authorisation to devolved governments to act in their own right, based on the power and authority of the Westminster. They can change it whenever they want to. It would be politically difficult to do so, but legally the Scotland Act 1998 can be overridden simply by passing a new act. (Contrast that with the USA, for example, whereby Congress couldn't legally pass a "California (Repeal and Merger with Arizona) Act")

If we take the "how dare the UK government poke its nose into Scotland's or Wales' affairs" line to its logical conclusion, we should let Hampshire County Council close the Portsmouth main line if it's elected representatives want it, due to noise pollution concerns, or let Eden District Council in Cumbria dig up the M6 as it isn't relevant to their area.

And there we hit the problem of the UK's 'unwritten' constitution.

You have accurately summarised the current UK Government's rather odd, Victorian era, view of where sovreignty lies but that view is contested by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and most constitutional experts. The UK Supreme Court had considered cases based on that contest and has, on occasions, ruled in favour of the Welsh and Scottish view and, on far fewer occasions, in favour of the UK's.

Your last paragraph shows a basic misunderstanding of the idea of the UK as a 'voluntary union of four countries', a well-established constitutional principle dating back over fifty years.

Simply put, Scotland is not Portsmouth or the Eden disrict council. It is a sovereign nation that voluntarily entered a union with England which it may or may not chose to leave at some point. That right doesn't derive from the Scotland Act but from the Declaration of Arbroath.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the Scottish people cannot revisit the 2016 referendum while insisting that an act of the Scottish Parliament passed in 1707 remains somehow sacrosanct. What Scotland has given, Scotland may take away.

The case of Wales is even more simple. It was conquered and annexed, without any pretext of consent. It is a fundamental principle of modern international law that sovreignty is not extinguished by war or annexation, how ever long a period has passed.

 

[TravelDream]

But even if that wasn't the case, the UK is not a federal country. It is not a bottom-up system, it's a top-down system, whereby the central body (Westminster) gives authorisation to devolved governments to act in their own right, based on the power and authority of the Westminster. They can change it whenever they want to. It would be politically difficult to do so, but legally the Scotland Act 1998 can be overridden simply by passing a new act. (Contrast that with the USA, for example, whereby Congress couldn't legally pass a "California (Repeal and Merger with Arizona) Act")

I agree that strategic planning should be done on a UK level, but the UK government simply just doesn't want to do it. Look at how they essentially refuse to invest in Welsh rail infrastructure. Basically everything in the last few decades others than resignalling and electrification (in part) of the South Wales mainline has been paid for by the Welsh government when it is the UK government's responsibility. The Core Valleys lines only became the WG's responsibility in 2020.
The current government's position of simply antagonizing the devolved governments is hardly conducive to good governance either. It's a marked change from the May government.

What you say above in the quote not right though.
The Supreme Court has ruled the Scotland Act 1998 is what is a type of legislation called a constitutional statute. That means parliament would have to pass legislation specifically to repeal that act rather than passing a new act which just supersedes it which is how most acts are repealed (called implied repeal). That would be extremely politically difficult.

 

[edwin_m]

How much (if any) work has been done on a pure HSR/LGV route from the end of Phase 2b to Glasgow/Edinburgh? Do we even have a ballpark route and costs?

The Broad Options Study was citied in reference to ECML bypasses but also looked at WCML bypasses and possible end to end high speed routes.

 

[68000]

Having read the report, it's conclusions seem sound, although I'm disappointed they didn't suggest an intermodal terminal at Stranraer with a rail link to Dumfries as well as improving the A75.

I think that's unfair.

It's expressly called a "review" - not a Union Connectivity Plan.

And as for the Vanity Fixed Link, again it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a UK government should consider and look at such a link. Having been told for two years by the usual naysayers that it isn't physically possible, we now have confirmation that it is indeed possible and the cost and timeframe involved. We'd never have anything if before something can even be looked into, we need everyone on all political sides to agree in advance it's worth doing. We'd have no Channel Tunnel, no HS1 let alone HS2. In fact with that attitude I suspect most railways would long since have been closed down and converted to cycle tracks or single carriageway distributor roads by now.


As I said in the other thread, on what planet do you think the elected government of a country wouldn't have an interest in strategic transport networks for that country? It's not "bullying" nor "working with" - it's doing the job of governing the country.

In fact, I don't know of any. If someone can correct me if I'm wrong, please do.

The nearest situation to one in which roads are wholly the domain of a subsidiary government is in Australia and the US. But those nations are legally federal governments, where the sovereignty lies purely with the local entity (i.e. the state), and some of that sovereignty is shared to the central level (a bottom-up system). And even there, the Federal governments make use of funding powers to ensure they have the final say on major highways (i.e. do what we want or we'll cut your money off). And none of the states in either of those countries has a nationalist or nationalist leaning government, so there isn't much conflict anyway.

In Canada, federal highways are a joint responsibility between the central government and the provincial governments (even though it is a bottom-up system, albeit not as strict as in other Federal states).

In Germany, federal highways are a federal responsibility, period. The states (Lander) only have responsibility over their own roads.

But even if that wasn't the case, the UK is not a federal country. It is not a bottom-up system, it's a top-down system, whereby the central body (Westminster) gives authorisation to devolved governments to act in their own right, based on the power and authority of the Westminster. They can change it whenever they want to. It would be politically difficult to do so, but legally the Scotland Act 1998 can be overridden simply by passing a new act. (Contrast that with the USA, for example, whereby Congress couldn't legally pass a "California (Repeal and Merger with Arizona) Act")

If we take the "how dare the UK government poke its nose into Scotland's or Wales' affairs" line to its logical conclusion, we should let Hampshire County Council close the Portsmouth main line if it's elected representatives want it, due to noise pollution concerns, or let Eden District Council in Cumbria dig up the M6 as it isn't relevant to their area.

Yet the devolution settlement is real stuff, not the kind of stuff you can bin without an act of (UK) parliament. It this Tory government prepared to introduce such act to enable their 'union review'?

 

[XAM2175]

And as for the Vanity Fixed Link, again it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a UK government should consider and look at such a link. Having been told for two years by the usual naysayers that it isn't physically possible, we now have confirmation that it is indeed possible and the cost and timeframe involved. We'd never have anything if before something can even be looked into, we need everyone on all political sides to agree in advance it's worth doing. We'd have no Channel Tunnel, no HS1 let alone HS2. In fact with that attitude I suspect most railways would long since have been closed down and converted to cycle tracks or single carriageway distributor roads by now.

I suggest that if you revisit the numerous threads here on the topic you will find that the majority opinion was that such a link was probably possible - but definitely stupid in cost/benefit terms.

This is exactly what has just been confirmed.

Your last paragraph shows a basic misunderstanding of the idea of the UK as a 'voluntary union of four countries', a well-established constitutional principle dating back over fifty years.

Quite so.

 

[Cardiff123]

Welsh government would probably pay into the pot for more electrification in South wales and possibly a new section of straight track

And what would be cut from the Welsh Government's budget in return? NHS funding? Education? Local council funding?
Why should the Welsh Govt make cuts to devolved areas, to pay for something that is the UK Govt's responsibility, but that UK Govt refuse to invest in?

If UK Govt are not interested in investing in Wales' rail infrastructure (which they are not) then it needs to be fully devolved to Welsh Govt, with the appropriate funding to go with it (as is the case in Scotland & NI), so Welsh Govt can do what they've done on the Valley lines and get on with investing in and upgrading Wales' rail infrastructure themselves.

 

[WatcherZero]

Farington?

One of the very early HS2 reports talked about continuing the route northwards from where it veered westwards to join the WCML at Golborne. The route was east of Wigan, then crossing the WCML at Coppull to go west of Preston with a Parkway somewhere in that area. Bypassing Preston made little sense for connectivity, but if a modest northward extension from Golborne is needed then there is some merit in going as far as Coppull. This is on the former four-track part of the WCML, which I believe would be fairly easy to reinstate with HS2 linking to the eastern fast lines, and is straight enough to allow 110mph or more as far as about the Ribble crossing. There are six tracks here so I doubt any new crossing would be needed, though the existing bridges look old and may be in poor condition, especially the western one that doesn't get used much. Something would need to be done with Euxton Junction.

TBH four track the WCML from Wigan to Preston and rebuild North Western, would cost less than the £2bn (2009 estimate) of a bypass line and provide about the same time saving and a order of magnitude more benefit. There is just about enough room on the embankment and a lot of it used to be four track anyway as sidings and junctions for the branch lines to the various collieries.

 

[zwk500]

TBH four track the WCML from Wigan to Preston and rebuild North Western, would cost less than the £2bn (2009 estimate) of a bypass line and provide about the same time saving and a order of magnitude more benefit. There is just about enough room on the embankment and a lot of it used to be four track anyway as sidings and junctions for the branch lines to the various collieries.

The embankment and bridges between North Western and Lower Standish look awfully expensive to sort out without compromising the Fast Line speeds.

 

[domcoop7]

What you say above in the quote not right though.
The Supreme Court has ruled the Scotland Act 1998 is what is a type of legislation called a constitutional statute. That means parliament would have to pass legislation specifically to repeal that act rather than passing a new act which just supersedes it which is how most acts are repealed (called implied repeal). That would be extremely politically difficult.

Almost, but not quite. The UK Government itself, after the SNP lost IndyRef 1 legislated in the Scotland Act 2016 that "The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements." and further legislated for something called the Sewell Convention by inserting section 28(8) into the Scotland Act 1998 which now reads "But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament."

But that only provides a guide to interpretation, since firstly, it is an Act of the UK Parliament itself, and Parliament doesn't bind itself in the future; and secondly, it specifically includes the word "normally" therefore leaving open the possibility that the UK Parliament can indeed override devolved matters if it wants to, it's just that it "normally" wouldn't. The Supreme Court itself is a creation of a UK Parliament Act - the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which itself can be amended. In fact there are proposals going forward as we speak to amend that Act to clarify that certain decisions of Ministers and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative are not to be subject to previous Supreme Court decisions.

If you want an example of this principle applying in real life, look at the Fixed Terms Parliament Act. This provided that general elections can only be held every 5 years unless a two thirds majority of Parliament agree otherwise. However, when Boris Johnson wanted an election in 2019, even though there wasn't a two-third majority, they just passed a new Act setting a date - the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, which required only a majority of 1.

And there we hit the problem of the UK's 'unwritten' constitution.

You have accurately summarised the current UK Government's rather odd, Victorian era, view of where sovreignty lies but that view is contested by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and most constitutional experts. The UK Supreme Court had considered cases based on that contest and has, on occasions, ruled in favour of the Welsh and Scottish view and, on far fewer occasions, in favour of the UK's.

Your last paragraph shows a basic misunderstanding of the idea of the UK as a 'voluntary union of four countries', a well-established constitutional principle dating back over fifty years.

Simply put, Scotland is not Portsmouth or the Eden disrict council. It is a sovereign nation that voluntarily entered a union with England which it may or may not chose to leave at some point. That right doesn't derive from the Scotland Act but from the Declaration of Arbroath.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the Scottish people cannot revisit the 2016 referendum while insisting that an act of the Scottish Parliament passed in 1707 remains somehow sacrosanct. What Scotland has given, Scotland may take away.

The case of Wales is even more simple. It was conquered and annexed, without any pretext of consent. It is a fundamental principle of modern international law that sovreignty is not extinguished by war or annexation, how ever long a period has passed.

Scotland will be a sovereign nation if and when it secedes from the UK, is generally recognised as such by the international community, and has the force and power to impose its sovereignty. Ditto Wales. No serious lawyer thinks a letter written by Barons to a Pope in 1320 (a period when most people other than nobles were indentured peasants with zero legal rights) has any constitutional significance today (nor in reality did it then - it was a plea for help not a statement of the law).

see for example:- https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/04/06/paul-reid-the-declaration-of-arbroath-6-april-2020/

P. Reid, ‘The Declaration of Arbroath: 6 April 2020’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (6th April 2020) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/)

6 April 2020 marks the 700th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath (often referred to as the Declaration of Independence). That ascription normally goes hand in hand with mention of its most famous passage (“not for glory, nor riches, nor honours…”). Truth is, as a constitutional instrument, it has little direct contemporary relevance (the idea of a particularly Scottish medieval constitution has been described, perhaps harshly, as a myth: C. Kidd, Sovereignty and the Scottish constitution before 1707, [2004] JR 225). That is reflected in the relatively low-key celebrations (as compared to the Magna Carta celebrations a few years) that had been planned. But it is an anniversary that nevertheless ought to be marked. Whilst as a contemporary constitutional instrument it is of little relevance, it remains significant as an early expression of a constitutional ideal.

Paul Reid is Advocate and part-time tutor of Public Law at the University of Edinburgh (and proud son of Arbroath)

Still don't believe me? Well - contrary to what you say about the numerous UK Supreme Court cases, which is untrue - there is one Supreme Court case touching on the issue, and main judgment was given by Lord Reed, the most senior Scottish Judge in the UK (in fact the most senior judge full stop in the UK, being the President of the Supreme Court). And it was decided only 6 weeks ago:-

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/42.html
REFERENCE by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill
REFERENCE by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland - European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill

[Paragraph 7] The Scottish Parliament is a democratically elected legislature with a mandate to make laws for Scotland. It has plenary powers within the limits of its legislative competence. But it does not enjoy the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament: rules delimiting its legislative competence are found in section 29 of and Schedules 4 and 5 to the Scotland Act, to which the courts must give effect. And Parliament also has an unlimited power to make laws for Scotland, a power which the legislation of the Scottish Parliament cannot affect: section 28(7) of the Scotland Act. The Scotland Act must be interpreted in the same way as any other statute.

(my underlining)

Nobody is suggesting that Scotland is bound indefinitely by the Act of Union - not least because the UK Government have consented in living memory (not even "a generation" ago) to having a vote on the issue! What Scotland has given, Scotland can take away, except it hasn't taken it away - Scotland voted to stay. And my point was that if you believe logically a Scottish or Welsh Government alone should decide how and whether it can have transport links to the rest of the UK (even if those transport links affect other parts of the UK, for example between Northern Ireland and England) then why not let other areas alone decide? You can't consistently say it's OK if the Scottish Government does it, but it wouldn't be OK if somewhere else does.

(The stuff about Wales is just simply irrelevant. The idea a regional government set up by a country can override the central government because that region has been "conquered and annexed" either 738 or 479 years ago (depending on what it is you are referring to) is not recognised by any authority I have ever heard of)

 

[diamond chap]

If we take the "how dare the UK government poke its nose into Scotland's or Wales' affairs" line to its logical conclusion, we should let Hampshire County Council close the Portsmouth main line if it's elected representatives want it, due to noise pollution concerns, or let Eden District Council in Cumbria dig up the M6 as it isn't relevant to their area.

I don't think that this analogy is quite right. In Scotland at least, the roads being discussed (A75, A77) are Trunk Roads. Powers to manage and improve the Trunk Road network are devolved to Scottish Ministers amd exercised through Transport Scotland.

TS are engaged in a wide-ranging review on strategic improvements to the nationwide transport network (search STPR2). The conclusions from the Union Connectivity Review suggest improvements to the road network that may not be compatible with the objectives and conclusions from STPR2.

To the best of my knowledge, no powers have been devolved to Hampshire County Council to manage the rail network nor to Eden District Council to manage the M6. So it is misguided to draw an analogy between them and the Scottish Government, since the Review does affect the exercising of devolved powers by the latter.

 

[XAM2175]

"But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament."

You can turn up an entire library of statute and precedent about Westminster's ability to override decisions of the Scottish Government and Parliament, but - as the Sewell Convention recognises - they still shouldn't do it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How much (if any) work has been done on a pure HSR/LGV route from the end of Phase 2b to Glasgow/Edinburgh? Do we even have a ballpark route and costs?

I'm not even sure the "west v east" debate has been put to bed yet.
The stated current intent is for Scotland to be served by the west coast HS2/WCML route with Edinburgh services splitting at Carlisle, but every time there is an ECML upgrade it weakens the case to transfer Edinburgh services to the WCML.
The classic west coast route is still stuck with a lower speed profile (110mph) for non-tilt trains such as those about to be ordered for HS2.
Meanwhile the ECML is to be upgraded with 140mph services in prospect.

 

[Tobbes]

And there we hit the problem of the UK's 'unwritten' constitution.

You have accurately summarised the current UK Government's rather odd, Victorian era, view of where sovreignty lies but that view is contested by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and most constitutional experts. The UK Supreme Court had considered cases based on that contest and has, on occasions, ruled in favour of the Welsh and Scottish view and, on far fewer occasions, in favour of the UK's.

Your last paragraph shows a basic misunderstanding of the idea of the UK as a 'voluntary union of four countries', a well-established constitutional principle dating back over fifty years.

Simply put, Scotland is not Portsmouth or the Eden disrict council. It is a sovereign nation that voluntarily entered a union with England which it may or may not chose to leave at some point. That right doesn't derive from the Scotland Act but from the Declaration of Arbroath.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the Scottish people cannot revisit the 2016 referendum while insisting that an act of the Scottish Parliament passed in 1707 remains somehow sacrosanct. What Scotland has given, Scotland may take away.

The case of Wales is even more simple. It was conquered and annexed, without any pretext of consent. It is a fundamental principle of modern international law that sovreignty is not extinguished by war or annexation, how ever long a period has passed.

As an international law academic specialising in sovereignty, I'm afraid that this analysis isn't right.

The UK is a unitary state and the Devolved Administrations are creatures of the Westminster Parliament, as the UK Supreme Court made very clear in the recent case
REFERENCE by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland - European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. And what the Act of Union of 1707 created was not a federal union under some sort of contractual basis where Scotland could leave as and when it felt like it. And, like it or not, until the passage of the UN Charter in 1945, the usual method of acquiring territory was through conquest, and so the English conquest of Wales of 1283 (or Owain Glyndŵr's rebellion down to maybe 1415) does not result in any international legal right for secession from the UK.

This is becasue international law does not provide for a generalised right to secede from states - which is why Somaliland remains unrecognised despite achieving de facto independence in 1991. Nor does 'self-determination' provide it: in international law self-determination operates in two modes; internal and external. Internal is about the right for ethnic and linguistic minorities to have devolution and protection/promotion of e.g., a minority language. This is precisely what the UK devolution agenda has delivered. External self-determination is what is commonly - but wrongly - understood to self-determination; independence. This is only applicable in international law when there is colonialism (and no, that doesn't apply in the UK....) or where there has been something at the level of genocide against the minority community and therefore there is no way for them to have safety inside the parent state (if you're interested, see the Canadian Supreme Court's opinion In Re Secession of Quebec). Needless to say, if this doesn't apply in Somaliland, it certainly doesn't apply in the UK.

The only reason the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was held was becuase Westminster transfered the power to Holyrood to run it, and there is no legal requirement on Westminster to ever do such a thing again. I'm not advocating that this is the right position, but merely that it is the current international legal position.

 

[BrianW]

As an international law academic specialising in sovereignty, I'm afraid that this analysis isn't right.

The UK is a unitary state and the Devolved Administrations are creatures of the Westminster Parliament, as the UK Supreme Court made very clear in the recent case
REFERENCE by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland - European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. And what the Act of Union of 1707 created was not a federal union under some sort of contractual basis where Scotland could leave as and when it felt like it. And, like it or not, until the passage of the UN Charter in 1945, the usual method of acquiring territory was through conquest, and so the English conquest of Wales of 1283 (or Owain Glyndŵr's rebellion down to maybe 1415) does not result in any international legal right for secession from the UK.

This is becasue international law does not provide for a generalised right to secede from states - which is why Somaliland remains unrecognised despite achieving de facto independence in 1991. Nor does 'self-determination' provide it: in international law self-determination operates in two modes; internal and external. Internal is about the right for ethnic and linguistic minorities to have devolution and protection/promotion of e.g., a minority language. This is precisely what the UK devolution agenda has delivered. External self-determination is what is commonly - but wrongly - understood to self-determination; independence. This is only applicable in international law when there is colonialism (and no, that doesn't apply in the UK....) or where there has been something at the level of genocide against the minority community and therefore there is no way for them to have safety inside the parent state (if you're interested, see the Canadian Supreme Court's opinion In Re Secession of Quebec). Needless to say, if this doesn't apply in Somalia, it certainly doesn't apply in the UK.

The only reason the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was held was becuase Westminster transfered the power to Holyrood to run it, and there is no legal requirement on Westminster to ever do such a thing again. I'm not advocating that this is the right position, but merely that it is the current international legal position.

Thank goodness we have such specialists here and working in and for governments and the courts that nothing needs the advocacy services of Sir Geoffrey Cox.
Thank you Tobbes- if only governments obeyed the law; and got the trains to run on time ...

 

[Noddy]

so the English conquest of Wales of 1283 (or Owain Glyndŵr's rebellion down to maybe 1415)

Not to mention that places such as Caldicot, Monmouth and Prestatyn were all in England in 1086 (Gloucestershire, Hereford and Cheshire respectively), and are in Wales due to administrative changes over the centuries. Not war or conquest. Likewise parts of Herefordshire and Shropshire were not in England in 1086.

 

[Tobbes]

Thank goodness we have such specialists here and working in and for governments and the courts that nothing needs the advocacy services of Sir Geoffrey Cox.
Thank you Tobbes- if only governments obeyed the law; and got the trains to run on time ...

Too kind - let's get back to talking about railways.

 

[tspaul26]

As an international law academic specialising in sovereignty, I'm afraid that this analysis isn't right.

The UK is a unitary state and the Devolved Administrations are creatures of the Westminster Parliament, as the UK Supreme Court made very clear in the recent case
REFERENCE by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland - European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. And what the Act of Union of 1707 created was not a federal union under some sort of contractual basis where Scotland could leave as and when it felt like it. And, like it or not, until the passage of the UN Charter in 1945, the usual method of acquiring territory was through conquest, and so the English conquest of Wales of 1283 (or Owain Glyndŵr's rebellion down to maybe 1415) does not result in any international legal right for secession from the UK.

This is becasue international law does not provide for a generalised right to secede from states - which is why Somaliland remains unrecognised despite achieving de facto independence in 1991. Nor does 'self-determination' provide it: in international law self-determination operates in two modes; internal and external. Internal is about the right for ethnic and linguistic minorities to have devolution and protection/promotion of e.g., a minority language. This is precisely what the UK devolution agenda has delivered. External self-determination is what is commonly - but wrongly - understood to self-determination; independence. This is only applicable in international law when there is colonialism (and no, that doesn't apply in the UK....) or where there has been something at the level of genocide against the minority community and therefore there is no way for them to have safety inside the parent state (if you're interested, see the Canadian Supreme Court's opinion In Re Secession of Quebec). Needless to say, if this doesn't apply in Somaliland, it certainly doesn't apply in the UK.

The only reason the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was held was becuase Westminster transfered the power to Holyrood to run it, and there is no legal requirement on Westminster to ever do such a thing again. I'm not advocating that this is the right position, but merely that it is the current international legal position.

As a practising lawyer who works in the international law field, I would agree with this summary.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not even sure the "west v east" debate has been put to bed yet.
The stated current intent is for Scotland to be served by the west coast HS2/WCML route with Edinburgh services splitting at Carlisle, but every time there is an ECML upgrade it weakens the case to transfer Edinburgh services to the WCML.
The classic west coast route is still stuck with a lower speed profile (110mph) for non-tilt trains such as those about to be ordered for HS2.
Meanwhile the ECML is to be upgraded with 140mph services in prospect.

Two key issues favour the west coast.

Firstly it serves Glasgow and Edinburgh moreorless equally, whereas Glasgow via the ECML would need a lot more speed upgrades to equal the time that might be achieved via the WCML. The two cities are also rivals, and favouring one over the other doesn't go down well. It follows that a train splitting for Glasgow and Edinburgh can provide a good service to each, without using more capacity further south as it would if the prime Edinburgh service went via the ECML.

Secondly, the northern halves of the WCML and ECML are both mainly double track so have capacity issues with a mix of train speeds. However the ECML serves much more intermediate population, so there is a need for a good semi-fast service to link Leeds, York, Darlington, Newcastle and Edinburgh (plus some stations in between). Providing the capacity to run fast London-Edinburgh trains as well, probably only stopping at Newcastle to give a competitive journey time, will either need more infrastructure or compromise the service for the intermediate stations. Note also that there is some scope for upgrading the WMCL above 110mph for non-tilt trains - nobody has seriously tried to do this yet but I believe NR/HS2 are looking at it. Most of the ECML is faster than most of the WCML, but the ECML between about Darlington and Morpeth isn't.

It probably follows that on completion of HS2, the fast London-Edinburgh service should use the WCML, and the ECML Edinburgh service should be focused on intermediate journeys. Some conflict remains south of Newcastle because with no eastern leg, London-Newcastle services still need to use the ECML with few intermediate stops,. But not running these beyond Newcastle avoids some conflict there, and helps with timetabling further south by reducing the distance that fast trains share track with slower ones.

 

[clc]

How much (if any) work has been done on a pure HSR/LGV route from the end of Phase 2b to Glasgow/Edinburgh? Do we even have a ballpark route and costs?

HS2 estimated it would cost £32 billion - £34 billion in 2016. Pages 54-59:

Broad options for upgraded and high speed railways to the North of England and Scotland report

Route A would give a journey time of 2h30m.

There was also a slower option (2h50m) which would join the middle of a Glasgow- Edinburgh high speed line. This was estimated at £22 billion - £25 billion excluding the cost of the Glasgow- Edinburgh line - see pages 48-52.

 

[Noddy]

HS2 estimated it would cost £32 billion - £34 billion in 2016. Pages 54-59:

Broad options for upgraded and high speed railways to the North of England and Scotland report

Route A would give a journey time of 2h30m.

There was also a slower option (2h50m) which would join the middle of a Glasgow- Edinburgh high speed line. This was estimated at £22 billion - £25 billion excluding the cost of the Glasgow- Edinburgh line - see pages 48-52.

I appreciate the markets are smaller but it seems a shame that the predicted journey times from Birmingham, B. Interchange and Manchester aren’t mentioned.

 

[edwin_m]

I appreciate the markets are smaller but it seems a shame that the predicted journey times from Birmingham, B. Interchange and Manchester aren’t mentioned.

This would depend on whether Birmingham and Manchester journeys used the new infrastructure, which would depend on whether they needed to make station stops on the bypassed sections and also (in the case of Manchester) on whether the trains used were compatible with HS2 operation. The remit of the study, as mentioned in section 1.1.1, was around journey times from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow. If that journey time was shortened enough to capture most of the market from air, then the same would happen with the Birmingham and Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow markets, where the journey time is less anyway and the number flying much lower.

 

[Noddy]

Given how slow the current journey times are, IF such a line was built it would be a completely wasted opportunity not to have direct fast trains from these places using it (also applies to Liverpool). I’m not saying loads per hour or all existing trains but a regular, reliable service.

I would guess Manchester would be 1hr 30min, Liverpool 1hr 45 min (depending on exact route) and Birmingham 2hrs?

 

[Purple Orange]

With ECML upgrades and NPR, could we find that Manchester-Edinburgh is faster or at least equal to travelling up the WCML?

Manchester-Newcastle is expected to take 117 minutes, with Newcastle-Edinburgh typically taking 90-95 minutes. So with a 2-min dwell, that could be 212 mins (3 hours 32 mins). Today a direct train from Piccadilly will take between 185 mins and 195 mins.

 

[tomuk]

Given how slow the current journey times are, IF such a line was built it would be a completely wasted opportunity not to have direct fast trains from these places using it (also applies to Liverpool). I’m not saying loads per hour or all existing trains but a regular, reliable service.

I would guess Manchester would be 1hr 30min, Liverpool 1hr 45 min (depending on exact route) and Birmingham 2hrs?

As far as I am ware there are no Northbound junctions to allow HS2/NPR services to run from Manchester or Liverpool to Glasgow or Edinburgh. Only Birmingham with the delta junction.

 

[edwin_m]

As far as I am ware there are no Northbound junctions to allow HS2/NPR services to run from Manchester or Liverpool to Glasgow or Edinburgh. Only Birmingham with the delta junction.

Indeed. There was a northern junction in the plans very early on, but that was for trains from Manchester to access the depot, which was going to be at Golborne until moved to north of Crewe.

I did some very early work on the idea of Manchester to Scotland trains, and it seemed the journey time going nearly three quarters of the way round Manchester, even on high speed, wasn't much different from going via Bolton.

 

[Dr Day]

The harsh reality is that the more peripheral from major urban centres you get, the harder it is for rail to 'stack up'. Although things are changing and the strategic rather than economic and financial dimensions are getting more weight, the question of 'why should we make this additional capital and revenue investment in railways? (rather than say, electric buses)' still has to be answered. This challenge applies equally to the south west of England as it does to Wales and Scotland, hence the railway isn't even electrified to Exeter. It is a bit more nuanced than 'DfT don't want to fund things that benefit Wales & Scotland'. DfT have a duty to spend UK taxpayers money wisely.

And just because investment may not be in Wales or Scotland doesn't mean people travelling to/from there don't benefit. eg Swansea-City of London has got a lot quicker thanks to GWML electrification and Crossrail, even if the case for the Swansea-Cardiff bit is a struggle as there are fewer people travelling, hence fewer benefits to offset the costs not only of electrification per se but also straightening out the track in order for any journey time savings to be had from running on electric.

 

[William3000]

And there we hit the problem of the UK's 'unwritten' constitution.

You have accurately summarised the current UK Government's rather odd, Victorian era, view of where sovreignty lies but that view is contested by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and most constitutional experts. The UK Supreme Court had considered cases based on that contest and has, on occasions, ruled in favour of the Welsh and Scottish view and, on far fewer occasions, in favour of the UK's.

Your last paragraph shows a basic misunderstanding of the idea of the UK as a 'voluntary union of four countries', a well-established constitutional principle dating back over fifty years.

Simply put, Scotland is not Portsmouth or the Eden disrict council. It is a sovereign nation that voluntarily entered a union with England which it may or may not chose to leave at some point. That right doesn't derive from the Scotland Act but from the Declaration of Arbroath.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the Scottish people cannot revisit the 2016 referendum while insisting that an act of the Scottish Parliament passed in 1707 remains somehow sacrosanct. What Scotland has given, Scotland may take away.

The case of Wales is even more simple. It was conquered and annexed, without any pretext of consent. It is a fundamental principle of modern international law that sovreignty is not extinguished by war or annexation, how ever long a period has passed.

Well there were 7 kingdoms across the modern day England (excluding the area of Cornwall) and parts of eastern Scotland. Wessex, Sussex, Essex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria.

 

[quantinghome]

The case of Wales is even more simple. It was conquered and annexed, without any pretext of consent. It is a fundamental principle of modern international law that sovreignty is not extinguished by war or annexation, how ever long a period has passed.

In addition to the learned views of our legal friends (always impressed by the breadth and depth of this forum), this view would have major repercussions on virtually every country in the world. Pretty much every modern country has been created at least in part by conquest and annexation if you go back far enough, including England I might add. Some parts of the world have changed hands by force so many times it would be practically impossible to define where original sovereignty lies.

 

[Bald Rick]

I did some very early work on the idea of Manchester to Scotland trains, and it seemed the journey time going nearly three quarters of the way round Manchester, even on high speed, wasn't much different from going via Bolton.

That’s right. Piccadilly to the junction at Rostherne is ‘only’ 230km/h max; Were there a junction to head north, that would most likely be the same, and there is then only 5k at 320km/h before the 230 / 210 / 200 limits to the end of the line at Bamfurlong. Including the stop at the airport, Piccadilly to Bamfurlong would be in the region of 17 minutes. The current time from Bamfurlong to Preston is 15 minutes including the Wigan stop, so 32 minute Piccadilly to Preston. Compares to 33.5 mins from Piccadilly to Preston now with a clean path, calling Oxford Rd only.