The General Election changed Scotland's political map dramatically, and those seismic events look likely to have an impact on the governance of the rest of the UK in due course.
Westminster has seldom been more interested in what happens north of the border, and in other parts of these islands.
Power is moving closer to the people, and so it will be important for the Airports Commission to reflect the needs and wishes of the UK's nations and regions as it considers how best to meet the demand for new runway capacity.
At Gatwick, where we would like to build a second runway, our case for Scotland boils down to a simple choice: competition, lower fares and more direct routes for Scotland's airports, versus an expensive monopoly at Heathrow that takes us back to the days when Scots had to travel to London first if they wanted to fly around the world.
Gatwick was freed from the dead hand of Heathrow's owners in 2009; Edinburgh followed in 2012. Now, Aberdeen and Glasgow have been liberated too, and it's passengers and businesses in Scotland that feel the benefit.
People have more choice than ever. As a result, customer service is improving. New facilities are being introduced. Innovation and new ideas flourish.
New aircraft such as Boeing's Dreamliner fly further than ever, reducing the need to connect through old-fashioned hubs and allowing Scotland's airports to build excellent networks of direct international air services to serve their local economies.
Detailed analysis of the Airports Commission's research shows that Scotland would have a larger share of the UK airports market if Gatwick expands, and airports outside the South East of England would have
14 per cent more daily scheduled international services.
Think of the business and export opportunities created by more direct connections from Scotland and those millions of new passengers, and then take a moment to think about the alternative.
The Airports Commission estimates that an expanded Heathrow will command a huge 86% share of the UK long-haul market by 2050. That's a monopoly whose dominance will cast a long shadow over every airport from Inverness to Newquay.
Far from creating business and tourism opportunities for Scotland, as Heathrow's owners suggest, this huge airport would instead undermine the growing number of long-haul connections built up by Scottish airports in recent years, including those to North America and the Middle East.
Astonishingly, Heathrow is asking Westminster to hand over nearly £6 billion to improve infrastructure around the airport. That is £6,000,000,000 of taxpayers' money going directly into London, around half a billion pounds of which will be sent from Scotland.
As somebody who was born and raised a Geordie, and whose first job in the airports business was at Glasgow Airport, that 'Heathrow levy' bothers me greatly.
The nations and regions of these islands require investment as much as London does. The gap between the economy of the South East of England and the rest of the country is marked. It does not have to be like that; Gatwick's competitive option requires no money at all from taxpayers, freeing up Government funds to be spent on the areas that need it outside London.
Gatwick is the UK's challenger airport. When a five-year competition investigation called for the break up of BAA in order to better serve passengers, we were at the vanguard of that change. Edinburgh joined us in 2012, and has gone from strength to strength. Aberdeen and Glasgow are now masters of their own destiny.
In simple terms: Heathrow wants to protect its taxpayer-funded monopoly, whereas Gatwick is happy to fund its own expansion and compete with Scots airports in an open market.
Which is fairer? Which is healthier? Which is best for Scotland?
Stewart Wingate is chief executive officer of Gatwick Airport
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article