I HAVE some questions regarding the costs, safety case and cross-border services provision for the Scottish area railway in the event of a Yes vote.

Network Rail is the owner of the rail infrastructure, and on September 1 the organisation became a public body. What contingency has the Scottish Government allowed for the transfer of assets from Network Rail and more importantly the safety case for their new infrastructure company? What will they be doing about underwriting the entire infrastructure in terms of insurance liability in the event of a major incident? The British Government underwrites all infrastructure incidents as has been the case since the old days of British Rail. It, after all, is more able to carry the risk due to the Treasury having a bigger funding pot.

Another concern is what happens to the cross-border train operating companies. They in effect will be transporting passengers and goods from one railway system on to another. Will their underwriters be comfortable with the infrastructure development, notwithstanding the fact that the physical parameters of the two railway systems are the same?

Lastly I would query whether the cross-border train operating companies will be duty-bound to provide the same level of service as currently enjoyed between London and Glasgow and Edinburgh. Will they simply look at the numbers and decide that the quiet trains terminate at Newcastle and Carlisle respect­ively? I feel sure that the foregoing concerns, not unlike like the currency debacle, demonstrate that the true costs of the proposed separation have not been properly evaluated.

Archie Burleigh,

Meigle Cottage, Meigle, Skelmorlie.