There is now an urgent case for not one but two high-speed rail links between Scotland and England. The cost would be colossal - between £50bn and £60bn. But in the context of what Gordon Brown's government intends to borrow to mitigate the current financial crisis, this is practically peanuts.
There is now an urgent case for not one but two high-speed rail links between Scotland and England. The cost would be colossal - between £50bn and £60bn. But in the context of what Gordon Brown's government intends to borrow to mitigate the current financial crisis, this is practically peanuts.
Superficially, a time of recession and economic malaise is the ideal one in which to undertake huge infrastructural projects. You have something beneficial to show for your public spending long after the crisis is past.
Yet that is part of the problem: the benefits take a long time to shake down, particularly in Britain where planning processes can be interminable - a bonanza for lawyers, if no-one else.
Under current arrangements, the planning process before work on new rail superlines started could take more than a decade. The actual physical work could be done in less than half that time.
But if there is genuine political will to co-operate on the part of the governments in Scotland and England, the planning process could undoubtedly be fast-tracked, to use an appropriate phrase.
Is this suggestion naive: the London and Edinburgh governments should agree to co-operate in radical ways on a major project that would benefit the people of both England and Scotland?
New high-speed rail links between Scotland and England would undoubtedly require much cross-border co-operation but this should be seen as an opportunity, not a problem. Instead of bickering and point-scoring, the two governments would have a chance to work together on a public scheme which would economically and socially enhance the links between Scotland and England. The benefits to southern and central Scotland and northern England in particular would be colossal.
Meanwhile, a commitment to new high-speed rail links would make it easier for the London government to take the correct but difficult decision to abandon plans for a third runway at Heathrow. Typically, the Brown cabinet has been dithering for most of the year about this. It seems scared to take on both the Spanish owners of Heathrow and Britain's biggest airline, who are aggressively in favour of the runway, for obvious reasons. But the considerable lobbying power of BAA and British Airways should count for little in the wider context of the government's long-term commitment to reducing CO2 emissions by 80%.
Giving the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow would expose this commitment as no more than a piece of hypocrisy. It would also breach European directives on air quality and noise levels in the west London area.
In Westminster, many MPs are worried that the expansion of Heathrow - a momentous and environmentally catastrophic decision - could yet go ahead without a full parliamentary debate. This would amount to political cowardice. But the case against a third runway is greatly enhanced when it is combined with the case for superior new rails links between London, the north of England and Scotland.
Meanwhile, the Holyrood government should be making the case for major investment in rail projects more forcefully and urgently. There has been too much talking about this for far too long. A firm proposal could be drawn up and discussed in a matter of weeks.
The east coast main line is faster than the west coast line because, for the most part, it goes through flatter country. The current best time between Edinburgh and London is four hours, 18 minutes (which is a little slower than a few years ago).
This time could be reduced, not easily but quite feasibly, to two hours 30 minutes, or even less. The west coast line is more problematic; here there is a case for a completely new route, possibly going via Manchester. This would be of immeasurable benefit to millions of people living in the Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Lancashire areas, as well the citizens of western Scotland.
Defenders (often in the business community) of the current air links between Scotland and London say there is no need for new superfast trains. Well, there may not be a huge demand for the existing rail services, but I am certain the enhanced demand would be there if you could get from Edinburgh - or even Glasgow - to London by train in less than two and a half hours. And, of course, these services could link with the current service through the Channel Tunnel.
Thirty years ago, when the French were preparing to introduce their first TGV trains, the naysayers insisted there was no market for them. Soon there was so much demand that doubledeck trains had to be introduced.
We are already 30 years behind the French. Do we need to be 40, or 50 or even 60 years behind them?
