There is no possibility of a third Heathrow runway being built without controversy.
Against the boons identified in the report from Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission, there are serious questions. Contrary to the impression sometimes given, the latter are not the preserve of people living and working in the south-east of England.
One detail often overlooked in the argument over Scotland's referendum was the issue of transport, specifically of air transport. The uncomfortable fact was that, even with independence, the country would have relied on the Heathrow hub for its links to the world. These links have been bad enough for long enough, a source of complaints for which no remedy has been provided. The idea that a third runway could make matters worse for Scottish travellers is therefore worrying.
The commission is clear about this. If demand for landing slots for lucrative long-haul flights trumps the claims of domestic services, Scotland will see its share, one that has been diminishing for years, shrink further. Yet if Heathrow is locked in competition with overseas hubs - already a fact of industry life - the pressure to restrict Scottish services will intensify.
It is, in one sense, an argument between local and international. All of the world's great airports are in competition for customers and capacity. The claims being made by Sir Howard on Heathrow's behalf rest, in large part, on the fact. According to his commission, a £17 billion investment could aid "the UK economy" to the tune of £147bn. It could create 70,000 jobs by 2050. But what should we say if Scotland's connections to the world are restricted as a result?
We can already guess the chief beneficiary of a third runway. Even as it worries over air quality, noise pollution and the bulldozing of almost 800 homes, London would take the lion's share of the spoils. In one view of the United Kingdom, that might seem inevitable, even fitting. The idea that a hub for an entire country might leave a significant "region" at a disadvantage is, on the other hand, impossible to justify. Heathrow would be failing in its advertised purpose.
The proposal to create a start-up fund to support new routes, like the demand for a cut in landing charges for passengers using UK routes, is fine and well. It surely would not hurt. The commission's belief that the Government might be able to circumvent European competition rules and use "public service obligations" to guarantee slots for domestic services is, on the other hand, creative. No one knows whether such a scheme would be countenanced.
If it failed, hopes for the "economic and social development" of the entire UK thanks to Heathrow would be forlorn. That problem, when it arises, will not be resolved with rhetoric, whether Unionist or Nationalist. The benefits of union would come into question if barriers were raised to travel and Scottish trade, especially if they were raised because Scotland's interests were not in Heathrow's commercial interest. But in the matter of hubs and links, no purely Scottish alternative exists, none is envisaged, and none is thought feasible.
As David Cameron's government gingerly accepts the Airports Commission report, it should remind itself that Heathrow is supposed to be an asset for all the UK. No other view is acceptable.
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