EXECUTIVES from Heathrow are in private talks with the SNP leadership in their bid to win support for the controversial plan to create a £19 billion third runway at London airport.
Securing the backing of the Nationalists’ 55 MPs could prove crucial if there is a House of Commons vote to decide the issue.
But such a scenario would be constitutionally incendiary at Westminster if such a decision on an airport in southern England were effectively determined by MPs from Scotland given the widespread opposition to a third runway at Heathrow from local politicians among the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.
Over summer, Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond Park who is the Tories’ London mayoral candidate, warned that SNP MPs would be "crossing the line in terms of democracy" if a deal were struck for cheaper flights for Scottish travellers in return for Nationalist votes at Westminster.
His Conservative colleague Mark Field, who represents the Cities of London and Westminster, said Scottish Nationalists should abstain on any forthcoming vote at Westminster on whether to build a third runway at Heathrow or, indeed, a second one at Gatwick.
In July, the Davies Inquiry, commissioned three years ago by the UK Government, recommended that, if stringent noise and air pollution conditions could be met, then Heathrow rather than Gatwick should be extended.
David Cameron, who in 2010 famously declared that there would be no third runway at Heathrow “no ifs, no buts”, is due to give his response by the end of the year.
But expansion of Heathrow is proving highly contentious.
It is opposed by many Conservative MPs, including Mr Goldsmith, Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, and Cabinet Ministers Philip Hammond, Theresa Villiers and Justice Greening. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell are also strongly opposed; both are London MPs.
While it is estimated that a third runway at Heathrow would mean 250,000 more flights a year, provide a £150bn boost to the UK’s income over the next 60 years and create 70,000 new jobs, it would also mean demolishing almost 800 homes, including most of the nearby village of Harmondsworth.
Drew Hendry, the SNP transport spokesman, has stressed that his party is currently "absolutely neutral" on whether Heathrow or Gatwick should be expanded. But he has made clear it would support the option that answered Scottish demands for cheaper ticket prices and guaranteed connections to international flights.
Lobbyists from Heathrow and Gatwick are at the SNP conference in Aberdeen this week with the former paying for large banners at the conference venue.
Heathrow told the Financial Times that it was in discussions with politicians from across the UK on how to maximise the benefits for their constituents.
“Scotland,” it said, “like all regions and nations of the UK stands to benefit from the 180,000 new skilled jobs and £211bn in economic growth that Heathrow expansion will deliver.”
A senior figure at Heathrow told the FT that there was a clear deal to be cut with the SNP in return for the party’s support.
He said Scottish passengers wanted a firm long-term commitment to protect existing routes such as Aberdeen but also wanted to see the opening of new ones like a route between Heathrow and Dundee or the reopening of the old direct route to Inverness.
Speaking at a Heathrow-sponsored conference fringe event, Stewart Hosie, deputy leader of the SNP and MP for Dundee East, said: “The first airport that offers us connectivity in abundance will be in a prime position to win our support.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel