A Scottish ‘Yes’ will up-end British infrastructure planning

Alistair Lenczner
12 September 2014

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

Planning

Scotland will have a diminished importance to the rest of the UK for  infrastructure planning if it becomes a foreign country says Alistair Lenczner.

Tomorrow is the big vote in the Scottish referendum on independence. Yet there has been little debate on the likely consequences on future infrastructure planning within Great Britain.

Whilst infrastructure planning may not be at the forefront of most voters’ minds, it merits careful consideration by all those involved in infrastructure related industries.

A victory for the “yes” vote is likely to have a significant impact on future infrastructure projects either side of the divide between Scotland and what could become the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI). Future plans in sectors such as defence, oil and gas, energy and transport in particular can expect to be significantly altered as a result.

As with so many issues that confront Scottish voters as they go to vote, answers to questions on Britain’s future infrastructure remain quite uncertain if Scotland were to become independent.

The fate of the UK’s nuclear submarine base at Faslane is a political hot potato that has been the subject of intense debate. Although the UK Government’s official line is that no contingency planning has been carried out for Faslane’s relocation from Scotland, some have mooted Falmouth and Milford Haven as possible alternative locations.

Both these options however look fraught with problems. Whilst the issue would be a significant headache for future EWNI politicians, it would probably represent one of the most interesting challenges for engineering and planning consultants to come up with a viable technical solution.

An interesting aspect for the energy sector that will need to be addressed in the event of a “yes” vote is how the EU targets for renewable energy generation will be met by EWNI. From an existing UK viewpoint, the EU target is easier to achieve so long as Scotland is included as part of its territory.

Scotland’s geographic potential to generate energy through wind, marine and hydro-electric schemes would be a significant loss to EWNI in planning to meet EU targets. For transport, an independence vote could well mean that future travel between Scotland and England is significantly diminished compared to remaining within the Union.

With Scotland a foreign country to EWNI, investment on new transport infrastructure would concentrate of what’s best for its reshaped national interest rather than Scotland’s. Thus the idea of extending high speed rail up to Scotland is likely to be seen as a lower priority than, say, extending high speed rail to South Wales and South West England.

Indeed, a second Channel Tunnel link to France could be regarded as a better national investment for EWNI than a high speed connection to Scotland. An independent Scotland cannot take it for granted that flight connectivity between Glasgow/Edinburgh and London will be maintained at existing levels.

With demand for landing slots at a still-constrained Heathrow likely to become greater for the next 15 years or so, there is a distinct possibility that new air connections with other foreign countries such as China and India are deemed more valuable than those to Scotland.

As with so many issues that confront Scottish voters as they go to vote, answers to questions on Britain’s future infrastructure remain quite uncertain if Scotland were to become independent.

Alistair Lenczner is an independent planning consultant