The SNP supported Heathrow as it would benefit our country
IT is indeed rare for me to disagree with the excellent Alison Rowat, but on this occasion I must (“Principle is up in the air with SNP backing for third runway”, The Herald, October 26.)
The decision to create a third runway at Heathrow was made, eventually, by a Conservative Government and, as the Scottish Government welcomes the decision because it sincerely believes that this project will bring jobs and increased prosperity to Scotland, it would have been dishonest and irresponsible to have pretended otherwise.
I have genuine sympathy for the communities in the south-east of England that will be affected by Heathrow’s expansion, but I must own that I have far more sympathy for the communities in the Glasgow area that have the nuclear arsenal dumped on their doorsteps. Ruth Marr, 99 Grampian Road, Stirling. FINALLY, after 40 years, we have a decision that Heathrow Airport will get its third runway. This outcome has already caused a deep fallout within the Conservative Government and must call into question whether the third runway gets the final go-ahead or not, parliamentary approval being needed.
Suddenly, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are being handed a dilemma. Ms Sturgeon’s uncharacteristic support for a Tory plan has been much in evidence. Is she beginning to see that blind attacks on anything with the hated epithet of “Tory” are possibly counter-productive? Is this the first chink in her anti-Tory armour, and will she therefore put Scotland’s economic interests first over her political dogma? Or will the huge prospect of doing the Tories a serious mischief at Westminster prove just too tempting to pass up despite the obvious downside for Scotland?
It is an acid test for her as to whether she can swallow her pride and vote to “save” the Tories. Perhaps it might even make her more considerate of the 55.3 per cent of Scots who voted to stay in the UK. She may realise Scotland is still, and will continue to be, an important part of the UK, and that she would be far better off supporting the Union, as this decision over Heathrow surely cements, rather than trying to take us down the blind alley of independence. Better together, First Minister? Dr Gerald Edwards, 10 Broom Road, Glasgow. THE Cabinet’s long-delayed decision to build a third runway at Heathrow comes as no surprise but I have the greatest sympathy for Bob McKenzie and the many thousands who live under the flight path and suffer almost constant noise bombardment from above (Letters, October 25).
In his Agenda article (“Runway plan will bring air links to help Scottish businesses thrive”, The Herald, October 24), Scottish Secretary of State David Mundell tells Scottish businessmen how lucky they are to have access to a “central hub” to fly abroad to do business, and of course this hub can only be provided in south-east England. All they have to do is travel first to Heathrow, then change terminal buildings and planes at much inconvenience and usually hours of delay. He implies that is preferable to them stepping on to a plane at Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen airports and flying direct to their destination, as businessmen in many other European countries do from their local airports.
He also states that the new runway will be delivered “as quickly as possible”, without admitting his Government and its predecessors have already taken many years to reach a decision. Even now, final parliamentary approval will be delayed for a further year, and it will probably be the late 2020s before the new runway is actually in operation
Mr Mundell’s final bizarre claim is the “the whole of Scotland will benefit by building new runway space in the south-east of England”. Again, he speaks not “for Scotland” but like the governor-general of some minor distant colony rather than someone whose job is to represent our best interests in the UK Government and Parliament. Iain AD Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow. THERE is no surprise in the Heathrow runway announcement, but whether it ever comes to pass is open to question. The forces of Nimbyism are alive and will move heaven and earth to frustrate implementation. Even the Foreign Secretary is one of those opposed.
It was stated that this is infrastructure for the whole of the UK and it is promised there will be more flights to places like Inverness and Newquay. Of course, all of us in the UK will have to put our hands in our pockets to pay for it but if it brings transformative change, linking Scotland to the rest of the world, than that is a worthwhile price for us to pay.
I listened to the chief executive of Heathrow make just these promises on the news on Tuesday evening. As the story unfolded airfreight operators talked about having to truck material from Heathrow to other airports as there were no slots to use to fly such goods out. I have frequently heard complaints from many airlines that are shut out from Heathrow because of capacity issues. It may be a laudable aim for all except the Greens that Heathrow aspires to match Amsterdam’s Schiphol, with its six runways, as an international hub.
I now have a bell ringing in my head. Many of your readers will be too young to remember the story of the Channel Tunnel. It was also approved and paid for as a national infrastructure project on the proviso that it would allow connectivity to Europe for all parts of the UK.
Trains were bought that were intended to run directly from Scotland through the tunnel to destinations in Europe. They never turned a wheel; they were cannibalised and eventually scrapped. London and the south-east had its tunnel and the rest still have to use the cattle trucks to London to change for Europe.
Is this third runway, like the Tunnel and the proposed HS2, to be another white elephant for Scotland where we get to pay for it but receive little or no benefit? Will the more profitable international airlines gobble up all of the increased take-off and landing slots and leave us with a very costly status quo? D S Blackwood, 1 Douglas Drive East, Helensburgh.