WHEN, as she nationalised rail services last month, the First Minister declared it “a new beginning”, we doubt that she, or anyone else, had quite this in mind. From next week, ScotRail will cut around a third of its services – some 700 weekday journeys – with more at the weekends yet to be announced.
It is hard to overemphasis the impact this enormous reduction in the services will have on travellers and on businesses in Scotland. In particular, the changes to the first and last services on many routes will make life very difficult for workers trying to manage childcare and reach their place of employment in time, and have a huge effect on the entertainment and hospitality industries.
The last trains between major cities will make taking the train to many theatre, concerts and sporting events an impossibility: for example, the last train from Glasgow to Dundee, previously at 23.10, will now be at 19.10, while going from Inverness to Aberdeen in the evening will now mean leaving around 6pm, rather than half past nine. Even many local commuter services within cities (from Glasgow Central to the south side, for example) will grind to a halt before 8pm.
Despite the opposition parties’ natural condemnation of this chaotic state of affairs, no one can reasonably claim that this is entirely the Government’s fault. It has, after all, only just taken over control. Higher fares, fewer services, and frequent strikes and cancellations have been a headache for rail users for most of the past year, and few would defend the record of Abellio, the previous operator of the network, which richly deserved to be stripped of its franchise.
However, it is perfectly justifiable to ask what improvement the Government had imagined would be forthcoming and indeed whether it had any plan at all in place for revamping the system. It cannot – one trusts – simply have thought that the act of nationalisation would act as some sort of magic wand to resolve the numerous existing challenges to the system.
After all, the track record of Scottish Government nationalised operations in transport – Prestwick Airport and the trinity of Ferguson Marine, CMAL and CalMac that have led to the ferries fiasco – is hardly encouraging.
Besides those considerations, these cuts undermine the Government’s aims to promote greener transport. The aggressive stick of workplace parking levies to discourage car use becomes nothing but a punitive tax if there is no option to use the train instead.
Leaving aside all ideological questions around whether the Government is best placed to run the services, or whether it should have any involvement in industrial disputes, it is utterly counterproductive to try to promote the use of a more environmentally responsible option, at the same time as that service becomes so inadequate that it cannot fulfill that role.
If there is a plan, it must be introduced immediately. The rail network requires significant action to repair it at once, and its timetable should be weeks rather than months. The financial damage wrought by current provision – so reduced as barely to count as a functional service at all – is colossal; if it continues, the losses around Edinburgh’s festivals season alone will be disastrous. As businesses attempt to get back on their feet as we emerge from the pandemic, and the overall economy faces the worst challenges in half a century, this must be resolved as soon as possible.
In the longer term, a new and comprehensive debate around rail provision will be necessary. With post-Covid working patterns, rail use has changed across the UK – overall journeys are still just 60 per cent of what they were in 2019, with peak time travel at lower levels yet – and customer provision must change with it. And it must be paid for, either through increases in fares (already very high) or through taxation (which means those who never use the services subsidising those who do).
The unions will have to be realistic about these stark choices, too. It is reasonable for Aslef to fight for its members’ interests, and negotiate when their conditions alter, but one of the consequences of nationalisation – which it welcomed – is that rail workers’ pay comes within the constraints on all public sector workers.
Drivers are currently well paid, and while a 2.2 per cent rise is a real terms cut, it compares favourably with what many others will get – especially when most Government attention is being paid, rightly, to historic shortfalls and labour shortages in health and social care. If this dispute drags on, passengers will desert rail, and the cuts and decline in services will spiral. Such a collapse cannot be in the interests of workers, passengers, the wider economy or ambitions for more environmentally responsible travel. But it could well be the consequence of this dispute dragging on.
Good show, Rangers
Rangers, and their supporters, will be disconsolate at the result in the Europa League final in Seville on Wednesday night, particularly as it came through the cruellest of all sporting deciders, the penalty shootout. But they will put their disappointment aside to concentrate on today’s Cup Final against Hearts at Hampden.
More generally, the club ought to be proud to have returned to the heights of domestic and international competition: to reach major finals is already, by definition, to have vanquished almost all the opposition and to stand near the top of the tree.
After the turbulence and tribulations of the last decade, Rangers can rejoice in securely being once again – as even their most committed rivals would secretly concede – one of the great historic names in world football.
The club’s return to success on the pitch, however, should not be the only cause for quiet satisfaction. The behaviour of the estimated 100,000 fans who travelled to Seville has been described as “impeccable”, and not a single arrest was made by the Spanish police, despite some provocation.
That, even more than the team’s efforts, brings great credit to the reputation of the club and, by extension, to the country. They deserve our congratulations.
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