Track Two... A Departure to 2026.

Confirmation that the HS2 rail link between London and Birmingham would go ahead earlier this month was met with little applause.

Many people have slammed the government project due to the routes cutting through “areas of outstanding national beauty” and the plans had to be adjusted last minute in a ditch effort to get the plans past parliament.

Indeed, the majority of disgruntled peoples who object to the scheme fall under that umbrella acronym of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), being persons who would normally encourage the development of such a (rail) infrastructure and yet refuse to show support as it may disrupt their lives ever so slightly.

My issue is to the contrary. The HS2 link does not go far enough.

Rail travel within Britain, where the mode was first pioneered, has become slow and unreliable. The passengers who depend on the rail links are subject to overcrowded carriages, infrequent trains and expensive costs. Most of the UK system still runs on lines that were introduced in the late Victorian era, and this is not suitable for a 21^st century country.

High speed rail has been expanding across the EU since the 1980s and has had significant investment in France, Germany and Spain, amongst others. Routes available on high speed service across mainland Western Europe is unrivalled on this continent; yet even within Germany before full roll-out, there are plans and schemes for Maglev-esque vehicles, increasing speed, efficiency and lowering costs by reducing friction.

Europe Railways in 2011, highlighting major high-speed investment in France, Spain and Germany.

Yet Britain appears completely unconcerned with the benefits that a modern rail system provides.

The small scale expansion into High Speed rail was introduced by the channel tunnel as recently as 2007 – seemingly forced by Europe as trains on the French side of the channel were capable of performing at speeds almost double the London-Folkestone average. For no real reason other than lack of investment.

Promise of the first major expansion to Birmingham is not to be operational until 2026. Any further links, preliminarily to Manchester and Leeds, will not open until 2034 at the earliest. The chances of this type of rail reaching Scotland before the 2040s? Remote to non-existent. There is a real lax approach as to the implementation of the scheme as a whole.

It is confounding how a line that promises a 50 minute reduction between London and Manchester and an hour reduction between London and Leeds is not being capitalised upon sooner.

Already, the Birmingham link alone is projected to generate some £43.7billion of wider economic benefits and generate £27billion in rail fares on these lines alone. Not to mention that the need for a wide spread introduction of the links, in every aspect from administration, to HR, to contracting, could create countless jobs at a time of severe economic crisis.

Longterm, the service would offer job migration. A person living in Manchester could work in London. A person living in Glasgow could work in Manchester. It opens up an entirely new field of connections and job prospects in areas of the country that were once reserved for those within a certain radius. Let’s face it, if Scotland becomes independent, Edinburgh will need a high speed link to London and from there to Europe. Current travel time between London and Edinburgh sits at an unappealing 4.5-5hours. With HS2, that could become 2.5 hours.

Moreover, the lack of enthusiasm for quick installation is unnerving. Firstly, the current proposals do not integrate the line into the National Rail system completely, having the Birmingham terminus exist in its own self-contained unit instead of arriving into Birmingham New Street, the central transit hub of the West Midland city.

Further, as previously mentioned, other European countries are already abandoning this train of thought in favour of other more advantageous railway systems: notably, the greener, more efficient and more cost effective Mag-lev, which is becoming the norm in Japan and a sensation in China.

Where might this innovative infrastructure have been tested then I hear you ask? None other than Birmingham, UK.

By the time the High Speed Line in its current incarnation is implemented to anywhere near the capacity required of the British public, it will already be defunct and an obsolete antique before introduction. The entire system need be bypassed in favour of more cutting edge and innovative means of transport.

If sufficient hands were contracted, lines connecting London to Glasgow, via Birmingham and Manchester, and London to Edinburgh, via York and Newcastle are not out of the question before 2025-2030. Yet the government is unwilling to invest in its own country, whilst the British railway, jewel of Victorian invention, is set to innovate countless people’s lives across the world before the decade is out.

With many lines already operating at over 80% of capacity at morning peak, High Speed is the only way to ensure the country keeps moving.

Flower of Scotland

1916: In the middle of World War One, Ireland stages a bid for independence in Dublin, threatening the British chances of success at a crucial moment in the war effort.

2012: In the middle of the worst recession since the Wall Street Crash, Scotland stages a democratic bid for independence “in Edinburgh, in London, or anywhere the Prime Minister pleases”, with many deeming the act detrimental to British growth at a crucial moment of European downgrading.

Certainly, the debate waging around the possibility of independence versus unity has seen battle lines drawn, but these may be premature concerns.

Previous breakups of the United Kingdom in Ireland provide a primary cause for concern. However, the eventual independence granted to Ireland was more an appeasement following a costly war, with transition handled distastefully by both parties. Looking back over the course and administration of the change of power, there are easily identifiable mistakes that could (and should) be avoided in the case of Scottish independence.

Continued violence and hostility is the true legacy of Irish independence and that was a threat suffered particularly till the turn of the century, but a decade ago. Scottish independence, on the other hand, would be entered into through democratic debate rather than the forceful mode of conduct that kickstarted and marked the Irish movement. England, not as prominent on a world scene, would be more amenable to these discussions than its own rash nature almost 100 years ago, when maintaining status was a priority.

Besides, a peaceful resolution would be encouraged while resources are stretched so thin across the United Kingdom due to cuts.

However, Scotland would surely earn the lion’s share of these resources from a split. Economically vibrant at the moment, Scotland has, as expected, the second largest GVA per capita in the United Kingdom, after England. Yet, many do not appreciate, or are completely unaware of, the fact that revenue from the North Sea oil rigs are not included in these figures, as the profit is currently ‘distributed’ around the UK instantly. With independence, 91% of the oil area lies within the Scottish borders. The sudden wealth that would be available to the northern territory as a whole would transform many areas of public spending and investment: leaving Scotland with little deficit.

In fact, it is already recognised that Scotland is the largest producer of petroleum within the EU, and that there is potential for other offshore oil-sites.

Additionally, Scotland is the central zeitgeist for whiskey lovers worldwide. Exports in specialisms such as whiskey, shortbreads, fudges and fishing produce earn the Scottish country a reputation for delicacies renowned the world over. Add the prominence in manufacturing and construction (Glasgow for example houses the largest shipping construction area within the UK), and one can see the advantages to a booming Scottish economy.

Already a relatively rich nation, the boost proffered from continued exports would ensure gained capital and circulation of the pound. In 2007 alone, Scotland’s top 10 export destinations alone earned the country in excess of £18,825 million. Imagine the growth in this figure with Scottish independence, backed peacefully by England.

In turn, this could help Scotland to tackle its slums and poverty problems. Despite the economic benefits of the oil, there is still marked difference between lifestyles of many Scots and their counterparts south of the border. An average male in Glasgow for example only has a life expectancy of 69. Scottish public services see themselves as inhabiting a different social area than England and Wales, with different key issues of poverty, drugs, and unemployment to tackle.

However, even with the separation, use of the GBP will insure continued intrinsic links with the remaining UK factions. Extra trade on the pound from Scotland will ensure continued circulation that benefits England and Wales itself in the long run.

A poll by YouGov last May showed marginal support for the move, but an overwhelming rejection from Scotland itself.

Perhaps the break-away of Scotland would also encourage a deeper look at the British image: a modern twenty-first century conglomerate of cultures hinged on London. The investment seen across Scotland should be mimicked across larger areas of the UK. HS2 makes some steps in that direction, but relatively few and relatively slowly. England is not capitalising upon its current market opportunities. Expanse of infrastructure would allow greater migration of peoples across the country for jobs. Focussing our main sources of income on development would allow a certain independence in a time of Eurozone uncertainty, creating a more stable market area.  A galvanised population to the North could teach English people a thing or two about national pride for sure.

Scuppering Salmond’s hopes for Scotland however are the Welsh and Irish members of Parliament, claiming that Scottish dominion in its own right would leave the two areas outvoiced within Westminster.

Nonetheless, considering moves towards Welsh parliaments, it would appear rather foolhardy to prevent progress for the sake of tradition. Not only does the move allow England a greater democratic voice, but it is not in the apocalyptic fashion that the Welsh and Irish describe: rather radicalisation on both sides of the border due to the split would see new ideas emerge as to how the country should be run and here lies the prospect of wide social and cultural change (the thing the Welsh and Irish appear to advocate amidst a Tory government).

With no date currently set for the vote (despite furious debate over timing this past week), we shall have to watch the development and resolution of lingering issues, such as currency, military, and Nuclear warheads over the coming months.

Shaking of the shackles of union is never an easy transition, but for the cultural, economic and social benefits that Scotland could wager, perhaps the UK should be more amenable to the shouts of “FREEDOM”.

12 Unresolved Questions of Scottish Independence. 

World Wide Black Out

Firstly, readers should have some context as to SOPA and how support had grown before last Wednesday:

Last week’s ‘Black Wednesday’ movement across the internet in protest to the proposed PIPA and SOPA bills were undoubtedly a widespread victory.

Having previously held the backing of law-makers, large multi-national corporations and large swathes of US press, the action staged over a single day effectively U-turned the action and has displaced the probability of the legislation being passed over the coming years.

For one of the first times, web based action had a positive, constructive voice within US congress, with ripples felt around the world.

Effectively, the SOPA and PIPA acts would have allowed US firms that found content shared contrary to their distribution policy to take the websites to court and have the site blocked, causing investors to pull their contributions and slowly destroy the financial viability as well as the overall creditability of the site.

Nothing short of internet censorship.

What makes the internet such an effective and efficient communicative tool is the sheer volume of mediums by which an unprecedented number of media and information file types can be conveyed and shared. Never before has public information been so versatile: it is the voice of the public that shapes internet content itself.

In fact, the evidence of the PIPA and SOPA rejections has effectively ensured the twitter revolution continues, as a new frontier of global enfranchisement.

In the face of the prospect of what has been dubbed Black March, a month of protest against the bills, support has dwindled to a new low. The power of internet support has never before had such a widespread impact and has now proved itself an indicator of public feeling and mode on a range of issues, beyond the simple forms of protest staged by social utility websites.

An estimated 13 million people participating in Wednesday's online protest, with approximately 50,000 websites going dark during the day, most notably for a public domain, Wikipedia. Opponents additionally sent around 3 million email messages to Congress during the protest.

Of course, there is no denying the extent to which the internet unwittingly promotes piracy: in 1999, the RIAA sold $15billion of music on CD and tape formats. Even with the advent of easier download, that figure had more than halved to just under $7billion last year.

However, the internet allows much more music to be accessed on demand across more genres, from more eras and by more users. Perhaps the new measure of music success in a digital age is Youtube hits: Stand up Rihanna, making headlines this week being confirmed as the most viewed female artist on the video sharing site.

Diversifying and altering the means by which success becomes apparent is crucial in an era that has seen the integration of online players, streaming films, blogged news and social updates.

Besides, the more worrying problem is how easily such a bill may have been passed. Without the social media consensus, there probably would have been a blanket black out as websites were pulled left and right.

For example, in the dying days of the Labour government of 2010, just such a bill was passed in this country, but shifted to the bottom of the news pile amongst election propaganda. The ‘Digital Economy Bill’ made it legal for files to be brought to websites that ‘may be suspected of uploading copyright materials’ even if there was not yet proof of this activity.

It is time to realise that our own country has supported these draconian restrictions that inhibit the freedom of internet usage and that whilst digital territory, these are still the fringes of our rights to freedom of expression and should be guarded with stringent attention.

Otherwise, there may not be such a clear cut warning the next time such a bill faces a world government.

Downgraded European Economies is a Punishment for Germany.

As the Eiffel Tower sits overlooking the Seine in the centre of Europe’s capital of love, it appears that Standard and Poor, the international credit rating agency, have fallen out of love with the French capital.  

Downgrading of nine European Union economies last week did not come as a surprise, per se, but remained a bitter blow, especially to the second largest Eurozone economy. Rating changes for nine countries highlights the need for new austerity measures, before introducing growth plans.

Perhaps this is the reason Britain remains unchanged in S&P’s poll: Cameron’s government moved quickly to introduce cuts and the fact that these measures have been undertaken without direction has been rewarded from the worldwide monetary agency.

Without doubt, Britain’s position is far from safe: while the short term consequences see a gain in GBP strength and trade prospects on an international scale, the intrinsically linked economies of Europe are a fragile set of dominos. A single collapse at this stage of the crisis could prove the kindling for an explosive series of economic shortcomings and bailouts.

Indeed, plans introduced to cancel 70% of Greece’s debt last Friday are but moves to buy time for the Euro and all related economies.

Whilst it is believed the move may help Greece to start to implement new means of recovery that will slowly abate the spread of financial interdependence, the wiping of such an astronomical figure from the central funds of Europe is equivalent to pulling the plug on a vast resource of wealth. With fewer countries classified AAA, the missing money could prove to be nigh on impossible to replace, meaning that it would undermine the significant advances made in industry over 2011.

Should such an econopocalyptic event pass, it is likely to trigger debt that cannot be undone within our lifetimes.

France’s image as one half of the economic megaforce upholding the Eurozone has now been shattered. Sarkozy’s right to stand on a podium alongside Merkel has been removed: former foes had been presenting a united front as the 17 countries that use the euro face their biggest crisis since World War II. Now, whilst a blow for the president, concerns should shift from where France went wrong to where Germany now finds itself.

Economically, Germany is on the precipice before the abyss. All of Europe looks to its €211 billion ($267.32 billion) contribution to the Eurozone rescue fund as a source of saviour. Although Luxembourg, Finland and the Netherlands all maintain their AAA rating in addition to Germany, the mother of the Rhineland is able to boast a donation to the Eurofund that is more than treble that of the other three combined.

Germany is once again isolated in the centre of countries that threaten it: no longer the supposed threat of invasion, but the threat of siphoning all the funds possible for ulterior economic issues.

Relative strengths and weaknesses of key economies have been realigned by the changes and Germany becomes more vulnerable to credit crisis the more that its own funds are charged with the duty not only of small periphery nations, such as Greece and Portugal, but large central blocs, as France and Italy.

Any increase in bailout costs comes from German pockets and this appears to be something that the German electorate may not bear with merely a customary grumble too much longer. This could lead to potential referendums on the amount Germany puts into the fund, or even on the Euro itself.

However, the cost of breaking up the Eurozone itself could be catastrophic as billions of Euros are lost in every area from trade to administration and all problems in between. In fact, the relative weakness of the surrounding economies at least makes German products more competitive, which means Berlin earns more capital.

All the same, the opinion of the voter would depend on the projection of their outlook. Germany, likely to reassert itself as the strongest economy before European counterparts could still see benefits from a break in the single unit currency within a decade or two. Markets would always seek the hub of enterprise and exports offered by the central state.

The risks of both cases are, unfortunately, war. Ironically, the Franco-German alliance now enters a turbulent stage wherein the two countries sit on the crux of imposing a disaster on the rest of the economy, continent and world.

Should Germany continue to support its Eurozone counterparts, there may emerge a sentiment of anger and resentment that would see a war break out due to a lack of appeasement. On the other hand, if Germany were to break its ties, it could grow strong amidst a state of turmoil and seek further expansion in order to capitalise on new found economic prospects. And who could say that such a route would be devastating – the application of German stratagems could provide economic balance further than its current boundaries. Or should Germany leave, other European countries may feel abandoned and declare action as a last ditch effort to prove their own flailing might in the face of German capitalist gains.

After all, one of the main contributing factors of the Second World War was the sheer amount of economic wealth that was drained from Germany by other European countries. But then, when have we ever learnt from history?

Sparkling over the night waters of the Seine, the Eiffel Tower appears an oversized, abandoned Christmas decoration, spreading little warmth to the heart of Paris, threatening to be washed away by the tide of debt on which it is founded.

Costa Culpability.

As a thirteenth body was found among the wreck of the Costa Concordia this weekend, the latest from the discredited captain is that the salute to the Isle of Giglio, off the Italian coast, was in fact ordered by the managerial company.

The cruise ship’s altered course caused the worst nautical holiday disaster in recent memory on 13^th January 2012.

Rather than taking the approved course, which is sailed over 50 times a year, the Costa Concordia found itself more than some 4 miles off course and dangerously close to the shallow waters of Giglio. Since the incident, which caused mass panic amongst crew and passengers alike, a string of theories have been offered as to the reasons behind the ship’s misfortune.

Map displaying route and times believed to detail the Costa Concordia's fate, 13th Jan 2012.

Initial ideas centred on faulty equipment, rendering the vessel without accurate mapping systems, or suggested that the captain was attempting to show off to other colleagues on the near-by island.

However, Francesco Schettino has reportedly said he was ordered to carry out the manoeuvre by ship owner Costa Crociere, according to transcripts leaked to Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

Statements to a judge appear to be a cross-breed then of the original theories that plagued papers and onlookers in the wake of the ship listing 10 days ago. Breaking his silence, Schettino accuses the executives of the Costa Crociere group as not only having known of the salute, but actively encouraging the manoeuvre. 

He told the judge that the cruise company insisted it was a good way by which to promote its sailings and continued by adding “Costa was aware of the repeated practice of 'saluting' around the world”.

Besides these contextualising factors, Schettino also described that on the night of the collision he discovered some of the equipment which records navigation data was out of order, which could hamper investigators' efforts to reconstruct his route.

The captain, who is under house arrest whilst the investigations continue, is charged with several offences: namely, manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning ship.

However, with the time that has passed between the event and these initial remarks, it seems all the more plausible that the Schettino has been advised how to approach his trial, instantly discrediting other major figures within the company.

Despite the torrent of abuse that has circulated around the captain however, the various scandalous reports from both passengers and those working aboard the ship have certainly come to cloud the issue of the captain’s sole culpability.

 Those who claim the captain had been drinking at the bar, for example, when the ship started to list on the rocks have had the event placed on a pedestal of bastardisation, instantly citing it as a testimony to the captain’s abuse of duty. Yet, this was a ship with over 1,000 crew members aboard. Certainly, while this figure is not indicative of the percentage that is senior staff, the captain has rights to a break and could have been enjoying such repose.

Additionally, with perhaps up to twenty other senior officials with access and qualifications to man the ship beside Schettino, it is only in the everyday maintaining of such a vessel that a number of tasks are distributed among the crew. Schettino’s team should have been fairly expected to manage the ship without constant supervision. A captain’s duties go beyond the simple steering of the liner itself.

However, should his stories of faulty navigation equipment prove true, there will indeed be question as to the captain’s conduct and decisions to leave the command posts of the ship on that fateful eve.

Yet, the most trivial aspect of the charges facing the captain is that of abandoning ship. Whilst there is no doubt that Schettino’s exit from the sinking craft was far from dignified, the orders to return and the subsequent backlash appear far out of proportion. No longer are we in a society that should condone the idea of a captain ‘going down with his ship’. In fact, should a captain wait till the last, we would still find Schettino sitting some distance of the Giglio coast, awaiting confirmation he could return to land.

Had the vessel sunk completely after the rocks ripped a hole on the underside, society would have effectively condemned an extra person to a watery grave. Not only should this weigh heavy on conscience, but surely it is better to have a captain that can testify as to the events of the evening in question and provide evidence, than one several hundred feet under the surface of the sea?

Lack of calm logic simply baffles.

Due to the unusual nature of the ship’s listing, having rolled onto its side, normal procedures of evacuation were clearly not possible and, although the mob panic that spread so quickly will haunt many who were on board for some time, this was not a scenario that had been offered foresight.

Of course, the new wave of information from the captain comes to dirty the hands of other more prominent figures. The statements from captain and spokespersons do not match up for one. Schettino says he gave an accurate depiction of the scene to Costa Crociere official Roberto Ferrarini, who approved his actions.

Further, Pier Luigi Foschi, the chief executive of Costa Crociere, said last week: “I can't exclude that ships have been sailed closer to land on the initiative of some captains without informing us. But I have never been aware of this taking place in an unsafe manner.”

Some clever wording on the part of Foschi aside, one can’t help but wonder his thought that “I have never been aware of this taking place in an unsafe manner”, suggesting he is aware of the practice itself. Indeed, the subsequent questions follow: why allow it to continue, even if ‘safe’? Are passengers’ lives a risk worth taking in the battle for consumer image in a recession-struck world? If so, how frequently do such liners alter course, unbeknown to many crew and clientele alike? The irresponsibility is tantamount to a pilot flying in another aircraft’s space; a driver using the wrong carriage on the motorway.

The following video shows the January accident not to be the product of a one off event:

As the evidence appears to mount against the troubled captain that has become the scapegoat of this accident, one US law firm has indicated how it is “all too easy to say this captain acted alone.”

Without doubt, more people were involved in this disaster than has been considered at first glance, though Schettino’s claim of faulty equipment, now that his company contest his remarks, appears all too coincidentally fitting...

"Statutory Regulation is not Required" - Leveson Inquiry Latest

Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into the media misconduct recommenced this month after the Christmas period to as much furore as had previously shrouded the case.

Over the past week, a number of official apologies have been issued to the victims of hacking from corporate giant News International. The statements released mark an interesting and significant development in the proceedings in the court examination, as the executive groups in charge of News International had held their ground in rebuking all the claims even till the latter stages of 2011.

Among those high profile figures who have now settled are actor Jude Law, politician Lord John Prescott and athlete Gavin Henson, alongside several other famous figures and ordinary persons alike.

It is hoped that with the admissions made by the firm, there may be some further ground covered as to how far the alleged transgressions had become common practice.

Of course, the revelation that emails were also targeted by many news groups has released fresh controversy that is not too difficult to imagine by any stretch of the imagination. Should these allegations prove true, it not only adds an extra dimension to the case, but ensures that there may need to be further sessions, divided by invasion category.

After all, Lord Leveson has made public his intention to release the first findings in September and the nine month period could easily be filled by thorough investigations of the initial claims.

In an inquiry whose costs are now expected to be in excess of £10m in compensation, it is the ethical value of the newspaper corporations that shall now be the method of payment for many of the firms. Open and transparent contributions are expected of all, and are anticipated as a form of apology, a form of exoneration, from many reporters and key figures.

When the story originally broke with the Guardian, one aspect that caused the most concern was the belief that executives, chiefs and editors at News Group Newspapers (NGN) were aware of the malpractice of their employees within the papers they printed.

With the eight week of the inquiry being proliferated with various editor figures from across the media domain, it was perhaps the comments of the Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, which gained the most attention. In addition to proffering a different tone with his witty satire, he claimed that “statutory regulation is not required.”

In the face of the widespread controversy, such an outlandish statement appears insulting to the work of those leading the investigation, and to those whose privacy was invaded. However, Hislop developed his argument, citing that all the charges facing the accused relate to practices that are already illegal.

Instantly, Hislop has pointed out a crucial oversight of the public eye. Whilst there have been calls for tighter administration of the newspapers, this only invites government control, censorship, propaganda. The press is first and foremost a domain of free speech. By employing methods which impede on this right of print, the subsequent material cannot be expected to achieve the same insights, the same coverage, the same depth as has come to be expected of the British broadsheet.

Rather than focus on the produce of the paper, there need be a reformation of the central structures, ensuring that the sources of stories are trusted informants, open to public query at any junction. Perhaps this approach may result in fewer people offering information that may have some backlash, but in the interest of paper pride, this method of printed sources would align with a freedom of information that satisfies the public at large and permits media groups to remain insightful and current.

Yet, as a consumer conscience always craves the latest scandal, the irony of the media position was emphasised as Lucie Cave argued that the public had an interest in exposing hypocritical behaviour. The newspapers, once the source of scandal, now the subject of its wrath.