Transport from the WMCA Devolution Agreement

47  a " to facilitate the movement of goods and people, ... This will include consideration of options for reducing congestion, such as a joined-up approach to dynamic demand management and implementing an integrated intelligent transport system (my emphasis) which will help improve journey time reliability and allow people and businesses to make informed decisions about their travel choices.

b  "The West Midlands Combined Authority will have the opportunity to bring forward alternative proposals for the management of current and new rail stations in the Combined Authority area.  If such proposals would lead to the transfer of any rail stations to the West Midlands Combined Authority, the Combined Authority, with West Midlands Rail, will be obliged to bring forward a business case for consideration by government."  page 17

FROM:-https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477421/West_Midlands_devolution_deal_unsigned_final_web.pdf

Devolution, sharing sovereignty and converting the last mainline railway!

DO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING?

The process for UK devolution to its smaller countries was not followed for leaving the EU or in converting a mainline railway into a tram line, a test track, a trail of trees and an extended cycle-walkway.

The three minor countries have to share sovereignty with England in a united UK but the UK is not willing to share sovereignty with the EU in an eventual federal set up very different from three countries being part of England/UK!

The 1990's and 00's careful, sensible and gradual process that led to eventual devolution was not followed for a matter of even greater import - our future membership of the EU.  For something more complicated than devolution, all the checks and balances built in to get, eventually an assembly and one parliament was not followed over the matter of the UK leaving EU membership.

On 5 April 2019, 'Have I Got News for You', Ian Hislop commented, "Thatcher said we shouldn't have a referendum on Europe.  It was too complicated an issue to put to the public. She was right."

Similarly, for something so game changing, expensive and, therefore, climate breaking as the decision to convert a safeguarded, 120 Kms mainline railway into two very short sections of tramway, on that matter too, none of the checks and balances were followed.  There was not even any kind of debate or even discussion beforehand, let alone a vote. Not even one of the constituent councils of the WMCA had a debate and vote.  The elected members were content to have the decision imposed upon them by the UK pressure group for trams that has infiltrated Transport HQ.  This, to spend nearly half a billion to destroy the middle section of a mainline railway that reduces capacity.  Yet, £56 billion is spent to increase capacity on our railways with HS2!

Never mind!  That will make £92 billions of benefits for the UK, says the business case!!  Are we living in Alice in Wonderland? Or, know what we are doing? This must be dishonest, crooked economics when all the crucial, fossil fuel resources are finite and, when burnt, screw up the planet's climates in changing the composition of the atmosphere for the worse?

Let Scotland rule themselves from Holyrood to make for Conservative rule at Westminster - for ever!!

On September 18, David Cameron lost a golden opportunity to lose for ever his opposition Labour MPs from Scotland.  He would have lost only one Conservative MP but all of Scotland's Labour MPs - all 41 of them would have gone for ever to make Conservative governments ruling the rest of the Union much more likely at future General Elections.

How foolish, then for Cameron not to send a signal to Scottish voters that the English establishment would not be obstructive if they voted 'Yes'.  It only needed 5% who voted 'No' to change to 'Yes'.  That might have happened if Cameron had agreed with Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies that Scotland was wealthy enough to be independent, if they so wished.  They would still have been British; still have had the pound in their pocket that was their pound as well as England's; would have kept their banks in Scotland and the other financial institutions would not have fled to London; they would still be part of Britain but not part of the UK's unethical foreign and aggressive 'defence' policy.  That is all.  It would have meant however, that their oil, gas and shale gas would have been sold to the other three countries of the union.  And, that is fair enough.  They would even have had a sovereign wealth fund for those precious natural resources, to help conserve them.

Now life is much more complicated for Cameron working out a way of giving devolution to the English regions when, in recent years, there was no great demand for regional government with, certainly, city mayors.  Perhaps, the government will dole out the cash to the major cities for them to spend as they wished.  That is going some way to giving them independence.  An independence that simply means raising the taxes for what you want to spend that money on.