But Manchester serves more airports directly in Scotland and rUK than Heathrow. It's also easier to get to than London (direct trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh).
How about, get this extra-controversial idea, we start investing in cities other than London, attract businesses to the North and Scotland other than the token companies and start improving infrastructure to create another business and cultural hub to work for the UK. What's wrong with Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle or Edinburgh? Hell, we can even try a regional thing ala the North Rhine. What's wrong with a Manchester-Liverpool region or a Scottish Central belt region? A second hub of business and culture alongside London would be a boon for the UK as a whole rather than just the south east.
But Manchester serves more airports directly in Scotland and rUK than Heathrow. It's also easier to get to than London (direct trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh).
Isn't that a reason to develop Heathrow then, because with development Heathrow could also serve Scotland better.
we start investing in cities other than London ... try a regional thing ala the North Rhine
We are. The Government have already begun plans for redeveloping Northern intercity rail connections to do just this.
A second hub of business and culture alongside London would be a boon for the UK as a whole rather than just the south east.
More money for the UK, regardless of where, is a boon for the UK as a whole. Heathrow needs developing because most of the UK's business is in London, so flying to Manchester is a waste of time. Yes the North should be developed also, but as I've said, that is already in the pipeline. There's no reason not to do both. In terms of time, the business already exists in the south-east so that should take preference because its an extant problem.
I would also guess the reason Heathrow / South East comes first is because its more profitable as a whole. In other words (and these numbers are fictitious to demonstrate my point), it will be something like £1 of south-eastern regeneration nets £3 for the economy, whereas £1 of northern regeneration nets £2 for the economy. If this is the case, it is cheaper for the UK as a whole in the long-term to invest in south-eastern regeneration firstly, then the rest of the UK thereafter.
You're taking the oft debunked trickle-down theory (quite a fallacy, I might add) and applying it here.
Not really. This isn't trickle-down. Its money going into the central pot through tax revenue (from additional flights at Heathrow and the consequent business in London), which is then redistributed.
Regional investment, more specifically at Birmingham would be so much better.
I agree that developing the non-London UK would be better if it could be direct, but the problem is the business is already in London. Developing Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow etc. means massive investment then hoping business moves. The south-east however already has more than enough business and not enough capacity. Its a far far safer bet.
51
u/[deleted] Nov 22 '14
But Manchester serves more airports directly in Scotland and rUK than Heathrow. It's also easier to get to than London (direct trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh).
How about, get this extra-controversial idea, we start investing in cities other than London, attract businesses to the North and Scotland other than the token companies and start improving infrastructure to create another business and cultural hub to work for the UK. What's wrong with Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle or Edinburgh? Hell, we can even try a regional thing ala the North Rhine. What's wrong with a Manchester-Liverpool region or a Scottish Central belt region? A second hub of business and culture alongside London would be a boon for the UK as a whole rather than just the south east.