THERE’S been a lot of excitement (and wishful thinking) in some parts of the Scottish media at the prospect that Labour’s attack on the SNP over the cancellation of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL) might rebound on us.

The source of all this hyperventilating was an entirely unsourced and officially denied report that Glasgow was about to be removed from the East Coast Mainline timetable.

And yesterday The Scotsman reported:

THE head of the government’s newly nationalised rail franchise last night defended controversial plans that could include cutting train services between London and Glasgow.

Come again? “Defended controversial plans”? Surely the reporter meant “fictitous”, not “controversial”? Or, at the very least, “hypothetical”? What lousy journalism.

Let me reiterate: there are no plans to remove Glasgow from the timetable. Ministers will, at some point in the future, be asked to approve the structure of future services for the East Coast Mainline franchise. But that specification hasn’t yet been finalised or submitted to ministers. Consultation on the specification is still happening even as I write.

And why is The Scotsman getting so excited at the words of Elaine Holt? She is a very good train company manager; she did a first class job when she was in charge of the London commuter network, First Capital Connect. But in her role as chief executive of the (temporarily) publicly-owned East Coast, she is not in a position to decide where her trains will stop. Neither does she have any say on whether the next (private) franchise for the East Coast will remove Glasgow or any other station from the timetable.

She was expressing her opinion as an experienced railway manager as to the pros and cons of East Coast services continuing to serve Glasgow, and she’s entitled to her opinion.

But when it comes to structure of future service patterns, it’s ministers who make the decisions, not Elaine Holt or any other manager. And when the Secretary of State makes his decision, I’m sure she will be informed along with everyone else. No doubt The Scotsman won’t give as much coverage to a decision to maintain the Glasgow service as they have given to imaginary plans to remove it.