Big Yellow Taxi

Posted on February 13, 2012 by davidsberry

Fond as I am of Joni and her subtle creations, this blog has nothing to do with her soaring flexible voice or her poetic lyrics but is about the visit by a Sea King HAR3 to North Berwick this weekend.

Sea King HAR3 up close

With its endless coastline, growing shipping and recreational boating, as well as huge range of outdoor activities, Scotland has become something of a hotbed for emergency rescues. To their credit, the RAF and Royal Navy who both operate rescue helicopters in Scotland work closely with the Coastguard and RNLI to provide a superbly integrated team that, together with NHS A&Es, have saved more lives from the jaws of death than you could shake a stick at.

Such professional competence does not come easy and exercises that bring all elements together are a regular feature along our coast. This Sunday was the turn of North Berwick’s inshore Blue Peter III and its crews to get the shakedown. Instead of their standard Sunday exercise, three separate crews were out in the waters between the Craig and the Lamb practising winching patients from RIB to chopper and back while underway. Normally the local RNLI works with the choppers of ‘A’ Flight, 202 Squadron because their base is half an hour’s flight away.

202 Squadron’s origins started with the formation of No. 2 Squadron Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) at Eastchurch on 17 October 1914. After operating various flying boats through two wars by 1976 it was operating Whirlwind helicopters and, with HQ 22 Squadron, formed the RAF’s Search & Rescue (SAR) Wing. The Whirlwind aircraft were replaced by Sea King HAR3s in 1978/9 and these aircraft then equipped both Squadrons. Since then, 202 Squadron has operated detached Flights, with ‘A’ at Boulmer (near Alnwick) and ‘D’ at Lossiemouth.

Each exercise is different so that crews can prepare for the unexpected. Yesterday’s called for an initial landing on the beach for a planning conference and am RNLI crew member to be lifted out and act as the ‘patient’ being transferred. As well as the RNLI RIB, a second RIB (EL Yacht Club’s rescue boat Valiant and skippered by Ted Hill) was used as a tender to ferry two more RNLI crews out to be rotated onto so that as many crew members as possible gained experience.

Launching Blue Peter III—at the Bottom of a Spring Tide

Blue Peter III (l) and Valiant (r) Waiting for the Off

Sea King Rescue-123 Safely Landed on W Beach in front of RNLI Station

Sea King in Mid-Lift (Photo taken by NBRNLI Crew)

As you’ll have gathered from our Staycationer’s Shore Guide blog from just a few days back, we want everyone who visits our magnificent coast to enjoy themselves and stay out of trouble. But for those whose luck does not hold—and I say this for myself who has gone out on the sea umpteen times feeling all the better for this fact—there is a team of highly motivated (if not highly paid) professionals who are trained to pluck you to safety under the most dire conditions.

And should you come visit us here in North Berwick, stop in at the RNLI’s newly refurbished (courtesy of Kitty Wilkie and her team of volunteers) shop right opposite the shed in Victoria Road. Drop in to say ‘hi’ and buy a souvenir. If you saw them in action, you’d do both and reach deep as you did so.

Re-opening of North Berwick RNLI Shop, Feb 11th 2012

Posted in Community, Environment | Leave a comment

Those Who Don’t Learn…

Posted on February 9, 2012 by davidsberry

…from history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana’s aphorism seems universal in its applicability and therefore the BBC presenter Neil Oliver (of Coast and History of Scotland fame) is entirely justified in sounding a similar warning on Radio Five Live. Neil sees the decision regarding Scotland’s independence as the biggest since the two parliaments were merged 300 years ago:

“It would be the biggest constitutional decision facing Britain certainly in the last 300 years, since the parliaments were brought together as one. I think everyone should be absolutely aware of how big a deal it is. Heaven forbid that anyone, or any part of the nation, should sleepwalk into a decision.”

Peppery as they can be about their national identity, Neil may be on to something when he implies that we Scots don’t really understand and appreciate our own heritage and history. And, bound up as it has been with our southern neighbour as we embarked on the most successful piece of empire-building since the Romans, it is understandable that both partners have become a little hazy as to what distinctiveness each brought to it.

I have some understanding for staunch unionists who feel the two countries have been together so long, have come through so much together that it isn’t even feasible, let alone desirable, to disentangle the two. Were we 100 years ago, still in the throes of empire, I might even give serious weight to that argument. And the messy separation of Ireland at that time haunts us to this day because unionists then would not accept change.

No-one quibbles that the Scots and English share much. I would include both Welsh and Irish in the cultural entity that is the British Isles, much as Scandinavians share culture, language and interwoven histories. But dig deeper and any simplistic model comes apart.

There is no way to fully analyse the English/Scots relationship in a few hundred words but the sheer fact that both countries remain so distinct after so long says there is something other than the single country of Britain. The last couple of centuries has seen an empire built and lost and two world wars fought through major sacrifices to victorious conclusions, all unforseeable when first launched.

But just as affinity for and from Canadians or Aussies has not evaporated since independence (over 100 years ago in both cases), so the Commonwealth is and will continue as a matter of pride, links with it remain strong and  the leading role that England played in it all won’t come under question. We may fall out more over shared institutions like the Imperial War or British Museums that about the niceties of politics and economics if we do go our own way.

Reverting to two individual countries will actually ease much of the present strain that both suffer. The English and many ‘British’ institutions in London like the Beeb will stop conflating ‘British’ with ‘English’ and the Scots can take the chip off their shoulder that appears each time that happens.

I am no fan of either soap operas or costume dramas but while the Beeb’s output of the latter is a monotonically ‘English’ BBC Scotland has managed to sell River City furth of Scotland, where it is categorised as a ‘foreign soap’ like Home and Away or Desperate Housewives.

It is unfortunate that, while many Scots spend time or live in England—most especially London—and have some appreciation for the cultural distinctions, not enough English make the reverse journey and bring that understanding back to inform their countrymen.

To move the debate along (and meaning no value judgement either way) there are at least a half-dozen reasons why the English & Scots share a similar set of misunderstandings as the English and Americans that Mark Twain so succinctly described as “two peoples, separated by a common language”:

  1. The ‘In Bed with an Elephant’ effect. Scots can find the English insufferably overbearing and yet their resentment at the US being insufferably overbearing to them does not seem to have brought them enlightenment through the parallels.
  2. The most profound message from ‘Braveheart’ was neither independence nor freedom but the ease with which Scots nobles sold their country down the river for their own ends. In turn, this goes a long way to explain egalitarianism and anti-establishment feelings among Scots, which have little resonance among the English.
  3. Bleaker, tree-poor, colder, windier Scotland breeds a different mind-set than cosier, greener, milder England. Is it any wonder that English are considered the more civilised/less prickly while Scots are the phlegmatic, dour, resilient types?
  4. While both countries were welded together around the same time (AD1000), the English were more outward-looking, fighting formative wars on French, Welsh and Scots soil. The Scots took a more inward path, fighting superior Viking and English forces and coping with major cultural divisions (Gaelic Highlands; Norse islands)
  5. While the English reformation was as minimal and genteel as you could get (unless you were trying to get between Henry VIII of his pillage) Scots were torn by religion for centuries and still exhibit harsher differences and disagreements than the English.
  6. Adam Smith notwithstanding, the English embraced commerce and a flexible set of morals in support of it from Drake, the colonies and the Bank of England at an early date. In this, Scots were willing accomplices but seldom the drivers. The more social democratic posture of the Scots is something the English have never understood.
  7. With a hostile England between them and their friends, the Scots have a folk memory of Europe as the good guys. Whether it was as mercenaries in Gustavus Adolphus’ armies, traders to the Hanseatic ports and the Low countries, guards to French kings or admirals to the Tsars, the Scots don’t share England’s understandable touchiness about the next dictator to gaze across the Channel from Cap Griz Nez with evil intent. That the English dictate our foreign policy on that basis is an irritation to Scots.
  8. While the Scots were joint partners in building an empire, most did so for business or self-advancement of adventure reasons. The hubris of thinking we are still a global power lives on in London but not Edinburgh. The English may still consider they carry the white man’s burden and tweak foreign policy to match the US’s but whatever ‘top dog’ ego the Scots may once have had was eroded by cynicism long ago.
  9. While we share a common interest in dry humour, the English version is distinctly reserved and understated. The Scots variant is far more hard-core, pushing the edges of taste. Just compare Billy Connolly with Morcambe & Wise through to Michael McDonald (or for that matter get into conversation in any Glasgow pub) to hear the mordant, uncompromisingly harsh humour that is everyday.

In summary, there seems to be a predeliction among unionists that what we have done together over 300 years has subsumed the Scottish into a British (which is fairly close to an English) identity. My thesis is that Scots are not only still distinct but are also far more aware of why they are distinct than most unionists—and certainly the British media—seem able to comprehend. 

Posted in Community, Politics | Leave a comment

Staycationer’s Shore Guide

Posted on February 8, 2012 by davidsberry

A small article in today’s Hootsmon praises the 47 RNLI stations around Scotland’s long coast for dealing with over 200 call-outs (a.k.a. “shouts”) over the last year. This is apparently a record and is being explained by the growing number of people who chose to spend their holidays in the British Isles and not on some sun-soaked foreign shore.

Any regular reader of this blog will know that I’m a big fan of the RNLI and especially of all the hardy, brave volunteers that man their lifeboats. No matter that the weather is currently freezing or that, a month ago, they were out in Force 10 gales; if there are people in peril on the sea they are out there on the edge, saving lives and getting little for it beyond thanks and the reward of knowing a tough job was well done.

Which brings us to the nub of this blog. Of the 200+ shouts, barely half were unavoidable incidents like weather, disabled boats/engines or floating wreckage damage. The rest were people putting to sea badly prepared or not understanding how the sea behaves or what it is capable of at short notice. This blog is intended as an easy guide for townies and not for seasoned mariners, so the latter must forgive me stating what might seem the bleeding obvious.

On The Shore Most people access the seashore over a beach. These may be sand or shingle, with the former offering the easiest walking on the wet or hard sand. Wear stout shoes with waterproof soles. The boundary between dry and wet sand is the high tide mark. After storms this can be strewn with seaweeds that are both slippery and stinky as they rot.

Note that tides in Scotland are much bigger than in the Mediterranean and most tourist destinations. A 5m difference is common, with 7m during ‘spring’ tides (nothing to do with the season: they happen 2-4 days after a full or a new moon—basically every two weeks. In between springs are ‘neap’ or lesser tides when the difference can be a small as 3m.

The key thing to remember is that, unless you go regularly, your favourite beach will always appear different, depending on the tide and what seas are running. Seas (i.e. waves) are created by wind and storms far out to sea. Most of Scotland’s West coast is sheltered or inlets and it is only in the outer Clyde and exposed shores like Tiree and the Uists that you will witness stormy waves. The East and North coasts are different, especially when the wind is steady in the East or a storm is raging out towards Norway. 2m waves are not unusual and they will reach 10-15m up the beach. They also create powerful undertows that can suck a swimmer into deeper waters.

Walking the sands, especially a distance from the water, is harmless. But most Scottish beaches also have rocks—both flat & sloping areas and (less common) jumbles of boulders. Both tend to be covered with the small varieties of seaweed (big 2m kelp grows below the low tide mark). Whether green or brown, all seaweeds are slippy so, if you must go rockpooling, walk on them at your peril. Also, the closer to the water, the wetter and slipperier they are, so take a companion: it’s not unknown for people to slip, bang their head and wind up unconscious in chilly water.

Some of the rocks are large and tempting to explore. But keep an eye on the tide. Black Rocks in Burntisland Road, Eyebroughy (pron “Eebris”) West of Fidra and Cramond Island all get cut off at high tide, with the first actually submerging in spring tides. Avoid getting caught: 36 of the RNLI rescues were of people who had ignored this advice.

Similar care applies when you walk along beaches under cliffs. If there is no high tide mark, chances are the whole beach submerges at high tide so either know you have your timing right or avoid here altogether. The cliffs between Tantallon Castle and Seacliff beach have caught many, as has Kinghorn tricky beach between the Vows and Hummel Rock; thankfully all were rescued.

In the Water Paddling along the shore holds few perils beyond stubbing a toe or a cut from a sharp rock or (rarely) broken glass, unless the waves are large. But all waters around Scotland are cold. A calm summer’s day can be deceptive because water can be warmed over 20degC as it creeps up the beach. But 50m or less offshore, its usual chill 14degC can come as a shock.

For this reason, swimming out to rocks or islands can get you in trouble, especially if you get chilled by staying in too long. Hypothermia starts with shivering and losing strength so don’t push your luck or succumb to bravado in front of friends. Modern wetsuits are not restrictive and will allow you far longer in the water if that’s your desire. They also make sensible wear for kayaks, sea canoes and any form of small boat where you are likely to end up in the water. Life vests are a smart addition to any outfit you wear on board

If you are more adventurous and want to body or board surf, wetsuits are essential. The same applies to surfing in sea kayaks. And If you are doing it anywhere near rocks, a helmet is also a sensible accessory because once yo get rolled in a breaking wave, just finding the surface is a major task, let alone knowing what you’re getting swept towards.

In all cases, you should consider wind and tide before you enter the water. An offshore wind will take you further offshore. Unless you know what you’re doing take to the water only where the wind is blowing on-shore. And, while the tide usually moves slowly, it can reach 5knots at mid-tide over places like the Brigs of Fidra as the Forth fills or empties. That’s much faster than you can swim—and probably faster then you can paddle over a long stretch.

On the Water Messing about in boats can be huge fun, even when the weather isn’t perfect. Especially on the West coast, Scotland offers many boating opportunities that do not require you to risk open sea. But boat operation is a huge topic and one that would take several blogs to do justice. Therefore I’ll leave you with a few on-line contact points for exploring these options:

If you only visit one of those on the list, make it the last one and consider giving a donation when you do. When you’re lying winded at the bottom of a sea cliff and the tide’s on the flood, it might be too late.

Posted in Community, Environment | 1 Comment

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Posted on February 7, 2012 by davidsberry

As the debate on independence heats up, Clive Fairweather, a retired SAS colonel and a man who knows a thing or two about such things, wrote a chippy little article in the Hootsmon last month in which he bemoaned the lack of specifics coming from the SNP as regards the proposed shape of Scottish armed forces. He was particularly concerned about the provision of special forces and their role in defending vulnerable oil and gas installations, especially from terrorist attacks. Not only is Clive not a man to be trifled with but he has a perfectly valid point.

Similarly, today’s Hootsmon prints an Op Ed piece from Lord Robertson of Port Ellen in which he derides the SNP for woolliness on a whole list of important items, including a “Scottish Defence Force”. But, while he argues strongly for the social unity of the UK, he is clearly paying no attention to what the SNP are actually saying and habituates a use of words that show little understanding for any view but his own. (Elsewhere in the paper, Ewan Crawford takes the loaded vocabulary of unionists to task: The US—and many other countries—ALL celebrate Independence Day, not ‘Separation’ Day.)

We are in muddy waters when senior politicians like George work from a model that is at odds with reality. The United Kingdom came about in 1603 as a union between two equal partners. The SNP is not arguing to end it but we are arguing to reverse the 1707 union of our two parliaments. The treaty that created that latter is a sorry pastiche of self-interests and religious bigotry of which both partners ought to feel ashamed. In this supposedly more enlightened 21st century, England & Scotland are overdue to revisit this travesty.

George and Clive and their like would do well to consider just what would be a sensible relationship between England and Scotland if we were to assume there WAS no UK. George in particular needs to get out more. He talks of “picking apart a successful commercial union”; he talks of people “moving throughout the UK without loss of identity” as if this would change.

Is this not the vitriol he ascribes to others? Has he never been to Canada that shares the longest undefended border in the world with the US? As he ran NATO from its Brussels HQ, did he never travel to France, Holland, Germany and other Schengen countries with no barriers at any of their borders?

Because that’s what the Scottish border would be like. Cars, planes and trains whizzing across unimpeded as now. Commercial relations would continue unaltered because EU would insist on the same level playing field we have already. What gars me greet about the likes of George is that they demand answers now but won’t engage in debate to discuss them. If they are, as they claim, Scots, then they need to engage or girn from the sidelines. This is big. Be part of it.

So, let me give both George and Clive something they can get their teeth into. I challenge either or both to critique ideas about how Scotland could provide a non-nuclear partnership with NATO on a budget of £2bn (about half what our current share of the UK defence is). Writers like Stuart Crawford posit this as feasible, provided we consider what we want those forces to do. If we Scots wanted a more modest role, we could eschew many expensive things the UK currently pretends it can afford:

  • No nuclear strike ability = no Trident, nor “Son of” Trident
  • No global projection = no aircraft carriers, assault ships, heavy lift aircraft or long-range bombers
  • No land war by ourself with a major opponent = no heavy tanks, heavy artillery or major logistics.

This would imply a very different ‘posture’ from the present UK armed forces. Good models for appropriate armed forces for such a posture can be found in Norway and Denmark. (Interesting that the penultimate episode of BBC4’s Borgen revolved around Denmark forking out over £13bn on modern fighters). Both have long been solid NATO members with peacekeeping and other UN commitments fulfilled. Neither are military pushovers and yet their per capita defence budget is just 1/3rd of the UK’s. Each deploys 35,000 permanent personnel, expanding to around 6 brigades with reserve call-up.

(Readers disinterested in military details, skip to the end: George & Clive, read on)

Scotland stands in a comparable position to our Nordic neighbours. Taking the existing Scottish elements of the British Army as a core, land maneuver commands of Scottish Armed Forces would probably consist of five brigades:

  • 2 x Active Field Brigade Headquarters (51st Highland/Light; 52nd Lowland/Mech?)
  • 2 x Reserve Brigade Headquarters (9th Highland; 15th Lowland?)
  • 1 x Special Operations Headquarters

These would control manuever and support battalions that would probably consist of:

  • Existing 5 active battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, reconstituted as individual infantry regiments—Fusiliers (Light), Argylls (Air Assault), Black Watch (Light), Highlanders (Mech), Borderers (Light)
  • Scots Guards, although a moot point whether they transfer or stay at Windsor
  • 42 R.M. Commando, reconstituted as a special forces regiment (the SAS Clive wants and specially equipped/trained to deal with terrorists in North Sea conditions)
  • Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, reconstituted as a light armoured recon regiment
  • Existing 2 reserve battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, reconstituted as individual training/reserve/volunteer regiments (revive regimental IDs?)
  • 3 new reserve battalions, possibly reviving regimental identities such as the Gordons, Seaforths and Cameronians (together w/ above re-establish links with recruit areas)
  • 4 x Mixed Artillery regiments, (1 active,  3 reserve) based on 40th Regiment Royal Artillery consisting of medium field, light field, AT and AA batteries
  • 4 Support regiments (1 active,  3 reserve) consisting of engineer, logistics, signal and medical squadrons (this is Scandinavian practice)

Infrastructure to support this is available, with principal bases at Fort George and Glencorse, additional technical/support bases in the major cities and training facilities in Angus, Galloway and the Western Highlands. In addition, rotating ceremonial garrisons (c.f. Brigade of Guards in London) could man Edinburgh and Stirling castles as tourist draws. A similar seasonal presence at other strategically prominent tourist locations, such as Eilean Donan, Blair Atholl, Culzean, Glamis, Floors, etc.

Deployment would be up to the government of the time but would typically consist of at least one active battalion deployed in a UN peacekeeping role, one on active service training with the RUK/English army and one on NATO co-operation training. The balance would be garrisoned around Scotland, as above, with one brigade group capable of short-order deployment (3 battalions, with artillery and support battalions) and at least one troop of 42 Commando on standby defence of the North Sea at all times.

Further support elements of fast patrol boats air strike, heavy transport and helicopter support would be furnished by the air and naval elements of the Scottish Defence Force.

Because of their reputation within and furth of the British Army as some of the toughest infantry in the world, deployment of Scottish regiments would continue on a global scale, working with the English Army, NATO and the UN. And, given that deployments like Ulster and Helmand would no longer be the order of the day, recruitment should not pose any significant problem.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Data Aggro

Posted on February 6, 2012 by davidsberry

Having been involved social media for a couple of years and approaching 300 blogs at this particular site, like most I had given little thought to any down side of social media. But an article from our American cousins—who have been typically faster than us Luddite Brits to take up whatever new technology offers—brought me up short.

Having once been a network protocol guru in a former life, I had always been aware of the mechanisms of the internet and the way that the more sophisticated software of the so-called “Upper Layers” could slice and dice all the data passing through. Without ensuring end-to-end industrial-grade encryption (128-bit key & better), the internet is an eavesdropper’s paradise; not only content but even your browsing habits reveal much about you—especially things credit and government agencies might want to know.

Before you start to dismiss me as a paranoid survivor of the sixties, I would suggest you read an interesting piece in yesterday’s New York Times Sunday Review. Facebook Is Using  You was written by  Lori Andrews, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law and does not restrict its concerns to Facebook. It seems that last week’s filing with US Government of Facebook’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the stock market is likely to net its founders a cool $65bn and this event was the trigger for her article.

Her beef is not with the IPO itself but with the fact that 85% of Facebook’s $3.2bn income last year came from advertising to its close-to-1bn users. That in itself is hardly remarkable. But what seems less well understood is that: a) The IPO valuation is based more on its access to your personal data than its current revenue and; b) The degree of targeting of advertising to your data is astonishingly sophisticated. As Prof Andrews says:

” If you indicate that you like cupcakes, live in a certain area and have invited friends over, expect an ad from a nearby bakery to appear on your page.”

Unlike the US, residents of the EU are somewhat protected by Freedom of Information legislation which restricts what data companies can hold on you without your knowledge and/or permission. But few of us make any effort to find out what that might be and US citizens are largely defenceless in this regard anyway.

But, worse than an invasion of privacy and even distortion of records being held on you, this can have far-reaching effects on your life. Unlike fifty years ago when most operated in a cash society, paying as we went, almost everyone nowadays relies on credit to buy most things, right down to paying for groceries with a debit card. That credit is rated by agencies over whom you have little or no control—much as Moodies could downrate the mighty US Government from AAA to AA+ without the Marines storming their building.

Those credit agencies are relying more and more on the highly sophisticated data they buy from social media companies. As Prof Andrews describes it:

“Ads that pop up on your screen might seem useful, or at worst, a nuisance. But they are much more than that. The bits and bytes about your life can easily be used against you. Whether you can obtain a job, credit or insurance can be based on your digital doppelgänger—and you may never know why you’ve been turned down.”

These credit rating agencies have become or work closely with data aggregators, whose job it is to string as much information together about you as they can.  Your application for credit could be declined not on the basis of your own finances or credit history, but on the basis of aggregate data—what other people whose likes and dislikes are similar to yours have done.

Perhaps the worst thing is that they may hold any data they like and interpret is as they wish and it can have a massive effect on you and your family’s lives. Again as Andrews puts it:

“If I’ve Googled “diabetes” for a friend or “date rape drugs” for a mystery I’m writing, data aggregators assume those searches reflect my own health and proclivities.”

Online advertising companies habitually contract with ISPs (internet service providers—every online user uses one) for large sums to monitor internet users’ activities and stream the data back to their own servers for analysis.

Europe is not yet at the stage of sophistication where demographics are used to ‘redline’ people—those living in a particular area are stygmatised because they are regarded as having, say, typically low credit ratings. The state of your own may not be considered: it is assumed that, because you live in a poor neighbourhood, you cannot be credit-worthy.

We have seen the beginnings of this, with bank branches shutting down is less well-to-do parts and effectively disenfranchising locals from normal banking services, including loans. As data aggregation becomes ever more sophisticated, not only will the geography become less important but social pressures to channel ambition are likely to appear. To quote Andrews again:

“When women are shown articles about celebrities rather than stock market trends, will they be less likely to develop financial savvy?”

This is deep stuff and has huge social implications. While I would not argue that social networking is, on balance, negative, I would say that we have all moved into unfamiliar territory where $85bn corporations like Facebook, while minting the dosh, have yet to develop any conscience about how they use our personal information. As usual, the legislation to assist in protecting us is still years away.

Posted in Community | Leave a comment

Looking for a Few Good Molluscs

Posted on February 3, 2012 by davidsberry

A twist on the US Marine Corps recruiting slogan is no bad way to start people thinking about the 75% (yes, that much) of Scotland that is underwater. Look at a map of the UK’s territorial waters and—even if you accept Blair’s 2000 land grab in the North Sea, it is astonishing to see that, in pure area, Scotland is actually larger than England.

Current State of Scotland's Seas

Currently, the UK government stewardship of this huge subsea area has been, to put it kindly, lax. Given that England has less seabed than dry land and lands only a fraction of fish that Scotland does, this—along with their selling Scotland short in the EU Common Fisheries Policy—might explain, even if it doesn’t forgive, such laxity.

As an example, fish stocks are ‘managed’ under the CFP but the Spanish in particular bend EU rules to suit themselves and have even got away with using EU subsidies intended to decommission fishing boats to actually build more boats for themselves. Then they have the cheek to use ports like Kinlochbervie to offload catch onto huge trailer lorries to get it back to Spain faster than the boat can.

Meanwhile the UK’s DEFRA comes down on Scottish boats for every infringement of some pretty crazy CFP rules and the ‘black fish’ market burgeons. It is no way to run a railway, let alone a conservation policy. If you haven’t seen it and want your sense of outrage stoked into high gear, watch Trawlermen.

Sad to say, that’s the story of the managed bit of our waters. The seabed itself is more like the Wild West—anything goes. There are no regulations on crab, lobster, prawns scallops, mussels—in fact, any crustaceans or molluscs.

In inshore and relatively shallow waters like the Firths of Forth or Clyde, a huge metal dredge goes over the side of a scallop boat to be dragged along, shredding all life on the seabed for miles. This is legal. The only thing stopping lobsters being fished out is that catching them is highly labour-intensive and the beasties are too thrawn to be farmed.

The Forth used to be so choked with native oysters that they were the poor man’s food in medieval Edinburgh. But, since they don’t move, once industrialisation came, they were fished out in Victorian times. What you get nowadays are farmed Pacific oysters from Loch Fyne—big and meaty but without the more flavoursome native Scottish oyster.

These could, in theory, be farmed but ‘rights’ on the seabed are asserted by the Crown Estates; we have an insensitive bureaucracy geared to charging for anything that touches ‘their’ seabed. They bill salmon farmers, anchorage buoys, even harbour improvements. They do nothing in return to earn the money. The other problem is that laws protecting such investments are scant—the chances of catching someone robbing an accessible place in flagrante delicto are only slightly greater than successfully prosecuting them.

Not all is doom and gloom, though. However belatedly, last year saw the first Marine Reserve in Scotland (and the second in the UK) established in Lamlash Bay, off Arran. This has been designated as a ‘no take’ area, which is, in theory, protected from having any creature down to a winkle removed from it. The theory is that, having this as a refuge, many species will thrive and pass spawn and life back into the adjacent waters. It appears to be working.

But, until now, most thought given to a National Marine Plan our seabed has been for defence purposes or for the exploitation of hyrdrocarbons. RSPB Scotland made what they consider a full response but they see things from a ‘twitcher’ perspective and, unless a marine creature is lunch for some seabird, they are likely to overlook it.

UK marine legislation (including the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009?) is due to be reviewed under the ‘Water and Marine’ theme due to be in the spotlight on the UK Government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’ website from Thursday 16th February 2012 for five weeks. But, as regards either reserving significant areas of Scotland’s seabed from ongoing unrestricted pillage or establishing anything like enough clones of Lamlash to make serious inroads into ongoing abuse that is unsustainable, we’re not out of the gate yet.

There is hardly much point for us to make all the efforts we are on land as regards the impact of our civilisation on land if we ignore the part three times as large that lies beneath the waves. Tourism brings in comparable earnings to fishing, with wildlife tourism growing faster than other elements, such as golf. We know very little about the Moray Firth dolphins, let alone cetaceans like the minke and pilot whales that visit and cause such thrills when sighted. We pillage their home at our peril.

At the same time, Scots have a reputation for quality produce, which applies as much to seafood as it does to salmon or fruit or even our top-notch tatties. Half the seafood consumed in Spain is actually Scottish. Articulated lorries leave Barra on the ferry to take lobster, prawns, scallops and crab to Spain within 36 hours. Why we don’t keep most of that to ourselves to retail through specialist restaurants and earn three times the money for the same beast has always been a mystery to me.

And, with 6,000km of coastline, there surely must be space for fish or shellfish farms interspersed with marine reserves so that business and conservation need not be in conflict. We have 2m of coast for every inhabitant: the massive USA has only 66mm and places like Belgium just 6mm for each of its 11m people.

We, of all people, need to take seriously the good work begun by the Scottish Environment Link’s Marine Taskforce whose Introduction to Marine Protected Areas is short but well worth a read, provided you don’t mind disentangling your eyebrows from your hairline every few lines. If we get this right, we will not just be a major tourist destination but also a flag-carrier for sustainable development of the 2/3rds of our planet that is covered in water.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Guizer Jarl

Posted on February 2, 2012 by davidsberry

The former LibDem Leader Tavish Scott MSP has an op ed piece in today’s Hootsmon in which he waxes lyrical on Shetland’s Norse heritage and another rousingly successful Up-Helly-Aa—as impressive and unique a local festival as you could sail a longship into.  We hear too little of this splendid ritual in the rest of Scotland, for we share more in common with the Shetlanders than many of us realise. And if Tavish is successful in his railing against the rather prohibitive transport costs involved in visiting there, perhaps more of us could discover that for themselves.

But, if I am entirely supportive of Tavish in his enthusiasm for the mid-winter festival that binds local people and their heritage together, I am less so of his rather clumsy attempt to beat the evil ‘Central Belt’ with it as a stick and use it as a lever to prise the North Isles away from the rest of Scotland. As with many other distinctive regions of the country, the North Isles are not to be confused with anywhere else. And I accept that the phrase “going to Scotland” that they use has more than geographic overtones. But to set hares running about UDI is both mischievous and simplistic.

Though not resident as Tavish and some 50,000+ people are, I have visited on a number of occasions and look forward to returning for the North Isles are a special place that breeds special people, some of whom I’m privileged to call my friends.

It is irrelevant that Up-Helly-Aa has been THE celebration of Norse heritage for 100 years when the islands’ allegiance Norway was severed 400 years before that. The link goes back over 1,000 years to when the first Norsemen overran much of what is now Scotland as part of their great expansion that reached Labrador, Dublin, Kiev, Normandy and Sicily. Those hardy (and, at the time, hated) navigator-warriors became settlers and, by burning their boats, showed their firm commitment to their new homes.

Although seldom celebrated, that Norse link applies across Scotland. The Earls of Orkney ruled not just the North Isles but Caithness and south, hence Norse names like Dingwall and Sutherland.  The medieval Lord of the Isles ruled a gaelic reincarnation of Norse Soder that once included all the Hebrides, Kintyre and Man. The Forth/Clyde valley was once formed the trade route linking Viking York with Viking Dublin.

Even my own East Lothian—about as far from Shetland as you can get in Scotland—is peppered with Norse names: Fidra; Humbie; Begbie. There is even an unsubstantiated legend of a 9th century Viking Kingdom of Dunbar before it was subsumed into Viking-York-powered Northumbria. Even further south, Lockerbie and Langholm trace their settlements all the way to the Solway and beyond.

So in mongrel Scotland, the next-biggest external influence on who we all are (after the English) may not be the Irish but the Norse. Do names like Gunn or Ericson or Chisholm sound Scottish? I find Christine de Luca’s Shetland poems barely more comprehensible but certainly more engaging to me than Sorley McLean’s in the original gaelic. Whether any more Viking blood than elsewhere flows in East Coast fisher folk like me has yet to be established by DNA testing. But it feels that way to me.

So, while I admire Tavish’s pride in local heritage, he loses me when he drifts into a ‘Little Shetlander’ mode that ill becomes him. And I disagree that we Scots take advantage of a fraction of our historic links with Scandinavia in general and Norway in particular we’re entitled to.

In the past we sent intrepid explorers to Malawi, unflappable administrators to Mumbai and phlegmatic ship’s engineers (and the ships they sailed in) to every corner of the globe. We should be exchanging students with Norwegian universities—the skiing and the scenery are both fabulous. We should be flooding Norway with tidal generation projects because their long deep fjords offer more options than even we do.

It’s obvious that the Shetland should be to the fore in relations with Norway—almost as many ships from the Norwegian fields use Lerwick and Sumburgh as ours do. But though Lerwick is closer to Oslo (420 miles) than to London (580 miles), that last is also the Edinburgh-Oslo distance. Central Belt Scotland is as close to Olso or Copenhagen as it is to Amsterdam, Brussels or Paris.

I’m sure Tavish’s loyalty to his North Isles is genuine and well intentioned. But what if he opened his mind to the bigger picture? What if Scotland became independent and joined the Nordic Council? Would Shetland not then, rather than being a forgotten outpost of imperial Britain, become a central hub of the Nordic Council, linking Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes with Scandinavia proper? And would Scotland’s Central Belt, far from being a remote master, not become their gateway access to England and southern Europe?

No-one in Liechtenstein, Monaco or even the Faroes wants someone distant telling them how to live. Like many of his deluded unionist colleagues, Tavish needs to learn that anywhere—Scotland or Shetland—is small and oppressed only if you think it is. Who can say whether, one day, Shetland might not become another Singapore to Scotland’s Malaysia? But first, we both need shot of the self-absorbed, uncomprehending influence of London and its environs.

Scotland and Shetland within the Nordic Council

Posted in Community | Leave a comment

Wanted: Unionist Lincoln

Posted on January 27, 2012 by davidsberry

These first weeks of the New Year have been dominated in Scotland by an escalation of the debate over the possibility of Scotland declaring its union with England at an end. In general, I welcome this new intensity because, not only has it finally intruded into the Gormenghast cogitations of Westminster, but it has also raised international interest, culminating in the Burns Day gathering of fifty journalists from two dozen countries to hear Alex Salmond launch the referendum consultation in the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle.

I see this as historic and stimulating stuff but recognise that others—especially unionists—are unhappy with it all. Ordinarily, I would have sympathy for an opposing view. But, knowing the history of the last forty years, I see the unionists as having played a rather loaded game to date, absconding with all the oil in the ’70’s, rigging the ’78 referendum, disemboweling Scottish heavy industry in the ’80s, foisting the Poll Tax on us, stalling the Claim of Right and, even in the shadow of the 1999 Scottish Parliament, filching 6,000 square miles of rich seabed East of the Forth into English control.

So, for me, this year’s debate does not start out on a level playing field. From Paxman to Osborne, there is a continuation of history, a similar readiness to use any means—fair or foul—to derail aspiration not to be part of this state called Britain.

I recognise that many people may consider UK troops in Helmand, two aircraft carriers with no aircraft or four Trident submarines at Faslane to be sensible deployment for the second-rate power Britain has become. I recognise that many English feel strongly that Brussels has taken too much power to itself, that too many foreigners have come to these shores and that John Bull glares out from the beetling cliffs of Albion, daring Johnny Foreigner to make his day.

But I share none of those views and, truth be told, find them all rather odious.

But, unfortunately, such attitudes are defining how this independence debate is shaping up. On the one hand, I witness a Scottish Government who explain their position, move steadily towards a goal that was part of their manifesto and receive a barrage of hysteria from unionists. They appear to have lost balance of judgement and moral compass in debate when it comes to the lengths, if not depths, they’ll go to in discrediting not just independence but those who believe in it.

Much has been said by unionists of the need to make a positive case for the union. That is something I would welcome but there is little sign. Anas Sarwar on BBC’s GMS made it plain that there is no reason to doubt Scotland’s viability as a country. My hopes rose that reason was prevailing. Almost immediately he then launches into dire predictions of how Scottish firms could not compete across a new border with England.

In a reversal of the ‘Braveheart’ romanticism so often flung at independistas, most unionist arguments—especially those coming from the rump Tory flank—reek of a frenzy to discredit that would shame the worst tabloid journalist. A romanticising of Britain by selective re-telling of its history combines with a venom towards those seen to threaten it. An example is ToryHoose, whose bias finds expression by lashing out at others.

“The SNP are not, as they may sometimes seem, just made up of social democrats; but are a mixed band of far left, socialists, left wingers, right wingers, and even some of those on the hard right. They are republicans, monarchists, free marketers, Europhiles, euro sceptics, moderates, extremists, some are anti-english, some are anti-British, some want indy-lite, others only want devo-max.”

Apparently, being such a rag-tag, representative cross-section of the Scottish public who have the audacity to agree with one another is reprehensible. ToryHoose offer no explanation why such a fragmented mob are not at each other’s throats, let alone could win an election. It’s not ToryHoose’s opposing view that bothers me—I actually respect their position and would welcome articulation. It’s their venom I decry. It clouds their understanding of (or any desire to understand) the perfectly normal non-baby-eating people to whom they are so venally opposed.

Contributions to the debate to articulate a non-SNP perspective are largely being made by people from civic Scotland, certainly those distant from the clueless and idea-free zones that currently encompass all three opposition parties. Canon Kenyon Wright recently pitched in with an eloquent plea for “devo-max”. Perhaps the most balanced take on the whole debate that I’ve seen so far came from Gerry Hassan’s recent blog.

“This moment requires a calmness and consideration to allow Scotland and the UK to have a reasoned debate and discussion. So far both the British political classes and media, and a large part of unionist opinion in Scotland has shown no indications that it has the capacity or qualities to do so.”

There is certainly a place for passion in this debate. But when either side allows their own bias to assert a moral ascendancy over the other, then reason becomes an early casualty, usually followed by truth. Salmond said from the start “we have no monopoly on wisdom”. We also have no crystal ball to answer the increasingly shrill insistence that the SNP define every step and defang every threat into the future. But it was not emotion that drew the conclusion that Scotland would be the sixth-richest country in the world.

To parry such powerful arguments, unionists cannot afford to rely on dirty tricks deployed since the seventies; they clearly haven’t worked. Nor can they believe just more hand-wringing negativity is an option—it has all but done for Labour. They need someone of stature, strength and ideas who’ll deliver Britain’s Gettysburg Address or they have no cause worthy of the name left.

Every athlete about to compete, every businessman about to launch a new venture, every swain about to pop the question sizes up the situation, draws on their every fibre of life experience, looks to their best capabilities and launches all of them into the moment. These focal points are life itself—the turning points that define the worthwhile. The life of a country is no different.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

You’re Gonna Lose That (G)oil

Posted on January 26, 2012 by davidsberry

Despite being a fan since high school, I had never realised how prescient the Beatles were about things political, especially regarding Scottish Independence until I watched Jeremy Paxman slide into his sneering worst of Newsnight. A decade ago, I would have been outraged and insulted.

This time, despite having read Paxman’s various books and still enjoying University Challenge, I could not help smiling and singing the first track off the Revolver album:

“Let me tell you how it will be—Paxman!

There’s one for you, nineteen for me—Paxman!”

Because, as might have been predicted, Paxman’s deeply condescending attack on Wur Eck lit the phones up at SNP HQ like a Christmas tree. The last I heard, we had 200 more members and counting.

I say nothing about his country, other than it’s my favourite foreign one, and I say nothing personally about Paxman, other than he ranks among the most erudite of his countrymen. With one exception: he displays a trait that seems all too  common among said countrymen—that of having difficulty recognising the diversity and even the validity of other cultures.

But lang may his lum reek in this regard. He may, unwittingly and probably much to his own chagrin, be the best recruiter we’ve got.

Poll in the New Statesman

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Best to Be Best Friends

Posted on January 25, 2012 by davidsberry

A lot of partisan and, frankly, wildly unsubstantiated, words have spouted forth since the indy/union debate took off at the turn of the year. Neither side has entirely covered itself in glory. Though I openly belong in the indy camp, I have done my best to engage with and understand the arguments deployed by opponents. Last May Alec Salmond launched the new Scottish Parliament with a clear statement that the SNP “has no monopoly on wisdom”. Who am I to gainsay His Eckness?

But, despite three parties to voice arguments and the UK Government lined up behind them, the case for the union has, so far been completely upstaged in positivism, in vision and in obvious belief that the Scottish people can make their minds up when they need to. I have heard warm words from all three opposition party leaders about the need to talk Scotland up. But I challenge readers to point me to where this has been done.

For me, the area that pro-union voices have done the greatest disservice is not to either the SNP or to Scotland but to the heart of the union itself: England. Laughable as it is, Paxman’s recent sneering dismissal of things Scottish neither represents his country nor its attitude towards Scotland. Scot though I am, I claim and am proud of my English connections—dad from Westminster; early beneficiary of the NHS born in Central Middlesex Hospital; worked three years in London, Hampshire & Cornwall, I spend at least a month a year south of the border. It remains my favourite foreign country.

So when I say the English attitude to Scotland is largely one of puzzlement, there is no judgement in that opinion. The English are broadly reasonable, comfortable in their culture and somewhat pushier than their polite demeanour might suggest. Scots could learn much from them. They are puzzled because, to the average English, we Scots are another region of Britain—slightly more diverse in culture than, say, Devon, but integral to the nation. And in describing that ‘nation’, they often use Britain or England pretty much interchangeably. This is especially true south of Peterborough. Why would anyone want to leave?

Despite a couple of decades of SNP rise being charted in Scotland, this had not registered  in England (any more than it had elsewhere). But this month has changed all that, even if it hasn’t given them any real understanding. Most English exhibit a combination of curiousness, mild resentment that Scotland seems to get more than its share (under Barnett) and a sense of “if they want to leave, let ’em”. Especially among unionists, there is also a hurt, as if all we went through together (building an empire, fighting Nazis, etc) is being discarded.

I tell my English friends not to worry. If Scotland does end the union, they are going to prove a better friends that they were partners. Firstly, the Scots “punch above their weight” even better than the UK does. Not only better known internationally than other countries their size, they are better liked than Britain/England because they exhibit little of the jingoism that, through the Tories, has tarnished England’s reputation.

Secondly, though Scots might be 8.5% of the UK population, they have 30% of the land, 50% of the seabed and gas reserves and 90% of the oil. Together with our engineering (Weir pumps; Clyde Blowers) finance, whisky and tourism industries, that makes for a prosperous country that’s already ahead of England in GDP. Thirdly, having to fend for ourselves will sharpen Scotland up, forcing us to regenerate jaded entrepreneurism and look for opportunities abroad.

Fourthly, that will stimulate our renewables industry even further as schemes like the massive Scottish & Southern offshore scheme east of Fife and the tidal potential of the Pentland Firth and Minch become tapped. Selling energy south to England at lower rates will benefit both countries. The industrial growth in Scotland will need support from and give work to the broader range of firms in England. An independent and more agile Scotland could exit recession faster than England and, by its bouyancy, help drag England back into growth.

You only have to look at Eire’s relationship with the UK. Separated in acrimonious circumstances in 1922, nonetheless, relations improved post WWII. UK trade with Eire grew by 5% in 2010 to over £41bn and, despite its financial difficulties, it still boasts more growth and a higher GDP than Ulster. In fact, Ulster was long an example of how poorly the Irish did by staying in the UK, as opposed to Eire which prospered, sharing few of the ‘troubles’ that so plagued Ulster.

How much better could the friendship between Scotland and England work in favour of both countries? With memories of any animosity hundreds of years further in the past than with Ireland, with centuries of willing and enthusiastic partnership that built the widest, most polyglot empire the world has yet seen, with contributions to science and progress to match any country, why would the close relations Scotland and England now enjoy not continue?

Imagine these British Isles as an amicable cohabitation of countries, with shared language, culture and history, but with independent diversity to enrich the mix. Would this not be a model for 21st century international co-operation? As Joyce and Becket enriched ‘English’ literature, so McMillan and Vettriano have done the same for music and art.

With English fast becoming the world’s lingua franca, the countries of Britain would be at the leading edge of Europe in the world. With Irish and Scottish enthusiasm detoxing English scepticism at ‘foreigners’ beginning at Calais, this bloc could be Europe’s gateway to the States and beyond. And, because of natural gifts the English exhibit for business, the Scots show for engineering and the Irish show for persuasive sales and good criac, what might not be achieved through liberty for each to pursue their gifts towards their own ambitions as friends together?

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment