The No Campaign is practically begging Scotland to leave The Union

One sometimes wonders if the London establishment do actually want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. Is there any other explanation for the complete incompetence and out of touch sermonizing that continually emanates from SW1 politicians and journalists?

For the record, I’m half of both sides, and have lived in both countries, so can consider myself about as British as is possible (except for someone with a half-Welsh, half-English mother, and a half-Scottish, half-Northern-Irish father). In terms of sentimentality, I quite like the idea of Britain, and the idea of a partnership between the four nations, trying to forge a common existence together in the spirit of democracy, respect, understanding and compromise.

Look through the pages of The Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Mail, Mirror, Sun and what do you read? What do you see? I don’t think you see one part of a nation engaging in free-spirited, respectful debate with another of its constituent members. The contempt with which the London Media holds for Scottish Independence is bilious to say the least. Take a look at this if you doubt it:

Some of these pictures are actually quite funny (Steve Bell mostly) and many of them not (special Kudos to The Mirror) but nevertheless the message they convey is the same:

“You get the picture, folks. We wear kilts. We’re haggises. We’re scroungers. We’re a Mickey Mouse country. We’re not entitled to the “poond”, because it’s England’s. We’re getting our comeuppance for daring to think we’re a nation. But mainly kilts.” – Wings over Scotland blog.

The papers seem united in the idea that an independent Scotland would be disastrous for Scotland, leading Scots to lose their pensions, healthcare, currency, oil, jobs and even have to endure bombing runs by the English – because ‘you never know’. There is occasionally an article in support of independence or willing to offer some impartial analysis but these are often few and far between, even on The Guardian, which ought to really support Independence and the creation of a left of centre state that would perhaps bring the nordic model of prosperity slightly closer to home. Then again, the Left in England is absolutely shitting itself at the prospect of losing 20% of its MPs. The Right are too, no doubt because losing Scotland would mean losing a lot of oil revenue, and would further diminish Britain on the global stage. So on rumbles the discourse that independence is a silly, petty, narrow-minded concept, whilst completely ignoring the very legitimate concerns that fuel the case for independence.

Since the Yes Campaign has been increasing its share of the vote in the majority of the recent polls, I can only conclude that most Scots, whilst still apprehensive about full-blown independence, are being increasingly ticked off by Westminster’s insistence that Scotland would become the Kazakhstan of Western Europe. Scottish independence, which seemed unthinkable even a year ago, is now being taken seriously by everyone. If the share of the Yes vote edges closer and closer to the 50% mark, then everything is to play for.

If Westminster and anyone who cares about the Union really wants Scotland to stay then they need to change their gameplan. First off, I haven’t come across an academic study that has suggested Scotland couldn’t function by itself. Most are quite optimistic that it could, even if it would involve some short-term pain (and nationalists would do well to own up to this short-term pain), so Unionists need to stop the condescending tone, which is pushing Scots away, and realise that this tiny nation on the fringes of Europe produced its own enlightenment, drove forward advances in science, economics and philosophy that shaped the modern world as we know it, has the infrastructure and institutions in place that would allow it to govern its own affairs.

Next, they need to really make a better argument for why it is better to be together, rather than just insisting that it is and continuously begging the question. What struck me recently about the floods in the South of England is that it really showed to me why it is better to be together. To pool our common resources and help each other in times of crisis is a much better system of governance than one of 4 separate nations trying to coordinate relief efforts. You can extend this further – it makes sense to share a military, it makes sense to share a currency, it makes sense to have as few legal and beauracratic barriers between us as possible – not because Scotland would be a basket case if it tried to ditch these things, but because they work better for all of us. The latter is what needs to be emphasized, not the former.

Lastly, the No Campaign is going to have to offer some solutions to the current dissatisfaction with the constitutional setup of the UK, rather than insisting that there is no problem. This goes beyond just Scotland. The divide between the South and the North in general has increased dramatically since the crisis, and has perhaps been growing for much longer than that. The North of England is in dire need of reform so that its economy can be rejuvenated. England in general will not tolerate increased autonomy for the other nations whilst Westminster continues to function as a purely British mechanism. An English parliament or reforms to Westminster to stop Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voting on issues that purely affect England need to be enacted.

Whatever the result of the referendum later this year, the UK needs to get its act together. Reforms are needed to direct some power away from London and into the rest of the country. The media and politicians need to get outside of their London bubble and understand why the rest of the country is so dissatisfied with the way this country works. I’d be tempted to push for the federalization of the United Kingdom, having seen firsthand how it works in Germany, but I still don’t know enough about it to know whether it will work or not.

For now, Scots need to decide if they think further reforms to the UK are possible, and also if they are happy to continue to compromise with their bigger, increasingly right-wing brother south of the border. If they don’t think this is likely though, then they need to vote yes. I’ll be sad whichever way this vote goes, but will continue to hope that in the long-term a more equitable United Kingdom can emerge.

Modern Loneliness

A friend shared an article on Facebook about loneliness in Harvard today, and said that it could have applied to Oxford. I thought, ‘it could apply to any Uni’. But actually, I think it could apply to just about anywhere in the industrialised world. I know a number of people, including myself, that either do, or that I bet would, describe themselves as lonely. Loneliness is nothing new to the human condition. I’m sure that since the first ape-person-creature gained consciousness and realised that inside it’s mind it was completely alone that each of us has always understood what it is to be lonely. To essentially consist of an incy,  wincy, tiny voice inside our own head that no one can get through to nor can we get out of, can make for quite a lonely condition.

However, as far as I’m aware, humans always grew up, lived in, and died in communities of other people – and nearly always tightly-knit groups of people at that. Our ancestors thousands of years ago were probably looked after by more than just their immediate parents or grandparents. They probably grew up with all the children in the community not just their siblings. Every evening after the day’s work I imagine they slept together in their cave or gathered round a fire to listen to stories. What would there have been to do by yourself back then? Pick flowers? Go bird watching? You couldn’t exactly sit under a tree and read the complete works of J.K. Rowling. The thought must be anathema to most people but living together and spending the overwhelming majority of our time with others was the basis for our collective evolution.

Civilisation itself is not much older than 12,000 years. This marked the start of when we started to gather and live together in larger numbers, breaking down some of the social structures that had existed for hundreds of thousands of years. The development of agriculture then allowed towns and cities to be founded, further changing the social structure in which people grew up in, perhaps leading to the development of the ‘family’ as the most important social unit. With cities came science and technology, leading to the industrial revolution almost 300 years ago which accelerated the process of city building, the procreation of the species and the almost complete extinction of those social structures that had nursed humanity through its baby steps. Today, only a few indigenous communities in the Amazon or other tropical regions bare any resemblance to the communities in which prehistoric man lived in. And today they account for a miniscule amount of the total human population on earth.

Indeed, right now I think we see the first cracks in the social structure that has cocooned ‘civilized’ man – the family and wider community but I don’t want to speculate on this. I want to speculate on whether the internet has made us lonelier and whether we will get lonelier still. I doubt any reliable data exists to indicate whether we are lonelier now than 50 years ago, or any other time period, I can only wager that we are.

Enough energy has been spent powering the screens through which you’ve probably already read about how the internet has made us more alienated from each other but I will put a personal spin on this. Pre-Facebook, which for me was the second semester of university in 2007, I would say that I was not often lonely, barring a period of teenage solitude. Even when Facebook began to take off, it seemed to make you less lonely. Suddenly you could easily chat with that friend you’d just made in history class, or see what your friends from back home were up to, even flirt with girls  when you wouldn’t have had the courage to do so face to face. The little friend counter that gradually increased made you feel like you were popular and gave you security. Yes, I meet people and they accept me.

But then something happened to Facebook for me. When I left Uni to go to Berlin I felt real loneliness on a frequent basis. I didn’t know anyone in the city and the immigrants such as myself were often transient, meaning that it could be hard to meet people that were sticking around for long or that didn’t already have their own social groups. It was often difficult to meet residents in the city and the Rudolf Steiner school people I ended up living with didn’t seem too interested in getting to know me. Facebook was my contact to the old world. I could chat to my old friends, see what they were doing, how uni life in Glasgow still was and so on.

I stuck with Berlin though and it paid off. I got a job in a restaurant and an internship in online marketing. I met lots of interesting people and even some real Berliners. Facebook even became a part of my internship, so I got paid to be on it. I ended up using it every day, for hours at a time. Although I came to love the city, I was always a bit lonely. I didn’t have a girlfriend and although I went out every weekend, I didn’t have close friends that I could just ring up and go for a beer with. What little free time I had was spent on the internet or on video games. I didn’t realize how much Facebook and reading The Guardian online had become part of my daily existence.  I was happy to leave and go to Freiburg to do a master’s in environmental governance.

And Freiburg was fantastic at first. I had instantly 20 friends from my class and we all cared about the most important thing in the world: the environment. We went out every weekend, I lived within 20 minutes of just about everyone. We went for lunch every day together after class. I also had a girlfriend almost as soon as I arrived in the city. I didn’t feel lonely those first few months, but still I had this sickness of spending many, many hours on the internet because it had somehow just become part of my daily routine.

I went to Egypt for an internship the summer before last. Same story as Berlin, I didn’t know anybody and was the only intern in what was a very small office. I was lonely again and so spent even more time on the internet. A colleague from the office, perhaps sensing my miserable condition, invited me on holiday with him and his friends into the western desert. I agreed but it didn’t take long for me to realize my mistake. The friends (and family) were a close knit bunch of people that had known each other for years. Some efforts were made to incorporate me but it was difficult. We didn’t have much in common and me not being able to speak Arabic certainly didn’t help. I had to leave the trip early once I was in a sizeable enough town that had a bus service back to Cairo. It wasn’t easy but I made my excuses and left.

I thought that in Egypt it was my girlfriend I missed, and it was partly that, but really I missed having people around that I could just hang out with and be myself with. Back in Freiburg I was relieved to be back, but even then something was still not right. I would go over to my girlfriend’s and still feel the need to log into Facebook and see what other people were doing. I still felt that need until very recently.

It’s taken a long time to realize but internet addiction was an important factor in my loneliness over the past few years. Spending so much time trying to talk to friends and feel ‘connected’ to their lives was actually sucking up my time, and thus stopping me from actually living my life and pursuing real friendships in my direct physical proximity. That’s still not easy for a number of reasons – making friends requires a lot of effort and meeting people that you really click with is in my experience very rare. And what’s else, is that people are often not free anyway, partly because they themselves are spending so much time on the internet. For me at least, using the internet in a way that consumes my time (so not like listening to Spotify when I would be in my room anyway or ordering something off the internet) does not make me happier on the whole. It’s taken me years to realize that. And I suspect that I’m not alone. I suspect that if most of us spent less time on the internet and more on those in our direct proximity that we’d all be happier, and less lonely, for it. I try not to bitterly regret all the time I’ve wasted on the internet but it’s not easy.

So I’ve tried to quit Facebook. I did for 12 days and it did me a lot of good. I had a lot more time and was able to do a lot more stuff and actually had more energy for other activities. I got back on recently and I see the same habits re-emerging so I will quit again. Go on and off for a while until I’m strong enough to ditch it completely, or be in control to only use it for what I need to. I don’t want to go back to the social structures of prehistoric man, I’d go mental in no time but do we really want to further along this digital road? I suspect not.

Another interesting discussion would be the effect of long distance relationships on loneliness, but that’s another story.

The recent “pause” in global warming and Typhoon Haiyan

It can be pretty difficult to get to grips with climate science. The climate is big and confusing, there are lots of unknown variables, and predicting the future will always be a tricky business. There are some very understandable misunderstandings but also some less forgivable basic errors that get routinely published. Lets look at the two most common.

The IPCC Predictions

Much has been made in the past few days about climate change has supposedly ‘stalled’. For the record , it didn’t get colder. The planet is still a good 0.8° C warmer than it would have been without human activities. NASA calculated that and the last time I looked they weren’t funded by the fossil fuel lobby or the secret international consortium of wind farm enthusiasts. (wait a minute…) [1]. The reason warming has stalled in the last 15 years is because 1998 was an unusually warm year, much warmer than the years before or after it. So of course if you measure the temperature in the last 15 years you don’t see an increase from the base year of 1998. Actually, there are many individual years in the past 100 that you could pick to make the same point, but it doesn’t change the long term trend. makes this point extremely clear with the following two graphs.

warming combo

There are also articles claiming that the IPCC predictions were completely inaccurate, and that the current temperatures are much lower than predicted. This is quite wrong. The IPCC gives a range of predictions based on different scenarios. Since 1990 global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of around 0.15°C per decade which is within the range of IPCC model projections from 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. There is also a “multi-model mean” which average together all of the different model simulations. What many newspapers did in the past couple of weeks was only show the model averages, such as Der Spiegel here.

However, it’s unlikely that the climate will follow the average, especially in the short-term.  As Dana Nuccitelli explains on Skeptical Science, “If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.” If you average the models together, then the random natural variability in the individual models is cancelled out. But the climate only behaves like a single model simulation, not an average of many. [2]

The natural factors that are currently slowing surface warming include the oceans, which go through regular natural cycles of heat exchange with the surface. Right now, measurements show that the oceans are absorbing more heat. When this cycle changes, surface temperatures are going to get a lot hotter, as they did in 1998, which was one of the largest El Ninos on record.  Thus, nothing we’ve witnessed is unexpected, at least not if you were reading the IPCC reports.

Now could this extra heat that is being absorbed by the oceans also drive more powerful storms, more frequent storms or both? Haiyan has sparked a fierce debate in the scientific community about tropical storms and our warming world. As I read in an article on Slate, a 2008 article argued that all things being equal, warmer water will make more powerful cyclones.[3] However, the warming climate can change any number of variables that will then affect each other in ways that we have not yet been able to account for. Some will contribute to more powerful cyclones and some weaker. For now there is no consensus that climate change will lead to more powerful storms: more evidence is needed. Let’s hope that it’s not the case for the sake of the people living in cyclone regions. I wouldn’t bet on it though. In 20 years time with more plentiful and accurate data it’s likely that a strong causal link between climate change and powerful storms will be established. That excess energy in the oceans has to go somewhere….

Major Fallacy: Human Co2 Emissions Don’t Cause Warming

Another common mistake that I read on the internet is that we produce so little Co2 that it cannot possibly contribute to the warming of the planet, so the warming must come from natural factors. It’s true that humanity produces a tiny percentage of all Co2 in the atmosphere. However, the Co2 naturally produced is also naturally absorbed. For example and for the sake of simplicity, the Co2 produced by forests is absorbed by the oceans. So nature produces many gigatonnes of Co2 but also absorbs this. This left us with an amount of Co2 in the atmosphere equivalent to around 280 parts per million (ppm). What we’ve done is add to that, and natural forces haven’t been able to absorb all of what we’ve added. So now we have 400ppm. Thus, we are trapping more heat, as observed by the recorded global temperature increases. It’s like compound interest, it starts off small, but that little percent builds up over time. If you’re a student from the UK you’ll probably know what I mean. Co2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas of course but I use it here just for simplicity. Just about all other greenhouse gasses have increased too though, mostly because of human activities.

I say that the increase in greenhouse gasses has caused this temperature increase. To make it clear, it’s very likely that the increase in the global temperature is due to the rise in greenhouse gasses caused by us. But anyone looking for 100% certainty is going to be disappointed. That’s not how science works – there’s never 100% certainty in anything since there could always be something out there we haven’t discovered yet which could put our theories on their heads. It’s possible that something else is causing the warming, however there’s no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Anyone who wants to say otherwise needs to show that evidence they’ve been keeping secret from the world. For years some people have tried to say it’s the sun or this is all natural warming. In the case of the sun, it can explain some of the warming from the last century (a very small amount) and in the past 35 years, the sun has actually been cooling whilst temperatures have been increasing. The climate has of course always changed throughout history. But if you want to say that the current observed warming is purely natural, then you need to account for how the extra gases we’ve produced have somehow not trapped any heat?  And if that’s not causing the warming, then what on earth could be (since we’ve established it’s not the sun)?

Nothing I’ve written here is new. But some people reading this might have not read this information before. Many people on the internet certainly still insist that we can’t possibly be warming the planet because our Co2 contribution is tiny. Even supposed journalists, e.g. James Delingpole, Dominic Lawson, Donna Laframboise etc make this very basic mistake. But I guess you can find just about any belief on the internet – check out The Flat Earth Society by the way, they’ve been promoting free thinking since 1999!

You might say that was low of me, but anyone who basically denies science in this way is comparable to someone that thinks the earth is flat, because they do exactly the same thing. Don’t get me wrong , you can be as sceptical about the future impacts of climate change. You can be sceptical about spending money on renewables instead of fossil fuels. You can be sceptical about the IPCC. But you cannot deny evidence. Are we really going to have to explain to our grandchildren in 50 years that we spent well over a decade arguing about recording temperatures and elementary physics?

John Wayne, Smoking and Climate Change

There once was a man called John Wayne. He was a very famous man. He was very strong and very tough. So tough that US army soldiers often referred to their toilet paper as “John Wayne toilet paper” because “it’s rough and tough and don’t take shit off no one”. He smoked 6 packs of cigarettes a day. Some doctors said that smoking was safe back then, so John probably wasn’t too worried. And he was as fit as a fiddle. Until he got lung cancer. Luckily for John, he could afford the best surgeons that money could buy. They removed an entire lung and he got better. Some say that maybe John got cancer when he starred in The Conqueror, where 41% of his colleagues developed some form of cancer, as the set was downwind of a nearby nuclear weapons testing site. But John thought it was from his 6 pack a day habit. So John stopped smoking cigarettes but was instead smoking cigars and chewing tobacco. And he got cancer again, this time in the stomach. Surgery couldn’t save him a second time though.

When John Wayne, maybe in the 1940s or 1950s was reading in the news that some doctors thought smoking might be really bad for your health, I wonder what he was thinking. Did he think that everything will be fine and that those doctors were just quacks? Maybe he figured that the risks were small. He could point to doctors that said it was good for you; maybe that always allayed his doubts? There was enough doubt in his mind to stop him from taking action.

Where did this doubt come from? Were doctors just crap back then?

No, the tobacco industry paid doctors to say that smoking was harmless.[1] Indeed, this became part of the whole strategy by the industry to cause as much doubt as possible about the link between smoking and cancer:

“I think we should give immediate attention to the possibility of running ads stating, in effect, that there is no scientific evidence of a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer” (Brown and Williamson, 1967)[2]

The mounting evidence that smoking tobacco caused cancer was a severe threat to the industry’s profits. They had to stand in the way of science if they were to keep their jobs. Understandable perhaps, but still wrong.

Well the same thing is happening again. History is repeating itself and as usual, not many people are paying much attention. As the planet continues its inexorable warming, there are still people quibbling about whether the planet is warming and if humans are responsible or not. Many of the think tanks that say climate change is not happening or not caused by humans receive funding from the fossil fuel industry. When these think tanks are then quoted in media outlets from Fox News to The Economist as some sort of authoritative scientific body, these links to the fossil fuel industry are often not mentioned. Can you imagine if a tobacco industry-funded doctor today were to be quoted in The Economist for saying that smoking doesn’t cause cancer without the slightly relevant topic of his funding being mentioned?

Well that’s happening today with climate change. The fossil fuel industry is purposefully trying to distort the public debate in climate science and they’ve been getting away with it for over a decade. Doubt is their product and their pushing it hard. So hard that a substantial portion of public opinion in the United States and the United Kingdom still thinks that cliamte scientists are in disagreement about whether or not global warming is happening. Whereas reality is somewhat closer to this below:

peer review

Other studies have generally found that 3% of all papers rejected the consensus. Either way, it’s not exactly a 50/50 split. Who are the skeptics exactly? I’m not going to go into too much detail, because there’s excellent documentation on other websites I’ll link to here, but there’s not many climate scientists it seems. One of the most famous is an ex-weatherman called Anthony Watts, who has a blog called Watts up with that. Watts, it turns out, has received payment from The Heartland Institute which also receives funding from ExxonMobil, which was to the tune of $600,000 between 1998 and 2006.[3]

In the UK, ex-Chancellor Nigel Lawson heads the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think tank that excels in casting doubt about the scientific case for global warming, but it appears that Lawson may also have links to the fossil fuel industry. Certainly the GWPF is less than transparent about its sources of funding.[4]

I can’t exactly blame the fossil fuel industry for trying to protect their interests, even if they do it in an entirely dishonest and despicable manner. But I do blame people for ignoring the parallels between back then and today. Over 30 years ago, doctors were paid to cast doubt on the science of the harmful effects from smoking. Today some people are being paid to cast doubt on the science of climate change, although significantly this group hardly ever consists of any climate scientists.

The human race right now is John Wayne, and we’ve got cancer. Are we going to listen to the real doctors, cut down on smoking, get that surgery and recover? Or give in to industry-funded doubt and carry on with the same old habits that will make us even more sick?

- Note, of course John might have died from nuclear radiation rather than smoking. There’s no way to say which one it was, but in any given population we can say that a certain percentage of people will die prematurely as a result of smoking.
- The story of the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industrry, climate change and other environmental and health issues has been meticulously researched and described in the book Merchants of Doubt  by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

What do Lana Del Ray and Christopher Hitchens have in common?

They both have the same attitude towards death. Del Ray, as many will be aware, thinks that we are all born to die. Hitchens, a few months before his death from cancer said, “Everybody is [dying], but the process has suddenly accelerated on me.” I had heard something similar from a friend in school once, that we’re all born to die.

I don’t know how many people really think this way, but I suspect it’s a fair few people. Whether this thought or attitude bothers them too, I also don’t know. But I do think that it’s extremely wrong.

I find it wrong not because I’m uncomfortable with the idea that all living things will die, but simply because it just makes no sense to me. Yes, we’re all going to die. But if I’m supposedly dying until that point, then what the hell happened to the word ‘living’? Are we ‘dying things’ instead of ‘living things’? Of course not. Living is a process of self-sustainment. When that process stops, then we are dying. I’m not sure if there’s a clear line to say precisely when this happens but I would argue that this happens late in old age. For now it’s beside the point.

Despite the blurry line between living and dying, I can say that the only thing that can die is what was once alive. We don’t say that inanimate objects die, we say that they cease to exist or are destroyed. We use the word ‘die’ or ‘death’ in a particular way to describe what happens to a living thing once it ceases to be living. There is no death without life and there is no life without death. They are two sides of the same coin. And there’s nothing religious about that statement, it’s simply an observation.

A lot of people are scared about dying, it is maybe even something every single human being goes through. In British society today we tend not to talk about it a lot. I think this is wrong and is quite harmful for our mental well-being. Let’s talk about the inevitable, the common thread that unite us all. By not talking about it we are making it harder to confront. And let’s also not view it as something negative, but instead as a privilege even?  An at times terrifying and painful privilege, but still one nonetheless. Because if you are going to die then it means that you are living right now. For many people it is perhaps not so much of a favour, because life is unbearably painful for them. But for the lucky ones amongst us that on the whole enjoy observing events on this spaceship Earth, we can be thankful. Richard Dawkins made the same point much better on a wonderful video about life and how unlikely and random it is. Take a look if you’re interested:

Perhaps a better expression then, would be that “we are born to live and then die”. Lana probably wouldn’t have sold as many records and Hitchens probably wouldn’t have upset as many people if they had both said that, but they both would have been more accurate. 

“About Life and People” Pt.I Training

In a little break from environmentalism this is an extract from “About Life and People”, an autobiography by William Dron, my Grandfather and hero. For anyone interested in what life was like for a somewhat ordinary British soldier (he played the pipes, so was not on the frontline as was decreed by General Montgommery after 1943), then I hope that you will find this account interesting as well as entertaining. It is a tale told with compassion, honesty and a good degree of down to earth humour. I’m still editing all the Scots and British dialect to make it more readable for the international reader. At this point in the Autobiography, William, or ‘Bill’, has enrolled into the army and is on his way to Fort George, in the Highlands of Scotland. 

The Army.

I set of for Fort George full of a mixture of hope and apprehension not knowing what to expect.  Although Dad had been in the Army he didn’t offer me any advice on what life was like or how to play it.  Therefore I arrived in Fort George on the Moray Firth a complete innocent and it didn’t take long for the Army to knock that out of me.  I think I was half expecting a warm welcome, as a volunteer, and being granted a few favours when they realised how lucky they were at gaining such a brilliant recruit.  That was not the Army way I’m afraid, there were no favours, everyone was treated exactly the same, like cattle!  We were harried from pillar to post from morn till night until we didn’t know whether we were coming or going.  Of course that was done on the principle that you began to accept orders without question and without using your own brain.  After we had all the inoculations and vaccinations we were given 24 hours to recuperate.  I did not recuperate very well but fell ill with tonsillitis and was shifted to the sick-bay, which was another Nissan hut but with linoleum on the floor and sheets on the beds, the lap of luxury.  The food was from the mess hall, in other words inedible, and the medication was Asprin, which was ineffective.  After a few days even the M.O. realised I was not improving and I was transferred to the Hospital.  When I arrived I was met by a nurse who ordered me to take a bath before sullying her clean sheets.  Once in bed I was given a load of large pills and fell into a deep sleep, only to be wakened and fed another dose.  This went on for the next couple of days until I awoke one morning feeling much better and absolutely ravenous.  The pills were one of the sulphonamides a fairly recent discovery and a precursor of penicillin.  I was duly pronounced fit and returned to duty.

Thus was my inglorious entry into the Army; hardly the stuff of regimental history.  When I returned to duty I was dumped into a new intake of conscripts, what a come down for the brilliant recruit.  But as the old saying goes the De’il looks after his own.  The volunteer platoon had been set up as an example to the poor conscripts of how a platoon should act and behave with true military zeal.  I need hardly add that by this time my zeal had sunk without trace and I was more than content to settle with the poor conscripts.  The volunteers were mostly Army Cadets who could strip down a Bren Gun and knew Army Regulations as well as, if not better than, the NCO’s.  That wasn’t so difficult as some of the NCO’s, especially the Regulars, were not noted for their intellectual capacity.  Training began therefore in trying to turn a bunch of unfit civilians into trained fighting machines.  I had thought I was fairly fit because I had done a lot of hard cycling in the previous months, on Saturday afternoons I often did a circuit by Forfar- Kirrie-Alyth about 40/50 miles.  However I soon realised that my comparative fitness was as nothing compared to what it became in four months time.  Apart from square bashing i.e. drill, we had to do physical drill, route marching, forced marches with full pack, and generally run about like mad things until we were passed as trained recruits.  Note! not yet trained soldiers, we still had a long way to go.

After the first six weeks we were allowed out to sample the delights of Inverness on a Saturday afternoon.  It was a busy place with lots of military personnel and loads of Canadian lumberjacks who were stripping out the adjoining forests.  We soon found a Church of Scotland canteen offering home cooking, warmth, and cheery female faces.  It was a regular port of call for us as the food was such a contrast to the usually inedible Army grub.  I fell in love with Inverness or ‘Snecky’ as it became, a play on Harry Gordon’s (the famous Scots comedian) ‘Inversnecky’.  It was a bonny wee [nice, small] town then, steeped in history with a wonderful position on the River Ness the Caledonian Canal and Tomnahurich (The hill of the Fairies) the most picturesque cemetery in Scotland.

During my time in the Fort the realisation dawned upon me that my political views were not so far to the left as I had thought.  The nemesis that brought about this transformation was a Campbell in my platoon.  He was a theatrical type from Glasgow, a committed Communist, and a thorn in my flesh.  There was not one single thing we had in common and we fought bitterly on every subject discussed, until I came to the conclusion that my political salvation lay more in terms of Socialism.  Many years later I discovered Gordon? Campbell had become a great man in the Citizens Theatre in Glasgow, and a famous director.  I have much to thank him for.

The following ten weeks were devoted to Infantry training; by this stage the halt and the blind had been sorted out and the survivors were deemed to be suitable for the infantry or, as some say, rejected by everyone else.  We were taught fieldcraft- weapons training – map reading and so on.  One young Corporal had trouble with a map until I noted it was upside down but he was a good sort and I didn’t get a severe reprimand.  The tips I had from Grandfather Dron, who was a crack shot, should have helped in the shooting but the old Lee Enfields we used in target practice were not very good.  It wasn’t until we got the Bren a light machine gun that I had better results.  All good things must come to an end and at the finish of this period we were posted to Battalions.  My draft were sent to the Italian front but I was too young and was posted to the Liverpool Scottish the English Territorial Battalion of the Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders.

At last I became a full member of the Camerons but it was strange having so many Englishmen sporting the tartan and talking Liv’pool.  They had to show some Scottish roots to get into the Terriers and were proud of their Scottish connections.  I applied to join the band when I met the Battalion in Eastbourne on the South Coast of England, a long way from Fort George.  I was unable to do so until I survived a further spell of training and became a Trained Soldier.  When I got into the band I was a fairly average piper but there were few class players in the band.  The only one I remember was Hutchison  a regular soldier from Edinburgh.  He was a flashy guy and a flashy player and the only one who comes to mind.  The Pipe Major was a Terrier not a great piper but a reasonable man.  He was a good dancer and got together a dance team for the Strathspeys and Reels [a type of dance], I enjoyed dancing and became a member of the team.  It was traditional in the Highland Regiments for the bandsmen to specialise in dancing.

One of our duties on the coast was to patrol at night to repel any incursions by the enemy.  This involved a cycle patrol along a section of coast between Eastbourne and Hastings where the Martello Towers stand (built to warn of invasion by Bonaparte).  I used to set out on my bike in the wee small hours with my trusty rifle, 50 rounds of ammunition, and not a clue of how I would react if a boatload of Storm Troopers landed on my patch.  Pretty scary in the dark hoping you wouldn’t bump into anyone or anything but OK on a beautiful moonlit night when you could see for miles.  The effectiveness of the patrol was never tested, thank God.

About November 1943 we were moved to Northern Ireland to a wee town called Banbridge in County Down not far from Belfast.  This was a popular posting, food was plentiful and cheap there were lots of bonnie lassies [beautiful young women] and the war seemed far away.  A Battalion of American troops were in an adjacent camp and we made friends with some of them and heard interesting stories of Hollywood and the stars.  One chap claimed to be a nephew of Mary Pickford (the Screens Sweetheart) it may have been true and in any case he was a great storyteller.  The most interesting commodity in Banbridge was food; all the wee cafes served ham and eggs, toast and tea for the princely sum of half a crown (12½p).  We soon discovered that the Americans were being charged much more as their wages were vastly superior to ours.  Not only that, but also their equipment resources, their living conditions, and their food bore no comparison to ours.  We were using the basic equipment of the First World War while the Yanks had modern weapons superior back-up and food we would have killed for.  Their attitude to discipline was much more relaxed, their officers were treated as equals instead of superior beings, and while this may have had an effect on their performance as fighting men, it certainly made life a whole lot easier for the ‘Doughboys’.  To me it was an example of American democracy and a complete contrast in class distinctions.

Whilst in Ireland I discovered a certain aptitude for cross-country running which came as a shock, because I was a bit of a dead loss when running with full equipment.  The Adjutant was an enthusiast for the sport and that meant the Company was expected to be just as keen.  One day we were out on a long run when I got my second wind and just started to run comfortably increased my pace until I finished in the leading group, much to the amazement of my Corporal who had viewed my previous efforts with disdain.  The downside of my career in Ireland took place one dark and freezing winters night when I was hurrying back to billets.  I was pounced upon by two Regimental Police [RP's] and charged with the heinous crime of having my coat collar turned up.   Next morning the Company Officer was mortified that I had let the Company down so badly – the RP’s involved – the Honour of the Regiment – Three Days Confined To Barracks!  C.B. or as we called it ‘Cockie Bendy’.  I was a criminal with a record, three days of spud bashing, would I ever be able to hold up my head again in decent society?  At the same time the C.O. let it be known that my record showed that I had been marked down as N.C.O. material, and he hoped I would mend my ways.  Is it not some sort of miracle that we won the war with such attitudes?

I had always hoped that my Grandfathers aptitude for marksmanship would rub off on me and it was in Ireland that it came to pass.  The Bren gun was my favourite weapon it seemed to suit me much better than the rifle.  One day we were having a competitive shoot on the banks of Lough Neagh, that huge inland loch [lake], and I couldn’t make a mistake I just kept getting ‘Bulls’.  Eventually it came down to a straight contest between the Regimental Sergeant Major and me and I won.  I’m afraid the R.S.M. wasn’t very sporting about it in fact he was decidedly unchuffed [unhappy].

Good news at last, I got my first leave in December 1943 and would be home for Christmas.  We took the boat over to Stranraer, the bus to Ayr, then to Glasgow, and the train to Dundee.  It was good to be home in the bosom of the extended family and visit all the relatives I possibly could.  Not for long, as a Telegram arrived telling me to report back pronto.  This was ominous, the Battalion could be going overseas, so I bade a fond farewell to Mum and Dad, and returned.  I actually travelled back on Hogmany [New Year's Day] and arrived in Ireland on New Year’s Day.  As soon as I reported in I found I was on a draft to another unit.  After a few days preparation about one hundred of us embarked for destinations unknown.  One of the draftees was a drummer Abbie George who I knew well; I think we were the only ones from the band.  A few of the draft like Abbie had been pre-war Terriers and had spent four years in a training Battalion, never having heard a shot fired in anger.  I almost felt sorry for them.  We sailed back to the mainland, a much easier passage than at New Year, when the seas were crashing over the decks, and the bogs [toilets] were full of very sick troops.  We entrained and set of on the usual wild goose chase all over England until we finished up in High Wycombe.  When the train drew to a halt in the station my heart sank when I saw numbers of soldiers with Red Hackles in their Tam-O-Shanters (Bonnets).  The Black Watch!  I was not impressed atall atall.  I could have joined the Watch in Dundee without going to the bother of becoming a Cameron.  I considered it a terrible loss of dignity to come from a Real Highland Regiment, to one with an ambivalent history and some support for the Hanoverians against the Prince*.  Besides they were only quasi-highlanders coming from Fife, Angus, and Perthshire.  I considered giving the Colonel my thoughts on the subject, but when I met him he seemed such a decent fellow, I didn’t have the heart to hurt his feelings.  He was in fact Chic Thomson a Dundee C.A. and when he asked where I came from, and what I did in civvie street, he was delighted when I mentioned Jute Industries; his Father had been one of the original Directors.  I thought I would be OK in this crowd having the Colonel as a friend but I don’t think I ever spoke to him again.  C’est la Vie!

The Pipe Major appeared after the Colonel to ask if there were any Bandsmen in the draft?  Abbie and I stepped forward smartly and did our party pieces.  I thought I would be diplomatic and played Heilan’ Laddie the Black Watch regimental march,  Abbie did some fancy stick work, and we were admitted to the ranks of the band, an action which probably saved our lives…

Part II will see Bill head off to the vision of hell that was the battlefield in the direct aftermath of the D-Day landings. 

*The Blackwatch were born with this name, as they were originally a militia founded in 1725 to “keep watch” over the unlawful highlands. The Regiment had sided with the British Government during the Jacobite Rising of ‘Bonny Prince Charlie’, the grandson of the last Catholic King of England, Ireland and Scotland, James VII and II (seventh of Scotland, Second of England)

A spontaneously quick interview with Bettervest founder, Patrick Mijnals

I was in Vallendar (near Koblenz) a couple of weeks ago. I went for a conference all about social entrepreneurship with a Belgian friend from class. We took a train all the way there from Freiburg and it felt good to travel up the Rhine again after quite a while away from the region. It is such a strange mixture of commerce, nature and history. There’s always cargo barges going up and down, and numerous castles dotted along the way. Those were set up by little lords that would tax passing boats for using the river.  All are set against a backdrop of steep, small hills and sometimes patchy areas of forest.

Vallendar itself is nothing remarkable apart from the fact that it contains a British red telephone box. That and the Otto Beisheim School of Management, a well-known private university in Germany that has a reputation for producing the CEOs, business leaders and managers that power the massive German economy forwards.

There were quite a few interesting presentations at the conference. One stand-out, in terms of product at least, was the ‘Peepoople’ company. These guys produce a kind of bag for people who don’t have toilets that they can use. It has some sort of bacteria inside that transforms the crap into fertiliser! Needless to say, it could contribute massively to making urban slums less dirty although the question of whether the poorest people on the planet can really afford these things is an important one. They’re only about one or two cents per bag, but for people with very little that can mean a lot. Still, aid agencies seem to be a good customer for them so far.

There were some other good presentations that I need not go into here. What I really wanted to talk about was a workshop I was lucky to take part in with the ‘Bettervest’ founder, Patrick Mijnals. Now, before I took part in the workshop I have to confess that I thought Bettervest was just a kind of Crowdfunding Carrotmob platform. However, a minor detail makes this concept much, much bigger in my opinion. The video below is only in German so for those that haven’t wasted several years of their lives trying to learn this language, please allow me to explain. In this case, there’s a little girl that wants to refurbish the heating system of her school to make it more energy efficient and thus help the environment. To do this she puts her advert or project on the Bettervest site. Then, people can give money to help the girl reach her target. A typical Crowdfunding platform so far. However, with Bettervest they can instead invest that money rather than give it away for nothing. How do they earn a return? Simple, the money saved through the energy efficiency goes back to the investors. Every year the school will save money on its energy bills and the money saved will be distributed amongst the investors. It’s like Carrotmob but one step further. With Carrotmob a business makes money. With Bettervest everyone makes money, it’s Carrotmob to the power of a 1000. Bettervest’s name is perhaps not so catchy in the English language, although I think that it works in German.

In the workshop we were supposed to write out a business canvas or something – we did this half-heartedly but the group was much more interested in talking to Patrick about his concept. Towards the end of the workshop I suddenly realised that it might make an interesting blog to ask Patrick a couple of questions about the enterprise. I had less than 5 minutes to ask some hastily thought of questions, so I’m sorry it’s short!

So, Patrick, how did you come up with the idea for Bettervest? 

Patrick Mijnals

Patrick Mijnals

Patrick:  I have been a trends and innovation consultant for a while now and also been into the Crowdfunding scene from early on in its development. A long time ago I read a book by Ernst von Weizsäcker (now President of the Club of Rome) called “Factor Four”. He argues that four times as much wealth can be extracted from the resources we currently use. So for a long time I had ideas that were influenced by this book and once I got more into the idea of Crowdfunding I was able to combine the two.

Your background is in psychology, what especially makes you think that your concept will be successful? Do you have any psychological insights to share?

Patrick: Yes, (points to logo on his leaflets), this here will hypnotize ever…..laughs, no there is sadly no secret; it’s just all about motivations. In this case we score in every way as people can promote sustainability but also serve their own interests. It’s as simple as that.

What has been your biggest mistake/hurdle?

Patrick: If anything it’s that we’ve probably been too precise, too cautious. It’s only from your mistakes that you learn, so if anything we are probably not making enough mistakes! Another big challenge for us is working together over a large distance. [Patrick is part of a team of five, each covering a different area, e.g. energy efficiency, finance, IT etc and they are often in different parts of the country]

And what have you enjoyed the most about running a start-up?

Patrick: Seeing people working together and growing. Also coming to events like this and seeing you guys tell us what a great idea it is and just talking about different possibilities is a lot of fun!

With that we had to get out of the workshop room and go into the main conference hall for the closing session. I came away feeling very excited about this business. For sure there are some potential problems. I thought that changing energy prices might be one of them (how on earth would you calculate this?) but Patrick explained that the return is calculated each year by multiplying the amount of saved energy (in kilowatt) with the current energy price. This would be a fair deal, since the project owner would have to pay the current energy price anyway, with or without the energy efficiency project. And the crowd will get its interest even when the prices rise.

Cold fusion is a potential threat too!* Nevertheless, I think the concept is a great one and if they execute it well then chances are this will be a well-known and successful platform in a few years time. It also makes a nice change that this is an original start-up coming from Germany, as most are just cut and paste jobs from the US!

The business isn’t yet off the ground and for now the website is just a beta version. Even so, it will be interesting to see how things go for them.

*Patrick wrote back on this to say “…I would love to see cold fusion :-) It might be a problem for our business model, but the purpose of our social business is to solve the problem, not just to make money! In my opinion this is exactly the difference between conventional business and social business. I would be glad to see, that bettervest isn’t “needed” anymore and my team and I can dedicate ourselves to another social/sustainable challenge.”

Interesting reply and it certainly makes clear the distinction between the mentalities of traditional businesses and their newer social competitors!