A Place to Stand

  This letter is in the Scotsman today. This is only the 2nd time a newspaper has been willing to publish a letter aski8ng this question - perhaps a sign of change. It deliberately challenges Ballantine, Harvie or indeed anybody else to name a single scientist who is not paid by government but still supports CAGW and it will be interesting to see if they, or anybody else in the movement, do. Online comments are strongly supportive and even opponents give no names.. Editing in bold

Tom Ballantine expresses his outage that anybody might think he financially benefits from denouncing catastrophic global warming aka global warming aka climate change aka climate chaos on the grounds that "I receive no remuneration from Stop Climate Chaos Scotland" (letter 6th Sept).

I would have been much more impressed if Mr Ballantine had been able to say who does pay him and is his position as head of SCCS career enhancing or not. I have looked for but not found any senior member of the "environmental" community who is not ultimately paid out of our taxes.
He gives, as his sole reason for supporting the claim that we are experiencing catastrophic warming (or whatever) the assertion that "97% of climate scientists" accept it. 100% of "astrology scientists" making their living from it say that astrology works but we will have to disagree on whether this is sufficient to prove it.
I challenge him to name a single one of those "scientists" or indeed a single scientist, anywhere in the world who supports catastrophe claims and is not paid by the state.

I have asked 10s of thousands of alarmists, worldwide (including Patrick Harvie on air), not one of whom has been able to present a single name, who did not turn out either not actually to be a supporter of alarmism or to actually be paid from taxes.
HL Mencken once said "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary".

The fact that nobody has been able to cite a single independent scientist who supports warming alarmism strongly suggests it is such a hobgoblin.

But perhaps Mr Ballantine will be able to provide a name.

 I regret the left out the reference to 100% of "astrology scientists" making a living from it saying it isn't a scam.

 The removal of "not actually" reverses the literal meaning of my point but I think it is made clear in the bulk of the letter. This is clearly simply an editing error and I am in no position to complain because they edited in "to cite" which was what I meant but had carelessly left out.

Otherwise editing tightens it up.

PS I got an email from Patrick Harvie MSP yesterday in reply to a bulk mailing of all MSPs about the Tunnel Project. He was opposed, as I expected, but only on ideological grounds. I will write of this later, when I am sure all the others have had the time to reply.

  This letter from me appeared in the Scotsman last Tuesday along with a number of others mostly in the same vein.

With the refusal of Edinburgh councillors to stump up for the most expensive tram option and the Lib Dems insisting that what is left is the worst of all possible options, is it not time for them all to admit that the whole tram scheme never made any economic sense in the first place and just cancel the whole thing?

If you can't stop when you are ahead, perhaps it would be best to stop when you are only £600 million behind.

  To show the influence of myself and common sense on the Scottish political scene they immediately, under pressure from the SNP government which will come back to haunt them, voted to reinstate the full (well the full scheme after cutting it down to ending in St Andre's Square). They will thus spend at least £1 bn building 2/3rds of a project that could have been completed in full by now for £110 million, in the rest of the world, and wouldn't have made economic sense even then.

    There was also a rather good letter yesterday explaining the technical term "sunk costs" and why it is always vital to ignore them when making a decision. This is one of the differences between government and real life and why government is inherently less competent. In government it is better to spend a billion of other people's money and hope the chickens don't come home to roost before you retire, than admit failure now.

THE Edinburgh Tram Fiasco (ETF), its history and the biographies of all those involved. will provide as much material as is required to demonstrate the fallacy of Honouring Sunk Cost (HSC).


This fallacy is well known to every professional manager, accountant and auditor, but apparently is something of which politicians are comfortably oblivious.

Sunk cost is past expenditure that has no present value. "Honouring" sunk cost consists in having faith that if only more money was spent, somehow past expenditure would regain its value. Herein lies the fallacy.

The fact that money has been wasted in the past should not feature in any argument that proposes to waste it in the future. Sunk cost should be ignored and the benefit of future expenditure, if any, evaluated on its own merit.

The pathetic fact is that HSC and the enthusiasm for the further escalation of expenditure on what is an obviously failed project, is more directed to the creation and preservation of myths to pass on to future generations about the wisdom, foresight and acumen of the decision- makers than about achieving any viable outcome. This is especially true when the money involved is extracted by force from helpless taxpayers.

A major, mainly self-funding, programme to create new transport links could utterly transform huge tracts of Scotland

How is this possible, and why does it matter to Scotland? It is possible because tunnelling technology has improved and is still improving year on year.
Despite finance secretary John Swinney's assurance to Holyrood that a 2km Forth tunnel would cost £6.6 billion (half the cost of the proposed rebuilding of the Panama Canal and about 200 times what an equivalent Norwegian tunnel would be likely to cost), it is possible to build at these prices if we simply do it without spending years on paperwork and lawyers.
We have already done it with the Glendoe Hydro Scheme (£140m), which suggests that the 14km of tunnels must have been cut at about Norwegian prices.
What is needed is simply to hire a tunnel drilling company, possibly a Norwegian one on a fixed-price contract, with the act endorsing it giving the company total freedom to build, with a waiver of any further government or regulatory interference within, say, 500m of the tunnel heads. No involvement needed from Transport Scotland or other Holyrood bodies.
Would it improve Scotland's infrastructure as much as Norway's has been? No. We would gain far more.

However good Norway's roads, the distance from the capital, Oslo, to Tromsø will always be 700 miles, whereas the driving distance from Gourock to Dunoon can be reduced from more than 100 miles to less than two (they do have a ferry but, in another example of Scottish progress, on 30 June it was reduced to passengers only).
The history of human progress is closely related to the history of the reduction in travel times. One thousand years ago the most powerful parts of Scotland were the islands, and roads were little more than cattle tracks. The early Scots kingdom was built around the West Highland's islands and shores.
Thorfin the Mighty, Earl of Orkney, warred on more than equal terms with the King of Scots. Sutherland gained its name because it was to the south of the centre of power.
These small communities could be wealthy because the important lines of transport lay on sea lanes. The sea was a highway not a barrier.
The Highland Clearances happened because the Central Belt had better communications. Time and again development plans for the Highlands and Islands failed because of the expense introduced by poor or non-existent communications. The improvement in tunnelling technology means we can reverse that trend.

Islay (population 2,000) was once the seat of the Lord of the Isles, far more important than the slightly smaller Isle of Man (population 80,000).
The thing to remember is that, despite Scottish Government projects routinely costing eight to 200 times their estimates, there is no question that this can be done at the costs given. If something has been done at a defined cost before then, by definition, it is possible to do it for that cost, when the political will is there.
Assuming that Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Orkney (which has an oil fund) would pay for 90 per cent of their connections to Scotland, which would be tunnels going from the south-west of our coast, that leaves us with about 120km, most of them dualled and about the same again in new connecting roads. At £4m per km of tunnel and assuming half that for traditional roads would require a budget of £1bn or less.
Working from formulae used by the Scottish Government to calculate the economic impact of roads being opened or closed, I estimate providing up to ten new routes would be likely to increase Gross National Product by £40bn.

While that estimate looks too good to be true, it is clearly as reliable as other estimates the government bases decisions on - but even if it were out fortyfold, it would still make economic sense.
There are, however, zero-cost options Holyrood could consider:
• The tunnels could be made toll roads, as the Norwegians have done. I think tolls are an inefficient system, though they have the advantage of being transparent. Possibly the civil disobedience of the people of Skye, in objecting to tolls on a bridge, may have scunnered any future use of tolls.
• Land capture tax could be applied, by charging, say, £10,000 on any new-build house beyond a tunnel that has risen in value after the tunnel is completed, and reserve it to the builders. The difference in value between agricultural land and building land is many times that £10,000 per plot.
• A temporary land tax on sales of land made accessible by these tunnels could be introduced. These would be considerably more valuable when they can be reached. A bond issue could then be made with this revenue allocated to paying it off.
• Companies cutting the tunnels and roads could be allowed, as payment, to purchase land beyond the tunnel either from government or compulsorily at fair value; with automatic full planning permission; a waiver on all possible government regulations; and the option on a permanent rates waiver so long as the owner provides all council services. I suggest 1sq km for each kilometre of tunnel cut. This costs us absolutely nothing and could kickstart the building of new communities.



None of these ideas is set in stone, for ground conditions or traffic layout might mean a few should be moved along the coast a few miles.
The Iona link might well be better done by a causeway. I have taken the Arran crossing by the "back door" because it is the shortest way, but a link from Bute or even Ayrshire might, though costing more, provide a better cost-benefit ratio.
I have also made no suggestions for tunnels purely on land, because none of them would have nearly such a spectacular impact as island tunnels. Most Norwegian tunnels are, however, on land and the same potential exists in Scotland. The A90 is a less than straight route because the Grampians get in the way, but they need not be always be so impassable. Technology is progressing, particularly in the strength of materials, so longer, faster and cheaper tunnelling is coming. It is time we gave it full consideration.

• Neil Craig is a policy adviser to ThinkScotland.org