Scotland Watch

[Little John]

......In short you would have to change the way that humans have evolved to behave over the millions of years we have existed. Tribalism is in our genes, unfortunately.

Rant over.

You are not wrong Ken.

[jonny2mad]

I pretty much agree with your analysis UE. Though, I think that the nation state as we know it today is facing major pressure and will become ever more so so as times get tougher on the resources front. But, when and where such states fail, this will not lead to a borderless utopia. It will lead, instead, to smaller nation states, that's all. Eventually retreating back, even, to the city state. Nation states are, as you said, an somewhat unnatural extension of our natural tribal instincts and the only way this extension is manageable is with good communications and logistics, both of which require vast amounts of energy. All of which is why, in terms of how we organise ourselves, the future will be a re-run of the past. Speaking of which, the only example I can come up with of human organisation which does not involve borders would be nomads. In other words, as soon as people put down roots in one place and so invest time and energy in infrastructure, then they are compelled to defend it against somebody else nicking it off them. Which, of course, requires borders. In short, as nation states contract in size, the sense of national identity of its citizens is going to get stronger.

All that's left to discuss, then, is what size of nation is it practicable to organise and defend in a post-peak-resource world.

I think its not just about size but how seperate and xenophobic you are, places like london where you have pretty much every group from around the world living, wont be able to hold a border because they are too diverse .

The uk of pre ww2 where you had very few minority's would be able to hold together because they could band against the other, we had a united kingdom before oil just less well organised.

You wont be able to withstand waves of migration which is basically invasion if all the time your preaching the ethos of multi-culturalism, I think humanism and christianity as they are currently taught wouldnt help holding a border either.

I think what may happen is after these waves of migration those people may be a lot less stupid. So biff and co will be daft but if he had children or grandchildren they would generally curse him and be less dumb, the invaders will be less dumb

[UndercoverElephant]

I have a problem with this.........Some interesting ideas, but the author has singularly failed to grasp what is actually going on here. The problem is not a lack of imagination, but a lack of possible outcomes. The nation state, as described, is a somewhat "artificial" or "unnatural" extension of our tribal psychological identity, which was and remains suited to hierarchy and "vertical loyalties". But it is the best we can do. GOT ANY BETTER IDEAS? Neither has the author of that article.

And yes, collapse is sometimes required to create the space to build something new, just as the extinction of the dinosaurs opened up the possibility for the rise of the mammals.

This is not a failure of imagination. The problem is not that we are not creative enough to imagine a world where human societies work. The problem is that it isn't possible to resolve the realities that human political systems have evolved to deal with in a way that is morally satisfactory.

But that's philosophy, not science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_%28Huxley_novel%29

I pretty much agree with your analysis UE. Though, I think that the nation state as we know it today is facing major pressure and will become ever more so so as times get tougher on the resources front. But, when and where such states fail, this will not lead to a borderless utopia. It will lead, instead, to smaller nation states, that's all. Eventually retreating back, even, to the city state. Nation states are, as you said, an somewhat unnatural extension of our natural tribal instincts and the only way this extension is manageable is with good communications and logistics, both of which require vast amounts of energy. All of which is why, in terms of how we organise ourselves, the future will be a re-run of the past. Speaking of which, the only example I can come up with of human organisation which does not involve borders would be nomads. In other words, as soon as people put down roots in one place and so invest time and energy in infrastructure, then they are compelled to defend it against somebody else nicking it off them. Which, of course, requires borders. In short, as nation states contract in size, the sense of national identity of its citizens is going to get stronger.

All that's left to discuss, then, is what size of nation is it practicable to organise and defend in a post-peak-resource world.

I'm not sure it is even sensible to discuss that either.

The really silly thing about that article is that it is supposedly science, but that there is no science to be done here. When we ask about "the best way to do X" then we're either asking a question about ethics (e.g. "what is the best way to deal with the problem of terminally ill people who want to die?") or, if we're doing science, we're asking a question about engineeering - we're asking how best to achieve some objective in the physical world. But even if we are generous and assume it is obvious what objective we're trying achieve when we talk about "the best way to organise ourselves", it's still pointless, because, as the article itself points out earlier, how we organise ourselves is an emergent property of a complex system. Nobody can force the implementation, even if we somehow managed to work out what the "best" way is. Whatever way we organise ourselves in the future will not be the result of discussion and intentional implementation - it will simply emerge as the result of countless individual choices, from voting in referendums to acts of terrorism.

[biffvernon]

But more seriously... http://undergroundmgzn.com/2014/09/12/w ... y-left-uk/

[Mr. Fox]

The really silly thing about that article is that it is supposedly science, but that there is no science to be done here.

From the article:

These are not normally scientific questions – but that is changing. Complexity theorists, social scientists and historians are addressing them using new techniques, and the answers are not always what you might expect.

Just to be clear - are you dismissing the study of complexity as a science, or dismissing it's application to the questions raised in the article?

[biffvernon]

And just to be clear the author, Debora MacKenzie was a biomedical scientist before joining New Scientist over twenty years ago, where she mainly covers food production, arms control, infectious disease, and social complexity issues including finance, governance and environment. She's no fool.

[Little John]

To be fair to UE, what I think he is getting at, and on this I tend to agree, is that whenever we talk about how it we humans decide to organise ourselves, this is as often as not based on underlying philosophical/ethical judgements. Once those underlying judgements have been made, it may then be perfectly possible to apply internally logical or, even, scientific principles in order to implement the organisational consequences of such judgements. However, the initial underlying judgements have got nothing to do with science because they are based on values and, as such, are neither right nor wrong. Or, rather, are both right and wrong, depending on what one's values are.

[peaceful_life]

To be fair to UE, what I think he is getting at, and on this I tend to agree, is that whenever we talk about how it we humans decide to organise ourselves, this is as often as not based on underlying philosophical/ethical judgements. Once those underlying judgements have been made, it may then be perfectly possible to apply internally logical or, even, scientific principles in order to implement the organisational consequences of such judgements. However, the initial underlying judgements have got nothing to do with science because they are based on values and, as such, are neither right nor wrong. Or, rather, are both right and wrong, depending on what one's values are.

It's the cultural narrative of the tribe, rather than the instinctual behaviour of being a tribe that counts, so if the narrative exemplifies a judgement of working with nature as opposed to trying to dominate, then this will serve the tribe better in the long run, after all science is the study of nature.



Meanwhile, this guy is, Jim Sillars, it's not Alex Salmond, he doesn't look like, Alex Salmond, or even wear similar shoes to, Alex Salmond and that's becuase.....it's not, Alex Salmond, it's Jim Sillars.......


'Jim Sillars interview on BBC'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WWtRmSJFLs

[Mr. Fox]

To be fair to UE, what I think he is getting at, and on this I tend to agree, is that whenever we talk about how it we humans decide to organise ourselves, this is as often as not based on underlying philosophical/ethical judgements. Once those underlying judgements have been made, it may then be perfectly possible to apply internally logical or, even, scientific principles in order to implement the organisational consequences of such judgements. However, the initial underlying judgements have got nothing to do with science because they are based on values and, as such, are neither right nor wrong. Or, rather, are both right and wrong, depending on what one's values are.

So you're dismissing it on the basis of a lack of objectivity?

To my mind, that seems pretty daft, as complexity science (particularly when studying social or financial questions using agent-based modelling) so often yields results that fly in the face of conventional wisdom.

Complexity science differs from 'mechanical' science in that it assumes that it is the relationships between things that define reality, rather that the things themselves. Grok?

Or perhaps someone would be kind enough to tell this lot to pack up and go home?

-

Jim Sillars - LIKE!

[another_exlurker]

Complexity science differs from 'mechanical' science in that it assumes that it is the relationships between things that define reality, rather that the things themselves. Grok?

I've always assumed that it was both the thing itself combined with the relationships/interactions between other things, including similar things (nothing is completely identical, everything is unique even if the difference is infinitesimally small, Chaos applies to physical entities) that defines reality. Right down to a subatomic level.

Of course, I could be wrong. Or I could be right. I'm probably both.

Questions define uncertainty. Answers occult uncertainty.

Right, Scottish Independence.... It'd be rather interesting (possibly in the Chinese sense) if the vote polls a confirmed 50/50 result.

[Little John]

.....Jim Sillars interview on BBC'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WWtRmSJFLs

He pretty much wiped the floor with her.

[Tarrel]

.....Jim Sillars interview on BBC'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WWtRmSJFLs

He pretty much wiped the floor with her.

Shame about the "Day of Reckoning" comment though. The "yes" campaign have managed to avoid a lot of that loose cannon stuff up till now.

[Little John]

To be fair to UE, what I think he is getting at, and on this I tend to agree, is that whenever we talk about how it we humans decide to organise ourselves, this is as often as not based on underlying philosophical/ethical judgements. Once those underlying judgements have been made, it may then be perfectly possible to apply internally logical or, even, scientific principles in order to implement the organisational consequences of such judgements. However, the initial underlying judgements have got nothing to do with science because they are based on values and, as such, are neither right nor wrong. Or, rather, are both right and wrong, depending on what one's values are.

So you're dismissing it on the basis of a lack of objectivity?

To my mind, that seems pretty daft, as complexity science (particularly when studying social or financial questions using agent-based modelling) so often yields results that fly in the face of conventional wisdom.

Complexity science differs from 'mechanical' science in that it assumes that it is the relationships between things that define reality, rather that the things themselves. Grok?

Or perhaps someone would be kind enough to tell this lot to pack up and go home?

-

Jim Sillars - LIKE!

I don't have a problem with complexity science as it applies to the social world or, indeed any of the social sciences. I happen to have a degree in one of them as it happens, Psychology BSc Hons. from the university of York to be precise. However, if that degree taught me anything, it was that, apart from neuroscience and certain statistical aspects of human behaviour based on underlying evolutionary imperatives, everything else is an emergent property of geography and economics. That is to say, if you have a certain economic imperatives in place, this will lead to ethical/cultural/political imperatives that map onto them. Once those cultural imperatives are in place, this is where social science steps in and describes and, even, predicts patterns of behaviour. but, it does so, only within the constraints of the cultural model in which it finds itself. What I am trying to get at is that whilst complexity science may reliably predict and model behaviour relative to the underlying assumptions of a given culture, that does not necessarily mean those predictions and models have any validity that is external to that culture. The mistake, then, that some social scientists make, is to believe that they are measuring and describing something that has an objective reality independent of its underlying cultural imperatives. It may well have a subjective reality relative to their own values that may or may not run counter to the prevailing culture. And, who knows, I may share their values. The point is, apart from the extremes, there is no right or wrong. Or, rather, the rightness or wrongness depends on who you are.

On reflection, it might help, also, if I rephrase my position in the following way; it's not that I have a problem with complexity modelling. My problem is that I see such complexity as an effect and not a cause. That is to say, I am an old fashioned Marxist in the sense that I believe, notwithstanding the limitations of neurobiology and evolutionary imperatives, it starts with the physical environment, which leads to the economic environment, which leads to culture, which leads to psychology and it is out of all of this that we see complex patterns of behaviour emerging across populations. Given this, If you want to change the world for the better, whatever your own conception of "better" is, then you need to work on causes and, as a consequence, the effects will take care of themselves.

Or, if you want the really short version; it's about power, who has it and who doesn't. Everything else is details.

[vtsnowedin]

.....Jim Sillars interview on BBC'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WWtRmSJFLs

He pretty much wiped the floor with her.

I haven't seen her before so I don't know if she is solidly in the NO camp, but from my" across the pond" view it looked like she was asking the hard questions that people are considering and he was doing a good job of presenting the Yes case.
Was she trying to stick him on the horns of a dilemma or serving up softballs so he could hit them out of the park?

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29160255

An uncertain world

So, why then would the banks want to shift tax-residency to England? The overwhelming answer from them is that it provides more certainty.

For RBS, said Mr Stevens, "there are a number of material uncertainties arising from the Scottish referendum vote which could have a bearing on the bank's credit ratings, and the fiscal, monetary, legal and regulatory landscape to which it is subject".

RBS, and the other banks, need to have a "lender of last resort" to fall back on. That is, they need a central bank they can go to if they need bailing out.

For RBS and the others, that "lender of last resort" is the Bank of England, which also acts as a regulator.

In addition, uncertainty could cause credit ratings agencies to think it more likely that a bank would default on a debt, and to say that lending to that bank is more risky.

So there's the answer. The banks move their headquarters to gain the benefit of access to the Bank of England, and their corporation tax would accordingly be paid to the rUK instead of Scotland.

In other words, Alex Salmond was talking utter crap, again.