| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| mac |
Edinburgh trams - The Darien scheme all over again...Whatever anyone says about us, we are consistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme |
||||||
| Dave Coull |
The Darien scheme was a venture which failed, but there was nothing inevitable about that failure. The link provided above takes you to a website which says the Darien scheme was "an ambitious plan devised by William Paterson to establish a colony on the Isthmus of Panama in the hope of establishing trade with the Far East — the same principle which, much later, would lead to the construction of the Panama Canal".
William Paterson was a pirate, okay, a "privateer", and he had visited Darien before, on board a ship involved in attacking Spanish shipping. He was well aware of what the area was like. He knew there would be problems with the Spanish, but he also knew that the native-american inhabitants of Darien would be only too pleased to side with the Scots (as indeed they did). He was also very well aware of the potentially huge rewards from establishing settlements on BOTH sides of that very narrow isthmus, and using that route to trade with the Far East. The scheme failed because of active hostility from King William of Orange and his pals in the City of London. King Billy's reason for opposing the scheme was at least partly financial - he was a major investor in the rival East India Company. The king made it clear to the Amsterdam and Hamburg stock exchanges, as well as the London one, that anybody who invested in the plan would never get a contract of any kind from either the English government or the Dutch government. The English colonies in the West Indies were threatened with what would happen to them if they TRADED with the Darien settlers, and there was even a case where an English ship fired on and attacked a ship belonging to the Company of Scotland. Potentially, the Darien scheme could have made economic sense, but Paterson failed to allow for the extreme political hostility of King Billy and the English government. Both King Billy and his friends in the City of London were well aware that William Paterson's scheme was far from crazy. When it failed, Paterson shrugged his shoulders, and decided "if you can't beat them, join them". The next venture he went on to found, after the Darien Scheme, is still with us to this day. It's called the Bank of England. |
||||||
| voiceofourown |
Oh, it's the UK parties who insisted the trams project went ahead.
As an addendum to Dave's post, it's worth remembering the context of the Darien scheme. After the union of the crowns (effectively when Scotland lost her independence) there were years of economic hardship largely due to the loss of trading privileges with France and Holland . On top of this came a period of very poor harvests from 1695-99. Scotland was in greatly reduced circumstances and was desperate. It should also be noted that, originally, 50% of the Company of Scotland was available for English investors and within a short time that portion was oversubscribed. So, at the time, it must have seemed a very attractive proposition to more than the Scots. Ultimately, royal displeasure was made known ( stake holders in the East India Co had exerted pressure) and all English investment was withdrawn. Remember, the king was supposed to be representing Scottish, as well as English, interests. That was patently not the case and, to make matters worse, there was a diplomatic effort to discourage continental investment. In Scotland, there was a huge response to the perceived obstructiveness of King William and the English parliament and all the necessary investment was raised in Scotland alone. It became a huge gamble and something of the order of half of the personal funds of the Scottish people was invested. The hostility of the English meant that the original conception of the Company's trade had to be altered and the ultimately tragic decision to set up a colony at Darien was made. Even then, despite inadequate planning and poor management, it may have succeeded. Spanish attacks (believed to have been encouraged by English diplomats) and the hostility of the English parliament and OUR king, finally guaranteed dismal failure. |
||||||
| mac |
Thank you DC, & VOOO for enlightening me - I was clearly wrong in lumping them together in that simplistic way, but I'm sure you can agree that the cost overruns of both are staggering.
Darien - a Scottish project which failed because England did not support it. Trams - a Scottish project forced upon us by the Unionista's. I'll admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it looks like deja vu all over again 
|
||||||
| Dave Coull |
William Paterson, from Dumfries, a onetime "privateer", came up with the idea of founding a colony which would be a haven of Free Trade for merchants of all lands. He envisaged this colony, on the isthmus of Panama, as the “door of the Seas". He believed that whoever controlled it could become “the arbitrator of the Commercial world”. Paterson knew Panama was the gateway to the Pacific and to trade with the East Indies, China, and Japan. Although it would be centuries before the technology to build the Panama Canal existed, even without that, the Isthmus could be an important trade route. In 1849, when gold was discovered in California, the route taken by most of miner/49ers involved in the Gold Rush was to sail to Panama, cross that narrow Isthmus as best they could, then catch another boat heading for California. That was a lot easier than trying to cross the North American continent by land.
Investors on all of the major stock exchanges of the world - London, Amsterdam, and Hamburg - were told that nobody who invested in the Company of Scotland would ever be considered for any kind of contract by either the English government or the Dutch government. The governors of the English colonies in the West Indies were warned that, if they allowed anybody in the West Indies to trade with the Darien colonists - not "help" them, note, but TRADE with them, at normal, commercial rates - then they would be sacked, and quite possibly jailed. And there was at least one case where a ship of the Company of Scotland was attacked by an English ship, and all of its crew murdered. So no, the Darien Scheme did NOT fail because "England did not support it". It failed because King Billy and his pals used every means short of an outright declaration of war to destroy the venture. But note what happened NEXT . William Paterson, the architect of the Darien Scheme, went to London. He said to investors on the London stock exchange "Hey, I've got a great idea for a new venture! Your money will be safe as houses if you invest with me!" If they had thought Paterson was a con-man, or a starry-eyed dreamer, they wouldn't have given him the time of day. But they didn't think that, so they gave him their money. William Paterson, Founder of the Bank of England. |
||||||
| Dave Coull |
Re: Edinburgh trams - The Darien scheme all over again...
|
||||||
| mac |
Dave, thank you for pointing that out, but they were/are massive schemes for Scotland to show itself off, and capture some respect - to me, it looks like we Edinburgh Scots are shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak - one was a failure for the whole of Scotland, and now one for Scotland's capital, that's what it looks like from a distance
|
||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||
| The Lithgae Jambo |
A little bit of tram-related satire.....
http://www.scotsgait.co.uk/index....nc=view&catid=34&id=17129 |
||||||
| Aventinian |
So, when Scotland is independent, they're supposed to look out for their interests and nobody else's... and oddly enough England is also expected to look out for Scotland's interests and nobody else's? How very odd. |
||||||
| mac |
Thanks for sharing this info, Dave, although it still doesn't make me feel any better about those damn trams!
|
||||||
| mac |
Av, my apologies for any confusion, I was lazy when I said "England" - it was quicker and easier to say "England" than to say "The UK government, located in England's capital and controlled by and primarily for English natives", that's what I should have said. I expect the UK govt to continue looking after the interests of Scotland, as it has for the past few hundred years, unless/until Scotland votes for independence. |
||||||
| William_Cleland |
I've never fully understood why they couldn't just reinstate the old suburban rail network out to Leith and Granton and start up passenger services on the South Suburban line again at a fraction of the cost and disruption. Anyone got a rational explanation that doesn't revolve around tribalism about "Unionists" because I don't remember that being advocated by the SNP? Does Dr Beeching maybe have a lot to answer for where axeing the old Princes Street terminal is concerned? Maybe lack of capacity at Waverley is the key issue? | ||||||
| Luke P |
What's wrong with the tram scheme? Sounds like a great idea. All the provinces have been moaning that London gets all the investment and they never do.
Is it being cancelled? |
||||||
| Alasdair |
Sadly it's too late for that. |
||||||
| William_Cleland |
OK after doing a bit of googling it appears to me that Edinburgh lost its tram system and the bulk of its commuter rail lines in the 50s and 60s and moved over to buses as being the way to provide public transport. Not a problem initially but as car ownership has increased road congestion has become a serious issue. Thanks to Dr Beeching getting rid of the old Princes Street terminal, Waverley station is now at close to full capacity and the tunnels in and out represent a serious bottle neck to additional rail traffic so megamillions have had to be spent to make light rail possible along Princes Street so that additional commuter rail lines can be developed in the coming decades.
The SNP have opportunistically seen this as a good way to gain support on a populist basis because voters in the Edinburgh area rejected congestion charges in a local referendum and resent the cost of the up front investment to get a light rail system up and running but have not offered any alternative solutions that relieve future traffic congestion. Can anyone point out any flaw in this line of argument or is tribal posturing about "Unionists" supposed to be all that needs to be said to end any argument around here? |
||||||
| Alasdair |
I think they pointed out at the time that for the cost of the tram system every edinburgh bus could be upgraded to electric AND could be run for free to users for around 7 years ...
... much has been made of the SNP's 'vanity' project, yet the trams are exactly that with opposition MSP's saying pointless things like "but that city over there's got trams, we need to have trams too". I wrote about it at the time but sadly I recently deleted ll my old blog posts so don't have sources for the above
|
||||||
| mac |
Alisdair, I also suggested a trial run of free buses for a month or so, so that Edinburgh natives could compare that with disruption and costs of the proposed tram line.
Although I'm still against the tram scheme, I think that so much has been spent on it we're now stuck with this white elephant.
|
||||||
| William_Cleland |
Free electric buses for 7 years would do nothing to relieve traffic congestion in a city with a growing population in the long-term. Sounds like shallow populism to me. When even the Tories are in support of a massive infrastructure project like this it probably isn't a "vanity project". Hopefully the powers that be have the sense to eventually introduce tram-trains so the tram line can be fully integrated with the rail network for suburban services in and around Edinburgh. | ||||||
| Holebender |
I admit I know nothing about the actual routing of the tram so this may be a daft question. If the tram runs along an existing street, how does that relieve congestion any more than setting up a bus lane would? I know that, if the public transport is convenient and attractive enough, people will use it in preference to driving and thus reduce the amount of traffic on the road, but how is that any different from an equally convenient bus in a bus lane?
If, on the other hand, the tram runs on a newly constructed dedicated right of way, why couldn't that same route be used as a dedicated bus route? Admittedly the cost of construction wouldn't be much different for either option in this case. |
||||||
| William_Cleland |
I think trams (we are really talking light rail here) have significantly greater capacity than buses and this line is envisaged as the key artery for additional branch lines (such as the proposed lines to Granton, Newbridge and Newcraighall) that will be added later over the coming decades. | ||||||
| Holebender |
My only personal experience of a light rail system is the one in Calgary, Canada. In that case dedicated routes, not along existing streets, are used. The only exception is the downtown hub, which was built on an existing street in the city centre which had been closed to all other traffic. | ||||||
| mac |
Trams - the new Edinburgh's Folly?The original will overlook the new folly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Monument,_Edinburgh It's interesting that the original was never completed "for reasons of either cost or lack of local enthusiasm. A proposal in 2004 [1] was met with a very mixed reception." Honestly, are there people who think the Tram project is a good idea? Please persuade me.
|
||||||
| Stevie |
I've got rather a soft spot for trams. | ||||||
| mac |
Stevie, so do I, but not at a cost of 1 billion or so for one line to go from the foot of leith walk to the zoo!
Honestly, I think folk will be so disgusted by the whole thing they'll refuse to use it as a point of principle, and use their bus pass instead - who will be prepared to pay the $5 quid round trip fare anyway? As an ex-pat, I use camvista a lot http://www.camvista.com/scotland/edinburgh/citycentre.php and it looks really bad
|
||||||
| cullen-skink |
It's not from the Foot of the Walk to the zoo: it's from Victoria Quay to the airport. $5 is not very likely to be the fare, is it? And it's going to be LRT run, so anyone who holds a "bus pass" will be able to use the tram anyway. | ||||||
| mac |
OK, C-S, fair point, I don't have a pound sign on my keyboard so said "$5 quid", please ignore/remove the dollar sign, I wanted to say "5 quid". So the tram (not "Trams" as it's only one line) will be free to all bus pass holders? Should have just made all the buses free in the first place, to save the expense and disruption. 
|
||||||
| cullen-skink |
Well, It's one line to begin with (as any tram or rail system is). Once the core line, Airport to Vic Quay, is in place then it becomes progressively easier to extend and add further branch lines to it.
Of course there is disruption and expense involved: that goes for any major infrastructure project, but that's hardly a reason not to proceed. If you had been around Princes Street / Shandwick Place / Leith Walk even before the work began, you would have seen the common sight of half a dozen or more buses, nose to tail, fighting with other road traffic and pedestrians, being held up at traffic lights etc. Another point to consider is that almost all of Edinburgh City Centre is a designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). As such, there is a legal requirement on the council to pursue means to reduce air pollution there, which is what electric trams will do and what even the most modern diesel engined buses, constantly accelerating and then stopping 50 metres further on, never will. |
||||||
| William_Cleland |
The importance of Leith Walk and Princes Street as the main artery should be obvious after checking out Lothian Buses' route map:-
http://lothianbuses.com/routemap.php |
||||||
| mac |
Just to let you know where I'm at/coming from, was transferred from Edinburgh to London for 12 months before getting another transfer over here, had heard a lot about the Tube, and have to say, for a system over 100 years old, it's a world-beater, covers a large area, trains only a few minutes apart, easy to read station maps. I'll bet that when that first started there was a lot of opposition, but look at it now - I still don't think the Tram or Trams will ever compete with the existing mothballed train stations in my lifetime, and I continue to feel that we (meaning we Edinburghers) will be paying for this white elephant/vanity project for a long time - please prove me wrong LRT,TIE, or whoever.
I honestly hope my gut feeling is incorrect on this one.
The ironic thing is, when I first got to Orlando, there was a big vote about using approved federal govt money for a light rail project which I was for, which was defeated by one vote - that project has been resurrected and I think they're now going ahead. 
I am actually in favor of mass transit projects. |
||||||
| William_Cleland |
What mothballed train stations? Do you mean the old stations on the south sub freight line? You have studiously ignored my point about tunnel capacity at Waverley and the use of the trackbed into the old Princes Street terminal for the Western Approach Road but there are legitimate reasons why the old suburban rail services in Edinburgh can't easily be re-introduced in the present day thanks to the actions of Dr. Beeching in the 60s. The best hope for reintroducing passenger service onto the south sub line will probably be a train-tram operation that would run along Princes Street after reaching Haymarket. The only missing piece to the puzzle on that would be how to get back onto the conventional heavy rail system after Princes Street but most of the infrastructure required will be in place once the new tram line is operational. Worth noting also that the trackbed of the old suburban rail line out to Granton was going to be used for a branch line to the new tram system until the SNP axed that phase of the project. |
||||||
| mac |
Fair enough, WC - yes I meant that old line which can't easily be re-introduced, but, surprisingly, we're easily introducing a more costly new tram line
|
||||||
| William_Cleland |
The south sub line was built for freight with passenger service added as an afterthought. It is not like the Cathcart Circle in Glasgow, which was designed to cater primarily to passenger service from the southside of Glasgow into the city centre along a north south axis. The ideal route for the south sub from a passenger service standpoint would have been to run up the western side of Arthur's Seat rather than around the eastern side all the way out to Brunstane station. One of the later phases of the tram system will address that issue if it is ever implemented:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edin...Line_3_.28South_East_Edinburgh.29 |
||||||
| mac |
Once again, WC, fair point
|
||||||
| Luke P |
I think this quote sums it up:
"Basically the rule of thumb goes, if its a public project (read taxpayers money), charge us fuckers through the roof. Stagger the process as long as possible with expensive delays, enquiries and a whole lotta lawyers. Then send ur invoice." Taken from here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=126634 |
||||||
| mac |
LP, sadly I think this may be nearer the truth. 
|
||||||