Let's Talk About Squirrels

I stirred up some controversy by posting a photograph of a grey squirrel on a nature forum.  Suppose we lay aside the emotion and look at the facts.

All squirrels, correctly, have been described as "rats with good PR". I used to use that phrase when teaching PR, because it made students think about the difference between reality and presentation. Since the grey was introduced to the UK in 1870, it can hardly be classed as a recent immigrant. The present generation may be regarded as "invasive", but equally obviously, all its members were born here, as were their progenitors for a couple of dozen generations. We should perhaps consider that.

Greys do not directly harm red squirrels and are thus not in the same category as feral mink, unwisely released by people who mistakenly thought they were doing good. Among its several advantages, the grey is hardier and more efficient at storing fat through hard winters than the red, and is immune to the squirrel pox virus, which it may however carry.

But, like American Indians, the red squirrel can, over time, develop immunity to initially fatal imported diseases which decimated their numbers. (The date is not still 1870). The red will nevertheless not out-compete the grey, because it is simply less efficient in most habitats. It is however possible to take action to preserve reds in the areas where they remain dominant.

The Eternal Cycle

Sheffield (South Yorkshire) Council electrified their tramway system in 1899. After an enquiry, they decided to go straight from horse power to electric power. Electric trams were designed to be driven from either end, to avoid the need for turntables, and originally had open platforms at each end for passengers to board and alight.

Already, before the First World War, double-decker designs had replaced single, and after The Second War, the streamlined Roberts Tram, seen below on the left, was introduced, though the older models, such as the Standard, introduced in 1927, continued to run on the network because they had been built to last. Notice that the Roberts had folding doors, air-brakes, and upholstered seating for 62 passengers. I rode on both these designs in my youth.

Roberts Tram (left)

In 1951 the Council decided motor buses were the future, and they cost less than trams, although they didn't last nearly as long. The last Sheffield Tram (so everyone thought at the time) ran in 1960, and the one in the picture took part in the final parade. The tracks were dug up or covered over, and the overhead electrics taken down.

The moral of this story is that the Council of 1899 were more forward-thinking than the Council of 1951. By 1994 it was realised that the combustion engine was not the future of public transport, and what the city really needed was electric propulsion. Of course, you could just call the vehicles you needed trams. Nah. Bring on the Super-tram.

Only, if number 513 and her sisters had been just allowed to continue back in 1960, I wouldn't be surprised if she'd been still running today. In fact, I travelled on her myself when I visited Beamish open air museum, where I took this picture, although I gather she's now in a museum near Lowestoft.

 
And it would have saved the public purse a fortune.

And it would have been environmentally-friendly.

But, hey! Who knew, eh? Only a century to get back to Square One, give or take a few technical improvements. What odds am I offered on the return of the motor bus in the middle of this century? Running on environmentally-friendly fuel, of course. 

I think we should call the prototype The Hindenburg.

The Baby's Skin Colour

To save time, why don’t we compile a list of people who don’t think it’s perfectly normal to speculate about which of its parents a baby might resemble more?

Hesketh Pearson’s biography of George Bernard Shaw relates that a strange lady from Zurich once wrote to the playwright, suggesting that with her looks and his brain they should produce the most perfect child. Shaw is said to have replied that the risk would be of the child having his looks and her brain.

The same story is told about Anatole France and Isadora Duncan, Arthur Miller and Marilyn Monroe, and Albert Einstein and an unnamed chorus girl.

It is entirely within the bounds of possibility that all these stories are apocryphal, or perhaps cases of reporters inserting contemporary famous names into an old, anonymous piece of repartee.

Now, we should not let the mere fact that nobody ever said it get in the way of a good story, should we?

On the other hand, in the current case, perhaps we should let this non-story drop because it wouldn’t have been of the slightest significance even if somebody had said it.

What was the most significant influence on the outcome of the American Revolution?

The most significant, if inadvertent, aid received by the revolutionary Americans was supplied by Admiral Rodney’s lack of success at cards. 

If he’d been a better card player, he’d have had fewer debts. 

If he’d had fewer debts, he’d not have needed to spend so long plundering St Eustatius.

If he’d not been looking the other way so long at St Eustatius he’d have stationed Hood’s fleet to intercept de Grasse’s French fleet before they got to America, rather than after they were safely ensconced in Chesapeake Bay. 

And if de Grasse had been defeated in 1781 rather than 1782, Yorktown could not have been blockaded and Cornwallis would not have been forced to surrender. 

On such tiny matters does history so often hinge.

Lay and Lie

Ladies and gentlemen, 

On your left, a transitive verb (one that takes a direct object, as in "I'm going to lay my burden down," or "We laid a trap for him.") 

On your right, an intransitive verb (which does not take a direct object, as in "Please lie on the couch," or "At Flores in the Azores Sir Richard Grenville lay").

I have never understood what seems to me an exclusively US tendency to substitute the transitive for the intransitive, as in "Come and lay by my side". I always find myself asking, "Come and lay what by my side? An egg?"

On the subject of overwhelming evidence

 

I am resolutely unpersuaded by any argument that includes “all the experts say x.” A little research invariably unearths experts who don’t say x, or even deny x, while anyone who knows the pressure academics are now under to conform to modern orthodoxy or risk losing their reputations / jobs has already learned to discount the agreement of all but the leading lights in support of any cause.

My point is not that the cause itself is necessarily wrong, just that the “all experts” argument has been so inexpertly over-used as to invite dissent from anyone with an inquiring mind.

Do British people know that the Irish people living in Boston support a United Ireland completely free of British rule? (Quora)

I should not be surprised to find a few Irish people living in Boston, Lincolnshire, since there are Irish people living happily all over the UK. So long as their opinions do not involve harming other people, what they think about the desirability of a united Ireland is their own business. Like everyone else in the UK, they are free to choose any peaceful political point of view.

The same applies to Irish people living in Ireland. If and when the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Irish Republic both desire a united Ireland, and each group expresses that desire in a referendum, then a united Ireland will come about. This has been guaranteed in law.

Northern Ireland is no more under British rule than Yorkshire is under British rule. Neither are colonies. Both are part of the UK, and both elect representatives directly to the UK parliament on the same basis as anywhere else in the country. The UK government is made up of members of parliament.

I should be quite surprised to find there are more than a few Irish people living in Boston, USA. By US law, people born in the USA are US citizens. The person currently occupying the White House erroneously believes himself to be Irish. If he were Irish, he could not be President of the United States. Being descended from nineteenth century Irish immigrants does not make you Irish, any more than being descended from Vikings makes me Danish.

The opinions of US citizens on what should happen in either part of Ireland are of no great importance, since they are not Irish voters. The people who live in Ireland are the voices that matter.

Quite often, the way US views are expressed suggest they still view Irish affairs through the prism of nineteenth century politics handed down from immigrants. History did not stop when their ancestors left Ireland. The problems they may think they are helping to solve were actually solved years ago, and no sane person wishes to be dragged back to the bad old days. Ireland has moved on, and they should move on with it.

I am quite sure that if US citizens wanted to come and live, work and invest in Ireland, the people there would make them welcome. Failing that desire, however, they should not seek to impose their views on those who do live there.