Beinn Ime and Beinn Narnain

The Cobbler from Narnain Boulders

Tuesday 23 April 2024

Ascent:      1365 metres
Distance:   18 kilometres
Time:         5 hours 29 minutes

Beinn Ime         1011m      2hrs 25mins
Beinn Narnain    926m.      3hrs 36mins

One of the very few clear and sunny days of the year was forecast and I needed some hills to climb. The perpetual rain over recent months has made it easy to find excuses to avoid outdoor exercise and I have never been a gym user. I needed something to test me but not too strenuous. I decided to climb the two Arrochar Munros - Beinn Ime and Beinn Narnain. My first visit to these hills was on my way to work on 5 May 1989, It was near the start of my first Munro round when I was running marathons so speed and stamina were not a problem. It took three and a half hours and I made a midday meeting in Glasgow with a Financial Times journalist writing a piece on Strathclyde Regional Council. He lived in the Lake District and was disappointed that he could not have joined me in the Arrochar Alps.

I checked my other outings on these hills but they all involved the Cobbler, Beinn Luibhean and/or Ben Vane so they provided no guide to the time taken. Walk Highlands said it was a 6 -7 hour walk but even in recent years I have managed to save an hour or so on these times. I figured that I should aim for 5 hours and pay for 5 hours of parking at the Succoth car park that charges £1 an hour. I thought it would stop any dawdling. I had decided to climb Beinn Narnain first but the path to Narnain was barely evident and seemed to climb erratically up the bed of a watercourse with heavy tree coverage. (more later) The good path from the car park was heading for the Bealach a' Mhaim between the Cobbler and Beinn Ime. It was well made with a steady gradient with a long series of switchbacks, so I decided to take this more used path.  

The skies were a cobalt blue and there was not a whiff of wind although it was still nippy as I started out.  A  dozen cars were already parked, these are the nearest Munros to Glasgow other than Ben Lomond so others were taking advantage of the day. Eventually, the path emerges from the plantations by the side of the Allt a'Bhalachan just below a mini hydro scheme. The path is perfect, crossing small burns and leading to the Narnain Boulders. They were a shelter for climbers during the great depression and probably witnessed some raucous nights. After a brief pause to examine the boulders, I continued to the bealach where another older walker was sitting comfortably on a large rock admiring the views. He had gone as far as he could and intended to relive his days on the hills by taking photos and chatting with the passing traffic.

The path from here undercuts Beinn Narnain and the young woman whom I had been slowly catching stopped to decide which hill to climb, she chose Beinn Narnain. I continued on the path to Beinn Ime which had been massively upgraded since my last visit. Although it was a 400-metre climb it was at a walkable gradient and apart from briefly stopping to talk to a young woman and then a couple of men, all walking on their own, I emerged to the impressive summit with excellent views in all directions although it was slightly hazier than it would have been an hour earlier. I had walked in a T-shirt and thin pullover and that was enough to sit and take a drink and some food in the late morning sunshine. Photos were taken before I set off on the descent passing another 5 people climbing Beinn Ime. 

I had read that the better path up Beinn Narnain was from near the bealach, an extra 500 metres along the path than the old and boggy path that took a more direct line. I took this and found a well-constructed staircase that eventually joined the old path about 150 metres below the summit. I then took a path to the west that was less direct and had some scrambling but gave excellent views down Loch Long. I was pleased to see a well-built trig point of local stone but aping the shape of the large concrete O.S.bollards. 

I had to decide which way to descend, down the direct route over the Spearhead, which is the recommended ascent route, or back to the bealach and down my ascent path. I chose the former thinking it would be quicker and aware that I had only paid for 5 hours parking. Never have I been so wrong. It is an exciting exit down the gulley below the Spearhead with some snow patches making it even more so. There is then a scrambling section before a flattish ridge to Cruach nam Miseag. 

Thereafter there are a couple of kilometres of a never-ending twisting and turning descent down rocky gulleys and slopes with occasional sections of steps. It never allows you to settle into a rhythm but the views of Ben Lomond and Loch Long are impressive. At the end of this section, I met a walker beginning his ascent, I felt sorry for him but wanting to be encouraging I told him it was a better route to ascend than come down and the views at the summit were perfect. He was the 7th man I had passed today, there had been 8 women, and all but three couples were walking alone,  it typifies the balance of people you meet on the hills nowadays. 

I was looking forward to the last kilometre which looked like a straight path on the map but it was a fight down a watercourse alongside boggy ground covered in intrusive tree cover, it proved the slowest kilometre of the day and the descent had taken almost 2 hours. I emerged near the main road absolutely wiped out. A grandmother was accompanying a young child on a bike and when she asked how the walk had been I said great apart from the descent which was amongst the worst I can remember.

Cobbler and Narnain Boulders

Beinn Ime from the bealach

Beinn Ime summit

Beinn Narnain and Cobbler from Beinn Ime

Beinn Luibhean and Beinn an Lochan from Beinn Ime

Beinn Narnain Trig point

Loch Long from Narnain

The Spearhead and scramble down

Ben Lomond, Arrochar and Loch Long

Today: a Tory wannabe self explodes

Mishal Hussain 

Mike Tomlinson 

I was travelling to Arrochar for some mountain exercise and, as on most days, I was listening to the Today programme. Over the fifty-plus years that I have listened to the programme, there have always been some pairings of presenters who bring the best out of each other and either keep the interviewee honest or provide the listener with evidence that the respondent is evasive, dishonest, patronising and probably not to be trusted. Today was probably the very best example of the latter type of interview.

Leaving aside Jack De Manio and his clock, they were never synchronised, the pairings that worked for me in the past were Brian Redhead and John Timpson, Peter Hobday and Sue MacGregor, and John Humphries and James Naughtie. Today, Mishal Hussain and Justin Webb are my favourite pairing. Nick Robinson and Amol Rojan are good but just a little too full of themselves to extract the best or worst out of their guests. 

Today we had the announcement that Parliament had finally managed to secure its Rwanda Agreement. Possibly the worst legislation apart from George Osborne's Austerity Measures, HS2 and Brexit since this government began its journey to oblivion. Needless to say, the PM and his senior ministers had all gone fly away so the Today Programme was left with Mike Tomlinson, a newby minister anxious to make a name for himself. Mishal Hussain had the dubious pleasure of skewering this immensely patronising, dishonest and evasive minister responsible for illegal immigration. 

She is always polite, well-prepared, incisive, articulate and calm but can disassemble folk like Tomlinson with her withering questions. Tomlinson fought back by feigning respectfulness and friendliness that became so obsequious that I was shouting at the car radio and hoping that Mishal would land a knock-out punch. No need, Mishal is cleverer than that she let him ramble and repeat and patronise her so much that all the listeners could form their own opinions. Job done.

This Time No Mistakes

Will Hutton's article in yesterday's Observer outlining his book on How to Remake Britain, which will be published in 10 days, exposes the catastrophic period of economic decline, austerity, growing inequality, and the cost of living crisis. He catalogues the mistakes made in post-war Britain with a relentless zeal. He also provides a chink of optimism for the future, this has always been an essential part of his character. 

"The level of our national debt has climbed alarmingly over the past quarter of a century, with no compensating increase in public assets..... Similarly, more than 20 years of imports of goods and services exceeding exports has meant our international debts have climbed by £1.5tn so that our balance sheet – positive for centuries as a result of empire and as a pioneer of the Industrial Revolution – is now dangerously negative. Fifty companies that could have been in the FTSE 100 were sold abroad between 1997 and 2017; we are running out of assets to sell. At the same time almost every metric on the economic and social dashboard – whether social mobility or the number of new companies launching on the London stock market – is flashing amber or red."

It is undoubtedly his most significant book since The State We're In, which was a precursor to the arrival of the Blair government in 1997. He has no compunction in pointing to Margaret Thatcher's government as the instigator of the collapse. Nor does he hold back from criticising the "rightwing nexus of libertarian tax-cutters and immigration-phobes, who put those aims above the rule of law and respect for human rights. They are unfit to govern."

"Rightwing ideological maxims, initiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and continued by her imitators, have led to a sequence of policy disasters – monetarism, wholesale financial deregulation, austerity and then Brexit. Far from launching a renaissance, Thatcher was the author of a pernicious decline. The doctrine is that the private “I” is morally superior to anything public, that the state’s “coercive” proclivities must be reined in to promote a “free” market, that regulation and taxation stifle enterprise, that unless ferociously means-tested and minimalist, welfare creates a huge underclass of undeserving “shirkers”, and that good public services follow from a successful economy rather than being integral to it." 

"In the 1980s, monetarism did not contain inflation as billed, but rather prompted mass unemployment, hollowed out much of our productive economy – manufacturing employment nearly halved in a decade – and eviscerated public investment. The areas so scarred by the experience would, 30 years later, vote for Brexit. Financial deregulation led to the fastest rise in private indebtedness in our history, propelling illusory economic growth buoyed not by investment and innovation but by a flood of credit. It could only end in tears."

He does not flinch from castigating Blair and Brown as lukewarm followers of fashion. Even Blair has admitted he was far too cautious in investing in public services during his first period of office. After all, Gordon Brown was his ever-so-prudent Chancellor who determined that fiscal stability meant there was no room for renationalisation of the yet-to-be fully privatised railways.

"Britain’s liberal left cannot absolve itself of blame. If Conservatism has over-emphasised the “I”, the left has not yet found an electorally attractive way of making the case for “We” – or, better still, blending it with the “I” to create a political philosophy and attractive policies that flow from it, that would appeal to the majority. My proposition is that the “We” should be built on fusing an ethic of socialism grounded in profound human attachment to fellowship, mutuality and co-operation with the ethic of progressive liberalism....,. Essentially, individuals and society are in a constant iterative relationship. Individuals shape society, society shapes individuals, and each and everyone has an obligation to make the social whole as strong as possible."

He argues that Keynes' economic revolution and Beveridge's welfare state illustrate how progressive liberalism allied with socialism can be a powerful elixir for positive change. This is How to Remake Britain.

"Progressive liberalism and an ethic of socialism are not incompatible value systems: they are complementary. Progressive liberalism leans into the individualism that propels capitalism while accepting social obligations; an ethic of socialism leans into the foundation of a social contract and infrastructure of justice that underpins the sinews of a good society."

His starting point is to raise public investment decisively and so “crowd in” private investment radically to lift productivity and real wages. He focuses on three musts:

• closing the disgraceful gap in productivity, infrastructure and economic performance between London and the regions; 
• a commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 given the alarming rise in global temperatures; and 
• lifting research and development spending dramatically. 

He argues that it will require public borrowing for such investment to rise by at least 1% of GDP, or between £25bn– £30bn, with fiscal rules not determined solely by accounting, goals. He believes that the financial markets will be reassured if they know that the government investment is strategic and thought through. 

"Shibboleths about taxation need to be put to one side. Taxation represents the “we”, and as long as the demands on all sections of society are reasonable – involving at present a greater contribution by the wealthy, whose assets in relation to GDP have doubled since 1980 – there is no evidence that tax receipts at today’s level or even marginally higher will damage growth."

The missing link in Hutton's argument is the need for a comprehensive recasting of the British Constitution. He does argue for stronger accountability with the House of Lords democratised and an enforcement of ethical standards. What he fails to advocate is a root and branch reform of our constitution and he is silent on the importance of localism.

In the halcyon days of the UK being in the vanguard of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, much of the need and motivation for radical change, innovation and delivery occurred at the local level. It was not a top-down series of Eureka moments from the government. It was tackling poverty, poor health, education and communications at the local level that nurtured the ideas, technology and collaboration between the municipalities, local entrepreneurs and inventive minds. This is what generated the revolutions in public health, transport, power supply, and manufacturing industries. There was a sharing of these inventions and ideas across and between localities. Government of the localities, by the localities, for the localities would ensure that 'This Time No Mistake' is not just another titular mantra destined for failure.

The evolution of new ideas seldom starts at the government level, they lack the detailed knowledge of problems or the experience to make things happen. It is the recognition and promotion of our regions, cities and councils' right to take back control of identifying needs and finding solutions that are the missing link in Hutton's analysis. If this is not recognised as we head towards the general election, even his optimism may lead to 'This Time More Mistakes' as the wannabe panjandrums and spads trade their WhatsApp messages with gay abandon.