I've started this in case anyone's interested in talking about the political side of this thread: [www.winterhighland.info
To me it seems clear that this kind of thing is the inevitable consequence of being in a union with a larger and politically hostile country. To me it is clear tories will only support something if there are votes in it for them.
In this case it looks to me like they've decided there are not many votes in it and are happy with the removal of high quality jobs from Scotland and the diminishment of the service. When inevitably someone dies in a marginal case because mountain rescue did not go because SAR wouldn't take them off the hill too, it'll be the Scottish government that has to deal with the bad press.
I suggested this would be unlikely to have happened if we had gone independent and some people thought we'd be even less capable. To further explain my position is based on the general premise: Scotland is a very resource rich developed nation. As an independent country this would enable it to borrow significantly, collateralising those loans against the returns that would come from investing in the exploitation of those resources. Hillwalking is central to Scottish outdoor living in a way it is not in England. This would make proper mountain rescue politically valuable to any party seeking to govern in a way that it is not in England.
But we are where we are, and I suppose my question to those who think the above is fanciful, is this: are you happy with incrementally worse helicopter rescue? If not how do you fix it in the union within say a decade? How would insurance work for example, how much would it likely cost to give us the kind of rescue service we all want?
If you are interested in having a talk about this please keep it respectful, I don't really want to re-fight indyref etc. I am just curious how we actually avoid deaths that will result from this situation.