al78 wrote:I've done that cycle event, and the vast majority seemed to be in support of the participants, so the criminal actions of an individual extremist bear no resemblance to the general feeling of the population.
Of course, just as I was saying - generalisations are unhelpful. All populations have a few bad 'uns mixed in amongst quite a lot of good 'uns.
SunsetTripper wrote:Yes I guess it does come across like that a bit but not really what was intended as I'm sure you know.
But in my defence, there is a reason why Scotland and the highlands in particular have tremendous access rights and less parking profiteering
You just have to work out why that is.
Have you got an opinion on that and why it is slowly changing for the worse?
Space and low population density.
Low density populations tend to mean people know more of their community. That means good deed/generosity is likely to have social profit to balance any fiscal loss. Bad deed/greed is likely to have social loss to counterbalance any fiscal gain.
High density population is anonymising, people don't know who you are, often even if you live <100m away. That means good deed/generosity is unlikely to have social profit to balance fiscal loss. Bad deed/greed is unlikely to have social loss to counterbalance fiscal gain.
It'll change as population density rises.
Highlanders and Islanders are just people, benefitting from lower population density. No better than other human beings in different places, just following a different profit/loss metric.