For all my new Scottish fans out there

I am amazed at the strength of opinion evinced in the "Scottish racism" post below.

If you stick around you will see that, although I can be critical of my adoptive country, I can also be very positive. Those with chips on their shoulders and insecurity problems better go elsewhere, though, because I tell it as I see it. It's my opinion and if you don't like it - you can tell me!

So, into the deep end.

Sean Connery is an SNP supporter. He extols the beauty of the country and the quality of all things Scottish. From his home in the Bahamas.

The SNP are against PPPs and PFIs. I think this is a good thing.

Gretna Green is a tourist trap and a disgrace to Scottish heritage.

Discuss

10 comments:

an ex-apprentice said...

What do you mean "into the deep end".

You drop these provocative little gems, stand back and watch the fun. Killing yourself laughing.

Get involved WW, if you don't, why should we?

Conan the Librarian™ said...

HeeHee WW.

Perhaps Shir Sean doesn't want to pay too much tax to a BRITISH Government?

Anyway remember way back when when I jokingly referred to you as an ex(argh) RAF type?

There is a wee makover on my blog, if you don't like say so, and I'll take it off.

Jim Baxter said...

The words 'our oil' meaning 'Scotland's oil', used by a commenter in your earlier thread on this subject troubles me.

We could argue about why the Union of the Parliaments came about, whether we were bought with English gold or whether we couldn't survive without it after English inverstors destered a certain scheme for fear of offending Spain (there were a few folk in a pique in Darien, let's not forget). Whatever the reason, it was clear that, certaainly at that time Scotland, could not survive financially on her own.

I'm not joining in that argument. I would say only that without England 'our' oil would be Nazi oil, or Soviet oil, and if it had all been found off the coast of East Anglia there would not have been a strong movement in England to make sure none of the benefits went north of the border. Are we now, because of an accident of geology and geography going to decide that we can get a divorce because we think we can finally afford one?

In sickness and in health, for better or worse. It's a marriage. and it has been very benefical to each party.

Jim (the Weegie)

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Ex, I think I am involved as much as I should be right now. I really do want to know what other people think.

Conan, will visit your blog and make an abusive comment. Sir Sean, like many rich Scots, seem to prefer life somehwere else.

Jim, welcome. As for oil, it must be shared equally. It's bollocks to suggest it belongs to Scotland.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Very funny Conan. Unfortunately I still can't leave comments on your blog. I really don't know why, but it is not for want of trying.

JuanKerr.com said...

"As for oil, it must be shared equally. It's bollocks to suggest it belongs to Scotland."

Not entirely.By all jurisdictional right it is scotlands, it was there before britain came about, and ipso facto is Scottish and on Scottish terittory as defined by the united nations and common custom and age old treaties.

The only slight argument is thatcher enable the unreleaesing of capital to epxloit it. Not really tru, the Americans or some other country could have provided for a quarter of true cost to scotland.

since 1979 oil has been 250 billion to exchequer
whisky probs about 25 billion

financial service(92 billion 2 years ago!) = say 70 billion tax

other = 9 billion

We more than contribute.

JuanKerr.com said...

other sorry 9 billion a year

JuanKerr.com said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g8hg3

Wrinkled Weasel said...

An interesting point Juan.

Since I am a neo colonialist, and would have to argue that oil or any mineral must be the property of those who exploit it, not just those who just camp out beside it, then there has to be some kind of recognition that it is only a valuable commodity if someone can get it and use it. North Sea Oil was exploited by GBUK, not Scotland. So evidently it belongs to the union.

Am I right? I really cannot say for sure!

JuanKerr.com said...

I think it should be shared , if any sharing need happen , on the basis of Westminsters hystorical "Lending" pratices with Scotland. e.g. 10%. But as they have pumped out the best of it for the past 30 years, then they've had their go at the soda fountain.