Usenet Postings from Axel 1
Merkins on soc.culture.scottish!!!!!
We love em, we hate em. Should they be aloud (sic)?
The USA is hoaching with people of Scots origins - we are told. Most -
IMO who have contributed to these boards have made good contributions,
some quite excellent, others, mainly those who have less of an
understanding of modern Scotland and its people are turned off by
differences between the myth and the reality.
Even before the invasion of Iraq, which has added more than a few miles
to the width of the Atlantic, there was a growing gulf developing
between the overseas raised expatriot Scots and the people living in
Scotland.
Excellent piping can be heard in the USA and some of the Highland games
have attendances of tens of thousands. Despite the popularity of things
Scottish, there is in my experience even less evidence of the survival
of the ethos among the American Scots enthusiasts, but then there is not
much alive in today's Scotland either. "A man's a man for a' that" does
not apply to 'Tims', 'Huns' or Asylum Seekers with far too many of the
Scots I am acquainted with.
I suggest that instead of stooping to unimaginative Merkin-bashing we
to attempt to inform the visitor, get him over his culture shock and
try to engage him in serious discussion.
Some of the problem is due to the land-owning Clan "Chiefs", who to
this day encourage a farcical 'Brigadoonery'. It must bring in tourist
Yen, Euros and Dollars. Braveheart did bring on board lots of wannabee
Jocks but they have in the main migrated of to other pursuits.
I an told that many Afro-Americans have significant Scots genetic
make-up, young Scots lads shipped out to Virginia and the Carolinas
were encouraged by the plantation owners to breed with the Africans.
Back to the topic, an Indian friend suggests new ethnic
communities/cultures tend to diverge, the homeland peoples change more
rapidly than the overseas communities, certainly this is the case of my
friend's family and friends, he complains that his India based
relations are less rigid and conservative than the ones who came over
to the UK. Perhaps that is also the situation with the Merkins.
The right approach is not to make the poor fellow defensive but to
gradually intruduce him to the reality of Scotland and the Scots, a bit
more deep fried Mars bars and less shortbread and haggis (unless it is
deep fried) -- Axel
Fri 29 Dec 2006
Groups: soc.culture.scottish
<<0>>
4 Feb 2007
Subject: Re: The scientific climate
On 3 Feb, Diedre Douglas
wrote:
- Show quoted text -
> The Wall Street Journal
> April 12, 2006
> Climate of Fear
> By RICHARD LINDZEN
> There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane
> activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Every-
> thing from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has
> been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal
> and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how
> can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global
> mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public
> acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And
> how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
> The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of
> climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle
> of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are
> hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the
> political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science
> research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After
> all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or
> climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success
> of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending
> on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to
> $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar,
> wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on
> other energy-investment decisions.
> But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists
> who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear,
> their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges,
> scientific
> hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence
> even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their
> basis.
> To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science
> and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex
> underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is
> agreement.
> The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three
> claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen
> about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmo-
> sphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2
> should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However,
> what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute sup-
> port for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount
> of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most out-
> landish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the
> very science they say supports them.
> It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we
> know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that
> couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly
> policies
> to try to prevent global warming.
> If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature
> differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less
> difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical
> storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion.
> Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical
> storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer
> world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more
> energy for disturbances.
> The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropi-
> cal storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and
> calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures
> are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case
> for more storminess with global warming.
> So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this
> junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not
> merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep.
> Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some
> of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis
> that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the
> warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based
> on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means
> to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his
> work could be replicated and tested -- a task made difficult because
> Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for
> analysis.
> The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless,
> immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences
> --
> as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geo-
> physical Union -- formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling
> out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation. All of which starkly
> contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists
> were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two con-
> gressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting
> scientists,
> including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate
> alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore,
> as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit
> anti-alarmist scientists -- a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly
> inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books
> by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr.
> Gore
> as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
> Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk
> Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch
> Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of
> global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World
> Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the
> IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism.
> Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza
> disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research
> funding for raising questions.
> And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific
> journals
> for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted
> climate
> wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without
> review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are pub-
> lished, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted
> to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered
> what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds
> contracted
> with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feed-
> back sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2.
> Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal
> to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case
> (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming
> errors in
> our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay
> permitted
> our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is
> a
> strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In
> 2003,
> when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority
> for
> improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Coun-
> cil instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming -- not
> whether it would actually happen.
> Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential
> to
> maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up
> against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate
> scientists,
> advocates and policymakers.
> Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Almost a year has passed since Professor Lindzen wrote the article and
there have been changes in the attitude (climate?), particularly in
the USA towards the validity of the arguments for Global Warming.
Alarmism is not new in the scientific world and neither is defending
one's little piece of turf - especially when it is shrinking. Ms
Douglas is right to bring up the fact that some heavyweight scientists
still have belief in the value of what the overwhelming majority have
dismissed.
I am old enough to have seen several excellent people become
discredited by being 'forced in to a corner' and characterised as old
reactionaries. I think that this process is damaging to science and is
clearly damaging to the individual. Such behaviour can also slow down
scientific progress, there are truths in what the old geezers say,
Lindzen obviously can still contribute to climate science.
These people need to be encouraged and kept in the mainstream and only
if and when they become seriously dotty put out to graze.
Axel
<<0>>
Mon 14 Aug 2006 22:52
Subject: Dr Reid - Contemptible - Disclaimer
We seem to be seeing this shamefully poor example of an opportunistic
Scottish politico on the Box on every BBC news bulletin. Is he after
Tony's job?
The Home Secretary Dr Reid has revealed himself a real scumbag. I would
emphasise that very few Scots are anything like the doctor.
His portrayal of the letter written by British Moslems as being an
attempt to 'Use Terrorism to influence British foreign policy' shows
him to be yet another nasty little sh*t. Why are so many of our
politicians willing to use dishonesty of a type that most of us outgrew
we were ten year old. Is he too trying to angle for a job with Rupert
when he retires?
I think the Moslems are well within their rights to attempt to explain
to the woefully ignorant neoLabour idiots just how dangerous and
unbelievably stupid it is follow the current American and Israeli
agenda. Perhaps what they should have said was 'NOT having a Foreign
Policy was a cause of some of the concerns among British Moslems (and
many non-Moslems too).
Really very few Scots would sink to his level.
Axe
<<0>>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Fri 28 Jul 2006
Subject: IRAN - Play fair please
Iran is totally without scruple and principle.
How can you have a half decent Nukular stand off if one of the parties
has a Fatwa against WMD - Just typical!!!
Axel
<<0>>
5 Mar 2006
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Iran and Nuclear Technology
Iran and Nuclear Technology
The technology is expensive and the energy too. Nuclear electricity is
more than two times as expensive as electricity generated from fossil
fuels (quote from one of the leading UK designer of nuclear reactors).
Iran is going to run out of oil someday soon. Iran needs alternatives
to oil, the nuclear option makes sense to some, however Iran with its
vast oil revenues could be investing in fusion technology. Existing
fission technology is very crude and clumsy, who is to say that when
the Iranian nuclear industry becomes mature that there will not be
cleaner and more environmentally friendly technology is available. It
seems to me that an enormous investment in gas centrifuges with the aim
of going down the same path as everyone else is wasteful and Iran with
its many talented young scientists and engineers could come up with new
and original technologies. The other thing that is very worrying is
that progressing in the current direction could bring very negative
consequences from the US and Europe.
Solar wind and geothermal are other options and with the extremely low
cloud cover and high insolation there is an opportunity to build solar
thermal and solar voltaic plants that would soon become economically
viable - look at the graphs of fossil and solar energy cost versus
time.
At the moment there is no low cost way of neutralizing radioactive
material and the nuclear industry does not factor in the cost of
storage and disposal of the materials for more than a miniscule
fraction of the life-cycle. Iran could have problems of disposal
especially when much of the country is earthquake prone.
Go Solar!
Axel
<<0>>
Tues 10 Jan 2006
Subject: Re: why Lembit Opik *will* be the next Liberal PM
Hognoxious wrote:
> "Acute Angima" <Moby.b...@madasacoot.com> wrote in message
> > <GriffimNick.n...@metpolice.gov.ussr> wrote in message
> >> Lembit Opik has
> >> style,
> >> elan,
> >> intelligence,
> >> wit,
> >> a strong track record,
> > Lightweight.
> Silly name, pointy face.
> Did I mention the silly name?
all theese uper class old estonians are inbreeded -- Axel
<<0>>
9 Jan 2006
Subject: Impeaching Blair!!!
General Sir Michael Rose has raised the subject again. Some may
remember that he accurately predicted the rise of an insurgency and a
military failure in Iraq well before the Blair/Bush folly.
What the Guardian had to say about his comments:-
------------------------
Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war, according to one of
Britain's
most senior former soldiers.
General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia, accused
the prime
minister of taking the country to war on what turned out to be "false
grounds",
saying it is something "no one should be allowed to walk away from".
Despite publicly insisting that his aim was to rid Iraq of weapons of
mass
destruction, Mr Blair "probably had some other strategy in mind", said
Gen Rose.
He makes the call for Mr Blair's impeachment in a documentary by the
former BBC
correspondent and former independent MP Martin Bell.
Gen Rose told Bell he would have resigned his commission rather than
take troops
to war on the flimsy basis offered by Mr Blair.
And he said: "The politicians should be held to account, and my own
view is that
Blair should be impeached.
"That would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the
subject of
taking a country into war."
He added to that criticism on the Today programme, saying: "Certainly
from a
soldier's perspective there can't be any more serious decision taken by
a prime
minister than declaring war.
"And then to go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is
something that
no one should be allowed to walk away from."
The general described Mr Blair's actions in the run-up to war as
"somewhere in
between" getting the politics wrong and actually acting illegally.
"The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims
were, as
far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass
destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind,"
he said.
"And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous
both for
the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider
interests in the
war against global terror."
Gen Rose is one of a number of retired soldiers taking part in a
documentary by
the former war correspondent Bell, entitled Iraq: The Failure Of War.
In his documentary, Bell denounces the war as an "ill-considered
adventure" and
suggests it may prove more damaging to those who launched it even than
America's
involvement in Vietnam.
Bell wrote yesterday: "In March it will be three years since the
invasion, yet
Iraq remains in the unshakeable grip of sectarian violence and may be
on the
brink of civil war.
"In just two bloody days last week, more than 170 people were butchered
by
insurgents.
"We have entered a tunnel with no light at the end of it. The mission
has not
been accomplished.
"Instead we face the prospect of war without end. Even Vietnam offered
a less
disastrous outcome."
There has already been an attempt by MPs, led by Plaid Cymru's Adam
Price, to
impeach Mr Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain
to war
against Iraq. The campaign had backing from Tory MPs such as Boris
Johnson, as
well as Lib Dem, Plaid and SNP members.
Gen Rose accepted parliament had endorsed the decision to commit
British troops
to military action, but he said that was because the PM had stressed
the
argument that dictator Saddam Hussein must be stripped of the power to
deploy
weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons of mass destruction (WMD) argument used to persuade MPs
that war was
justified had turned out to be wholly wrong, he told Today.
The intelligence relied upon by Mr Blair should have been tested
properly by
giving UN weapons inspectors more time to see if Saddam did have WMD.
Gen Rose said he would not have been prepared to lead the army into a
war that
he believed was wrong and on such weak grounds.
"You cannot put people in harm's way if you don't believe the cause is
right or
sufficient," he said. Senior soldiers should point out strategic
failures, he
went on.
He said most people thought the continuing presence of troops in Iraq
was
achieving little, but he said it would be wrong to just walk away.
Responding to Gen Rose's accusation at this morning's lobby briefing,
Mr Blair's
official spokesman said: "General Rose is entitled to his view.
Equally, the
government is entitled to point out that we have had free democratic
elections
in Iraq for the first time in well over a generation.
"In the last of these elections, 69% of the population of Iraq
expressed their
view.
"In terms of the reasons why we went to war, that has been investigated
by four
inquiries, including two select committees of the Houses of Parliament.
"The matter has been gone well over and in terms of the outcome - which
is what
matters - of course there have been difficulties, but we have in
process the
creation of a democratically elected government in Iraq and that speaks
for
itself."
· Iraq: The Failure of War can be seen on Channel 4 at 7.30pm on
Friday.
Axel
<<0>>
Mon 5 Dec
Subject: Britain - losing our democracy?
Iran's system of government is not exactly a shining example of a
democratic organisation but it does seem in some ways to have bettered
ours. Tony and his crew have effective control of the judiciary - he
appoints his ex-flatmate to Attorney General and his college lecturers
to Lord Chancellor. In the Iranian model the president has less direct
control over their judiciary. Incidentally the Iranian parliament has
had more success in thwarting the president from appointing unqualified
cronies than M Bush; three attempts to get a mate in as energy
minister.
Contrast the state of affairs in England of two hundred plus years ago
when the barrister Erskine fought and gained ascendancy of the rule of
law. He achieved this by defeating the then Prime Minister Pitt over
treason charges brought against people who were demanding many of the
rights we all take for granted. Erskine achieved much more than he is
generally credited with, considerably more than just the right of
dissent.
It seems to me that we are gradually losing much of what has been
fought for on our behalf. While we sleep our rights are being slowly
eroded. The two worst offenders; Tony Blair and Michael Howard are both
Lawyers hmmmm.
Iran's govenmental system:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/...
The trend in Iran and most of the countries in the world is towards the
establishment of the rule of law and a fair system of participative
government, however we seem to be heading in the opposite direction.
Axel
///////////////
Axel
<<0>>
19 Sep 2005
Subject: The Exotic Dancer
Billy was at school one morning and the teacher asked
the children what their fathers did for a living.
All the typical answers came out, Fireman, Policeman, Salesman, Chippy,
Captain of Industry etc, but Billy was being uncharacteristically
quiet, so the teacher asked him about his father.
"My father is an exotic dancer in a gay club and takes off all his
clothes in front of other men. Sometimes if the offer is really good,
he'll go out with a man, rent a cheap motel room and let him sleep with
him."
The teacher quickly set the other children some work and took little
Billy aside to ask him if that was really true.
"No" said Billy, "He plays football for England but I was just too
embarrassed to say."
Axel
<<0>>
24 Jul 2005
, uk.politics.misc, soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: New British Invention Scary
Scary --
Each reactor produces more than a pound of real nasties every single
day.
Like the Farmer I am a technologist and I think that Nuclear Fire is
"Fire from the Gods" and we stupid little humans have not an inkling of
the nature of what we are playing with. If only the pro nuclear power
peeps could do basic sums and had a little knowledge of transmutation
they would quickly change their minds about using Nuclear fission
technology as it is for power generation.
Nuclear technology is fascinating and has attracted some amazing brains
and is a possible future technology that if not interfered with by
politicians can eventually bring benefits to mankind. Mrs Thatcher
killed off breeder reactor technology and fusion research which was
instuctive and pushes human knowledge further - philistines and
luddites are always among us.
IMHO we will never be mature enough to "handle" nuclear fission as a
means of power generation, at least looking at how terrorism is being
dealt with by our wonderful leaders. I despair of the letting these
people own nuclear tech.
Using oil to generate energy is a crime but the proposed approach
to"nukular" knowhoology as dubya would put it is grand folly.
Solar voltaics is not too impressive at times but we could have saved a
lot of oil if we had invested properly in photovoltaic research earlier
and not squandered so much on nuclear fission plant.
Axel
<<0>>
24 Jul 2005 14:02
Subject: Blair - Terror - hiding in Chequers?
We do not expect to solve the problem of terrorism on Usenet, however
almost all of what I am reading on those boards is just more of the
same kind of thinking, in fact the very thinking that got us in this
mess in the first place!
In addition to combating the terrorists themselves we have to stop
fuelling the problems. Despite the denials, western foreign policies
have produced horrendous results and burning resentments all around the
world, not just in the Middle East and Central America, the causes of
which can be seen in images available on the Internet by anyone with a
basic computer and a modem. I believe that if we are to avoid a
downward spiral we have to alter our foreign policies or at the least
stop slavishly following the US down a road that inevitably leads to
disaster.
Tony Blair rejects foreign policy and a desire for revenge as a
contributing factor for the London Underground outrages, but this is
despite the relatives of the bombers unanimity of explanation for the
reasons that were fuelling their son's and nephew's rage. Yet more fuel
from Ms Rice in the form of inflammatory rhetoric castigating US's hate
list including Iran for their deficiencies in democracy, conveniently,
of course forgetting that we overthrew Iran's democrat Mossadegh in
1953.
The actual methods of dealing with the terrorists seems to be more
geared to the public image of politicians than the realities of the
problem, and can only exacerbate the problem. Israeli military terror
experts being consulted is going to further alienate the Moslem
community. Israel's approach involves gunships and tanks; can we
expect to see black helicopters over Bradford?
The old established experts on terror like Professor Wilkinson of St
Andrew's are displaced on our TV screens by senior ex-policemen - whose
terrorist problems were vastly different - and defence analysts
spouting more of the same. The cold warriors of Military Intelligence
seem to be doing less than perfectly; having neglected the threat in
the years and months before 9/11 they seem to be using the cowboy boot
approach of the Americans rather than the "mailed fist in a velvet
glove" approach of the old school of British Intelligence.
Blair cannot have it both ways, he is obviously revelling in his role
of wartime leader and likes following along behind Georgy boy (just
look at the change in the way he walks) but he is also trying to be
seen as a friend of the Moslem community and a great Labour leader. His
popularity among a few Daily Mail readers surely cannot be worth it?
You have had few moments of a "Cowboy Fantasy" but it is time to
wake up Tony. Blair is not a Churchill or even a Thatcher despite his
long "Reign". In my opinion his unrealistic view of himself and a
belief in his place in history has damaged Britain and puts us all at
risk and will continue to do so as long as he is in power.
Axel
<<0>>
2 Mar 2005
Subject: Re: Scots hit back at BBC's football bigotry report
- Show quoted text -
tam_heidmagoolies...@yahoo.co.np (heidthebaw) wrote in message ...
> Axel (Axel Klystron) wrote in message ...
> > "Jackie Mulherron"
> > > "Robert Hendersson" <> wrote in message
.
> > > > In article <3ydtjyhhhj...@individal.net>, Jackie Mulheron
> > > > Jaquie writes
> > > >> 'Scotland's Secret Shame',
> > > > What's secret about it? RH
> > > Dunno. Ask McConnell. He coined it.
> > Some of the posters actually seem gleeful about it!!!!!
> > Bit of a sad state of affairs.
> > As a schoolboy fifty five years ago in the east coast of Scotland we
> > had mixed schooling and we were very few of us aware of any
> > sectarianism. Like many east coasters I am seriously resentful that
> > nowadays as a Scot I have to be either a Hun or a Tim.
> > Now it is not only Glaswegians and that will be expecting me to be one
> > or the other, but thanks to the BBC and Panorama many of the *nglish
> > as well.
> > Incidently I have met people from the south of Ireland who did not
> > have the perception that all Scots are partisan, how are we viewed
> > south of the border?
> > Are there many who like me are sickened when a Saltire flag is to be
> > seen flying at Northern Irish parades?
> > Axel
> > P.S. Not only the glesca fitba *culture* but their speech patterns
> > seem to be everywhere in Scotland these days.
> Ach away with ye ye sheepshagging bastard!
> Tam
Would that be Proddy sheep or Catholic sheep???
Axel
<<0>>
28 Feb 2005
(Axel Klystron)
Subject: Re: Scots hit back at BBC's football bigotry report
"Jackie Mulheron" Jaquiem wrote in message
> "Robert Hendersson" <> wrote in message
> > In article <3899e2Fg94t...@individal.net>, Jackie Mulheron
> > Jaquiem writes
> >> 'Scotland's Secret Shame',
> > What's secret about it? RH
> Dunno. Ask McConnell. He coined it.
Some of the posters actually seem gleeful about it!!!!!
Bit of a sad state of affairs.
As a schoolboy fifty five years ago in the east coast of Scotland we
had mixed schooling and we were very few of us aware of any
sectarianism. Like many east coasters I am seriously resentful that
nowadays as a Scot I have to be either a Hun or a Tim.
Now it is not only Glaswegians and that will be expecting me to be one
or the other, but thanks to the BBC and Panorama many of the *nglish
as well.
Incidently I have met people from the south of Ireland who did not
have the perception that all Scots are partisan, how are we viewed
south of the border?
Are there many who like me are sickened when a Saltire flag is to be
seen flying at Northern Irish parades?
Axel
P.S. Not only the glesca fitba *culture* but their speech patterns
seem to be everywhere in Scotland these days.
<<0>>
Home - Usenet 2