Saturday, December 31, 2011

BBC Scotland minus comments

Here we go again. Just because the Scots are not willing to bow down to the glorious political announcements emanating from the Labour infested BBC's Pacific Quay in Glasgow all comments on BwB have been stopped. Not so in Wales and NI where the Welsh and Northern Irish are allowed to comment. Then, when you add the lack of political reporting on Brian's blog we have a situation where the BBC in Scotland are suppressing free speech from the very same people who pay for that service through the licence fee. It is a disgrace that the BBC in London are allowing, if not encouraging, this abomination of democracy.

What is time

It's that time of year again when the current year disappears [sooner if you live in Ufa, Russia. Hello Gyuzel & Alina. By the way, if you are reading this I have lost your phone numbers. :-( ] and a new one miraculously appears. If anyone has been watching the particle physicist Professor Brian Cox's television programme on the BBC-not the Dundee actor Brian Cox who slaughtered the obnoxious little Englander historian David Starkey on Question Time-called 'Wonders of the Universe' his first programme talks about time.
So what is time? If this was QI then I would be holding up my 'Nobody Knows' placard. The time we look at on our clocks and watches is an expression of time and not time itself. So if time is not what we think of it what is it? I've spent a long time trying to suss this out and have been doing somersaults in my head trying to understand this. I know, I should get a life. The only conclusion that I have managed to come to is that time IS the universe and all the quantum particles are just an expression of this. I remember reading a book, years ago, called:  The Planiverse by Alexander Dewdney in which he postulated the idea of a two-dimensional universe. It blew my mind and got me thinking-I still hadn't delved into the String Theory then. If you do prepare for a mind explosion-if it is possible to have a two-dimensional universe it must also have time because time, as we know it, is there to stop everything happening at once, therefore the Space Time Continuum, in our universe cannot exist without time. Multidimensional space therefore, according to String Theory, can only exist if there is time. The only constant in the Universe is time therefore the Universe must be time. So, what is it?
When you get down into the quantum world you see that particles are not really particles at all but expressions of wave forms. Imagine an ocean with various waves travelling over the ocean. Particles are just the peaks and troughs of those waves but the waves are just an expression of energy moving over the ocean, which is why a quantum particle can be in one place but all over the ocean at the same time. 
So, what has this got to do with the price of eggs?  Well, the true answer is that I don't know. Answers on a postcard please. Hope that I haven't muddled up your brain too much. Have a happy new year.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Religious faith in science

Just read an article put on by a friend in facebook.


The problem the professor has is the political clout of the 'believers'-especially in the USA-which is overpowering enough for those who wish to remain in employment to keep quiet. Until more people like him have the guts [or stupidity] to come forward and address this problem then the 'believers' will-and have won-the argument.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

CBI V BBC Headlines

I see the BBC are at it again but, I have to say that, they are getting better at hiding their anti-Scottish Government propaganda.

CBI Headline here :

'CBI Scotland director calls on business to raise its game on environmental performance'

as opposed to the BC Scotland headline here :

'CBI Scotland urges ministers over economy'

This New Year's message was about environmental policies while the BBC has managed to turn it into an attack on the Scottish government.

Listen to the radio broadcast here and make up your own mind. It starts at 2hours 8 minutes 30 seconds in.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Why Irish soldiers who fought Hitler hide their medals

I've just read this article about Irish soldiers, who fought for us in WWII, and their treatment by their own government when they returned after the war.


It is sad that the Eire government treated their citizens in this way; or is it? Let's look at the facts instead of the heart-rending slant the BBC is putting on this. They were already in the Eire army and deserted to go and fight for a side in the war that was not supported by their government, the same army [British], a few years earlier had wrecked havoc in that newly emerging nation. So, is it any wonder that the Eire government was not too happy with their desertion? What would we, the British, have done to a deserter at that time? A long time in a military prison would be the correct answer. These soldiers did not receive that barbaric treatment instead, they were 'sent to Coventry' by their own government in such a way that their government [who was a poor nation at that time] refused to allow them to take government backed jobs [which was meant for those who were loyal to their country] or government money. Personally, I think the Eire government did the right thing.
So, why didn't the British Government take care of them, seeing as they fought for us? The British army never has taken care of its own; up until recently, and even then it is atrocious the way we treat our heroes. Remember the way in which we have treated the Gurkhas, and still do? The BBC might have the decency to have a go at their own government instead of trying to blacken the name of their neighbour.
As an aside to this story there is the question of Scottish soldiers still fighting for the rUK. I think that this has already been answered by the SNP who have said that they will allow Scottish citizens [we will be citizens post-independence as opposed to being 'subjects'] to continue serving the rUK for as long as it takes. The question is: "Who is going to pay for the long term treatment of wounded Scottish soldiers when they are no longer fit to serve?" Can we expect the rUK to indefinitely pay for their treatment or will that burden fall upon the Scottish taxpayers? Keep in mind, when they are serving for the rUK then their taxes will be going to Westminster and not Holyrood. I begin to see the Eire point of view even more now.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

The Unionists argument against Scottish independence

They haven't got one.
I have asked several Unionists why we should stay in the UK and not one has ever come up with a good reason why we should stay. They usually come up with reasons that have nothing positive to say about retaining the Union.
Scotland can't afford it: Yet we have been in surplus for years according to UK government figures and if you check out the debt the UK has it is far worse than Greece.
We wouldn't have a seat in the UN: Neither would England as the seat is currently occupied by the UK.
We couldn't afford to bail out the Scottish banks: What Scottish banks? The Bank of Scotland was taken over by the Halifax and is now called HBOS and RBS hasn't been a 'Scottish' bank for decades. The banks owners are the shareholders and not the country. It is like saying that if the company ScottishPower Ltd [HQ in Glasgow, listed on the London stock exchange and owned by Iberdrola] went bust then the Scottish taxpayer should bail it out. No, we shouldn't as it is owned by a Spanish company; so why should we bail it out? Just because a company has the name 'Scottish' in it doesn't mean that it is Scottish.

Anyway, you see the point. The Unionists cannot put forward one positive reason why we should stay in the Union.

Newsnet Scotland

I was banned from using Newsnet Scotland because I expressed an opinion that Glaswegians have the right to call themselves 'Weegies'. I even gave them a list of sites where they [Newsnet Scotland] could see that the nickname 'Weegies' was in common use. It's ironic, really, that an online site professing to back the Scottish peoples against the biasedness of the British media [mainly the propaganda put out by the BBC Scotland newsdesk] is castigating and banning people from using the Scottish language [dialect]. I even asked if the term 'Auld Reekie' [Edinburgh] and 'Kettleboilers' [Dundee] was banned as well; no answer came the reply, apart from being banned from the site with no recourse to appeal.
I wonder if I had used the English nicknames of the Londoners [cockney], Newcastle [Geordies], Liverpool {scousers] or even Birmingham [Brummies] would I have been banned from an English site? I doubt it, but the people who run Newsnet Scotland are not willing to allow the Scottish peoples to use their own nicknames to describe themselves. This is PC [political correctness] gone too far.
Apart from that I still read the articles, which I find interesting, but cannot contribute to the postings; c'est la vie.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Scottish barrels of oil

I had been searching my computer for this info and have eventually found it.

Maybe someone can point out where I am going wrong.
If the UK in 2005 produced 1,870,000 barrels of oil per day in 2005 and there are 158.7 litres of oil in a barrel then that equals 297,143,000 litres per day (1,870,000x158.9)or 105,782,908,000 litres per year (297,143,000x356) and the UK charges $1 of taxes on every litre of oil and the current exchange rate between the dollar and the Pound is 65p per dollar then that amounts to £68,758,890,200 per year (105,782,908,000x0.65) going into the UK treasury.
Isn't that considerable more than we get from the Barnett formula? Surely I've made a mistake somewhere?