Neglectful me.

I realised I've been somewhat neglectful of this blog - working full time, looking for jobs and doing Mitch's Honey do list means I don't get much time to write more, honest. So, in order to rectify this a little, I've got a pictorial catalogue of some of the things I've been up to over the last few months.

So, in no particular order:

I was joint best man for one of my oldest and best friends' wedding:


Mitch and I went to South London to visit my friend Stig where his daughters painted Mitch's nails, much to her, their and our general delight:


I went to the Falkirk Wheel! It was aces:


I'd wanted to go for ages and finally made it. It's powered by something like the equivalent of 8 irons plugged in. Or the same amount of electricity needed to keep Mitch warm.

I also went to Bergen and stayed with my friend Per down by the fjords. It was lovely. I also presented at a conference, but really that's an aside compared to staying at Per's house:



It was so fantastically dark at night that the window became a veritable mirror:


Per's neighbours had a nice hoose, but a wee bit remote for me:


Okay okay, I'll show you a picture of Bergen proper as well, since it is so pretty:


You can see the UNESCO World Heritage site just to the left of the picture there, it was pretty cook if a little rickety. Not really surprising given its age of course.

Mitch and I went to Brighton where we met up with her brother and his fiancee. Mitch looks pretty in black and white:


I adopted 3 cats. Well, I say adopted when I really mean looked after for a week through visitation rights. The one on the far right under the bed is called Sarah, the one with the arched back is called Stone and the other one is called Kans. We were best friends for a week. Probably because I could guarantee access to the dried tuna. No probably actually, definitely.


Duncan grew a ponytail and had me laughing like a drain:


My sister and her family came to see us and we went to the Natural History Museum and had a great time looking at all the animals:



We also went to St Andrews for a wee trip:




See, I have been busy!

Not a bad idea this.

Click here and click I agree. You know you want to.

I bothered the Fourth Estate again.

But of course I forgot to tell you. Here it's. it was written in response to this. I couldn't let it lie you see...

What to do?

I was reading Ian Bell's piece in The Herald on t'internet this morning and found that he neatly encompassed my own views on renewables and, in particular, wind-farms. I love the sight of them just after Stirling when I find myself on my way to Perth from Glasgow. I remember driving, or rather being driven, up the Pacific Coast Highway between San Diego and LA and seeing a wind-farm out in the desert and being struck by how much more attractive they were than the unsightly concrete warts on the landscape that was San Onofre nuclear power station. The reason why I couch the discussion in terms of aesthetics is due to it being the over-riding concern of many who object to wind-farm construction. Of course, there is good reason for this - in the Highlands in particular amenity is the lifeblood of many communities, being as it were the primary reason for tourists to visit the place. Consequently this has to be taken into consideration when plans for wind-farms are being discussed. But, given the choice between wind-farms which are easily removed and a nuclear/coal/oil-fired/biomass power station which is not, it seems to be the rational choice (along with wave and solar, in time). Of course, there are problems with wind-farms but their environmental footprint is far less intrusive than the alternatives. Indeed, their environmental impact in terms of pollution is also far far less offensive as well. Perhaps localised energy production is the answer? Rooftop solar and wind generators? The money we've spent chasing foreign misadventures could easily have been channelled into this with far far more pleasant results for everybody.

But in saying all that, I do disagree with Bell on one thing: I actually love the sight of Grangemouth. It looks like a vision of Dante's inferno located right by Falkirk. I also have a passing fascination with power stations and appreciate their own unique brand of brutalism. Huge cooling towers are a favourite - massive hulking constructions that look like quite unpleasant bouncers on the door of a club. Wind-farms are positively birdlike in comparison. Then you have our other form of energy production and consumption, oil. Offshore oil platforms, in the UK built and repaired in Nigg Bay north of Inverness, are massive constructions that float out in the middle of nowhere pumping the lifeblood of the British economy and society into the mainland. They're hardly attractive, and even less so when you consider the pollution they bring to country, albeit necessarily so. Remember the brouhaha over the Brent Spar platform when Shell wanted to junk it and scuttle it? Few people complain about their lacking aesthetic qualities or ruining of amenity when they are being tugged along Nigg Bay to be fixed up or sent back to sea. In saying that, we could have ended up with something like Oil Rocks in the Caspian Sea:




Yes, a veritable city built in the middle of the sea about 40km offshore from Baku. There's a library and a hospital as well as anywhere between 2000-5000 people living there making their way around 200km of roads built on stilts in the middle of the sea. Many of the roads are completely submerged having sunk into the seabed and the water levels reach up to the second-floor windows in some buildings. So I suppose Grangemouth isn't quite as bad in comparison.

Of course this is a simplistic analysis of the pros and cons of power generation, but not completely without merit. The strike at Grangemouth (which I personally have absolutely no problem with - the company are at it)(an oil company? at it? qualle surprise!), as Bell states, shows the fragility of the carbon economy that we have. Any attempts at moving that towards a more renewable-based model of production is fine by me. Preferably with the areas of amenity firmly intact of course. Easier said than done maybe.

Edited!

I wrote another letter to The Herald this morning which has been published. However, they've chopped it up and part of it doesn't really make sense. Let's see now shall we:

My letter:

Dear Sir,

Whilst I wholly agree with RJ Ardern's letter regarding the replacement
of the rolling stock on inter-city rail routes in Scotland, I fear
he/she is whistling into the wind with calls for increased capacity on
the single-line tracks in the Highlands. These calls have been ongoing
since 1951 when the Scottish Council (Development & Industry) produced
a report on Highland Transport Costs which called for the same thing.
The same calls were repeated in 2005 in the Smart, Successful
Highlands and Islands report as well. As yet, neither have been acted
on. The fact is, since the Second World War successive governments
have been unwilling, although not unable, to sufficiently improve
transport links in what is one of Scotland's primary tourist earners
for whatever reason.

It's an old story of course, but one that is worth telling again. If
Scotland is to move forward economically then an integrated transport
system is paramount to achieving this, not just in the Highlands, but
over the whole country. The replacement of rolling stock is only one
of many requirements for a transport infrastructure for a forward
moving dynamic economy, but an important one nonetheless. Relying on
Westminster to implement these measures has shown to be futile - we're
still waiting.


_________________________________________

The Herald's version:

While I agree with R J Ardern's letter regarding the replacement of the rolling stock on inter-city rail routes in Scotland (April 21), I fear your correspondent is whistling in the dark with calls for increased capacity on single-line tracks in the Highlands. These calls have been ongoing since 1951 when the Scottish Council Development & Industry produced a report on Highland transport costs which called for the same thing.

The same calls were repeated in 2005 in the Smart, Successful Highlands and Islands report. As yet, neither has been acted on. The fact is, since the Second World War successive governments have been unwilling sufficiently to improve transport links in what is one of Scotland's primary tourist earners.

If Scotland is to move forward economically then an integrated transport system is paramount, not just in the Highlands, but over the whole country. The replacement of rolling stock is only one of many requirements for a transport infrastructure for a forward-moving, dynamic economy. Relying on Westminster to implement these measures has shown to be futile.



_________________________________________

Whistling in the dark? That makes no sense. And of course the link for posterity here.

Caledonia bound.

This is Mitch and I today, sans the bad hair.

Fun.

Since I was accused of not wanting people to have fun in the comments section earlier this week feast your eyes on this badboy. What could be more fun for the kids?

I like to bother the Fourth Estate.

But only when people like Doug Maughan insist on doing it first:

Small economies

May I suggest Doug Maughan tells us what Iceland, Switzerland and Qatar all have in common that Scotland doesn't (Letters, February 13)? Could it be that they are all small countries that exercise control over their own economies? I wonder if that has helped them "prove" his longstanding assertion that we are better served allowing our economy to be controlled as part of a larger entity? I think not.

And the link for posterity of course:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2042930.0.Small_economies.php

PhD.

I passed! I passed! I passed!

I keep laughing at this.

Well well well.

It turns out, according to a Herald report, that Scotland isn't the 'subsidy junky' filled nation Red Ken and that clown Kelvin MacKenzie (how it pains me to share a surname with this moron) have been claiming it is. More details here. Hmm, I guess that means that the SNP's claims may have been a little more accurate than the London-loving Scottish Labour Party gave them credit for. Now why does that not surprise me? Oh wait, is it because the Scottish Labour Party has consistently sold out to the South? Aye, in one. Quelle surprise!

Dear Ken and Kelvin,

Please read the above link with care and apologise for your inaccurate pronouncements and general ignorance of anything North of Watford. Oh and GIRUY you pair of muppets.

Best,

Niall

Airblade vs. Trezeguet.

I was going to post about how the Dyson Airblade changed my life, but it all seems to pale into insignificance next to this:


David after France humping us 5-0 last time we played em in France.


David after Wee Jim's goal.

In time honoured Scots tradition, there is only one thing for it. Trezeguet, GIRUY! A bad loser is usually accepted, a bad winner almost never. Except now! Ah schadenfreude, why are you so good to me?

STOP PRESS!

Aw naw! I've just been informed by the BaptistsforBrownback2008 website- a presidential campaign website for Sam Brownback the Republican senator for Kansas- that apparently wearing a kilt is not as innocent as I've been led to believe all my life...

You can read what these lovely people have to say about Scotland's national attire here. Be warned, don't have any foodstuffs or liquids in your mouth when you read it as they will inevitably end up all over your computer screen and keyboard as you laugh at what they've written, and of course I don't want to be responsible for your cleaning costs.

Obviously not willing to take this lying down, Scots and defenders of the kilt the world over left them numerous comments letting them know exactly what they thought of their assertions and accusations, resulting in a retraction. Of sorts. You can read about it here.


Now as you are all busy people I'll leave you some of the choicest cuts from their words of wisdom regarding the kilt:

"The kilt, long associated with those ghastly Scots, has seen a drastic increase in popularity among the jet-setting homosexual crowd. One manufacturer of this perfectly obscene item, Utilikilts in Seattle, was recently interviewed and subsequently featured prominently on the front page of Yahoo News. " Charming. Ghastly eh? Perhaps they've see the pubs at kicking out time?

"It is understood, that while the sodomite would unnaturally embrace the feminine attributes of a man-skirt or kilt, the main purpose is that it grants them easy and quick access for fornicating." Hmm, does this extend to women who wear skirts? THEY MUST ALL BE SODOMITES TOO! Quick, get the emergency trousers on everyone!

"No real man, not a heterosexual one with a shred of self-respect, Scottish or not, would permit himself to be caught dead in a skirt, unless he was playing the bagpipe while in Scotland, at a historically-themed wedding. Even then I find his heterosexuality suspect at best." Ooh, get her! I have to say I am deeply concered that somebody somewhere in the US finds my hetereosexuality deeply concerning at my choice to wear a kilt. I think I'm going to readdress my whole belief system in light of what I've just read. Done, I'm sticking with the kilt.

Their retraction begins- please, no foodstuffs or liquids, this is an absolute belter:

"Dear Angry Kilt-Wearing Men,

Obviously, many of you feel very strongly about your right to wear “kilts” based on the responses as seen in the post titled: The Sissification of Seattle. Regardless of how foolish a man looks in a skirt, I have spoken to several of your women via email who have convinced me that they believe you to be completely heterosexual. Having faith that a percentage of women, albeit a small one, possess the intuition to discern whether her husband is not taking her for a fool, and not out having abominable same-sex relations, I will agree to believe that some of you are not sodomites. That said, there arises an equally as disturbing of an issues, if you are not in fact a homosexual then why would you want to wear a skirt, or kilt if you will. The only rational conclusion I can come up with is that the freedom of not having slacks with sippers and belts, grants you easy access for spontaneous fornication. Providing that all intimate relations occur solely between yourself and your legal wife, this may not be a mortal sin, as is the sin of sodomy. However, this opens the door to instances of carnality that lay outside of the golden rule: Sexual relations between a man and his wife are for procreation, not recreation. Additionally, there is the problem of what does a man wear beneath his “kilt” which would deter him from self-abuse and abnormal excitability."

So, now that kilt-wearers are no longer all sodomites (although there is still the belief that at least some are, naturally), there is at least the very good chance that that they are probably sexual deviants who at the drop of a hat, or should I say lifting of a kilt, will inevitably indulge in 'spontaneous fornication'! I guess now we all know why ceilidhs are so fun! Not to mention Scotland international football matches, Scottish international rugby, the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, Highland Games, formal occasions and so forth. What sexually charged occasions these all are and poor little naive me didn't even realise. I'm getting a kilt ASAP, what a world of deviant pleasures I've been missing out on all this time! Oh wait...