Showing posts with label Celtic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Celtic. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Romanov should consider putting Scotland first!




Could Romanov support Scotland and reject the Brit establishment which is attacking him? Why not? It's a win, win strategy and many Hearts fans are already supporters of Scottish independence.
I am not a football supporter as such. I really enjoy seeing internationals if Scotland are playing and most importantly if they win (sadly they don't that often though I live in hope!) but club football doesn't interest me much and English club football not at all.

I have vague allegiance towards Hibs or at least that's what I say if asked but it isn't really strongly defined it's more 'it's an Edinburgh team, it's not a Glasgow team', it's not anti-Catholic which Hearts seem like they vaguely might be (I'm an atheist but I was born and raised a Catholic so I am ultra sensitive towards anti-Catholic bigotry).

I attended the last Scottish Cup Victory for Hearts. My pal Brian (who is a Hearts fan) was going and I went along, I suppose I wanted them to lose but I wasn't really that bothered either way.

I had expected to see a sea of Union Jacks (as Hearts are supposed to be the 'unionist' team) but there wasn't actually any that I could spot! I was pleased to see that, because to me the Edinburgh teams seem a bit like pale copies of the Old Firm and unfortunately it is bigotry that keeps Rangers (and to a lesser extent Celtic as they tend to be a bit more 'political') going.
It was good to sea that Hearts seemed to have lost interest in waving the British flag and in point of fact I know a number of Hearts fans and they are all die hard Scottish nationalists!
Alex Salmond is a Hearts fan as well so the traditional political divide which perhaps existed in the past probably does not actually exist at all (I can say the same for Hibs of course as my other political fellow Scots republican travellers are Kev Williamson and Lloyd Quinan who are committed Hibernian fans and strong supporters obviously of Scottish independence).

If there is one team I do detest it's Rangers, their Union Jack waving turns my stomach and their connection with orangism and unionism I find revolting. I don't mind Celtic but I can't work up any enthusiasm for an 'Irish' team either. In fact I think many Celtic fans are holding our country, Scotland, back by giving their loyalty to another country without worrying more about their own. [Also, it annoys me that Celtic fans can't pronounce their own club's name, the word Celtic pronounced Keltic is a genuinely proud description and could represent BOTH Ireland and Scotland but it can't if people pronounce it as 'Seltic', like Cecilia!].

Even though I'm supposed to be anti-Hearts I just can't join in the universal condemnation of Vladimir Romanov the Hearts owner. I don't think it's a good thing that he tries to pick the team and his decision to sack George Burley was a dire mistake (though it has been to Scotland's international team's ultimate gain).

But even though in some ways Romanov is a bit strange he did save Hearts from going under and selling Tynecastle for that reason he deserves some credit (and ultimately gets some) from the Hearts fans.

Where he does have a real bitter enemy is in the Scotsman group of newspapers which own the Evening News and Scotsman and who in turn are owned by Johnston Press but still hate Scottish independence as much as they did when they were ran by Andrew 'Brillo pad head' Neil and the tax dodging Barclay Brothers.

The Scotsman detests Romanov and I wonder why. Why shouldn't they want Hearts to become a threat to the old firm? Why shouldn't Hearts challenge the west coast monopoly. Romanov has money, and Hearts unfortunately now owe him a lot of money but he does have ambition and that is where I think the Scotsman's jealousy resides.

After all the Scotsman is a unionist rag. It's agenda is to keep Scots down and their criticism of 'mad, bad blodsucking vlad' is racist and imperialist in it's nature. The underlying theme is that Lithuania isn't a decent place, that Lithuania is second class to Britain (though perhaps it might seem given the Scotsman's name that their racism emits from Scotland, but of course it actually doesn't).

This anti-Lithuanian colour of the Britman (that's what it SHOULD be called) might explain some off the more bitter utterances by Romanov about Scotland to the general media. However Vlad should think about who the man is who stabs him in the back most regularly. Step forward the quisling George Foulkes who hates Scottish independence with a passion and now appears to hate Romanov almost as much.

According to the Art of War the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Vlad should therefore consider throwing his financial weight behind Scottish independence. There is indeed a 'Scottish mafia' but it's called the Labour party and it doesn't have Scotland's interests at heart.

The Scotsman will still hate your guts Vladimir but it will at least show that politically you know your own enemies! After all I somehow doubt that you would want Russian control of Lithuania so why should YOU necessarily support the subjucation of Scotland in every area of public life by Britain and the London based Government which includes Lord Foulkes?
Get it right up them Vlad! Come out for Scottish independence and watch the Scotsman howl! well, one can but hope.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

SAME NONSENSE BY BLIAR FOR WALES

Blair: Independence is backward

INDEPENDENCE for Wales and Scotland would be an old-fashioned backward step, Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday - while claiming his own legacy was to make Britain a more modern place.

[A backward step? More like a necessary step which every former colony of the British Empire has made and none have regretted! Independence is not 'backward' for Wales or Scotland. As Jack Straw has pointed out the union is useful for England but it is not useful for Scotland or Wales, both of whom would benefit from independent representation in the EU and the UN. JOE]

Mr Blair has been under pressure on the constitutional issue after a series of polls showed growing support among the English for the break-up of the UK, and a surge in support for the SNP in Scotland.

But Mr Blair told a Westminster lunch that autonomy for the nations of the UK was "a completely regressive step, totally wrong and totally contrary to where the modern world is moving, which is countries moving together."

Using his own background to stress the "interdependence" point used repeatedly by Chancellor Gordon Brown, Mr Blair said, "My mum was Irish, my Dad was English, both lived most of their lives in Scotland. I was born in Scotland but brought up in County Durham, and I now live most of my life down in London. [Who cares? Blair's allegiance is to England, fair enough, but can he not realise that others put Scotland or Wales first?]

"It's a good newspaper story - You have an opinion poll question to people saying 'Scotland have got their own parliament, should England have its own parliament?'
"I would be kind of surprised if people didn't answer that question 'yes'.
"But to then take it a step further and say they want to bust up the United Kingdom; I don't think they want to bust-up the UK." [Pity that's exactly what the polls say Tony.]

An ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph which suggested support for Scottish independence had reached 52% among Scots and 59% in England. And a poll in yesterday's Scotsman suggest the SNP was on course to be the largest party in the Scottish parliament after next May.

Mr Blair said he recalled similar poll results being published in the summer of 1998, which were not reflected in the results of the 1999 Welsh and Scottish elections.
"When people come to the point of do they want to bust up the UK, I don't think they want to do that," he said. "I'm not saying these aren't difficult arguments that you have to handle carefully, because you do, but I think independence would be a thoroughly old-fashioned and regressive step."

The Prime Minister has said he will step down before next September, but would not be drawn on his departure date when questioned by reporters yesterday. Asked about his biggest mistakes since entering 10 Downing Street in 1997, he hinted they might not include issues such as the Iraq war.

"If people ask me what's your biggest mistakes, I always say 'that's for me to know and you to find out'. Although they may, funnily enough not be some of the things you might think of," he said. He added, "I think the thing that has changed about the country overall is that I think the country is basically more willing to advance people on merit today, and ... I think we've become a far more modern country."

Returning to his theme of the regions [Scotland and Wales are COUNTRIES not regions], he said, it was wrong to always compare areas such as Wales or the north-east of England with London, saying there had been strong economic growth throughout the UK

"Part of the trouble with comparing region by region is, if you take London for example, you have some of the wealthiest parts of Britain and some of the poorest. It's more sensible to analyse disparities within regions rather than pitting regions against each other."