
The Scottish Blog Roundup with an Antipodean Perspective is published. Go and take a look.




From The AgeGoogle has knocked Microsoft from its perch as the world's top-ranked brand, according to findings released on Monday.
The rankings, compiled by market research firm Millward Brown, also put Google ahead of well-established brands like General Electric, No. 2; Coca-Cola, No. 4; Wal-Mart Stores, No. 7; and IBM, No. 9.
Some key factors seen this year in building brand recognition ranged from corporate responsibility to serving customers in emerging markets like Brazil and India, according to the study.
For Google, which ranked No. 7 a year ago, the jump to the top underscores how quickly the web search leader has become an everyday name. The company uses relatively little advertising, instead relying on word-of-mouth promotion.
By contrast, Microsoft's slide down to third place from first comes even as the software company has been rolling out its new Windows Vista operating system with a massive global marketing blitz.
Eileen Campbell, global chief executive of Millward Brown, said the rankings showed "a blend of good business leadership, responsible financial management and powerful marketing ... can be leveraged to create and grow corporate wealth."
I can remember living in Seattle in the mid 1980s and meeting people at parties who worked for Microsoft, "a company that made programmes that allowed people to type documents on a computer" and that almost nobody had heard of. How things change.
Google, with a corporate motto "Don't be Evil" has gone from a no name to a verb (we are all googling after all) in less than 5 years. Pretty impressive. All the more impressive since less than 20 percent of the world population have access to the internet, based on somewhat imprecise estimates.
Searching on Wikipedia, I found that I was at the University of Maryland College Park at the same time that co founder Sergei Brin was getting his undergraduate degree in the early 1990s. Lives diverge.
This is my city, Adelaide, looking over Adelaide Oval towards the cityThe Carnival of Cities will be here next Monday, after going home to Mummy at Home Turf Media for this week. Pay a visit. There are some interesting articles.
Remember – one post only, please. I have a quirky sense of humour, so unusual articles welcome.
Pick your best-written work about any aspect of a single city, and get it to me by Sunday, April 29th at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. That would be 03.30 on Monday morning here in Adelaide, so earlier, would be good. Use this form to submit. For more Carnival of Cities info, click here or on the side bar.
Thanks and looking forward to your input. The Carnival will be up and running on Monday, April 30 2007.
It was a document that could have changed the course of Scottish history. Nineteen pages long, written by Scottish economist Gavin McCrone, presented to the Cabinet office in April 1975 and subsequently buried in a Westminster vault for 30 years.
McCrone's paper, written for Ted Heath's Tory Government and only just released under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed how North Sea oil could have made an independent Scotland as rich as Switzerland.
Earlier this week, Chancellor Gordon Brown underlined the vital revenue stream that North Sea oil still is in the context of British politics.
In his pre-Budget report, Brown extracted an extra £6.5 billion (NZ$16 billion) in tax from North Sea oil and gas producers, to be taken over the next three years. Imagine then, what the oil could have done for a Scotland which chose independence in the mid-1970s and claimed ownership.
Thirty years ago, McCrone's conclusions shocked his political masters. An independent Scotland's Budget surpluses, wrote McCrone, would be so large as to be "embarrassing". Scotland's currency "would become the hardest in Europe with the exception of the Norwegian kronor".
Scotland would be in a position to lend heavily to England, a situation that could last "for a very long time".
Red Tape Strangling Aussie Family Life
I decided I'd had enough of the nanny state the day my kids came home in disgrace because they had hummus for lunch - it was the same day the ACT Government banned me from walking my dog to school.
Business is always whingeing about government regulations, but what about the red tape strangling family life?
Governments are now trying to micro-manage every aspect of a parent's job - from telling you what you can feed your kids and how you can discipline them to how much television they can watch.
Now Kevin Rudd wants to test what sort of a parent you are by measuring your child's waistline, empathy, curiosity and whether they pick up a pencil dropped by a classmate.
My one luxury as a working mum used to be lunch order day - but the healthy canteen policy has robbed me of that.
Instead of sleeping in one day a week I'm now up packing lunches - because cream cheese and lettuce sandwiches just don't have the same appeal to my kids as chicken nuggets.
"Mum, I don't do sandwiches," my 11-year-old solemnly informed me during the canteen's healthy sandwich drive.
Even the task of concocting a healthy home-made lunch has become a feat of Olympic proportions, thanks to the school's new nut-free policy.
After calling a family conference to workshop lunch ideas that removed nuts, muesli bars and peanut butter from my kids' lunchboxes, I thought I had the perfect solution: chicken and hummus rolls that are not only good but tasty.
Wrong.
Hummus (which I never realised until now is a nut) is also banned because it has sesame seed paste in it.
That just happened to be the day the school newsletter informed me that getting the kids fit by walking the dog to school with them was now also illegal and I'd be fined if I took the dog on to school grounds.
If governments want to wrap families in red tape they should at least make sure the rules they set are consistent.
Do they want us to feed our kids healthy food and get them fit or not?
What annoys me most about the burgeoning nanny state is that all families are being penalised by rules meant to stop the bad practices of a minority.
If one in four children are overweight, that means the overwhelming majority aren't.
The 75 per cent of families who buy their kids one junk food meal a week at the school canteen as a treat are penalised because a few parents feed their kids junk more often.
This is an election year and I reckon it's time for families to fight back against the government red tape that is taking the spontaneity out of parenting.
Ban boring televised debates between two leaders and put them to a real life test.
Before we let Kevin Rudd or John Howard impose any more we-know-better-than-you rules on families, they should have to try to battle with the problems their rules have already caused.
Let's run the election campaign like a reality TV show.
Instead of touring the country making staged policy announcements, John Howard and Kevin Rudd should each be put in a suburban home with two kids for five weeks.
Hidden cameras can show the voters how they manage the family budget with child care fees of $90 a day and subsidies of just $4.57 a day.
Every morning they will have to come up with a packed lunch that's not only healthy but complies with the school's nut-free, seed-free, taste-free allergy policy and yet is still eaten by the children.
They'll have to work out how to fit in exercising the dog and the kids while getting the kids to school without straying on to school grounds.
They'll have to juggle working overtime with the massive penalties for picking your kids up late from childcare and still get home in time to cook a healthy meal.
They'll have to figure out how to entertain the starving and exhausted kids who aren't allowed to watch television or play on the computer and can't go to the local park because it has been stripped of its play equipment because of public liability risk.
And, before they can creep exhausted into bed, John and Kevin will have to find a non-existent product which will kill nits and spend an hour of quality time combing lice out of the childrens' hair.
Only when they can do all this do they deserve the right to impose more new rules on us.
Boyle's Law
Global Warming is a product of peer-Pressure and the Volume of calls for 'something to be done'.
Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion
The 1st Law: "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the foci."
The lesser known 2nd Law states; "The sun has no connection with the temperature of the Earth. At all. All plantary temperature changes are caused by man-made CO2s, especially from SUVs"
Newton's Laws of Motion;
Leftist's 1st Law of Motion
A Leftist idea, once in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a sensible argument.
