I believe it belonged to the Muir Clan, the Campbell’s only took it over later. It was built by the Muir’s and therefore will always be property of the Muir Clan.

The latter definitely made the former way worse than it could have been, but nah, they're both the problem.

@@maxwild1212 Voting in a Labour government would have meant a much softer Brexit agreement and, at great pressure from centrists, a second referendum on that deal. The problem is that this country is almost pathologically unwilling to vote against the interests of the tiny-minded, grasping, miserly, monied classes.

@@AtheistEve Don't get me wrong, I largely agree with you. But I also think that Brexit was never going to be anything other than a negative thing, and the best kind of Brexit would have been no Brexit at all.

@@maxwild1212 From a socialist’s perspective, there were solid arguments in favour of leaving but only if the EU made it impossible for us to renationalize our public utilities and infrastructure. Remaining inside would have been preferable, from a progressive, internationalist view, if we could have pressed for reform.

They can’t get to dundee to buy gasoline

From what I understand there has been several small fires started buy Neds over recent years but nothing big enough to bring the entire Hotel down to the ground ( pitty).

@@alanfox691 The inside of the hotel is soaking wet due to burst water pipes which the council have not turned off, also before it was covered the rain would get in too

Now they have.

@@FallingWhales6294 Yip. I'm amazed it took them this long.

Because Norway, together with Switzerland and the entire EU, are part of the so called EES (European Economic Space). Briefly: EES means you are part of the common market as long as you enforce all the EU legislation.

@@Karthagast Thank you, profound inormation.

Norway pays to be in the free eu market. quite a lot. prepare a fat check boss , eu wants payback

@@buildingabout3505 Dear BuildingAbout - It's up to Norway to decide on this. They are competent and I'm sure they have considered the pros and cons. For the British: Norway+ immediately considered after the Referendum was an issue, but it could not be accepted, because Norway and Switzerland have free movement, this was the main reason. The "check" word is not fair, Germany and the UK pay a lot to other institutions, within the UN and NATO. Boris Johnson said in Parliament: "The UK will go on after Brexit funding other nations" and then he added: "Those which are of our national interest." The Norwegians have decided that the free market is in their interest.

@@godehardbrysch7905 nobody suggested Norway should or shouldn't do this or that, but if you want British fish on german shelves, they will need to eiter pay , or sell cheap , at a loss. the brits can keep their island for themselves , there's a saying , have your cake and eat it UN , NATO , UNICEF ETC have little to nothing to do with EU. USA is in NATO but not in eu for example. Turkey same. please don't confuse, makes it look like you don't know what you talk about. by funding other nations i believe he was referring to the foreign aid given to former colonies to build toilets. like Pakistan, India etc. you know, the ones they exploited for centuries....