The second part is just your own biased and selective portrayal of it.
Looking at just the teams and not your view on it, it's not really a question is it! Those Rangers sides from the late 80s into the late 90s and even as far as the mid 00s had some fantastic players in them. You'd have to be a pretty staunch or stupid Celtic fan, to say it's our side, over our 8 so far, in a row.
Now on to your second part. Let's face it, illegally or not, you were heavily outspending everyone else in Scotland from 1986, until pretty much O'Neills arrival in June 2000 and even then you whacked £12m on Flo, in November of that year.
Nobody was ever expected to challenge you for the vast majority of those titles and you were clear favourites, every season. The Celtic sides were the worst I've seen in my 39 years of supporting them. They were the worst since 1965, finishing 4th a few times and 5th once. 7 of your 9 seasons, we didn't even finish as runners up. As for the rest, Aberdeen put in a couple of good challenges but most of your titles were won with relative ease and time to spare.
Celtic have had it easy and the players are obviously of a lesser quality, certainly compared to the kind of guys we used to (and you as well) have but then it's all relative. We don't need to have Larssons, Lamberts or Thompsons in the side, to beat what the other teams have.
For me. our original 9 in a row, is the only truly competitively won 9 in row. Our teams were of a great standard domestically and even on the European stage. We had to beat a team that won a European trophy and appeared in another Final and 3 teams that appeared in European Semis!