Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[McLaren]

Duty

Unless your opinion was based on scientific evidence your tale of whether or not you got it right about lockdowns is just anecdote. Do you think your method for determining whether or not there should be a lockdown would do better than chance over the long term?

[super_realist]

Duty

Unless your opinion was based on scientific evidence your tale of whether or not you got it right about lockdowns is just anecdote. Do you think your method for determining whether or not there should be a lockdown would do better than chance over the long term?

Lots of things were Love sacks Mac, like the rule of six and meeting outside as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use, bit you bought into them.

If facemasks worked we'd have been mandated to wear a particular standard, Sturgeon would not have worn a toy tartan one to show how Scotch she was and even when they laterly did have to in Germany, it made zero difference.

[super_realist]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

As for renowned experts, like communist behavioural scientists and Neil Ferguson who's never been right on anything?

Remember it was SAGE who told the UK government NOT to lock down earlier, but I distinctly recall people here criticising tje government for not doing that, so the likes of you go against these "renowned" experts too.

...and you know fine well it's far more nuanced than that. There's renowned expert opinion which of course can sometimes be wrong as well as right but on the balance of probability is more more likely to be right more than it is wrong. Additionally there is then the timing  of executing such advice, the comprehensiveness of implementing, the level of compliance etc. There were bloody loads of people out working & mixing when we were supposed to be locked down. the 2020 local elections were cancelled to prevent mixing, yet there were pics and vids that weekend of crowded tube platforms. It wasn't just a few rule breaking parties.

Oh right, when it suits you it's established science, when the scientists make an error it's nuanced. Got it. Remember it was SAGE who recommended we follow a Chinese Pandemic response model and not the WHO model

Funny how when there was protests against lockdowns the lefty media was up in arms, but if it was Black Lives Matter or Sarah Everhard it was no problem. Double standards. Lockdowns only necessary if it's not a good cause.

[Soul Requiem]

Duty

Unless your opinion was based on scientific evidence your tale of whether or not you got it right about lockdowns is just anecdote. Do you think your method for determining whether or not there should be a lockdown would do better than chance over the long term?

Lots of things were Love sacks Mac, like the rule of six and meeting outside as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use, bit you bought into them.

If facemasks worked we'd have been mandated to wear a particular standard, Sturgeon would not have worn a toy tartan one to show how Scotch she was  and even when they laterly did have to in Germany, it made zero difference.

There are numerous scientific papers out there outlining how and why face masks helped to reduce the spread of Covid.

[superflyweight]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

As for renowned experts, like communist behavioural scientists and Neil Ferguson who's never been right on anything?

Remember it was SAGE who told the UK government NOT to lock down earlier, but I distinctly recall people here criticising tje government for not doing that, so the likes of you go against these "renowned" experts too.

...and you know fine well it's far more nuanced than that. There's renowned expert opinion which of course can sometimes be wrong as well as right but on the balance of probability is more more likely to be right more than it is wrong. Additionally there is then the timing  of executing such advice, the comprehensiveness of implementing, the level of compliance etc. There were bloody loads of people out working & mixing when we were supposed to be locked down. the 2020 local elections were cancelled to prevent mixing, yet there were pics and vids that weekend of crowded tube platforms. It wasn't just a few rule breaking parties.

Oh right, when it suits you it's established science, when the scientists make an error it's nuanced. Got it. Remember it was SAGE who recommended we follow a Chinese Pandemic response model and not the WHO model

Funny how when there was protests against lockdowns the lefty media was up in arms, but if it was Black Lives Matter or Sarah Everhard it was no problem. Double standards. Lockdowns only necessary if it's not a good cause.

Hates minorities and women.

[McLaren]

Super has gone full incel.

[navyblueshorts]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

As for renowned experts, like communist behavioural scientists and Neil Ferguson who's never been right on anything?

Remember it was SAGE who told the UK government NOT to lock down earlier, but I distinctly recall people here criticising tje government for not doing that, so the likes of you go against these "renowned" experts too.

Actually, they're far more informed than yours. I'm a Doctorate biochemist/cell biologist who actually works with virologists and immunologists, many of whom know an awful lot more than you do.

Then again, I guess your comments on the oil/gas industry are just opinions and no more informed than mine are re. covid...

Done with this discussion.

[navyblueshorts]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

As for renowned experts, like communist behavioural scientists and Neil Ferguson who's never been right on anything?

Remember it was SAGE who told the UK government NOT to lock down earlier, but I distinctly recall people here criticising tje government for not doing that, so the likes of you go against these "renowned" experts too.

...and you know fine well it's far more nuanced than that. There's renowned expert opinion which of course can sometimes be wrong as well as right but on the balance of probability is more more likely to be right more than it is wrong. Additionally there is then the timing  of executing such advice, the comprehensiveness of implementing, the level of compliance etc. There were bloody loads of people out working & mixing when we were supposed to be locked down. the 2020 local elections were cancelled to prevent mixing, yet there were pics and vids that weekend of crowded tube platforms. It wasn't just a few rule breaking parties.

Quite. People like Duty and S_R, who both appear to be freedom wonks and always right, better hope the next one isn't more lethal as there could well be far more enforcement, incl. military. We were lucky that Covid wasn't more lethal. Might have been better in some ways if it was - the many a-holes who thought they know better might have paid attention then.

[navyblueshorts]

Yes we  could have gone Trumpian and just let it rip and blamed China, the result would have been a lot fewer Tory voting pensioners…would you have preferred that Duty?

We're getting those extra deaths now, although very few seem to care. Only when it's Covid-related does the tea and sympathy arrive from the many.

It's not a case that lives were saved during lockdown and there was no trade-off. Instead, lives were saved and there is a significant trade-off which we are experiencing now, with a rise in excess deaths and the NHS struggling with demand, which is just part of it.

Duh. Of course. There was always going to be a trade-off. As I said above, there were no good outcomes here.

You still haven't answered the thought experiment I posed to you, above. No rush...

As I've said your thought experiment has practically no relation to Covid, so I don't see the relevance.

Same old, same old. You won't answer a question posed your way when the obvious answer conflicts with your professed beliefs/position. Not a problem, but thought I'd ask.

[navyblueshorts]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

This is a logical fallacy and carries the (quite typical) underlying assumption that all experts think as one, which they don't.

You are not an expert on this. I'll happily listen to your discourse on political issues (even if I don't agree with your personal political position all the time), but on this sort of issue? Not so much.

[navyblueshorts]

Duty

When you were anti lockdown circa April 2020 was your reasoning based on scientific understanding or political ideology?

I don't see that my ideology has much to do with it. My opinion is primarily derived from the trade-offs posing greater harm than that which lockdown saved us from, although the swift curtailment of civil liberties and undermining of the democratic process was quite distressing.

You better hope the next pandemic isn't both as communicable and more deadly then...

[navyblueshorts]

Duty

Unless your opinion was based on scientific evidence your tale of whether or not you got it right about lockdowns is just anecdote. Do you think your method for determining whether or not there should be a lockdown would do better than chance over the long term?

Lots of things were Love sacks Mac, like the rule of six and meeting outside as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use, bit you bought into them.

If facemasks worked we'd have been mandated to wear a particular standard, Sturgeon would not have worn a toy tartan one to show how Scotch she was  and even when they laterly did have to in Germany, it made zero difference.

#facepalm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/

For the record, PNAS is not a Mickey Mouse publication.

Oh, and this as well:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/

Think next time?

[Duty281]

Yes we  could have gone Trumpian and just let it rip and blamed China, the result would have been a lot fewer Tory voting pensioners…would you have preferred that Duty?

We're getting those extra deaths now, although very few seem to care. Only when it's Covid-related does the tea and sympathy arrive from the many.

It's not a case that lives were saved during lockdown and there was no trade-off. Instead, lives were saved and there is a significant trade-off which we are experiencing now, with a rise in excess deaths and the NHS struggling with demand, which is just part of it.

Duh. Of course. There was always going to be a trade-off. As I said above, there were no good outcomes here.

You still haven't answered the thought experiment I posed to you, above. No rush...

As I've said your thought experiment has practically no relation to Covid, so I don't see the relevance.

Same old, same old. You won't answer a question posed your way when the obvious answer conflicts with your professed beliefs/position. Not a problem, but thought I'd ask.

I'm just making the point that it has nothing to do with Covid, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up?

With someone that has a 50% mortality rate, lockdown would probably be the minimum. Martial law would likely be enacted. But what has this got to do with Covid, which is nowhere near as lethal as your hypothetical?

[Duty281]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

This is a logical fallacy and carries the (quite typical) underlying assumption that all experts think as one, which they don't.

You are not an expert on this. I'll happily listen to your discourse on political issues (even if I don't agree with your personal political position all the time), but on this sort of issue? Not so much.

I've never stated that I am an expert. I'm pointing out that some experts will disagree with your position (will you listen to them?), and to use arguments from authority (as you are doing) is a logical fallacy.

[Duty281]

Duty

When you were anti lockdown circa April 2020 was your reasoning based on scientific understanding or political ideology?

I don't see that my ideology has much to do with it. My opinion is primarily derived from the trade-offs posing greater harm than that which lockdown saved us from, although the swift curtailment of civil liberties and undermining of the democratic process was quite distressing.

You better hope the next pandemic isn't both as communicable and more deadly then...

You keep using hypotheticals e.g. we're lucky Covid wasn't more deadly etc.

What on earth has this got to do with anything? We're discussing the ramifications of lockdown relating to a scenario that did happen, not one that didn't happen.

[Duty281]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

As for renowned experts, like communist behavioural scientists and Neil Ferguson who's never been right on anything?

Remember it was SAGE who told the UK government NOT to lock down earlier, but I distinctly recall people here criticising tje government for not doing that, so the likes of you go against these "renowned" experts too.

...and you know fine well it's far more nuanced than that. There's renowned expert opinion which of course can sometimes be wrong as well as right but on the balance of probability is more more likely to be right more than it is wrong. Additionally there is then the timing  of executing such advice, the comprehensiveness of implementing, the level of compliance etc. There were bloody loads of people out working & mixing when we were supposed to be locked down. the 2020 local elections were cancelled to prevent mixing, yet there were pics and vids that weekend of crowded tube platforms. It wasn't just a few rule breaking parties.

Quite. People like Duty and S_R, who both appear to be freedom wonks and always right, better hope the next one isn't more lethal as there could well be far more enforcement, incl. military. We were lucky that Covid wasn't more lethal. Might have been better in some ways if it was - the many a-holes who thought they know better might have paid attention then.

But it wasn't more lethal, that's the whole point. You can't criticise someone's criticisms of the actions relating to a given scenario by switching the goalposts of a given scenario.

Covid wasn't more lethal than it actually was, so the actions administered were grossly disproportionate.

And what's this sneering at freedom as though it's some filthy idea? I love freedom.

[navyblueshorts]

[JAS]

Well Jas, I think the 1-7 shows us where Rangers finish.
It's funny that Klopp last week said the gap wasn't big between Rangers and Liverpool. Looks like a chasm now.

Oooff!! The roof fell in, I’m not saying he should be sacked but Gio will do well to hold onto his job now. Even I have to say we’re looking at a total whitewash now. All the Kudos from last season and the respectability build up from the 2 seasons before that has been blown away in 4 games. I now shudder to think what will happen in Naples. Yet it all looked so promising at half time.

We could get Gerrard back soon (joke)  :-p Although personally if Gio does have to fall on his sword I’d rather go for Michael Beale before his stock rises any higher and we can’t afford him.

Why is he close to the sack?

Rangers aren't remotely close to the level of Napoli and Liverpool, and are a fair bit behind CL regulars Ajax as well. Four losses from four is surely no surprise?

Exactly. Sacking someone isn't the answer when you were always likely to be the group whipping boys anyway.
This was entirely expected that Celtic and Rangers would finish 4th, and it's all but guaranteed now.

Given that neither team has been there for at least 5 seasons, it was always a season used as a barometer of where they are and they have shown they are at the bottom of the pyramid.

How they react to that is a different story, but sacking a manager when they don't have the ability to attract top tier replacement is just papering over the cracks and denying the facts

Meanwhile, 6 weeks on...this conversation didn't age well did it? ...and I include my own contributions to it.

[McLaren]

Duty

This goes back to the question I tried to get you to answer last week. What methodology did you use to determine lock downs weren't necessary, how did you check whether that was correct and would the same method work again?

[super_realist]

Duty

Unless your opinion was based on scientific evidence your tale of whether or not you got it right about lockdowns is just anecdote. Do you think your method for determining whether or not there should be a lockdown would do better than chance over the long term?

Lots of things were Love sacks Mac, like the rule of six and meeting outside as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use, bit you bought into them.

If facemasks worked we'd have been mandated to wear a particular standard, Sturgeon would not have worn a toy tartan one to show how Scotch she was  and even when they laterly did have to in Germany, it made zero difference.

#facepalm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/

For the record, PNAS is not a Mickey Mouse publication.

Oh, and this as well:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/

Think next time?

That doesn't answer anything. We were only mandated to wear "face coverings" not any specific standard or meeting any medical grade and not following any change/replacement protocol. Just a face covering, nothing else. That could have been a Nato gasmask, or a strip of toilet paper.
There is no evidence that a face mask of whatever type you choose to wear has efficacy against spreading disease of a virus in general non laboratory conditions.

No one ever wore a face mask in line with scientific testing conditions.

You have missed the point entirely that only mandating a "face covering" without specifying it has to meet ANY standard doesn't mean you are meeting, or even getting close to any figures of efficacy as obtained from a closed experiment

It's like saying a new C Segment car has a specific safety rating and thus by deduction all cars in that class share the same rating, where in fact the only thing they have in common is they are C Segment Cars.

[navyblueshorts]

Duty

Unless your opinion was based on scientific evidence your tale of whether or not you got it right about lockdowns is just anecdote. Do you think your method for determining whether or not there should be a lockdown would do better than chance over the long term?

Lots of things were Love sacks Mac, like the rule of six and meeting outside as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use, bit you bought into them.

If facemasks worked we'd have been mandated to wear a particular standard, Sturgeon would not have worn a toy tartan one to show how Scotch she was  and even when they laterly did have to in Germany, it made zero difference.

#facepalm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/

For the record, PNAS is not a Mickey Mouse publication.

Oh, and this as well:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/

Think next time?

That doesn't answer anything. We were only mandated to wear "face coverings" not any specific standard or meeting any medical grade and not following any change/replacement protocol. Just a face covering, nothing else. That could have been a Nato gasmask, or a strip of toilet paper.
There is no evidence that a face mask of whatever type you choose to wear has efficacy against spreading disease of a virus in general non laboratory conditions.

No one ever wore a face mask in line with scientific testing conditions.

You have missed the point entirely that only mandating a "face covering" without specifying it has to meet ANY standard doesn't mean you are meeting, or even getting close to any figures of efficacy as obtained from a closed experiment

It's like saying a new C Segment car has a specific safety rating and thus by deduction all cars in that class share the same rating, where in fact the only thing they have in common is they are C Segment Cars.

...as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use...

I just gave you some. Your tortured logic to try to convince me (yourself?) that you have any sort of valid argument isn't working. As for trying to lecture me on evidence-based research? Give it up.

You're wrong and you know it .

[McLaren]

Navy

You need to start posting more credible sources like Joe Rogan.

[Duty281]

Duty

Unless your opinion was based on scientific evidence your tale of whether or not you got it right about lockdowns is just anecdote. Do you think your method for determining whether or not there should be a lockdown would do better than chance over the long term?

Lots of things were Love sacks Mac, like the rule of six and meeting outside as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use, bit you bought into them.

If facemasks worked we'd have been mandated to wear a particular standard, Sturgeon would not have worn a toy tartan one to show how Scotch she was  and even when they laterly did have to in Germany, it made zero difference.

#facepalm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/

For the record, PNAS is not a Mickey Mouse publication.

Oh, and this as well:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/

Think next time?

That doesn't answer anything. We were only mandated to wear "face coverings" not any specific standard or meeting any medical grade and not following any change/replacement protocol. Just a face covering, nothing else. That could have been a Nato gasmask, or a strip of toilet paper.
There is no evidence that a face mask of whatever type you choose to wear has efficacy against spreading disease of a virus in general non laboratory conditions.

No one ever wore a face mask in line with scientific testing conditions.

You have missed the point entirely that only mandating a "face covering" without specifying it has to meet ANY standard doesn't mean you are meeting, or even getting close to any figures of efficacy as obtained from a closed experiment

It's like saying a new C Segment car has a specific safety rating and thus by deduction all cars in that class share the same rating, where in fact the only thing they have in common is they are C Segment Cars.

...as well as the use of "face coverings" as there was no scientific evidence to show they were any use...

I just gave you some. Your tortured logic to try to convince me (yourself?) that you have any sort of valid argument isn't working. As for trying to lecture me on evidence-based research? Give it up.

You're wrong and you know it .

Yes, your tumbleweed definitely depicts your valid arguments.

[navyblueshorts]

Never mind, Nicola...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63727562

[McLaren]

Navy

I wouldn't vote for independence but it is hard to ignore the droves of people that vote for the SNP in Scotland. It feels like the democratic thing to do is acknowledge there are enough people in Scotland who still feel like the question is not resolved. And I don't get the "once in a generation" retort. If the will of the people is such, a referendum might have to happen every other week. I certainly hope getting back into the EU isn't off the table.

[JAS]

Never mind, Nicola...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63727562

Now watch the polls take a significant tick up for independence. On a basic level, tell Jocks they cant have something and the most likely response is defiance. Krankie will now ride the wave of frustration of Scots being told by London establishment that they're not entitled to be asked about self determination.

Don't get me wrong as a Jock living in England I do NOT want them to go for separation

The easiest way to keep Scotland safely in the union is for the English vote to come back to the centre ground. The reality is the the centre of political gravity in Scotland is left of where the English one is. There will always be a significant core of support for independence but not enough to win a vote. The only reason the clamour for Indy is now an issue is that the residual core vote has been swelled by left leaning frustration at a Westminster Tory government and a fairly incompetent one at that. Absolute pennies from heaven for a reasonably astute Sturgeon who knows how easy it is to tap into those frustrations.

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

[superflyweight]

Never mind, Nicola...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63727562

Now watch the polls take a significant tick up for independence. On a basic level, tell Jocks they cant have something and the most likely response is defiance. Krankie will now ride the wave of frustration of Scots being told by London establishment that they're not entitled to be asked about self determination.

Don't get me wrong as a Jock living in England I do NOT want them to go for separation

The easiest way to keep Scotland safely in the union is for the English vote to come back to the centre ground. The reality is the the centre of political gravity in Scotland is left of where the English one is. There will always be a significant core of support for independence but not enough to win a vote. The only reason the clamour for Indy is now an issue is that the residual core vote has been swelled by left leaning frustration at a Westminster Tory government and a fairly incompetent one at that. Absolute pennies from heaven for a reasonably astute Sturgeon who knows how easy it is to tap into those frustrations.

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

I doubt it. People for and against independence are fairly entrenched in their positions and anyone wavering is probably doing so out of caution and the fear of the unknown. Support for and against has remained pretty steady for a while now. The correct interpretation of the constitutional position is not going to have anyone other than the most fervent of nutters marching in the streets.

I agree on the last point, SNP have ridden on the coat tails of this Conservative Government for a long time and their rise to popularity and power has coincided with the financial crash and the last 12 years of Conservative rule.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

I wouldn't vote for independence but it is hard to ignore the droves of people that vote for the SNP in Scotland. It feels like the democratic thing to do is acknowledge there are enough people in Scotland who still feel like the question is not resolved. And I don't get the "once in a generation" retort. If the will of the people is such, a referendum might have to happen every other week. I certainly hope getting back into the EU isn't off the table.

I care very little any more tbh. Part of me says let them have their damned vote, but suggest bar is set at two-thirds majority. We've seen more than enough in the recent past where there's a slim majority for one thing vs. another.

One thing that must p*** quite a few off in Scotland is that by no means all who voted SNP in the past are in favour of independence, but Sturgeon in her arrogance assumes the two are the same.

[navyblueshorts]

Never mind, Nicola...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63727562

Now watch the polls take a significant tick up for independence. On a basic level, tell Jocks they cant have something and the most likely response is defiance. Krankie will now ride the wave of frustration of Scots being told by London establishment that they're not entitled to be asked about self determination.

Don't get me wrong as a Jock living in England I do NOT want them to go for separation

The easiest way to keep Scotland safely in the union is for the English vote to come back to the centre ground. The reality is the the centre of political gravity in Scotland is left of where the English one is. There will always be a significant core of support for independence but not enough to win a vote. The only reason the clamour for Indy is now an issue is that the residual core vote has been swelled by left leaning frustration at a Westminster Tory government and a fairly incompetent one at that. Absolute pennies from heaven for a reasonably astute Sturgeon who knows how easy it is to tap into those frustrations.

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

Yep. Still, if that sort of idiocy floats their boat, they're welcome to it.

[navyblueshorts]

Never mind, Nicola...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63727562

Now watch the polls take a significant tick up for independence. On a basic level, tell Jocks they cant have something and the most likely response is defiance. Krankie will now ride the wave of frustration of Scots being told by London establishment that they're not entitled to be asked about self determination.

Don't get me wrong as a Jock living in England I do NOT want them to go for separation

The easiest way to keep Scotland safely in the union is for the English vote to come back to the centre ground. The reality is the the centre of political gravity in Scotland is left of where the English one is. There will always be a significant core of support for independence but not enough to win a vote. The only reason the clamour for Indy is now an issue is that the residual core vote has been swelled by left leaning frustration at a Westminster Tory government and a fairly incompetent one at that. Absolute pennies from heaven for a reasonably astute Sturgeon who knows how easy it is to tap into those frustrations.

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

I doubt it.  People for and against independence are fairly entrenched in their positions and anyone wavering is probably doing so out of caution and the fear of the unknown. Support for and against has remained pretty steady for a while now.  The correct interpretation of the constitutional position is not going to have anyone other than the most fervent of nutters marching in the streets.  

I agree on the last point, SNP have ridden on the coat tails of this Conservative Government for a long time and their rise to popularity and power has coincided with the financial crash and the last 12 years of Conservative rule.  

I can see how that last point plays, but I'm so bored of it. "We didn't get a Government we voted for! Boo hoo!". Good grief. Isn't it time people grew up a bit? I haven't voted Tory since I was a wet around the ears recent graduate in the early 80s (forgive me), but that's democracy. I don't for a second believe Sturgeon has anyone's interests at heart other than her own. If she did, they'd be focused on actually running a devolved Scotland properly instead of whining ad nauseam about Westminster.

Best thing we could do is allow England, Wales and NI a say in an Indy2 referendum. Roll on the break up of the UK. Maybe we can get on with life then....

[JAS]

Never mind, Nicola...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63727562

Now watch the polls take a significant tick up for independence. On a basic level, tell Jocks they cant have something and the most likely response is defiance. Krankie will now ride the wave of frustration of Scots being told by London establishment that they're not entitled to be asked about self determination.

Don't get me wrong as a Jock living in England I do NOT want them to go for separation

The easiest way to keep Scotland safely in the union is for the English vote to come back to the centre ground. The reality is the the centre of political gravity in Scotland is left of where the English one is. There will always be a significant core of support for independence but not enough to win a vote. The only reason the clamour for Indy is now an issue is that the residual core vote has been swelled by left leaning frustration at a Westminster Tory government and a fairly incompetent one at that. Absolute pennies from heaven for a reasonably astute Sturgeon who knows how easy it is to tap into those frustrations.

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

I doubt it.  People for and against independence are fairly entrenched in their positions and anyone wavering is probably doing so out of caution and the fear of the unknown. Support for and against has remained pretty steady for a while now.  The correct interpretation of the constitutional position is not going to have anyone other than the most fervent of nutters marching in the streets.  

I agree on the last point, SNP have ridden on the coat tails of this Conservative Government for a long time and their rise to popularity and power has coincided with the financial crash and the last 12 years of Conservative rule.  

I can see how that last point plays, but I'm so bored of it. "We didn't get a Government we voted for! Boo hoo!". Good grief. Isn't it time people grew up a bit? I haven't voted Tory since I was a wet around the ears recent graduate in the early 80s (forgive me), but that's democracy. I don't for a second believe Sturgeon has anyone's interests at heart other than her own. If she did, they'd be focused on actually running a devolved Scotland properly instead of whining ad nauseam about Westminster.

Best thing we could do is allow England, Wales and NI a say in an Indy2 referendum. Roll on the break up of the UK. Maybe we can get on with life then....

Or...give them a vote, assume it will be no and hey presto, the issue goes away...Oh wait...Cameron tried that with Brexit.

One major flaw in the SNP argument is "We don't want to be tied to a union with a uncaring unlistening bigger neighbour" and "We want to join the EU" I just wobble my head at trying to square that those two statements come from the same source!!

Going back to my other point let me put it another way..I'd hazard a guess that there are say 25% in the Indy Camp, 25% in the Union camp that are completely and utterly entrenched you then add in around 30% who are completely entrenched in "Don't Care, don't vote" so that leaves around 20% who are open to being in one of the 3 camps and they will shift around depending on mood and strength of argument, perceived evidence of how well off or not they are. To date Sturgeon has done really well to garner a sizeable proportion of that 20% and has probably tapped into the rich seam of apathetic as well. Most of that dividend will have come from disaffection with 12 years of austerity (perceived or real, it doesn't matter, it's still a driver). Take Tory austerity away (again this is perception over reality as any Labour replacement wouldn't suddenly be a land of milk and honey) but take it away and Sturgeons support in that floating 20% would recede.There would also probably by a gravitation back toward apathy as well.

Hold one in 2023 and it really would be touch and go. Hold one in 2025/26 under an expected Labour administration and I'd almost be tempted to bet the house on a NO.

[McLaren]

=

One thing that must p*** quite a few off in Scotland is that by no means all who voted SNP in the past are in favour of independence, but Sturgeon in her arrogance assumes the two are the same.

The thing about this is that I am all for holding people responsible for what they vote for. If a party stands for something and you vote for it, then you are giving that party the permission to carry it out.

[McLaren]

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

Maybe I am unique but the one thing that would get me to vote for Scottish independence would be an agreement with the EU beforehand that in the event of independence Scotland goes straight back into the EU. If I had to pick between being in the UK or the EU, I would pick the EU.

[JAS]

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

Maybe I am unique but the one thing that would get me to vote for Scottish independence would be an agreement with the EU beforehand that in the event of independence Scotland goes straight back into the EU. If I had to pick between being in the UK or the EU, I would pick the EU.

Maybe not unique but certainly niche

[JAS]

Meanwhile it's looking increasingly likely that Beale will be the new man to inherit the Ibrox poison chalice sorry hotseat.

Would be my choice as I eluded to a few weeks ago. Still got some misgivings about GvB being binned the way he was (especially with such a horrendous injury list) but he'd clearly lost the dressing room (and the treatment table)

[JAS]

So just to clarify for Super's benefit, he turned down Premiership Wolves, a few weeks later his hand shot up straight away to ask Rangers to appoint him. I trust that will elicit an amusing response ;-)

[McLaren]

Who?

[JAS]

Who?

Michael Beale, pretty much a done deal

[navyblueshorts]

A 2024 GE with a 100 seat Labour majority would kill the independence folly stone dead.

Maybe I am unique but the one thing that would get me to vote for Scottish independence would be an agreement with the EU beforehand that in the event of independence Scotland goes straight back into the EU. If I had to pick between being in the UK or the EU, I would pick the EU.

I think we'll all be 'back in' the EU sooner, rather than later. The demographic of a lot of the 'out' voters is shrinking by the day. At some point, there'll be a re-think but it's politically not allowed at the moment. Even if not full-on membership (i.e. accepting Euro etc etc, which is what'll be required), I can't imagine that there won't be much closer integration, even in the event that in 10-20 years Brexit might be considered to be a 'success' (just go with me on that idea!).

The 'out' brigade are like Canute - the world is getting 'smaller', with all that means for culture, trade etc etc. There's only so long that painting Johnny Foreigner as bad is going to hack it.

Then again, prior to the Brexit vote, I could have sworn we wouldn't be so stupid to vote 'out', so what do I know. If I ever see Cameron, I'm going to knock his teeth out...

[westisbest]

Who?

Michael Beale, pretty much a done deal

Doing a good job with QPR.

[JAS]

Who?

Michael Beale, pretty much a done deal

Doing a good job with QPR.

Oddly enough he was until Wolves came asking, he was also invited to Ibrox by the directors for a home game around the same time (which in retrospect now looks a bit murky). Odd things can happen when a head is turned.

Separately from that, I guess clubs directors look at the overall package of what they're getting not just a 5-10 game results sequence tick-box. Now you could say that's exactly what they did to GvB, bad sequence of results, here's your P45, get out. But it was more than that, it was the style of play, the nature of the capitulation in some games. Personally I think he should have been given the opportunity to turn it round, maybe encouraged to get an angry Jock as part of the set up (Gio was perceived as too nice and therefore a bit soft). Such is the instant judgement nature of football nowadays he never got that chance.

[McLaren]

Who?

Michael Beale, pretty much a done deal

Doing a good job with QPR.

So this is the same guy that was Gerards assistant?

[JAS]

Who?

Michael Beale, pretty much a done deal

Doing a good job with QPR.

So this is the same guy that was Gerards assistant?

Aye, that be him

[McLaren]

Well people did claim that he pretty much did everything on the technical side for Stevie G.

[JAS]

Well people did claim that he pretty much did everything on the technical side for Stevie G.

That's his big selling point yeah and Gerrard's record at Villa initially encouraging took on a fairly steep downward trend after Beale baled to take the QPR Manager role.

It's one thing being a coach under a strong personality, polished media savvy figurehead. Quite another to still be that coach and have to do all that fronting up as well. We'll see. I do think it'll be essential for him to get a complimentary number 2 (like Archie Knox was for Fergie & Walter, like Walter was for Souness etc)

[JAS]

Tumbleweed city or what??

Here's one...Royal Mail saying my delivery likely to be delayed due to the ongoing disruption.
That'll be ALL the unions fault for asking for a decent pay rise no doubt. Which cant be given because "It will cause an inflationary spiral" Ok then lets cast our minds back to 2015...
Price of a 1st Class Stamp 63p
Postmans average salary £21000
Royal Mail Chief Exec's wage £510000

Now role forward to 2022
Price of a 1st Class Stamp 95p
Postmans average Salary £22300
Royal Mail Chief Exec's wage? £753000

So...about this inflationary spiral and it's causes then... I'm sure if you were to do the same check with Train tickets, Rail workers, Rail Co Chief Execs you'd see a pattern emerging. Ever get the feeling you're being lied to and cheated??

[Duty281]

The current salary of the chief executive of Royal Mail is about 544k.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/royal-mail-boss-handed-140000-27264328

According to this the salary of the same position was 548k six years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/03/royal-mails-moya-greene-reaps-another-15m-pay-package

[McLaren]

I thought there might be more world cup chat on here.

Sadly FIFA and the Qatari leaders are not getting the world cup they deserve. In the sense that from a footballing perspective it has been pretty entertaining. Which means the coverage has not focused on the atrocities as much as it should have done.

[McLaren]

Jas

It's crying over spilt milk given the post office was effectively privatized. Still, it would be nice to see the workers paid properly.

[navyblueshorts]

Tumbleweed city or what??

Here's one...Royal Mail saying my delivery likely to be delayed due to the ongoing disruption.
That'll be ALL the unions fault for asking for a decent pay rise no doubt. Which cant be given because "It will cause an inflationary spiral" Ok then lets cast our minds back to 2015...
Price of a 1st Class Stamp 63p
Postmans average salary £21000
Royal Mail Chief Exec's wage £510000

Now role forward to 2022
Price of a 1st Class Stamp 95p
Postmans average Salary £22300
Royal Mail Chief Exec's wage? £753000

So...about this inflationary spiral and it's causes then... I'm sure if you were to do the same check with Train tickets, Rail workers, Rail Co Chief Execs you'd see a pattern emerging. Ever get the feeling you're being lied to and cheated??

Just speeding up the reduction in RM's market share. Similar to RMT speeding up the imposition of reduced staffing on existing trains, and advent of, driverless trains etc. As to argument re. so-called inflationary spiral, let's see. Workers want absurd pay increases so they can spend money on whatever, essentials or not. Of course that'll influence inflation.

This country's a bust I think. People want stupid money for jobs that require little skill, essentially because house prices/rent is insane and increasing year-on-year at absurd rate. Understandable, I guess. The sooner the UK housing 'market' is broken as an investment opportunity, the better.

I generalise, but everyone assumes that NHS staff are saints, the lot of them. They aren't and I don't call a newly qualified nurse's salary of around £30k a pittance. My and my family's experience outside of critical care is not consistent with this idea that everyone employed by the NHS is somehow both brilliant and selfless. Unless things have change a lot recently, 3 x 12-hour shifts, 4 days off, 6-months full pay sick leave, extra pay for bank shifts etc is not that bad.
Stress etc due to staffing shortages I get, but maybe some questions should be asked of those off on long-term sick leave as well. Extra pay will not solve staff shortages, so that's a national issue, which needs addressing. The bleating from many that "this is not about pay" is nauseating - if that's the case, why are you asking for a pay increase?

For many public services, I think strike action should be illegal, but all should have independent pay review bodies, the decisions of which the Government are legally bound to honour year on year.

Don't get wrong - I'm not defending this Government, but the myriad absurd pay demands are nonsense, and they know it.

[Sponsored content]