AsimButtHitsASix

Dunno. That's twice now ye've quoted me and failed to read the part about the Smith Commission. Maybe it's an attention span issue rather than reading comprehension.

Having lived down there and watched a lot of their football it's noticeable how much physicality is an important part of the game in the Championship and below and how little tactics and skilful play are a part of it. Quite often it's a defence and midfield that are two banks of four, putting it out to the full back, floated ball forward for a target man to bring down and lay off to a midfielder to try and pick a pass for the wide players/other striker to run onto. It's the go to move for 50%+ of their teams. Probably to do with their teams playing 60 games a season and the amount of time you can work on things on a training pitch being diluted but it's all about big, tall guys who can run, hold a ball up and have the fitness to do that for 4,000+ minutes a season. Thinking of players at the same level up here I doubt guys like Scott Tiffoney or Lewis Vaughn would get a look in because they're too wee and there's no place for that wee spark of creativity or flair in the unending focus on shape and playing the percentages.

Again I asked you "if you can find it written anywhere that a referendum has to be once in a generation or, indeed, any time scales put forward for how often referenda can happen feel free to post them." It's plainly obvious the use of the term in the white paper pertains to the idea that the opportunity may not arise again. Not that it can only be a generational opportunity. If you want to pretend otherwise feel free to embarrass yourself publicly by letting us all think you have poor reading comprehension But well done on completely side stepping the part about the Smith Commission.

As mentioned previously the pitch is still a bit of a nick. Some areas look fine, some a wee bit bare, but other areas the grass was at least a coupla inches long. The markings were also very feint to the extent that sometimes you couldn't make them out.

It was not in the white paper that the Independence referendum had to be once in a generation. The white paper states: "It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way." It does not state it has to be only once in a generation. Anyone with the ability to understand context understood this phrase was there to magnify the importance of the referendum and not as an absolute timeframe on future referenda. That would be fucking stupid. In fact the quote within the white paper states "The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity." this implies the "once-in-a-generation" statement refers to Westminster allowing one. Not the will to have another. If, as expected, Westminster continue to refuse the legal grounds for another referendum then we can safely say this forewarning has been proven correct. Again, if you can find it written anywhere that a referendum has to be once in a generation or, indeed, any time scales put forward for how often referenda can happen feel free to post them. If you are just going to take a turn of phrase out of context and repeat it like a legal document don't bother. Anyway, speaking of documents written down, and easily referenced. Chapter 2 of the Smith Commission: "It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose." Weird how the BritNats never reference that and, instead, choose an Alex Salmond soundbite.

Don't recall it being written anywhere that referenda had to be generational. Or that 30 years is the definition of a generation either.

I think it's your commiting the fallacy here. Yes there have been benefits but if the hindrances outweigh those benefits we can't say Scotland has benefited. Is someone benefited from being incarcerated? (almost certainly) No. Are there benefits? Yes Has Scotland benefited from being part of the Union? Maybe. Are there benefits? Yes. Just because there are benefits doesn't mean the overall act is benefical

We'll simplify it for you. Do you believe, if Scotland had not joined the Union, today's Scotland would be exactly the same as the Scotland of 1707?

That only makes sense if you believe pre-Union Scotland wouldn't have improved under independence. Which begs the question how, I dunno, Estonia or Portugal managed to improve despite not being part of the UK.

Well... no. For instance one could argue a benefit of incarceration is free bed and board but few would argue 10 years in the pokey benefitted the Birmingham Six. So, yes, whilst being part of the UK in the days of empire helped make a lot of Scottish people very rich and this, in turn, led (directly or indirectly) to benefits to Scottish society we don't know that those benefits would not have arrived via different sources. The Norwegians, for instance, had similar progressions to Scotland on a vaguely similar timeline without the use of Jamaican slave plantations. So being part of the Empire was a benefit but we can't claim that that benefit outweighed potential downsides (clearances, wars, centralisation of power away from Scotland, etc). To use Norway as another example their oil fund has sustained, and will sustain, their social democratic policies for decades and decades to come. If we were an independent nation thr oil revenue per capita for Scotland would have been massive. We could make the argument that that income being diluted across the UK populace and (some would argue) being frittered away is a downside of the union. This equally ignores the possibility an independent Scotland would have ballsed up this windfall. So, no, we can point to things and argue that they are positives or negatives of the Union. Both exist. We can't say that overall the Union has been a benefit or hindrance.

Well... it does. The benefits of the union may well be vastly outweighed by the negatives. We'll never know.

The important part of this is the "IMO". I, personally, don't particularly agree with population growth as any sort of absolute and put it down on the list of metrics to consider but just because you don't hold it as something to use doesn't mean it is without merit. Yer claiming absolutes on hypotheticals but think I'm the one who's committed the logical fallacy. Fascinating.

Does it, aye?

Those fucking elites and their mealworms again...

Is it, aye?

Can we be sure Steve55 wasn't kidnapped by a sasquatch? I've not heard any biologists claim that it can't have happened with complete certainty...

Weird how there's never a good time to talk about a referendum. But, ironically, almost every time a referendum is brought up it's by Tory and Labour supporters falsely claiming it's all the independence supporting parties go on about.

No matter where you stand on independence it's impossible to say that Scotland has benefited, overall, from being in the Union. Of course there has been benefits but, unless anyone has something that can transport them to a parallel dimension, we don't know how Scotland would have done as an independent nation.

Lucky you. I work with one and he's less than 20 feet away.

Regarding scran in Inverness. That Caribbean place was alright.

Renton knocked us out of the Scottish cup in September 1883. Weird how all Dumbarton's 19th century rivals all died. First Renton, then Vale of Leven, then Rangers.

16 teams is perfect. 30 games. Bulk it out with some daft cups. 3 up/3down 4-7th promotion play off and 10th-13th in a relegation play off. Not only will every club have something to play for each year but you could go into the final day with promotion or relegation still an option. Make fitba mental again.

None of them are in the Scottish Cup this year but the massive swings in "quality" with the new WoSFL 4th Division teams on the scotscores page is some laugh. I think Rossvale Academy were the 60th best team in Scotland for a week