Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Redstarstranraer last won the day on October 27 2016

Redstarstranraer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

492 Excellent

About Redstarstranraer

  • Rank
    Junior League Starter

Profile Information

  • My Team

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I did my PhD on the use of historical narratives to build differing conceptions of national identity, but thanks for the patronising advice anyway. You were the one who brought the bloody Normans into the debate about putting Gaelic on signs in contemporary Scotland. I beg leave to think that an irrelevant and unproductive line of argumentation. There is precisely no evidence for any of the arguments you have made vis-a-vis the supposed ideological promotion of Gaelic as a "false" national language. If you can actually evince some evidence of there being a declared agenda by the "ruling class" to promote the language in this way in 2019 I'd be interested to see it.
  2. Eh? Who is "letting the aristocracy define Scottishness"? You brought up the entirely irrelevant status of the ruling class in 11-12th century Scotland to prove some kind of point, I really don't know what it is or what the hell it has to do with road signs. What is your argument here? Do you know? Kudos though, raising the Treaty of Abernethy as an argument about whether or not to put Gaelic on road signs in 2019 is some feat.
  3. So Norman influence then, qualitatively different from the actual Norman conquest. The two things are clearly not the same, not sure why you would conflate them unless you had a tendentious agenda to promote a narrative of the history of these isles which minimises any difference and seeks to establish the idea that we're all exactly the same. The same sort of agenda that would lead you to oppose minority languages being used on road signs.
  4. Which I'm sure you can evidence as part of a systemic, ideologically driven agenda connected to road signs and isn't a topos of threat that you've dreamt up without any supporting proof. Basic facts about Scottish history should clearly be taught at primary school. Certain historical narratives are always promoted above others but I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever of a nationalist-driven primary school curriculum. Not sure what this has to do with road signs. Again I don't know what evidence there is for this being an agenda consciously fostered by the authorities. Still not sure what this has to do with road signs. Are the Jacobites only relevant to Gaelic speakers? I'd argue that the effects of Norman influence (when did the conquest happen up here out of interest?) and the reformation are under-explored but that has sod all to do with road signs. But yeah, the ruling class is promoting Gaelic to suppress Scotland's history of class war and to bolster support for feudalism, or something
  5. Totally agree, glad to see such strong support for the Gaelic I don't know though, not speaking a word of Gaelic personally I have to say that since moving from Galloway to Argyll I've found it quite hard to navigate with two languages on signposts. God knows I've lost count of the times I've been frustrated, smashing my head off the steering wheel in apoplexies of confusion as to whether Inbhir Aora is somewhere other than Inveraray. Not just me, the lines of tourists stranded on the A83 unable to determine if it is the road to Campbeltown or Ceann Loch Chille Chiarain is the bane of every summer. In all seriousness how insecure about yourself to do you have to be to get worked up about road signs featuring another language you don't happen to be fluent in? It costs nothing in the grand scheme of things and has zero effect on you personally. The fact that otherwise reasonable individuals get outraged by the idea of Gaelic being allowed some visibility outwith the areas they deem acceptable is truly baffling.
  6. Fair play to Killie, an ambitious and fairly exciting appointment. Alessio has some pretty decent footballing pedigree albeit his record as a manager in his own right (admittedly a long while back at a pretty low level) isn't that great. You'd think though that working at the level he has since with Conte he can bring a lot to Kilmarnock. Bit of a gamble but then so is any appointment to some degree. Great to see an appointment that eschews the usual managerial merry go round up here. Scottish football really needs an appointment like this to work. The whole culture around the game here seems thirty or forty years out of date, with unimaginative chairmen appointing equally limited managers from a shallow pool of supposed talent washed out from the pubs of Largs. The media promotes and protects the same clique of journeymen out of a combination of nepotism, laziness, small-mindedness and the fundamental fact the journalists are as limited as the managers. It's like a symbiotic shiteness. Hopefully the likes of Alessio can demonstrate to chairmen up and down Scotland that you can look beyond the usual suspects and be a bit more innovative in terms of appointments and all other aspects of the game. So aside from when you're playing Hibs obviously I hope this works out.
  7. Piss-poor incoherent trolling it may be but in all seriousness you'd think if there's one thing ***s ought to be able to spot after all this time it'd be spivs, charlatans and chancers proclaiming they had untold riches to plough into a football club. Or maybe not. Anyway does anyone know if these supposed Americans' wealth can be detected by radar?
  8. Surely if the last few seasons have taught us anything it's that what matters isn't the team on the park but the size of the crowd. We should really go for it and put a crane in the corner with a hot tub suspended from it or something innovative like that....
  9. Will be interesting to see what resignation/threat or manoeuvre will finally pierce Theresa May's Fuhrerbunker levels of delusion. Anyone else would have had the self-awareness to see their position was untenable months ago and spared themselves the ensuing barrage of (well-deserved) humiliation and ridicule. Have to assume this latest crisis, given all parts of the Tory party seem to have now exhausted all their patience with her, will finally cause her to quit. Complete failure of a politician. Indeed only one I can recall putting the metaphorical gun to their head and threatening to not pull the trigger as an incentive to swing a vote.
  10. McGeouch was one of the most underrated players in Scotland for most of his time with us, albeit the constant injuries probably went a long way towards stopping him getting to where his talent could have taken him. I'm sure almost everyone would have him back at ER in a heartbeat. Won't happen though unless it's a loan I don't imagine. Aberdeen fans thinking a move to them would be a step up from Hibs is quaint though.
  11. I'm afraid I think there's a lot of disingenuous pish being waffled by certain people here on this issue. Question Time supposedly consists of, according to the BBC's own website: "Topical debate in which guests from the worlds of politics and the media answer questions posed by members of the public". The BBC pick the studio guests, the location, the audience and subsequently edit the footage to show what they deem representative, entertaining or relevant. The BBC devised and have progressively tweaked the show's format. Nobody is forcing the BBC to make any of these editorial decisions. Given the BBC are actively promoting Question Time as an opportunity for the general public to grill politicians on the issues of the day it would not be unreasonable for the watching public to assume that those posing the questions are not affiliated with a particular political party. The BBC unashamedly promote the show as a forum for "Joe Public" to put his point across to otherwise relatively inaccessible politicians. This undoubtedly gives the impression the show is a more or less accurate representation of the vox populi and public opinion in general. I think it not unreasonable therefore that many of the watching audience may assume that contributors and questioners are not actually paid up members of political parties let alone hold or have held public office. The panel is presented as comprised of such individuals, not the supposedly random audience. In my opinion, and I do not think I would be alone in holding this view, councillors, party activists and ex-MSPs cannot legitimately be presented as members of the public. They are essentially politicians. Given the BBC apparently vets those who wish to get on the show via an application process either the BBC is fully aware of these individuals backgrounds and chooses to ignore them or those in charge of the vetting process are entirely incompetent. I do not think it is the latter. It may well be difficult to compile such a show without attracting applicants who are politically engaged, but I do not think it impossible to do so without either excluding actual party activists or at least making them identify themselves as such. It is quite clear audiences will esteem questions and points differently if they know they are being raised by individuals who have an actual association with a certain party than someone apparently unconnected to one at all. All any of this would take is asking a questioner where relevant to say "I am a member of X party" before making their point. If they refuse to do so then their contribution can be edited out in the post-production stage. If someone slipped through the net then the BBC could, say, exclude that party from the subsequent edition and reinstate them once obtaining a promise to desist. It wouldn't actually be difficult to do. The current format essentially allows political activists (who appear to be predominantly of one certain political persuasion) to make tendentious points and political attacks on their opponents whilst masquerading as ordinary citizens. That is fundamentally dishonest. The "yellow dress" woman or whatever she was called actually appeared on a Tory party political broadcast not one hour ago standing next to Ruth Davidson at what I assume was the Scottish Conservative conference. Presenting someone such as her who clearly is deeply associated (and one assumes a paid up member) of a political party as a "member of the public" distorts audience perception. For clarity this would hold true equally if the person involved was associated with the SNP. Many of the watching audience may well be duly cynical about the background of some audience members. In my opinion however the BBC is being deliberately and unnecessarily misleading by not identifying where it can that many of those asking questions are not politically unaffiliated members of the public as the show may lead the audience to believe.
  12. Out of interest before 1945 what supposedly constituted a country in the opinion of adherents of this particularly asinine and obtuse strand of unionism? League of Nations membership? What about before then? Is it turtles all the way down?
  13. This whole season is Stevenson's testimonial season. If you remember he had a dinner thrown for him in September. No idea why setting up the actual match is taking so long but it's still apparently in the works: http://lewisstevensontestimonial.org/?page_id=11 What with work and some family stuff going on I've not been down to as many games as I'd like this season, but whenever it happens I'm going to make it down for this testimonial. If you think of all the players that have come and gone in his time at the club, some who were lauded as potential greats but achieved f**k all and many who were just pish or contributed absolutely nothing he stands out as a guy who really contributed (and contributes) something to the club. Although he's never really the kind of guy who catches the eye necessarily or picks up the plaudits from the fans he works hard and churns out 6-7/10 performances even when the side in general aren't playing all that well. If we'd had a few more like him in his time I doubt we'd be in this division now. Out of all his generation of players he's arguably been the one who actually did the most for Hibernian as a club. I hope we keep him until he decides to hang up his boots.
  14. Tom English's take on things: Tom English opinion The other day, Mark Warburton attempted to explain away his team's - or former team's - dreary draw against Ross County by saying a series of random events conspired against his players. It was, he said, football's strange ways that denied them on the day, as if some cosmic force was to blame for the failings rather than his own players and his own management.Warburton's comments were bizarre but nowhere near as surreal as the nonsense that took hold of Rangers on Friday evening as the club said that Warburton was leaving and Warburton said that he wasn't. The Keystone Cops, cutting about with their trousers on fire, were made to look like a well-drilled army compared to the contradictory amateur hour at Ibrox. Rangers have known dysfunction in recent years, but those times are not as distant as some chose to believe. They're just dysfunctional in a different way now. Rudderless, leaking like a sieve and now embarrassed in a way that surely took their supporters back to the dog days of Charles Green and chums. This is a shambles.
  15. Exactly, whoever may or may not be in the wrong any legal action is going to cost the bulk of the sum they're squabbling over in all likelihood. The facts of the matter are pure speculation at present but if either party has a case I should expect we'll get more details soon enough once proceedings are put in motion. Assuming, of course, that he has actually resigned/been sacked/whatever.
  • Create New...