craigkillie

The simple answer to this is that we aren't the only ones considering it - in fact four other leagues have already done so. We're one of 11 UEFA members who have completely ended our season, the others have already restarted (or are planning to) and thus have no need to rejig the league. Of the 11 who have finished, here's what they've done: Belgium - kept structure the same, one club relegated. Relegated team successful in court action, future plans unclear. Bosnia & Herzegovina - kept structure the same, two clubs relegated. Cyprus - no relegation, expanded top tier from 12 to 14. France - kept structure the same, two clubs relegated. Relegated teams successful in court action, future plans unclear. Gibraltar - every professional club already plays in the league. Luxembourg - no relegation, expanded top tier from 14 to 16. Malta - no relegation, expanded top tier from 14 to 16. North Macedonia - no relegation, expanded top tier from 10 to 12. Netherlands - no relegation or promotion. Scotland - kept structure the same, one club relegated. Wales - no decision made.

We have seen how difficult it is to vote for any sort of change in structure, I can't see why that would be any different in 4 years time.

The SFL's prize money income was a great deal less that the SPL's - you were talking about under £2m a year in total being paid out in prize money compared to about £16m for the SPL.

The winners of the SPL used to get 17% and the Premiership winners now get 13.4%. Erm, Dunfermline finished 6th so you still wouldn't be in that.

Czechoslovakia took part in the 1994 World Cup qualifiers, but split into Czech Republic and Slovakia halfway through them in 1993. They then continued to compete as "Representation of Czechs and Slovaks" (RCS), and narrowly missed out on qualifying after drawing 0-0 in Brussels in their final game - had they won they would have qualified instead of Belgium.

It doesn't have anything to do with blackface.

I always think a condition of "this money can't be used on wages" is a bit pointless anyway in most cases - it's a bit like the fact that UEFA's "solidarity payment" has to be used on youth development. In practice, clubs can basically just play a big game of switcheroo, by using the money from the grant on some piece of infrastructure, and then using the money they were going to spend on that infrastructure on wages.

He's a slimy oddball, so I doubt we can take him at his word on anything at all.

They literally haven't got this right once through the entire process, despite the rules having not changed at any point, and despite them being available on the SPFL website the whole time. Kheredine Idessane and Brian McLauchlin in particular have both been absolutely useless from start to finish.

14-10-10-10 was something I'd have been reasonably happy with at the start. The status quo was my preference but I wouldn't have minded this instead because it's probably the best way to handle the extraordinary circumstances. However, in light of Budge's behaviour of late and the general screeching of some (but not all) Hearts fans online I'm tempted to say f**k them.

Going from 20 to 18 or 16 teams is reconstruction - that's literally the meaning of the phrase.

Mikey Johnston is a very good player, I'd expect him to be a Celtic regular and in the Scotland squad within a couple of years. Ralston will more likely be kicking about League 1.

Right, so absolutely nothing to do with exercise whatsoever. It's entirely possible to do lots of exercise and still eat a McDonald's. For example, two of the main stereotypes about the Fiat 500 are that they go to the gym a lot and go to McDonald's a lot. A "third rate burger" out of McDonald's isn't going to be any less healthy than wherever you get your first rate burgers. Maybe it won't be as tasty. but that's got f**k all to do with how healthy it is.

Not sure exactly why, but they played their three League Cup group games away from Somerset Park that season - they played St Mirren and Clydebank at Dam Park and Rangers at Rugby Park. They were back at Somerset in time for the league season starting.

Ayr played St Mirren at Dam Park in the League Cup in August 1972, and McLean was in the team, so this seems entirely possible.

ES Clydebank played in the league in 1964/65, before the takeover was reversed the following year. Clydebank then entered the league in 1966.

Why are queues for McDonalds related to exercise?

If it's BCD anyway you're welcome to pay the going rate for Rugby Park.

The other difference is that we're not in France.

Well they're not "history deniers" for one thing, are they? The literal reason they've taken that statue for a nice cold bath is because they accept and understand the history.

They perhaps teach it in some schools, but it's certainly not everywhere. I finished school in 2007 and have no recollection of ever learning about the slave trade or any other aspect of British colonialism at any point. We studied US civil rights in modern studies, but it was very much from a modern perspective and didn't really go into a great deal of depth about the historical reasons why these racial differences were entrenched. I feel as though it should be central to the curriculum, not some optional topic which schools can choose to cover. If the Scottish government can (quite rightly) embed LGBTI issues into the curriculum then I think it is reasonable to ask them to do the same for topics surrounding racism. My hypothesis here is that people who grew up in more working class and/or less ethnically diverse areas are much less likely to have this as part of their education. I haven't necessarily got any evidence for this, but I think it stands to reason.

Would guess they will add the PPG approach explicitly into the rules from next season onwards.

There's nothing at all appealing about it to bottom six Premiership clubs - less prize money for no tangible benefit.

There is a difference between removing buildings paid for by the slave trade (or even built by slaves) and removing statues or other objects commemorating these slave traders. The GOMA has utility, it serves a purpose as a building, and therefore its value extends beyond its questionable history. A reasonable way to reconcile this history would be a plaque of some sort which explains the past of the building. A statue serves no useful function and merely exists as a monument to the person or event represented by it, and therefore if the object represented in it has a similar questionable history then it no longer has any value. A reasonable way to reconcile this would be to tear it down and break it into tiny little pieces. I know that you understand this and are just being obtuse and doing a "just asking questions" act to cover up your underlying right-wing views, but this again needs to be said regardless.

Which part of history is being rewritten here? People aren't going to suddenly go "ah, I see that there are no longer statues of slave traders, it must not have happened", are they? You can't change your past, but what you can change is the decision about which parts of your past you think deserve to be commemorated and which parts you think don't. You're correct that the erection of this statue, and many others like it, was entirely undemocratic and didn't represent the will of the people living there. Why do we need public will to get rid of them, but not public will to erect them? It seems as though the public will was there in Bristol anyway, based on the previous discussion about the Colston Hall.