DC92
-
Posts
2,530 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by DC92
-
-
Repeating opposition party attack lines against the government you serve as a cabinet minister so your quotes can be gleefully clipped up and shared by said opposition parties as widely and as often as possible, all the while probably alienating a sizeable chunk of the party members whose votes you need and giving your opponent an open goal to talk up their own "achievements".
When you are competent.
3 -
A big result which keeps the chasing pack at arm's length ahead of a tough run of games. Hibs probably the only realistic challengers now.
Performance-wise it was much the same as the last couple of months. Patchy and reliant on moments of luck/quality rather than actually controlling the game.
0 -
Offsetting the goal difference from Wednesday night nicely here.
0 -
27 minutes ago, Stylish Kid said:
Sibbick and Devlin dropped. No Humps?
Humphrys took a knock against Motherwell but shouldn't be out for too long according to Neilson. In other words, we'll never see him again.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:
Looks like 4-3-3 for us today? Clark out completely.
Outnumbering our midfield is usually a pretty successful way to nullify us so that's a sensible move if so.
1 -
8 hours ago, Tony Wonder said:
Will be interested to see if we stick with Humphrys or bring Gino right back in.
Ideally we bin the 3 at the back and add an extra player, Grant ideally, into the middle of the park, but I can't see it. I'd also get Rowles back in, probably for Hill.Not happening unfortunately.
Rowles for Hill, Gino for Humphrys and maybe Grant for Devlin and that'll be it I suspect.
0 -
15 minutes ago, renton said:
It's not about absolute purity of beliefs. It's about choosing someone who will protect the rights of those she serves. The crux of her argument is that while she may disregard the civil rights of gay people, may feel it is wrong for folk to have children outside of marriage, that it's OK because these are already enshrined rights and she isn't going to tamper with them.
Yet as First Minister, she may be called on to protect those rights, there may be calls to enhance those rights or those policies that may be to the advantage of those groups. Is that going to her priority? If the Tories in their likely dying days of government decided to implement cuts that would massively disadvantage single parents, would Forbes use political capital to protect that? Or if they came back after gay rights, now or ten years down the line - would Forbes see that as something she would fight for? She isn't going into bat for the GRR after all. What ever you think of it, it was passed with massive cross party support, but because she personally doesn't like the content of the bill she isn't willing to expend her efforts on protecting the wider devolution settlement.
So she clearly isn't taking the tack that her faith is a private matter, or something more malleable than the strict orthodoxy of the church that she finds comfort in. Her faith informs her, helps shape her view of the world. Well, fine - there is, I gather, a great comfort in the idea that a higher power can guide you. That's not why she's being pilloried.
She wants to put herself up in the gallery and ask people to vote for her, by extension she is putting up her beliefs - formed in part from her faith. There is no way to shield herself that way. Folk can and will make up their minds, not that they don't like religious people but that they believe that her views - informed by that faith - make her an unreasonable candidate to protect the rights and policies those people want to see kept safe.
This, but in response to the OP I'd add that it's perfectly reasonable to think the above disqualifies Forbes while also despairing at the lack of "grown-up debate"/genuine choice in this contest.
0 -
2 hours ago, Donathan said:
If it’s someone from WM then my money would be on Black. They’d probably find an MSP with a safe seat who’s willing to go to Westminster, both resign and call a by-election, then swap seats.
Aside from that being a really bad look, there's no time. Voting opens in 19 days and closes 2 weeks after that.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:
Unlike Forbes, he isn’t a dinosaur.
She probably doesn't even believe in dinosaurs TBF.
6 -
20 minutes ago, Paco said:
Whit’s the goalie dain, Tom?
Lunacy from Forbes and I’d be pretty surprised to even see her on the frontbench now. All being equal Yousaf should also be asked these questions - not as a politician, but as a person. His religion is also incompatible with social reform.
There you go
0 -
With Yousaf, I always think about his petted lip reaction to that video of him falling over.
Most people probably aren't that familiar with his ministerial record, but if he's that thin-skinned and easily rattled as FM he won't last long.
0 -
A richly deserved defeat here. Utterly shite.
First time we've lost to a non-OF team since October so no need to overreact but it's been coming for the last few weeks. We're far too reliant on moments of quality rather than controlling games.
Third isn't guaranteed and if we keep playing like that we'll be in danger of chucking it away.
0 -
59 minutes ago, Stylish Kid said:
Joel Sked on The Terrace was absolutely convinced post cup match that Motherwell are heading down.
It is close at the bottom, but I do think United will start to get the results that they've been close to getting, McInnes is no mug, County always pull something together like Hamilton used to, and I think Saints will hit form again, so....
What possessed you to make this prediction the night before we play them?
Motherwell for Europe imo.
2 -
3 hours ago, Stylish Kid said:
Ultimately it ended in failure, but it did feel for a little while that we were on the verge of something really spectacular
That League Cup campaign was somewhat spectacular.
0 -
22 minutes ago, Connor1874 said:
Think one was a Friday night game and the other I remember being a Saturday lunchtime game as I was working. Think I had 2-1 us with Goncalves anytime only for him to pop up and make it 3-1 with his first of the game. Something like that.
First one was almost a 3-0 but McFadden scored with the last kick of the ball. Paterson's goal was a screamer.
Goncalves hadn't signed by the first game but scored a double in the 3-0. It was the weekend after we battered Rangers 4-1 and Cathro and Alex Tziolis were going to win us the Champions League.
1 -
4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:
When did we last win both games at Fir Park in a season?
I'm thinking maybe 06/07? Have I forgotten something?
I remember doubles there in 96/97 and (spectacularly) in 97/98.
In 16/17 we won 3-1 and 3-0 there.
1 -
44 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said:
Always an excuse when you boys lose tbh. Each and every pumping.
No they aren't, and we are pretty shite by all accounts.
Some people at the time were getting a bit excited about us finishing bottom 6 or maybe even being relegation contenders. Some were claiming Neilson was in sacking territory. That includes plenty of Hearts fans.
I think those conclusions were flawed because the teams we were playing were actually quite good and our defence was always likely to improve when at least one of our better centre-halves returned. You say that's an excuse, I'd say it's been proven emphatically correct through all subsequent evidence.
As for RFS, would Hibs have drawn in Florence, or against Basaksehir with 10 men, or got a creditable 2-1 defeat at Tynecastle? I'm not so sure.
0 -
8 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said:
Game was over at half time. Just as any other game that never included a pap team from Riga and just like any time you boys drop you knickers to Rangers these days.
Yes it was, because they're a quality team. Getting pumped with no defenders available didn't turn out to be a sign that we were doomed this season or that Neilson should have been punted though did it?
The pap team from Riga were better than Hibs.
1 -
4 minutes ago, Ginaro said:
It helps when you are playing against 10 men for 40 minutes though.
Yeah?
3 -
Braga 0-4 Fiorentina.
Maybe some people were getting a bit overexcited about our results against them.
1 -
Clark
Sibbick Rowles Kingsley
Smith Devlin Snodgrass Cochrane
Humphrys Shankland McKay
Rowles will come back in and form-wise you could make an argument for a straight swap with Kingsley, but I think we're a bit less fluid and more predictable with Rowles as an outside CB.
In the last league game Dundee United were just letting the CBs have the ball while marking Snodgrass and closing off his passing options which snuffed us out completely in the first half. Kingsley generally hasn't been great recently but he's much more likely to carry the ball forward and overlap Cochrane as he did to good effect last week and much of last season.
It's also harsh on Grant but it probably has to be Devlin and Snodgrass in a midfield two.
1 -
Absolutely shite draw but at least we've usually made a game of it v Celtic the last couple of seasons at Tynecastle. Since Postecoglou came in we're a missed penalty away from having an equal record across the three home games.
That comes with the caveat that the win was Postecoglou's first game and Scott Bain probably won't be in goal this time.
Playing them the midweek before makes it extra shite but maybe that's an opportunity to lull them into a false (true) sense of security.
1 -
That can f**k off.
0 -
16 hours ago, StellarHibee said:
It was a hit and hope at the near post ffs. Stewart talking about it like it was Ronaldoesque
I can absolutely picture Ronaldo scoring that goal in the 97/98 Inter 3rd kit tbf.
1
Next permanent Scotland manager
in The Politics Forum
Posted
I can see why Forbes held a theoretical appeal. A relatively fresh face with new ideas who might be able to build on existing support and reach new voters (Sturgeon even cited the need to broaden appeal as one of her reasons for stepping down). This idea is far preferable to a lower quality, less popular derivative of the current leadership churning out diminishing returns.
Unfortunately for her she seems to have based her campaign in the alternate reality occupied by her Unionist commentator pals who've spent the best part of a decade writing weekly opinion pieces about how the SNP were finished, rather than the actual reality in which they've won every election by a huge margin and even increased their share of the vote in the last couple. It might make sense to trash your government's record like that when you're polling 23% and you aren't the finance minister, it doesn't when you're polling 43% and you are.
That's without getting to the gay marriage stuff and the clown running through a minefield impression that was the first week of her campaign. She's really gone out of her way to royally f**k the natural advantage she likely had here.