sugna

So how did you get overdrawn? That implies you were taking more sperm than you were giving.

That was exactly my take on it. Simpler maths than I am used to seeing at Higher level, but a less clear narrative (and diagram). They are trying to "test the contextual understanding" but the context presentation is rubbish. Easy for engineers who are adequate mathematicians; tough for mathematicians who are inadequate engineers. Testing the wrong criteria, IMHO. It's been a few decades but the derivative is also do-it-in-your-head easy (I think Gaz will confirm).

Thanks very much for taking the time to do that, Gaz. Very interesting. Here's my take on it, which wont be popular but is an alternative view: I reckon that the maths in these is really quite simple as long as you take the time to read the questions properly and are comfortable with understanding the basic concepts (not just having memorised them). The weakness is in the narrative, which I think is a consequence of trying to make maths relate to everyday situations (such as controlling a crocodile optimally...). This is the major flaw I see in the philosophy of CfE: integrating literacy and numeracy into all subjects, and in the case of Maths, vice versa. It's important to accept that some things, such as Maths, are genuinely hard for a lot of people. The reason I see these as simple, i think, is that my background is engineering and so context is everything: the nature of the problem scuppers engineers far more than the mechanics of the calculation or algorithm, certainly in exam situations. The "time taken" definition, for example, appears earlier in the question but not at the point where the equation is given (separated from it by a figure, which of course breaks the continuity). I completely agree with the "height of the toad" comment. The part I've quoted from your post is where I think I disagree in principle: it's important to have continuity within CfE Highers; but it's even more important to have continuity across SCQF Level 6. Again, thanks very much for posting those details.

This was reported yesterday as Paul Murray giving a "misleading" explanation of the source of the original loan. IMHO there is not a chance that, when Murray gave his explanation, the loan was coming from King. Why would Murray get such a basic fact wrong, especially when it would have suited The Message to get it right? Whatever you think about Murray, he's not a babbling, incompetent idiot. It's very obvious to anyone with the slightest degree of healthy scepticism that King's ownership of the loan (whether real or illusory) came after the fact of the loan. It may have been "bought" by King (like the Letham loan) or another arrangement involving King in some way may have been reached; but in either case it is being spun in such a way as to appear that it came from him all along. The SMSM still haven't caught on to the documented fact that this man has been found to be a GASL and to be unreliable on any matter to the extent that nothing he says should be believed without documentary evidence. For a court to add those riders onto 82 years'-worth of convictions is absolutely extraordinary, indicating just how much they found him to be incapable of telling the truth. In short, nothing that comes out of the King camp makes any sense if you believe that he's telling the truth; but everything makes sense if you assume the opposite. Fortunately, the SA court system has told us the answer to that one in advance, following intense scrutiny of the man's testimony versus the objective facts across an extended period of time; and so everything does indeed make sense.

Sounds like you're comparing with the expected CfE standard, rather than with historical Higher Maths papers. There have always been some quite hard A-B questions, but the C questions really can't be that tough. Are you able to post one or two of the toughest questions? I'd quite like to see if they're significantly harder than traditional Higher Maths A-B questions. Suspect that they won't be, but I'm prepared to be persuaded if you are able to post the questions.

Well predicted, and well played. Wonder if the point about the polis will be accepted. (Also, delighted to see the phone battery sitting in the healthy zone.)

A reasonable point, but I'm not sure that the comparison is entirely accurate. Apart from one of the Easdales, none of the previous saviours was a warranted convicted criminal prior to taking control. Also, the total number of non-compliances against the list* of things that could constitute not being fit and proper was zero. Not 42. The answer to Life, the War Chest and Everything. * In every other context where I've seen a list of "bad things" and a note that discretion could be used, that has indicated that the list showed the things that definitely barred you - but there would be other things that could also be applied. Best example is the WADA list, which for years used terms like "similar substances". I think that Article 10.2 was intended to be like the WADA list - "we'll bar you for any of these, and anything else that's bad enough that we haven't managed to list". Otherwise the existence of such exemplar clauses make no sense.

FTFY

FTFY

Well said, Tedi. If any of us wishes to be playing at a lower level to be more competitive, we can pretty much give up on the whole supporting thing. The Premiership team has to have the best chance (before the play-offs begin), simply as a matter of probability. They only have to beat one other team, and despite what we'd all like to think we know about form, momentum, home advantage in second leg, etc., that can't be a million miles away from an evens bet for them. At all three stages, I wouldn't see any team as anything like a 2-1 shot; for example, I'd be surprised if you can get odds that long for either team in the "quarter final"* tie. We'll see what the bookies say after the weekend. * Not that the term means anything, of course.

Kens the score.

Ashley continues to play an absolute blinder, while King continues to endorse the South African court's findings on his integrity. It looks very much as though Paul Murray has gone cap-in-hand to plead with MA's representatives to reconsider tranche two. Can't see any reason MA would have had him entertained, certainly not because MA needs Sevco's cooperation or goodwill. He's got them by the blueing gonads simply by relying on the fans' sense of entitlement to drive costs above revenue. Aided of course by King driving revenue in the other direction. But with things having changed so radically with respect to the original status when the facility was established, any reconsideration is very much weighted towards Ashley. Maybe John Brown will soon get his wish, and the matter of who owns Ibrox will be resolved.

A couple of thoughts on this: 1. No one from the old or new boards appears to contradict the need for cash pretty much right now, and the timing looks to me as though Ashley has opted not to make the second tranche available. 2. There are still apparently some Bears who haven't accepted that DK is so very, very mendacious. Despite his talk about a. NOMADs (got one ready to go! can't name prospective NOMAD [for some spurious reason]! prefer to de-list! because I'm such a fair-minded guy, will not de-list!); and b. Investment (name any amount - he has! "respecting" non-existing SFA rule that says he can't put in money unlessnhe's passed the FPP test). I find this almost incredible. His record of inconsistency, only using the evidence of his recent public utterances and ignoring completely his sentences worth 82 years' imprisonment on a small sample of his criminal charges, is enough to mark his card as a man who cannot be trusted in any respect. But some of the Bears still see the GASL as the Messiah. Fascinating need to believe.

Two things are stressing me about that picture: the ubiquitous "hornet" and more worryingly the battery level on BM's phone.

Dave King has insisted that he has lined up a Stock Exchange nominated adviser for Rangers ahead of him assuming control at Ibrox. Chief executive Llambias has questioned King’s ability to fund the club after his takeover. Furthermore, following the announcement that trading in Rangers shares was suspended following the resignation of its nominated adviser (Nomad), Llambias was sceptical about King’s ability to find a replacement to allow the company to continue to trade on the Stock Exchange. Arriving at Glasgow Airport ahead of the EGM, King said that he already had a Nomad who were happy to deal with him and that they would act for Rangers if happy with the club’s accounts. He would not reveal the identity of the company involved but when asked to confirm he had one lined up he said: “Yes but when you say ‘I have a Nomad’ ....I think we’ve addressed the money issue. I think the point I wanted to make is it’s not my Nomad. The club has to have a Nomad. “I think Llambias should understand that. He’s confusing the AIM listing with the club. It’s the club that has to have the Nomad." If I'd never heard a word from or about Dave King, then read the bit above, I'd be thinking: "This guy's either completely incompetent, or he's a liar, or both." However, I have heard from him before, such as the time that he claimed to have made an offer that an AIM-regulated company should have found acceptable, despite admitting that he hadn't supplied either the names of his co-investors or proof of funding, but went on to say that Somers had been "disingenuous" in stating exactly the same facts as King himself was stating. So in short, the most hilarious moment is always the most recent time that the fans or SMSM swallows then regurgitates an assertion by the most criminally-convicted man in the history of Scottish sport.

Everything about the current pantomime makes sense, if we remember this fact. Without it, none of it makes sense. There is nothing to stop King providing proof of funding, or of a ready and willing incoming NOMAD, if he has them. In fact, proof of these would be the biggest inroad he could make into convincing any undecided institutional investors, and he knew both were required as of the end of this week from around a month ago. Easy to put such doubts to bed, if you're not, yet again, demonstrating that nothing you say can be believed without independent supporting documentation. But still "information" from his many statements is repeated in the SMSM and the Internet as though it may be true.

Hope everyone's watching The Avengers this evening. Cardrew Robinson strutting his stuff.

It's easy to forget, in amongst all of the strangers to the truth who have been involved, that McCoist's bitterness was often couched in completely glib and shameless terms. From that same article: "In recent days I have bumped into Celtic, Hearts and Motherwell fans, and they were saying the same thing: 'It's time to stop kicking Rangers and start getting Scottish football looking forward, not back'. I couldn't agree more." To paraphrase another of his poisonous outbursts, "Who were those people?"

FUCKING CRITERION!... and breathe

No NOMAD ever while King's involved?

This sounds correct to me. If making redundancy payments, the employee’s length of service is calculated from their start date with the transferor – not the date you took over as their employer. Somewhat ironically, an employee's relationship with the Company is warranted by TUPE. Or to put it another way, for people employed at Ibrox it was effectively only the Club that died.