Thumper

As I recall, Hitler had the decency to do the right thing when he was beat.

If there were ever a Hibsier way to Hibs the Scottish Cup final, it is by Hibsing it against a team of bankrupt chancers that's only four years old. Imagine getting to the Scottish Cup final three times in five seasons and being marked progressively less and less likely to win it, to the point where no bookie would be stupid enough to offer odds shorter than 4-1 against when one's opponents are less prestigious or financially sound than Gretna were. Imagine being only the second team in history to lose a Scottish Cup final to lower-league opposition. Frankly it beggars belief that the SFA are even allowing Hibs to continue to enter the competition, what with the laughing stock they're making of it.

That's because "non-senior" isn't even a concept in England, excepting Sunday league kickabouts. But remember that a unified and consistent pyramid is still a relatively recent invention; before that England had a similar crooked election process and resultant glass ceiling to that in Scotland. I genuinely do anticipate that within a generation we'll have done the same, no matter how parochial the average Junior club boardroom is or how little attention the press gives to anyone except the Old Firm. Look at how quickly it's become a genuine regular occurrence for senior teams to get pumped out of the Scottish Cup by juniors, for instance.

Every other club in football is a shambles.

Two Evans apologists already. Wow. Like George Galloway fans without the ethics.

The definitive article at 200%. At the same time as their owner is punted as well. And Cellino looks like Elliot fucking Ness next to Evans.

The Tommy Sheridan Public Image Rehabilitation Project is only active in the central belt (frankly, it's only active in George fucking Square) and insofar as it's running a slate it's with the likes of Phil Boswell who will likely be representing the SNP in Coatbridge until he's 75. It's got very little support from the other parties and even the good Reverend (who loves a bit of putting women in their place) shies away from it. Sheridan will run until the end of time, but like George Galloway he's been found out by far too many people now.

In fairness, that doesn't affect his bottom line. This is precisely why gay marriage went from "illegal everywhere" to "legal across most of the western world" within less than a decade - it was only practical for rich bigots to oppose it for so long. I don't doubt Souter would withdraw his support for the SNP entirely were they to propose renationalising the buses. Nor would I grudge him it, actually.

So why deny it? And yet they're not actually in favour, in any explicit manner, of restoring to the state any of those entities that Thatcher and her followers removed from it, nor of anything more than the most modest increases in spending beyond the current level. Which as I say is fine if you look at the country after 35 years of neoliberal experimentation and say "this is social democracy, but any more and it would be neoliberalism", but that's not a commonplace assertion. It is therefore vitally important that there are at least some voices in the chamber who disagree with the status quo in a broader manner. Some voices who would directly advocate returning industry to the state, to significantly increasing taxation on the rich and on industry, to seriously planning for a post-fossil-fuel energy model. Otherwise this role falls to SNP rebels, and the SNP aren't awfully given to rebellion of late.

That wasn't what was being asserted. The Labour Party (not Liz Kendall, at least so long as she isn't in charge of it) has a platform stating its positions. You would describe these as capitalist and neoliberal. The SNP (not random members of the public who voted Yes, at least so long as they aren't in charge of it) also has a platform stating its positions. The two overlap to a very significant degree, to the extent that a good proportion of Scotland felt relatively comfortable with both until very recently. It's therefore difficult to argue that the SNP aren't, in terms of their stated platform, also capitalist and neoliberal.

If you take the position that the status quo (a market-driven economy with certain huge state institutions like the NHS, DWP) is basically social democracy and that the neoliberals are looking to dismantle that (which is fair enough) then yes, an SNP that simply doesn't want to privatise what's left of the state is social-democratic. But that's not a particularly popular position. Most people would look at the stated platforms of the Labour Party and the SNP and not see a fantastic degree of difference between them (Trident, yes, but that's not specifically "neoliberal"; university fees, yes, but the SNP aren't proposing reintroducing grants instead of student loans or anything either). The SNP are certainly not proposing a significant campaign of (re)nationalising industry, or moving away from a market-based economy, or even significant changes to taxation even though the current level is historically extremely low. Should Corbyn get in, the stated aims of the Labour Party will most certainly lie at least somewhat to the left of where the SNP currently are. It's not clear what purpose there is to denying this.

What. Oh, wait, you're one of the ones who think it was some sort of feminazi witch hunt, aren't you. As for "Tamsin", bear in mind that HB's beloved Labour Party apparently believes that anyone who ever changes political parties is not allowed to be in Labour any more.

Stuart Campbell, who is now an SNP partisan basically because none of the other pro-indy groups can bear to be in the same room as him, has done the numbers on this and suggests that pretty much any split ticket voting is going to come solely at the expense of the SNP. But I think this ignores that as it stands the SNP are not going to be on a technically-not-a-majority - they're likely to win all but perhaps two constituency seats in the country, and thus are going to end up with a majority regardless. It's not going to split the protest vote either. If you voted Green before you'll keep voting Green. If you voted SSP you'll vote RISE. There was never likely to be a merging of those two camps. The Tommy Sheridan Public Image Rehabilitation Project is going to pick up literally dozens of votes. If this means that at least one non-Green left-wing candidate is elected, mission accomplished. The SNP will still command the majority they need to enact their agenda, but at least they might actually get questioned on it by a competent body.

Yes. it's a little lighter than the Scotsman, but that's only because it's based in Glasgow. Frankly, if it catches heat from Mone after enthusiastically repeating all her shite during the indyref then hell mend them. Of course Mone doesn't have any legal case here. Truth is a fairly good counter to claims of libel. Still, f**k them both.

Because then the government wouldn't be able to say it had frozen council tax. It'd have to qualify it. Not sure there's any more to it than that. They could raise band G by four pence and every paper in the country except the National would run it on the front page for a month.

I think he was implying that you'd not only a) shagged a woman but b) raised a child to the point it could have one itself. That's the closest thing you're going to get to a compliment round here. Grandad.

The only people in a position to distinguish between "left leaning" and being "part of the radical left" are people who actually fall into those camps. You've described plenty of people who are barely more liberal than Norman Tebbit as being rabid Trots on here before. It's hardly surprising that plenty of people who hold views that are quite far to the left are comfortably middle-class though. Plenty of people who are comfortably middle-class are good, decent people; one requirement of being a good, decent person is to hold views substantially to the left of what lies at the centre of current British politics.

People are cottoning onto him. An educated left is a very bad thing for demagogues like Sheridan.

It's obviously a misprint. Mark Walters is a has-been ex-Rangers player. Therefore his name should obviously have been printed in the other column.

There's an element of truth there, no doubt, but the parent comment suggested that there are no regular fans who lived for Old Firm games. That's plainly false.

Murdo MacLeod. And every other ex-Celtic player involved in the Scottish and British sports media, for that sake. I'd go as far as to say that this claim was a flagrant lie.

A show of hands for people that are pure raging that the "good guys" are in charge? Good guys who have so far gotten the club delisted, are without a manager or a playing squad, can't afford to lift Ashley's hold over the club's assets and revenue streams, and yet have continually promised the happy clappers that Europe is but two seasons away and that Premier League talent will be arriving before September. Most bystanders are presently jostling for the best view of the corner where the multiple-car pileup is scheduled to happen.

"over-invest" is the new moonbeams. Marvellous stuff.

Has anyone ever seen Terry Scott and Mike Ashley in the same room together?