Ric

You can disagree all you want because it's very likely not to affect your club. There is absolutely no justification for a temporary reconstruction.

Inline style declaration? Jinkies get back to the late 90s.

And temporary reconstruction is pandering to one club in particular and should be avoided at all costs, so if it's off the table then.. good.

Would you care to elaborate? Edit: Completely unrelated, wtf is with the massive video at the top of the page? Edit 2: Never mind, it's Div.

I can only presume you are meaning the Scottish Government given the jurisdictions involved. Would you care to elaborate?

The problem with that is it's the assumption there is a parent/child relationship here. Instead it's more akin to a recalcitrant resident in a tower block who will only be happy once every single one of their demands are met, even if it means other residents have their opinions ignored, while the tower block is run by an aloof and seemingly untouchable factor. Ultimately a parent's best intentions are for their child, while in my analogy the factors would rather the resident just shuts up and is happy to continue on as normal even if they don't.

I heard it was St Mirren's fault. It turns out that if we had let in 5 goals against them in the League Cup, then they wouldn't have gone into administration. Will there ever be an end to our cheating?

I was only joking but your response was awfy quick to dingy any suggestion of miscreant deeds!

...or the time you've spent in the cells after being picked up on Friday night waiting for court Monday morning!

That was Scottish defamation law I was quoting, but you are right to raise the issue as there is a distinction between the jurisdictions. There is a proposal to amend it further: https://www.gov.scot/publications/defamation-scots-law-consultation/

It means nothing in the grand scheme of things, it's intended to make other parliamentary members aware of issues within your constituency that are not related to any bill being passed through parliament (and thus not debated). There is no follow up procedure. It is quite simply, in this case, a complete waste of parliamentary time. Especially egregious at this time. The speaker, btw, shouldn't have any opinion on the matter. I could be corrected here, but there is no official mandate that limits the fatuousness of the point made.

I also feel the BBC fall down because they want to show consistency for "both sides of the argument" which results in a greater weight being placed on minority views. We've seen this with the climate change debates, so they will have people debating for and against, encapsulated by Nigel Lawson disseminating his entirely unscientific and bias opinion as being an equally valid counter to the overwhelmingly massive body of scientific data.

Tell you what Mikey Stewart can get himself to f**k with his bullshit conspiracy nonsense.

You have to wonder in what world Campbell actually thinks wasting parliamentary time, and that's all it is, on this subject at this very moment is conscionable.

As a fan, I see no issue with him raising his concerns, he is entitled to just like everyone else. However he has history of involving himself in debates that he has no jurisdiction on. For example he voted against LGBT inclusivity within the English education system, a system that is devolved and wouldn't affect him or his constituents. He was not the only DUP member to vote on the matter. Let nobody be in any doubt, he is an empty vessel of the worst kind, and along with the rest of his party he is a flag waiver for intolerance across the spectrum of issues.

Could we not just relegate Hearts for the lulz? In these troubling times we could all do with a bit of humour.

Yeah, I suppose there is that. Although I take it from your reply you mean tainting it to taint the 10, as both teams have done 9 before. We've certainly seen evidence in what you say by the official (who I forget the name of now) who claimed any Celtic title win should have a * suffix.

Again, I can see that as a valid strategy, it certainly benefits them and we've seen how that "strengthens" their position within a set core of supporters. The problem is they still need to operate in a league, so where is the end game. That's what I find difficult to identify. Out of interest, and being honest here. Do you not have any issue on how your club have dealt with this issue? I am talking specifically your club, not the SPFL or any other clubs which may or may not have acted in a particular way.

Sure, that is their motivation, but what is the end game.

I just don't get what Rangers' end game is here. Any review that is undertaken that doesn't suit their agenda will be dismissed out of hand, while at the most extreme case which is a removal of all people on the board won't result in them being replaced by "good Rangers men".

I think someone forgot this isn't a blog site. Personally I am massively against it, although if actual data demonstrated direct benefit to the game as a whole and not just a select few clubs then I could be persuaded. Don't stop me disliking the idea.

That seems to present two different cases, which is correct or is it the classic case of three blind men and an elephant?

Yeah, all of that is nonsense, and you know it.

Campbell is not the worst of the empty vessel DUP types, but he's clearly a man with an agenda. He voted against LGBT issues in schools in England, along with 7 (seven) of his colleagues, despite the issue actually being devolved in Northern Ireland and that any measures passed by the law would have absolutely no effect within their jurisdiction. Further details can be found here: https://inews.co.uk/news/education/lgbt-sex-relationship-education-mps-support-504670 Let us be in no mind, the DUP representatives are flag wavers for intolerance at each and every level of life.