AsimButtHitsASix
-
Posts
7,480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by AsimButtHitsASix
-
-
4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:
It's a little bit more complicated than that.
A lot of English Championship clubs sign players from League 2 or the Conference, but it doesn't make them of that level.
The non-OF clubs in the Premiership in any given season will range from Championship to League Two level. I watch a lot of it in the flesh, and Hearts at the moment would be a mid-table Championship side, for example.
A lot of people over-estimate that league hugely. It's fucking mince for the most part.
Having lived down there and watched a lot of their football it's noticeable how much physicality is an important part of the game in the Championship and below and how little tactics and skilful play are a part of it. Quite often it's a defence and midfield that are two banks of four, putting it out to the full back, floated ball forward for a target man to bring down and lay off to a midfielder to try and pick a pass for the wide players/other striker to run onto. It's the go to move for 50%+ of their teams. Probably to do with their teams playing 60 games a season and the amount of time you can work on things on a training pitch being diluted but it's all about big, tall guys who can run, hold a ball up and have the fitness to do that for 4,000+ minutes a season.
Thinking of players at the same level up here I doubt guys like Scott Tiffoney or Lewis Vaughn would get a look in because they're too wee and there's no place for that wee spark of creativity or flair in the unending focus on shape and playing the percentages.3 -
21 minutes ago, Fletcher23 said:
It is you that is playing with words and taken a turn of phrase out of context Asim.
A once in a generation opportunity means exactly what it says.
Again I asked you "if you can find it written anywhere that a referendum has to be once in a generation or, indeed, any time scales put forward for how often referenda can happen feel free to post them."
It's plainly obvious the use of the term in the white paper pertains to the idea that the opportunity may not arise again. Not that it can only be a generational opportunity. If you want to pretend otherwise feel free to embarrass yourself publicly by letting us all think you have poor reading comprehension
But well done on completely side stepping the part about the Smith Commission.1 -
As mentioned previously the pitch is still a bit of a nick. Some areas look fine, some a wee bit bare, but other areas the grass was at least a coupla inches long. The markings were also very feint to the extent that sometimes you couldn't make them out.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Antlion said:
Well it’s not high on the list, but I suppose “giving the latest tiresome P&B pop-up alias the fear” is another decent reason to support independence.
4 -
2 minutes ago, Fletcher23 said:
It was in the white paper Asim.
And a generation is 20-30 years.
It was not in the white paper that the Independence referendum had to be once in a generation.
The white paper states: "It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way."
It does not state it has to be only once in a generation. Anyone with the ability to understand context understood this phrase was there to magnify the importance of the referendum and not as an absolute timeframe on future referenda. That would be fucking stupid.
In fact the quote within the white paper states "The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity." this implies the "once-in-a-generation" statement refers to Westminster allowing one. Not the will to have another. If, as expected, Westminster continue to refuse the legal grounds for another referendum then we can safely say this forewarning has been proven correct.
Again, if you can find it written anywhere that a referendum has to be once in a generation or, indeed, any time scales put forward for how often referenda can happen feel free to post them. If you are just going to take a turn of phrase out of context and repeat it like a legal document don't bother.
Anyway, speaking of documents written down, and easily referenced. Chapter 2 of the Smith Commission: "It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."
Weird how the BritNats never reference that and, instead, choose an Alex Salmond soundbite.16 -
12 minutes ago, Fletcher23 said:
Aye it does Asim, 30 years, a generation.
Don't recall it being written anywhere that referenda had to be generational. Or that 30 years is the definition of a generation either.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Darren said:
It's semantics, really. But overall Scotland has benefited from being part of the union... because there have been benefits. As you've clearly outlined. Free bed and board in jail is a benefit. But it would be better to not be there in the first place.
I think it's your commiting the fallacy here. Yes there have been benefits but if the hindrances outweigh those benefits we can't say Scotland has benefited.
Is someone benefited from being incarcerated? (almost certainly) No. Are there benefits? Yes
Has Scotland benefited from being part of the Union? Maybe. Are there benefits? Yes.
Just because there are benefits doesn't mean the overall act is benefical0 -
3 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Honestly mate, my head’s fried after all this!
Perhaps I’m not the man I used to be, but I can’t carry on.
We'll simplify it for you.
Do you believe, if Scotland had not joined the Union, today's Scotland would be exactly the same as the Scotland of 1707?0 -
9 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Whether we benefited from the Union can only be determined on improvement of pre-Union Scotland, and not opinions of how Scotland may have ended up otherwise.
All in my humble opinion.
That only makes sense if you believe pre-Union Scotland wouldn't have improved under independence. Which begs the question how, I dunno, Estonia or Portugal managed to improve despite not being part of the UK.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Darren said:
How has being part of the UK benefited us? Apart from the benefits. There's certainly a logical fallacy there.
Well... no.
For instance one could argue a benefit of incarceration is free bed and board but few would argue 10 years in the pokey benefitted the Birmingham Six.
So, yes, whilst being part of the UK in the days of empire helped make a lot of Scottish people very rich and this, in turn, led (directly or indirectly) to benefits to Scottish society we don't know that those benefits would not have arrived via different sources. The Norwegians, for instance, had similar progressions to Scotland on a vaguely similar timeline without the use of Jamaican slave plantations. So being part of the Empire was a benefit but we can't claim that that benefit outweighed potential downsides (clearances, wars, centralisation of power away from Scotland, etc).
To use Norway as another example their oil fund has sustained, and will sustain, their social democratic policies for decades and decades to come. If we were an independent nation thr oil revenue per capita for Scotland would have been massive. We could make the argument that that income being diluted across the UK populace and (some would argue) being frittered away is a downside of the union. This equally ignores the possibility an independent Scotland would have ballsed up this windfall.
So, no, we can point to things and argue that they are positives or negatives of the Union. Both exist. We can't say that overall the Union has been a benefit or hindrance.
3 -
1 minute ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Not being able to tell what a Union-less doesn’t negate from the Union’s benefiting influence though.
Well... it does. The benefits of the union may well be vastly outweighed by the negatives. We'll never know.
0 -
8 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
I think the prospering of a country is subjective.
Depending on our own personal priorities, we will come up with different answers.
For me, it’s about having a society where anyone willing to work hard can live comfortably and raise families.
It’s about a whole other bunch of things too, like how we treat our fellow human beings.
Population growth is certainly not something I’d hold up as a metric.
The Union has absolutely helped Scotland prosper IMO.
The important part of this is the "IMO".
I, personally, don't particularly agree with population growth as any sort of absolute and put it down on the list of metrics to consider but just because you don't hold it as something to use doesn't mean it is without merit.
Yer claiming absolutes on hypotheticals but think I'm the one who's committed the logical fallacy.
Fascinating.
0 -
12 minutes ago, Fletcher23 said:
It is 100% not the right time.
2044 seems right to me.
Does it, aye?
0 -
Those fucking elites and their mealworms again...
0 -
22 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
That’s a logical fallacy.
Is it, aye?
0 -
Can we be sure Steve55 wasn't kidnapped by a sasquatch?
I've not heard any biologists claim that it can't have happened with complete certainty...0 -
2 hours ago, Fletcher23 said:
In the middle of a cost of living crisis, with rising inflation, food banks, strikes and everything else they are talking about a referendum.
Weird how there's never a good time to talk about a referendum. But, ironically, almost every time a referendum is brought up it's by Tory and Labour supporters falsely claiming it's all the independence supporting parties go on about.
1 -
No matter where you stand on independence it's impossible to say that Scotland has benefited, overall, from being in the Union. Of course there has been benefits but, unless anyone has something that can transport them to a parallel dimension, we don't know how Scotland would have done as an independent nation.
1 -
2 minutes ago, Fletcher23 said:
Scotland benefits greatly from being part of one of the oldest and most successful Unions in the world.
How can that be a bad thing?
2 -
12 hours ago, Autistisches Nilpferd said:
I'm far from a Dumbarton fan.
Lucky you. I work with one and he's less than 20 feet away.
0 -
Regarding scran in Inverness. That Caribbean place was alright.
1 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
19 minutes ago, microdave said:24 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:
We weren’t knocked out in 1883Renton knocked us out of the Scottish cup in September 1883.
Weird how all Dumbarton's 19th century rivals all died. First Renton, then Vale of Leven, then Rangers.
31 -
9 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:
A split's not ideal but I'd definitely take it if it meant sorting out other problems with the leagues.
10 is too small and means playing everyone 4x which is boring. 20 is far too big. You'd just have some clubs idling around the middle of the same league for years on end and have a large number of meaningless games at the end of the season.
16 teams is perfect. 30 games. Bulk it out with some daft cups.
3 up/3down 4-7th promotion play off and 10th-13th in a relegation play off. Not only will every club have something to play for each year but you could go into the final day with promotion or relegation still an option. Make fitba mental again.0 -
None of them are in the Scottish Cup this year but the massive swings in "quality" with the new WoSFL 4th Division teams on the scotscores page is some laugh. I think Rossvale Academy were the 60th best team in Scotland for a week
0
Who will be the next permanent manager of the Conservatives?
in The Politics Forum
Posted
Dunno. That's twice now ye've quoted me and failed to read the part about the Smith Commission. Maybe it's an attention span issue rather than reading comprehension.