Theyellowbox

One or two have, but he's not one of them.

MacPherson has not been offered a new contract, yet.

Was this not in some way linked to McReddie (Eddie?) Being transfered to Chelsea a season or two before? I'm sure as part of the deal (signed from east stirling), Chelsea had agreed to play shire at firs Park (they honoured that part), but there was to be a return game in London, which Chelsea didn't honour. Sure East Stirling cheekily demanded Chelsea play them at Stamford Bridge a few years back! Wonder if somehow this game was either part of that tour or even a similar agreement for another player.

Glossing over Dr Noddles at the scot foam () there could actually be a potential that Dundee could still do pre and post match hospitality at Dens and folk just wander over the road and take seats. Not up to speed with what the actual problem with the pitch is, but is it even something that could be sorted over the summer? Is there not something more fundamental going on in the wider area as, while it has always been soggy (especially in the south east corner) I don't remember it being that bad. Would it be worth Dundee putting down an astro pitch that could be rolled up after stadium move and used elsewhere?

Utter batshit mental that she'd even have the brass neck to cite international law and countries following or not following it. It would not surprise me if she suggested moving the gaza people to Rwanda.

Don't know if it would be a factor in the compromise for Dundee, but having to move the game to your city rivals is probably bad enough, but if the arguments previously were the localised weather, moving it a couple of hundred yards up the road undermines that argument and spfl would level (rightly) the argument that Dundee haven't invested enough on the pitch. Moving the game(s) to Perth would at least given them the 'out' that Dundee has had worse weather. FWIW, I think both games will be at the Scot foam.

Match pundit found then!

I'd think that if you gave Rangers behind both goals, you'd fit the 3,500 in with seats to spare. Don't know how many tickets Dundee will have sold, but if less than 3000, then Dundee take main. More than that east and bot of main. Essentially would mirror a Saints game vs them. Would imagine saints would charge a fee for the game to go ahead and possibly the take from pie stalls? Bit of a minter for Dundee if it is shifted to Perth though. When you add it to you guys playing in our strips a few years back... you know you want to be us really

Becoming a bit embarrassing now tbh. Capped off by 'Scot Foam' stadium in a serious sounding official announcement.

That was something I thought too. Stick Kimpioka switch from left to right during game. I like the idea of Carey in one side and Kimpioka on the other. Bit of an imbalance in terms of pace vs technical, but you can interchange every so often to mix it up. However, that's too offensive for Levein, so 100% he will play Clark and one of the two and then straight like for like subs. Levein will probably be looking at County's fixtures and think Saturday is the only one they are potentially going to pick anything up from and so a point vs Hibs, might be enough to keep us ahead of them pre split. Equally, if we (not going to happen) did win both pre split games and County lost both, then a 7 point gap would possibly be one more win away from being totally safe....

It's a point conveniently overlook. Imagine if 2 clubs in England sang anti Jew or anti mulslim chants at each other, by the majority of fans and those clubs actively played up to that stereotype? And I get that spurs get a small minority of chants aimed at them over perceived jewishness. Then compound that by every media outlet, including the BBC, either completely ignoring it or being very selective in its coverage. Just wouldn't happen. Get then that say Ian Wright then comes out and says, 'yes, we'll me and all other Arsenal fans are obviously going to sing anti Jewish songs, what of it?'

I'd say what disappoints me most in the reactions to this and is why it has irked me, is that its all become about the trans issue. Whereas in fact, of the groups listed, they are arguably the most equipped to voice concerns. This legislation should be something to celebrate, that inciting hatred of someone based on a disability is now treated in the same way as race. But no, our PM and influential people in society do not celebrate this, they stick to the culture wars and who is the group caught in the cross fires? Disabled people, who are, in a lot of cases, least able to express an opinion. To have excluded trans from the bill would have been a backwards step, so right to include.

My take is that the legislation is to bring other groups in line with what already existed for hate based on race. Easier to bring them in line than to adjust the race hate law. Your point on it changing very little is why the big fuss seems interestingly strange to me. I don't think this will see any more people charged than would have been the case this time last week, but more makes the law a little clearer and could, of needed, give prosecutors something else to work with, when bringing appropriate charges and sentences to someone who would probably have been arrested. As you say, because the law says can can currently do something, it does not mean you should, purely to prove a point. In the UK, we SHOULD be able to rely on people sense of right and general common sense. However, increasingly, that isn't the case. To the specific points above, you could have shouted about euthanasia for disabled people and been arrested, but it wouldn't have been classed a hate crime, but if had said the exact same, but substituted the word disables for black/Asian etc, it would have been and therefore subject to a different sentence. On agreeing about trans women being trans women, I don't think there is any intention for that. In fact, you could flip it to say that some pretty unsavoury trans activists stirring up hatred could/should fall foul of this law if they stir up hate based on the same parameters. Say a heterosexual Christian female was the target based on religion or sexual orientation, then they'd be prosecuted too.

That substitution was a total nonsense. He should have been off sooner. But, Benji took an absolute age to get ready to come on. Literally had to get his whole kit on and singuards the lot. Surely as a sub, you need to be ready to go at short notice, not take 3,4,5 mins to get ready. That's a few times we've had the same recently. From kids football onwards, you are always told to be ready. Feeds into the overall ponderous feel about this side tbh. On Carey, I'm a bit cautious to say he should have started etc, as we don't know how match ready he will be, given off the pitch goings on, but aye, footballing wise alone, to start him on bench behind others seems mental.

Whether reform as a party replaces the tories or not, they will effectively replace them. Either outright or they will merge into the tories from whence they csme anyway. Arguably Reform in England is where SNP was in Scotland in say 70's and 80's. Capturing a growing mood amongst a certain group in the hope you get enough of a foothold to continue to amplify your voice. Difference is that despite having virtually no elected presence, Reform (and their predicesors) are given a disproportionately loud voice in the media. Interestingly, a rising Reform is probably a good thing for SNP as is a largely disliked parry in Scotland and if it looks like England is lurching that way, thst split socially seems even wider. Special mention today for Rishi getting roasted on local bbc radio about laughing when asked when a GE is coming. He's a car crash in media and tory media bods know full well he'll be a disaster in GE.

So when he is saying is that he is intentionally inciting hatred? If he is not, then he is not falling foul of the law. Interesting is that he (and presumably every reader/listener) equates the 'hate' he is clearly referring to as religion. Focus has been on the trans element and in this case religion. But what about the other groups covered. What if for example someone is inciting hatred against disabled people? Is Ally sating that is OK? Is JK Rowling? Or are people only seeing what they want to see and this rubs against their existing prejudice? Another angle/question I have for folk opposing this is, given this brings the discrimination in line with what already existed based an race, are you really really comfortable in arguing that by saying you think this law is wrong that in some way we should roll back the legislation that was already in place on racism?

And yet you are conflating certain political parties with independence. All legitimate concerns and arguably reasons not to re elect the same shower. However, because you or I might think they are daft c***s, it actually makes the argument stronger. If we both felt strongly enough, we can vote them out and effect change in policy in an independent Scotland. Flip it the other way. Say a UK government brought this legislation in (with no devolved powers) and every single person in Scotland opposed it. Provided ruk wanted it kept, we'd be stuck with it. As it is, if the majority of Scotland could vote for parties who oppose it and it'd be gone after the next election.... It's almost as if democracy works better when the public have proportionatly more say in things which impact them. Who knew....

You make a good point about the need for independence. I agree with you, Scotland should become independent and build on the already devolved powers we have.

There is a bit of me thinks that too, but equally I wonder whether if/when the new owner(s) come in, could he take on a similar role as he did at Hearts? I suspect the new owner will have limited knowledge of Scottish football, so will undoubtedly want someone in, even if short term only. On Levein as manager, I think he would argue that his sole remit is to make sure the club is not relegated, by any means necessary. Caution and measured approaches is fine, provided the main objective is achieved. But as mentioned above, the continued lack of readiness of subs and time taken to get them on is noticeable. FWIW, I think as soon as we are confirmed safe (if at all), then new owners will be announced. Arguably cannot wait until mid summer for it to happen as manager, Levein or whoever, will need to know budget etc. Even then, while we are not dishing out contracts, even if the manager isn't drawing up lists or Premiership/Championship signings, surely that is what Gus MacPherson is there to do. If he isn't, then he serves no obvious purpose. No excuse not to be prepared regardless of what league we end up in.

Just not one of folk that has ever actually won an election.

Bino's is showing he has completely missed the point whilst not actually having a clue what he is talking about. The whole debate is around the Scottish Parliament passing legislation. If that is not having power then you completely misunderstand the whole point.

100% this. Some folk like JK Rowling and Jim Spence are getting their knickers in a twist over something that in all reality changes nothing from yesterday to today. If you are not INTENDING on stirring up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about. If your intent IS to stir up hatred, then it is right that there is a law to deal with that. Maybe those opposing it should look at whether what they say and insinuate is intended to rile up others and ask themselves, if it is, then why do it. JK Rowling has for example put a series of provocative tweets out literally baiting people. In themselves are they breaking this new law? No and she full well knows it, but it doesn't stop her stirring up an argument. Substitute her rant for a group of people coming up from England and claiming now to be Scottish and that by living in Scotland as a Scot does not given them the same rights and protections as someone born in Scotland and every right minded person would call it out for being wrong and crass. There is legitimate questions and points to be raised over trans competitors in sports and safe spaces for women. But to conflate as others do, weakens those concerns. Final point is that it is a curiosity that what some view as oppressive laws are being introduced by a progressive party, while it is the small c conservatives who oppose it. You could argue that this law is 100% in the traditional conservatives wheelhouse, or certainly would have been 20 years ago.

I totally understand fans wanting to mark other notable fans passing at a game, but I tend to agree with the original point that there is too much of it now tbh. Former players and managers of note, yes, but I'm sorry but beyond that I'm not that for it. Playing devil's advocate a little here, but where do you draw the line? Who decides which fans are and are not worthy? Going to sound crass, but at some clubs, if you had a minutes applause for a fan of a certain age on that minute, you'd be applauding the whole game for someone. Not to mention that I think an applause in itself isn't the best marker. For me, it should be a minutes silence to remember someone. Where I do think marking a passing is appropriate is for banners or something amongst the fans themselves. On the applause/silence for folk outside the game, not for me tbh. If you want to have a minutes silence for a king, Queen, politician etc, then there will be an appropriate place for that. A football stadium is not the place.

The irony is that had he given it, they'd have been looking for every reason not to. As much as it went against my team this time, let VAR only be involved as an absolute last resort (ref hasn't seen or really isn't sure) or black and white decisions. In a way, you could argue the big long VAR checked killed any chance for Saints as it knocked any momentum for those last few mins.

We'd deserve it tbh. Would arguably be your biggest achievement since relegating your future merger partners a few years ago.