The Holiday Song

Only way I can see to solve the problem with the Irish border is: 1 - Hard Brexiteers admit they have no problem with border going up 2 - this somewhat annoys the Republicans 3 - they decide to eliminate said Hard Brexiteers 4 - ? 5 - Deal

The whole of the UK backstop idea... who is against that? The EU, Brexiteers or both? Why is the solution to this not just the UK is basically in the EEA until it has the technology (whatever that means) to solve the Irish border problem?

And that’s why they lived up to their full potential (particularly in Gazza’s case).

This is very anecdotal, but the biggest (only?) thing that has helped with my anxiety (leading into depression) was totally giving up caffeine. I was diagnosed over ten years ago, got given CBT, still take citalopram etc. but gave up caffeine last summer and never been better. If you have anxiety you know how a small bad thought can just snowball out of proportion - but that doesn’t seem to happen now. Not saying that is a fix for everyone but had tried more exercise, cutting out booze and that made f’ck all difference. Caffeine isn’t mentioned all that much. Wasn’t even having that much either although coming off it was pretty hard, sore heads and being an angry b’stard for about a week!

Fair enough. I totally disagree though! We’re leaving EU: no problem. Leaving single market might be best option: no problem. The vote means we need to leave single market: absolute shite.

That we were definitely leaving the single market. I’m willing to accept we’re leaving the EU, I’m willing to accept it might be better to leave the single market, customs union etc. But it’s total bs to say 52% voted to leave the single market (that’s not aimed at you btw, rather the folk who use “will of the people” as no 1 reason for a “hard” Brexit).

I’m concerned there’s a fourth option... No deal brexit Hard border for Ireland Loony hardcore Brexiters would love it, as would DUP? What’s to stop this? Good Friday Agreement?

Haven't been to a game in ages... is the bar in the main stand open prematch or will it need to be south stand if I want a beer beforehand?

Away fans with half of Hope Street... was that particularly common? First time I've noticed it!

Tbf to Shadwell, it's not an outrageous list... and I can't see Farid or Daryl Duffy in there either who I'd have ahead of Sibbald.

I'm from Sandwick. Sounds like you're well acquainted with my old headteacher! Live away now (although actually back up on Thursday). I really fancy doing a tour of all the beaches over a week or so at some point, some of them are incredible and didn't appreciate them when younger. Just finding the time.

Is the bar at the ground likely to be open for the friendly vs Falkirk tomorrow? Actually, how does that work generally? Open till kick off then closes?

Happy for anyone to correct me on this, but don't think you're approaching this the correct way? As a (very) basic example, Rangers went to a player and said, "We'll pay you £15k a week". Player says "No chance, Celtic have offered me £20k a week". "Yes, but you'll pay 40% tax on that, so you'll only get £12k. You won't pay the same tax on our £15k..." Rangers themselves weren't actually trying to avoid paying tax, they just wanted to use a scheme to get more bang for their buck. On a related note - my reading of it is that, from a footballing sense, the wrongdoing occurs because the side letters were part of the player's deal but were deliberately not included in the registration process. That's why the titles should be stripped.

Still annoys me we had to have a minute's applause for that c**t.

Hayes looks a bit like Robert The Bruce's old man in Braveheart there.

Feel a bit arsey asking this but it's a genuine question - at the time, how much did what happened at Heysel have an effect on people's opinions of the cause of Hillsborough?

Slightly odd question... have Falkirk played with a sweeper much over the last 30-40 years? Bit of a random argument I've been having! Did Scott MacKenzie play as one in McCall's team?

This may be semantics now, sorry – but in that example, they are not shifting the line because they think Yes have more chance of winning, but because they know that the public will think it’s more likely Yes will win and therefore adjust their betting pattern if the odds stay the same (I know that’s pretty much the same thing but there’s a slight difference!). What I think you are saying is that you believe bookies generally set odds based on what they believe will happen? I’m saying/guessing that bookies generally set odds based on how they believe the gambling public will behave. Maybe it’s just a mix, and perhaps I’m just so used to Betfair Exchange (Yes is up to 5/1 now there by the way).

Whilst not disagreeing with any of that, I’d argue that’s also what the betting public thinks (and how they are betting) and that’s why the odds are what they are (i.e. the gambling patterns are setting the prices, not the bookies).

I’m not going to articulate this well, but I think after the result is known, particularly if it’s a No vote, a good analysis of the campaign on social media would be interesting. There’s absolutely no doubt the Yes vote is more prominent (it’s not even close) but if it doesn’t prevail then I’d like to see newspapers and other news outlets realise that “reporting” what people are saying on Facebook and Twitter maybe doesn’t add much value (on all subjects, not just this referendum). I guess they won’t, as it’s a very quick and cheap way of getting “public opinion” out there. (And I say this as a Yes supporter who now has over £300 on a Yes vote, partly based on the fact the odds seem crazy considering how much Yes support there is about!)

I’m quite happy to be corrected here but think you’re wrong – the odds are what they are because, for whatever reason, they know this is the optimum position in terms of making them a guaranteed profit (this would be easier to do in a two horse race than a larger field). It’s surely just a case of a graph based on a supply and demand curve, tweaked to their operating environment. Again though, fair enough if this is nonsense.

They would if they wanted to encourage gamblers to bet on it (i.e. if they were exposed to a bigger loss if the other side was to win). They'll have seen a lot of action on Yes earlier in the week, forcing the odds down. As the odds for No have increased, punters will be sticking more on that, driving its odds down (and forcing the odds for Yes up again).

Possibly a bit late now but worth keeping an eye on Betfair... I got effective odds of just under 4.4/1 yesterday afternoon which seemed crazy. Wouldn't usually bet on the result I want to happen... but in this case it was too good value to pass up.