lichtgilphead

Pity that the referee was in the way for the ball striking Broadfoot's arm for the penalty. From where I was sitting, it was a stone-waller. Maybe the go-pro from behind the goal will show it better.

Have you got memory problems? See below for our last discussion of the 30% labour "Yes" vote. You said you would eat humble pie! That would have been David Cameron, Ed Milliband & Nick Clegg, wouldn't it? Two of them aren't even MP's any more, and the other one is a joke figure, mainly remembered for his bacon sandwich eating skills. Forgive me if I don't put my trust in 3 failed politicians. Do you believe that Holyrood is some sort of Schrödinger's Parliament in that it is permanent, but could be abolished if 326 current MP's voted to do so? That's an "interesting" take on reality

So what? The North British Accounting Unit isn't actually a political party, no matter what DRoss would have you believe.

FTFY

Well, that's some ill-informed crap! 1) Section C was marked "Queen's Park/Hospitality" - see below 2) No-one has ever claimed AFC have 3500 season ticket holders. As always, when movement is allowed, it was busy at one end first half & the other end second half Not as many as I would like. I get to more away games than home. Morton will be my 4th game this season. Ever heard of a VPN?

IMO, there's no need for segregation at a Lichties vs. Queens match. There certainally wasn't any when we won promotion on the last day of the season in 1997/98. I can't think of any bigger occasions than that. If there has to be segregation, and the away team are only going to bring 140-odd fans (not 200), there is no reason to give you half the ground. Our tradition of changing ends at half-time is more important than catering to a few away fans. We are at Gayfield at least 18 tomes per season, you are only there twice. Were AFC lying when they posted this? https://www.arbroathfc.co.uk/arbroath-vs-queens-park-supporter-information-tickets-2/ Queen’s Park supporters will enter via Turnstile 1 and have sections A, B and part of C in the CoelBrew Main Stand.

???? Only since 1975, when the switchies (funfair) moved indoors. Would you prefer to call it the Seaforth end - that's pretty old school!

Unlike last week, when we sold out our entire allocation at Lesser within hours, QP didn't sell out the seats allocated at Gayfield. Section C of the stand was nearly empty. If you had brought a support, you would probably been given the terracing up to the Pleasureland corner. Poor show.

I refuse to attend games against "B" teams, but would love a proper 'European' away trip. It's not as if we're ever going to play in the Europa/Champions League.

Audio commentary is available in UK & NI for £4. International stream is £10. https://arbroathfc.tv/get-access/ I would advise you to be 'abroad' on Saturday

What happened to the bad photoshop that you posted in the dogs thread last night, Stormzy?

Yes, I would agree . All I was trying to disprove was his contention that the Constituency vote in a Holyrood election was the most appropriate way to measure support for Indy. Using the figures for "rebel" votes that he had previously agreed were probably somewhere near correct, it was easy to demonstrate that his contention didn't stand up to scrutiny. I note that you didn't quote my summary at the end, where I said (my emphasis): "Now, whilst these are just ballpark figures, and hardly conclusive, it demonstrates that your claim that the figures haven't moved since the 2014 result just isn't true. If only there was a simple method by which we could determine an answer in 2023! Perhaps we could ask the electorate a simple Yes/No question, instead of extrapolating figures from multi-party election results!" Let me ask you some straight questions. It would be good if you could give straight answers 1) Is it fair to consider a vote for Labour in a Westminster or Holyrood election to be a vote to continue the union, given polling evidence shows that up to 30% of Labour voters would vote "Yes" in Indyref 2? 2) Given recent polling on the desirability of holding a second independence referendum within a year, what would be a fair method to allow both Independence supporters & Union supporters to demonstrate their choice? 3) If you consider electorates "could be very different populations 2 years apart", do you also consider a 9 year gap to produce a "very different population" 4) Given your examination of the figures I provided, why didn't you spot the typo that underestimated the Yoon vote?

In exactly the same way, people vote tactically in FPTP elections. It's a well established fact that FPTP is one of the least democratic systems in use in the world today. In addition, we have already agreed that 8% CON, 10% SNP, 15% LD & 30% LAB don't vote as you would expect on the Yes/No question. If we apply these results to the consituency vote in 2021, we get the following: SNP Total = 47.7% On a 90/10 split, this breaks down as SNP "Yes" 42.9% and SNP "No" 4.8% CON Total = 21.9% On a 8/92 split, this breaks down as CON "Yes" 1.7% and CON "No" 20.1% LAB Total = 21.6% On a 30/70 split, this breaks down as LAB "Yes" 6.5% and LAB "No" 15.1% LD Total = 6.9% On a 15/85 split, this breaks down as LD "Yes" 1.0% and LD "No" 5.9% If we total up all these constituency votes, we get "Yes" 52.1% and "No" 45.9%. Now, you may point out that this only totals 98% of the total constituency votes. That's true! The other 2% of constituency votes went to the Greens, the Libertarians, the Scottish Family Party, UKIP, the Freedom Alliance, TUSC, Restore Scotland, Scotia Future, Communist Party of Britain, Reclaim, Vanguard,. I really can't be bothered trying to split up their tiny shares of the vote, so I'll be generous. Let's assume that they all vote 100% No (even though this is hugely unlikely, considering that at least 3 of them had Indy in their manifestos.) This gives us a total final result of Yes 52.1% No 47.1% Now, whilst these are just ballpark figures, and hardly conclusive, it demonstrates that your claim that the figures haven't moved since the 2014 result just isn't true. If only there was a simple method by which we could determine an answer in 2023! Perhaps we could ask the electorate a simple Yes/No question, instead of extrapolating figures from multi-party election results! I asked for proof, not just for a statement of your opinion. There were 2 polls conducted after the Vow was made. With undecided's stripped out, these polls split yes/no 47.4%/52.6% and 47.3%/52.7% Now, given that the 95% confidence level on a poll of around 1000 voters is around +/-3%, it's 95% statistically probable that the actual "Yes" vote will be somewhere between 44.3% and 50.4%. Your "smaller gap" is just an effect of the margin of error, as 44.7% (the actual result on the day) is within that 95% interval. As you haven't given any timescale for your pre-Vow figures in your evidence free-reply, I'm unable to work out comparable figures for Yes. However, I suspect that the Vow is to blame for the slight drop in Yes support in thae last couple of days rather than sampling error. Now, I only introduced "The Vow" as a factor in changing some votes in the final run-in, but seeing that you believe it was kept, can you answer me this, please? The vow states "We are agreed that the Scottish Parliament is permanent..." This is untrue, of course, as Westminster could abolish it tomorrow. Have you forgotten about the (English) Doctrine of Parliamentary Superiority already. Accordingly, as the very first line of the Vow is a lie, no-one can seriously believe that it was kept. What's this "we" you speak of? The definition of the electorate has changed on numerous occasions. Less than 100 years ago, women didn't have the vote at all, unless they were over 30 and either they (or their husbands, if married) owned property with a rateable value of over £5. Westminster could change the franchise to "only bald men over 50 can vote" tomorrow, if they wanted to, and unless you chose to resort to armed insurrection, there would be f*ck all you could do about it. Whilst "the Mother of Parliaments" isn't quite as blatant as that, recent changes (ID cards to vote, expats getting the vote for 15 years after leaving) and the refusal to allow 16/17 year olds the vote at Westminster are all to do with entrenching one party in power. Scotland hasn't voted for that party in my lifetime. Westminster is undemocratic & corrupt. In the words of the old joke "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"

Picked up Skye from the Greyhound Trust yesterday. She seems to be settling in with her new big brother

OK, looking through the other parties that stood, I can perhaps see 3 that specifically supported independence. They are the Libertarians & Scotia Future (who both had Indy as a specific policy, and the Communist Party of Britain (who I seem to recall supporting Indy, but I'm not certain) If we add their 0.2% to the 50.12% already gained by the other Indy supporting parties, it only increases the majority. Accordingly, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The "Nhats"? Oh dear! The rest of the paragraph is pure supposition. Can you provide some evidence for your claim that opinion polling was generous to Yes, with specific reference to the effect of "The Vow", published by the Daily Record on 16th September 2014? Can you also provide evidence that the factors that led to this supposed generousity to Yes have not been addressed by the various pollsters? Without some evidence, you are only posting your own opinions, which I am not inclined to believe. I used the word "English" because the doctrine of parliamentary superiority was imported into the UK parliament from the pre-1707 English parliament. It is an alien concept to the pre-1707 Scottish parliament, where the people were always considered sovereign. It is also an alien concept to any country with a written constitution. They are bound by that constitution. For example, a simple majority in the US parliamentary system would not be sufficient to ban firearms possession in the USA. They would have to amend the constitution, which is far more complicated than a single vote and requites super-majorities (two thirds in both the Congress and the House of Representatives then agreed by three quarters of the individual states) However, as Westminster can pass any legislation they like (as long as it does not bind any successor parliament), 326 MP's could vote that we all had to carry AK-47's at all times, and that would eventually become law, even if the House of Lords disagreed. I stand by my view. Westminster is sovereign under the UK's "unwritten constitution", It can do whatever it wants. Accordingly, all UK citizens are ruled by Westminster.

^^^^^^ It's Stormzy, the multibanned troll! ^^^^^^

He's got a new dotting account to play with too! What an immature little fud!

I see perma-banned loser Stormzy has slunk back onto the Politics forum.

Finally. Something we can all agree on.

While I would agree that the act is the crime, Scots Law demands corroboration. If the only evidence is the perpetrators admission, he shouldn't be found guilty without at least one piece of evidence (however tenuous) to back up his version of events.

Whilst the score ended up 2-1, it was not a narrow defeat. A draw would have been a travesty. That said, the second half performance gave some grounds for optimism. Let's see how we get on in the rematch at the Gayf.

Thought Kilnockie played Rangers in the final?

I note that the lead-in to a story about Social Security Scotland on Reporting Scotland tonight was introduced with the words "A Scottish Government Agency has said sorry..." Here's a link to the 'story' on the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66465476 Whilst I'm not exactly happy with the concept of holding quizzes during work hours, I fail to see how the fact that adult disability payments are devolved has any bearing on the fact that Huntley and Brady were pictured in a quiz, or why this shocked and enraged the complainant. We know what Huntley & Brady look like because of media reports, FFS! I hope that the complainant has also complained to the BBC that they were pictured on it's flagship teatime news programme and on the linked news 'story' However, I'm sure that everyone has dutifully lapped up today's "Scottish Government baaaaaaad" announcement