renton

On a two year deal? Just goes to show the difference in what we can realistically offer and one or two of the other teams can.

Juan Gurrero, a legend......

Well, the Edinburgh Evening News had us in for Smith, and they are generally reliable as a source for anything Edibnrugh football related. The fact that he's away to Falkirk on a two year deal probably tells a similar story to how we lost out on Baird. Think Murray will probably be away to his bed after that.

Yeah, should fit into the Falkirk system fairly well (assuming you guys still play a variant of 4-2-3-1?).

Plus Scott who can play as an effective enough wide player.

Hard when your usual sources for loans are in the same league as you.... Still, wouldn't mind David Smith, would certainly allow us more flexibility in terms of changing the shape of the team, undoubtedly a skilled player as well.

We are in a far better place in terms of being able to absorb injuries than we were last year, that much is obvious. We ahve more utility players and a better quality of player able to come into the team: Scott can play central midfield or right wing, Conroy can play left wing or left back, yes we have a couple fo long term crocks and are skidding a bit when you need to bring in Ellis, but having Barr and Hill available will give us plenty of options there. We aren't relying on guys who can't cut it at this level (Donaldson) and guys who can only carry the can in one position (Cardle). So yeah, that 'one extra player' pretty much adds up to having one senior, reliable performer as cover for every two places in the team. Last year, we were short in central midfield, centre back and out wide, and when injuries and suspensions hit, it hurt bad. So far this year, with a fairly hefty set of injuries, we're still competitive. Stength in depth is not all about numbers, it's about having reliable cover as well. Our team looks, at least early doors, to be more balanced.

Eh, aye - the squad (if we include Laurie Ellis) has 5 centre backs, 3 goal keepers, four central midfielders, 3 wide players (subtracting Scott from the previous category) and four forwards. it's be nice to have more cover for full backs and an extra wide player who could also go through the middle, but we have plenty of cover - we are also carrying a tonne of injuries, something the board and management could not possibly factor for. On Saturday, we were already missing a forward and two centre backs from the squad, in addition to a further forward not fit enough to start the game. We lost a goal keeper in the warm up and another centre back during the early stages of the game - yet we still had enough cover to put out a strong enough team to beat Cowden by a considerable margin, while being able to bring on two guys in the late stages of the game who are undoubtedly first team players. So where exactly is the scam?

Had two loan spells with us under McGlynn and also in Murray's first season. Plays out wide for the most part, probably better as a wide player in a 3 rather than directly protecting a full back in a 4-4-2. Quite direct and not as tricky as, say, Jamie Walker - there was a Rovers-Falkirk game at Starks where Smith was basically unplayable, but all too often not quite at that level. Seemed to get more game time than Walker at Hearts, surprised he's on the let go list for them.

That's a bit, eh, depressing.

Which papers? Did hearts really feel that sorry for us?

Definitely this, he seemed to fancy going toe to toe with two far better sides and got fucked for it, he should've packed the midfield in both cases, instead of going for a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 style as he did. He'd have been better sticking Fox and Moon sitting in the midfield and telling Scott to hang off of Gomis' shoulder for the Hearts game, stuck Stewart and Conroy or even Stewart and Anderson out wide, leave Nade up front by himself.

I'm skipping the rangers game, far too much hassle.

It's bad when in an attempt to mock the Rovers, you make yourself sound utterly pathetic.

Yup, overlapping identities, some of which come across stronger than others, mostly I would think as a matter of distance, both geographical and temporal.

Not quite, while both nationality and the colour of your eyes are by and large, accidents of birth, you as an individual and collectively can have an influence on how a nation develops, what it achieves. It's a fairly abstract level of identification but no less real or valid. The whole constituency of the islands were proud, or remains so, of the NHS - even those who aren't doctors or nurses, work there, built or administer the hospitals, becuase they felt they contributed in some way - that the NHS reflected their values. You can have that in a nation: Pride in a shared collective experience that you help shape in some small way. Same with my football team. I support the Rovers purely by accident of birth, it doesn't stop me feeling pride in it's achievements, shame in it's many shortcomings. It's a collective experience for those who support it, we as a football support, as a nation are the institutional memory of the organisations we choose to belong to.

Surely, what is meant goes beyond mere legal technicalities. Scotland is an idea, a mental space in people's heads based on shared experience. it doesn't matter about it's 'international personality' it matters what the people who live there think it is, and it's relative importance vis a vis Yorkshire is based entirely on how the people who live in Scotland view it. That's surely what the whole fucking debate is about.

Not really, as the financial well being of a country is best secured in the long terms by the people who have a vested interest in it prospering. That is the people who live there. So Scotland as a country should be able to govern itself, finanical security comes from a stable and representative democracy.

Why do you have to keep borrowing someone elses utterly shite banter?

Maybe, but then it depends on how much attention you are paying in advance. I don't doubt the many issues involved with canvassing for a partisan organisation, and as I said, you can't treat it as a replacement for BPC polling, it's a supplement - but an interesting one. BPC polling does indicate an uptick in independence support amongst C2D2E percentile voters, so the RIC showing a Yes lead amongst that demogrpahic - their raison d'etre - might not necessarily be self selection or industrial scale lieing to the canvassers. As with all data points, it's methodology limitations must be considered, and the results filtered accordingly into an overall picture.

Not really, no. They don't know who is yes or No before they go to the door number, so how can they be self selecting. Folk who won't answer the door, won't necessarily be doing so because it's RIC. It isn't a demographic profile of Scotland, of course it isn't - but it isn't meant to be either. Therefore it can't be used in place of BPC polling, but it can be a useful supplementary data point on a demogrpahic that is not always, picked up, if at all by BPC pollsters. one interesting effect of face to face polling and canvassing, by the way, is the larger number of DKs. You can see this in the TNS BPC polling as well as canvassing. Whether that means the online pollsters are self selecting from more politically aware repsondents who are naturally more sure of their voting style, or whether tha act of asking someone face to face creates more reticence in the respondent is interesting to me. The last two RIC canvasses have shown Yes ahead but with a DK as big as the No response. Now, in BPC polling they've been looking for Shy Nos but areguably haven't found it. There is some anecdotal evidence of shy yes responses to BPC pollsters, but you have to wonder: Could someone with a RIC badge etc be producing a shy No response in these canvasses?

It depends on whether they actively stare out a window to see who's at the door, or even if said canvasser is festooned with badges, or whatever. The fact is that the sheer size of the poll should help reduce some of the error - either non responses or lieing to the canvasser. it'll be interesting to see if they have a response rate right enough, I'm sure if asked you could get an answer.

Well, no. The mass canvas isn't a demographic profile of Scotland, and it shouldn't be treated as such. It is a snapshot of what a certain section of the Scottish populace is thinking, and while canvassing can produce erroneous results due to lieing to the canvasser that you might not get in BPC polling, the sheer size of the sample should reduce that error somewhat, given that the RIC is targetting communities with a lot of lapsed voters who didn't vote in 2010 or 2011 (or even further back than that), then they tend not to be picked up by the BPC pollsters. Threrefore it's an interesting data point there at least. Whether either campaign can get them into a polling booth on the day is a different story.

Yeah that's yes pretty much fucked if it's a consistent methodology with their last poll

It's bordering on a persecution complex.