Eddie Hitler

Hmm. Agree Europe should be the aim (should always *look* to progress even if we don't quite make it) but I am unsure we are there in terms of squad depth tbh, most notably at the back. Couple of injuries and suspensions and we would be in a lot of bother.

Possibly harsh of me. Certainly felt you guys defended well that day, and didn't give us a lot of space in forward areas (not that I am Arsene Wenger demanding you play in a way that suits us). We created next to nothing and I would agree we were lucky to go through that day.

I hope you are right, to be honest. If you push up, that's space for us on the counter.

On this Saturday's game, won't make any firm prediction. Think Dundee could get a point if they come and sit, as we still struggle to break teams down in such cases and we really toiled in the home cup game last season. Best thing that could happen from a St Mirren perspective is to nick an early goal and force Dundee to open up (presuming they do sit deep). Of course "get an early goal" is one of the biggest cliches in football but it really does apply when you are a team that struggles to break others down. Conversely, an early Dundee goal would be bad news because that would give them even less incentive to open up. I'll refrain from saying anything like "St Mirren should win" because I don't think there's any "should" about it but we do need to win home games if we want to do as well as last season.

Taylor seems to be getting a lot of heat for this, but he was there to put in a tackle right before this, whereas Gogic can be seen running around looking a bit lost through the entire passage of play. I don't think this was just one defender's mistake, in short.

What's going on at centre back? Is Bolton going to be the first choice as the central one of the three? I don't really like Gogic at centre back at all if I am honest and don't think he should be the first one we are turning to as cover in that position either. He's a great one for last ditch saving tackles but a lot of that comes from the fact that he is poor positionally in that position IMHO. Much prefer him at CDM, which also lets him maraud forward menacingly which I think he is effective at. We are light at the back, I am afraid to say. It's fine having utility players but they are going to look like fish out of water (and make mistakes) when they are not in their favoured positions, and we will get caught out by it (and nearly did on Sunday, when all our good work was nearly undone).

I am sure Strain was a free transfer (and he was already 25 by the time he joined us) so I can't see why Haifa would be due anything.

I am sorry but this seems like a logical fail. You admit everyone is affected by need to rebuild but then say that's "not a level playing field". It is a level playing field. All the teams in the group stages needed to be ready to compete by 15 July 2023. That's a requirement which applied to all, and couldn't BE more of a "level playing field". I don't know whether you mean, instead, that it's more "level" if it's later on so we are ready to thrash lower league opposition but, if we weren't as ready as we should have been v Montrose, that's our problem. But that sounds perilously close to demanding that a competition is bent to our needs and a wee bit entitled.

Happy to hear that!

Point taken but: Ayunga might be unfit for a while. Also I am wondering (speculation) whether Greive might be the other player people are implying is going. I hope not because, for all he has some stuff to work on, I like his industry a lot and he pops up with very important goals on occasion,

Can see why some are excited at the idea of bringing Fletcher in as, with luck, he could get on end of crosses etc. But will he actually be able to play a countering game and has he got the legs to be in the box if we are breaking at pace? I think I would be wary of placing all eggs in one basket tbh, and would see Brophy as a salutary lesson which we should learn. It also doesn't exactly scream "the future!" Even if we might not get quite as many goals out of such a player, I would prefer any monies in to be used to offer Main (or a similar player) more. We might even have something left for another depth player to cover another position or something.

Eh? No, it stops you playing *some teams* 4 times.

Before the Livingston-Hearts-Rangers trio of games, I thought we'd had it, so it's nice to be in with a shout with a game to go. The Hearts result, frankly, could well end up being the one we look back on thinking, "this is where everything really started to go right". On Saturday, it was frustrating as we got a lot closer than I am sure most of us could have imagined to getting what we needed at Ibrox. As I say, two weeks prior to this I worried we were out of contention, so it was funny being annoyed at not getting a point or more in Govan (I remember leaving the home game against them being annoyed we hadn't beaten them, mind - another marker of where this team is, because how often did we really feel aggrieved when we lost on all those games where we ONLY sat in, and had no counter attack to speak of?). I'm nervous about Saturday. We SHOULD get the result we need because I think we are a better team than Killie. We have been good at home, they have been terrible away. BUT one of the rare grounds they have gotten something from is ours. I am grateful we don't need three points (although, like DJ Chapsticks, I am really most concerned about a shot at Europe, so I hope we get them as the biggest cushion we can have over sixth as the post-split games start would be best - even if it's only 1 over Hibs or something, that's better than starting behind them) because if they can do nothing else, McInnes teams can stifle and be hard to score against. I am in agreement that we should be on the front foot, both because three points would be best but also for another reason. The one way I could see this going badly pear-shaped is if we give away a penalty and have someone sent off into the bargain at 0-0. Killie could shut up shop on us since, as I say, McInnes teams are good at at least that. So if we can try not to hang around our own box too much, the chances of that scenario unfolding are lessened.

Sorry, who said this? Sounds like you're making up fantasy people to argue against. Support for independence seems to be holding steady, so the people are (by and large) not saying "I'm against my country's self-governance because of SNP policy". I also don't think that any posters are saying it either, although you might be trying to claim as much in an attempt to dismiss any criticism without going to the intellectual effort of constructing an honest argument. What doesn't seem to be holding steady is support for the SNP. Policy may be one reason for that, the current headlines etc another, and there are no doubt further factors. As we are told ad nauseum, the SNP are needed to gain independence, so it is the case that anything they do that damages themselves could also damage support for independence by making it harder to achieve via parliamentary means (if they could raise themselves to tell us how, at this juncture, they intend to achieve it by such means in the first place).

Fair enough observation although it would of course hardly be the first time someone up here had said they were sick of hearing about e.g. London! And, to be fair, I suspect northern English/Welsh/etc etc often same the same.

Yeah, they were asking for it really, eh>

Yeah, I think this is nonsense. There's at least one major failing with the voting process, in that seemingly thousands of people who are no longer members have been given a vote they are not entitled to. The SNP now "admit" to 72.1k members and also previously said they'd sent out 78k ballots. You posted in another message that "that's the correct number whatever nonsense SNP HQ were putting out", or words to similar effect. Let's be clear: SNP HQ is the entity which has admitted to 72.1k now. SNP HQ is also the entity which sent 78k names to Mi-Voice, who turned round and reported that this was the size of the electorate they had been given. As SNP HQ was the source of each number, you cannot seriously now expect everyone to take one number as authoritative and the other, also issued by them, as "nonsense". But if 78,000 ballots have indeed been sent out for 71.2k members then near enough 8% of the entire selectorate had no right to a vote. So, yeah, there is at least one problem with the voting process and it should be fixed if the whole thing isn't to look like a sham. If you're going to make rules, they need to be enforced properly and not on the basis that Dunning1874 thinks it's ok so long as the coalition with the Greens isn't endangered.

I'm not a fan of Forbes but I think this is drivel. You are (whether you like it or not) saying that ONLY backbenchers can ever come in on a platform of "change" or levy criticism of the record under the last leader. This would be a recipe for someone advocating "change" (needed or not) almost never having a chance to win such an election - unless they were previously a very "big beast" who'd gone to the backbench and was trying a comeback (which does not happen that often) because they will almost certainly be dismissed as "fringe", "not well known enough" etc etc. In other words, it's a recipe for stasis. Again, not a fan of Forbes, but it rather strikes me that her input into most major policies must have been pretty minimal, as she was not part of the main "clique" at the top of the SNP. You can argue as to whether she was "principled" in not stepping down if she didn't agree with government direction. It does not follow at the same time that she was "up to her neck in it, so how dare she say now that she thought we were a bit rubbish?". She might have been of the Cabinet, but it's unlikely she had Sturgeon's ear, so can hardly be deemed to be "closely associated" with all her initiatives, other than budgetary ones which she herself delivered with the outgoing FM's agreement.

Why are folk wittering on about "a future referendum" here? We are committed to only ever holding one with permission from Westminster, and we will never be given such permission ever again. There will never be another referendum.

I don't think "but we won all the elections!" is a good shortcut to judging how well a government has done, its record, or the degree to which it has improved things - at least not in isolation. Over much the same timeframe as the SNP have been in office, i.e. saving the first three years, the Tories have won each General Election. While the margins may not have been quite as large, are we to assume (as a shortcut) that the Tories' record is good and they must be doing right...because they have won all the recent General Elections and have thus (whether we might like it or not - and I don't) been electorally successful? I don't think that can be right, and the usual reasons put forward (not without justification, I don't think) for the Tories winning are disengaged voters in some cases who don't really know what they are voting for, and in other cases voters who have voted because they supported a single issue constitutional change (Brexit). Accordingly, the Tories received votes for reasons other than some sparkling record in government, I'd suggest myself that the Tories have governed badly, but they have been winning elections. It is eminently possible for the SNP to also have governed poorly, but to have been rewarded by disengaged voters who weren't really following their actual policy moves and those who voted for them because they support a single issue constitutional change (independence). Now, it's up for debate (on a case by case basis) whether SNP initiatives in particular policy areas have been good and contribute to a good policy record or not but I believe this shortcut argument of "but they kept winning elections so they must have been good!" needs to be thrown in the bin because the Tories show us you can win elections despite being absolute horrors.

Agree it'll be a struggle due to injuries etc plus beating them twice in one season hard anyway! Also, we were "physical" against them in the win and I would fear that VAR would step in and help them out this time should their central defenders get breathed on and fall over. In essence, we won't be allowed to unsettle them in the same way. 1-3.

On the subject of media at hustings, televised debates etc etc. We seem to have come a long way from 2014, where a lot of people were proud (justifiably, IMHO) of the level of political engagement in the country, which has been going into reverse again in recent years. I think there should be as much coverage as possible of these things. Even if it turns out readership/viewership etc is pretty low, we should be giving people every chance to understand who's in charge and what their views and policy preferences are. People are forever moaning that voters are ill-informed and then in the next breath essentially saying "hide the politicians from them, so they can't reach an informed view". I don't think saying, 'what's the point in showing it to people who can't choose and anyway Holyrood elects the FM' is useful or helpful. In particular, 'Holyrood elects the FM' might technically be correct but no-one seriously thinks that whoever the SNP elect is NOT going to be FM (unless the Greens have a hissy fit and refuse to vote for whoever the SNP membership has chosen). As far as possible, everyone should have a chance to see what's coming because engagement is more or less always a good thing. While not everyone has a vote, of course, the SNP should be viewing this as a chance to introduce these candidates properly to the wider public with some time to go till elections and, if they are afraid of doing so, they should be asking themselves why that is.

I get this, but it's not exactly the same as the 2007-2011 period or latterly where the Greens were happy enough supporting Sturgeon most of the time on budgets etc....if the Greens are implacably opposed to whoever the SNP leader is, will they vote alongside or stymie everything? If you're at "FM as lame duck" territory, what then?

Well, it would lead to one if it means they (the Greens) will not supply the votes to pass the elected person as FM. My understanding is that Harvie has said they will jettison the current agreement between the two over ministerial posts if anyone other than Yousaf is elected. Whether they will then also refuse to provide votes to make the new SNP leader FM might be another matter but why would it be "ok" to vote for them to be FM but "not ok" to hold ministerial posts in their administration? In that scenario, there's no FM. If it turns out it is "ok" to vote for them to be FM, even though it's not "ok" to hold ministerial briefs in their Govt, then perhaps the SNP could govern as a minority but would they be able to actually do anything (given that rancour is at an all-time high, so it likely wouldn't work out like in the 2007-2011 period where they did this)?

Not if the SNP don't elect exactly who The Greens tell them to.....