Thinker

Post-Brexit there's no way Scotland could join the EU whilst unofficially continuning to use Sterling (i.e. enter into an economic union with the Eurozone countries whilst using a currency controlled by a country outside both the EU and the ERM). There's no way at all that could fly. Keeping Sterling and joining the EU is an either/or choice - we couldn't do both; and clearly that's why the SNP have proposed a Scottish currency. Once the "Scottish Pound" is established, the negotiations to enter into the EU would undoubtedly include a strong recommendation that Scotland enters the ERM. From there (having a currency pegged to the Euro) it's a small step to full Eurozone entry. It may be a vote-loser (hence the word games) but it's pretty clear that's what's afoot.

Could a shared pound even be part of the ERM? Read the part in the Wikipedia entry for the Irish pound. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism#Replacement_with_the_euro_and_ERM_II It seems like Scotland would have to control its own currency to participate in the ERM. I can't see how the EU could agree to fix the exchange rate with Scotland if the UK are free to vary the Sterling/Euro rate.

The SFA should hire whoever negotiated the Danish Superliga's deal! That's incredible for a country of 5.7 million.

That's true you're not. The club chairman is requesting you don't sing certain songs because it gives the shrill press and politicians an easy opportunity to leverage public opinion against us. Our enemies want you to keep singing these songs. They're seeking an opportunity to hamper the club's progress so why comply? Yes, football it is too sanitised, I agree, but that's how it is. As always, we have to deal with the reality of the situation.

Strawman nonsense. There's no way they could legitimately punish us for either of those songs. Public opinion would be on our side - especially given the songbook across the city, or even historical battle references sung about at Scotland matches. Obviously plastic pitches have fuck all to do with what we're talking about.

Hmmmm. How about, as a compromise, we both simply respect a straight-forward request by our club chairman? If it gets to the point where sanctions are placed on the club it will eventually set fan against fan. Is that what you want? But even without sanctions, the bad publicity this stuff already brings in our direction is going to start effecting the decisions of players and coaching staff contemplating signing contracts with us - and similar is true for sponsors and investors. The result is that it's going to hamper our ability to win our title back. That's the point here. That's all I care about. Any tim spy reading your posts must be rubbing their hands together with glee. Divide the support, cause agro for the club. Don't be a mug.

This argument gets repeated over and over by those who don't want to change, but it's clearly a weak one. These songs play into our enemies hands - they give them a plausible reason to punish us that an average member of the public would support. Can you think of an example of "something else about us to get offended about" that would seem reasonable to the outside world? You could also argue that anyone with testicular fortitude would take personal responsibility for what they sing, rather than hide in a crowd and have the club and wider support share the punishment for their actions. If you feel strongly about your right to sing these songs, go stand outside Holyrood and give it laldy.

By singing these songs, we make it easy for our detractors to come after us, and we make the neutral (in the UK press for example) unsympahetic towards us and less likley to see our side of things on the wider issue. We also create awkward moments in the press room for SG, and our supporters' bodies and board have to issue public apologies. If we stay on the right side of the rules and the law our detractors will be forced to use contrived ways to come after us, which will be obvious to the neutral observer and will win us support on the wider issue. Whether we agree with it or not, the weight of public opinion condemns the use of derogatory terms for a person based on their religion. I've always argued that f***** refers to someone of a particular political opinion, but that doesn't hold water in the case of Clarke. What definition of the word f***** were the section of the support who sang at Clarke using?

So call him a baldy wanker or whatever. There's no justification for calling him a ******, and it should be pretty fucking obvious that anyone who does is providing the usual suspects with another stick to attack my club with. Sadly we can't fuck the rest of Scottish football as we need somebody to play against on a Saturady afternoon. You don't have to like or respect the other clubs, but we do have to coexist with them. Stand up for the club by all means, but I can't see why anyone would knowingly provide our detractors with ammo.

To be honest, I've got a lot of sympathy for Clarke here. He's been a bit of a clown these last couple of weeks with his comments on Defoe diving but, to the best of my knowledge, he's never uttered a peep about Irish history or politics. I've no problem giving him a hard time, but he's no more a "******" than many of the catholic players that have played for us, so why bring that into it? (To my mind, a ****** is someone who glorifies republican terrorists and sings bigoted anti-British songs - and most likely self-applies the term.) It's good that Boyd's sitting alongside him too - it makes it that bit harder for the editorially biased to frame this as specifically Rangers' issue. The interviewer really ought to have asked Kris if he expects to receive an apology too though.

That's another strand of why I've been disappointed in Davis, and to a lesser extent Defoe, so far. As well as adding a bit of quality and guile I was hoping they'd set an example on the pitch - spur the team on with their winning mentality, and the professionalism to dig out results in unglamorous fixtures. It's not happening though.

Does a replay count normally as a match missed for suspension purposes?

If you take Morelos's actions on their own, there's no way anyone would suggest it's anything more than a yellow. He keeps his foot in, but doesn't "lash out" or make much contact to speak of. It's only because McKenna reacted the way he did (tried to do a headstand so he could put his studs in Alfie's face) and got a red, that the ref felt the need to give Morelos one too. I'm convinced that if McKenna hadn't reacted, no one would even be talking about this.

Yeah, seemed like a blatant drag-down on Morelos at 4-0. I'd need to see it again though. (Sorry - I see WalterBear has already mentioned that above).

Is this a "...and is therefore not entitled to any form of compensation" type of statement?