calscot

I think it is food for thought that we're not as effective as Hearts were last year in what was arguably a harder league - with us in it despite our meltdown. However, our recruitment for the SP will hopefully be dramatically different than their's was. It still suggests there might be a significant gap, despite Celtic's suppressed standards. Third place will not be acceptable to Rangers fans who won't be happy with second either, but would grudgingly probably put up with a close second with a good fight - after all we've had to cope with not winning the title in a bit more than half the campaigns in our history. I don't see a Souness style spending revolution in the summer, so it will be all about MW and his judicious signings, and how he gets the team playing.

Celtic have also done another little "cheat" to keep them ahead - as long as they use their initial financial advantage. The prize money for second place is much reduced, which they got through by appealing to the greed of the less ambitious teams by spreading that second place money throughout the league. If they can assert their finances to beat us to the title the first season, their financial advantage is extended, and the point being that the hit for second place money would be relatively worse for us than them. Although I think they did this in the overconfidence that they'd be well ahead of us when we get back.

Dumbarton are the Championship team that have caused us the least problems this season - unless you count a resolute park the bus performance in the 2-1 victory over them in September. The only other side not to have taken points from us at some point is St Mirren, but they have made it a bit difficult for us in two 1-0 victories. Not sure how motivated they will be to go all out for a point, but they are still battling with Livingstone to avoid the relegation play-off place. Maybe the way the game goes will be determined by whether we achieve an early goal - as I think that would relax our players a bit and remove some of Dumbarton's determination, with the crowd getting buoyant. Not find the net early, could mean the players getting frustrated, Dumbarton growing in confidence and the crowd getting restless. It's the ideal time to put the Championship to bed and not to do so will leave a lot of punters very disappointed, even though mathematically we only need 2 points in 5 games, failure of which is pretty inconceivable. It's time for the players to show if they have a bit of bottle in bringing the trophies home, which is part of the mettle that shows you are Rangers class.

Wouldn't we be better off with a five star stadium for internationals? I can think of one alternative...

Thinking about it, if we throw away self interest, tradition and parochial snobbery in a sporting sense, as well as traditional and geographical reasons for Glasgow, the Murrayfield solution makes perfect sense - especially for OF games and big Scotland games (if the national team ever has a revival). Although for games not involving the either Glasgow side, there is still their own stadiums which could be used, one of which is a UEFA five star arena. Other clubs' stadiums could be used for games drawing smaller crowds and pitch condition could be a consideration for choosing. 67k capacity makes total sense for a cup final containing either of both of the OF, and for a semi with both involved. Not only does it make more money but it gets more people in, pretty much catering for all season ticket holders at current levels. The M8 isn't that long... The shame is that the Rugby guys have massively trounced the custodians of our national game. If you took the more personal feelings out of it and asked Spock, I think I know what his answer would be.

And the UK government twice pulled the plug on making Hampden a decent stadium, the first one costing the SFA a ton of money in cancelled contracts and other expenses. Independence in the 70s would have meant plenty of money for a fantastic stadium - and the deficit easily paid off. Your political posturing is incredibly poor and just polluting a thread. Oh and England were running a similar level of deficit two years after Wembley opened with the UK deficit at £156b. Seeing as we're better together, why doesn't the UK government show us some advantage by paying for a new stadium as an apology for previous shaftings? GERS figures are hardly an appropriate calculation anyway. You really seem to have Stockholm Syndrome. As I've said I'm pretty ambivalent about independence but it's always the unionists who seem to come out with the highly spun and tainted propaganda. Give it a rest.

Someone care to explain it???

You could probably say the same for all stadiums as they are continually rebuilt over 100 years or more, including Ibrox. Hampden has been on the same site since 1903 so is it the same entity? It's one of these philosophical questions I suppose - and seeing as our molecules completely change about every seven years, as does our personality due to our experiences, it applies to people too. My biggest concerns for a new stadium would be losing the history and funding it. For the old stadium, I've never been comfortable with the lease thing - the SFA should own it. As for the grass, isn't that due to QP playing there 20 times a season plus the concerts that allow people to stand on the pitch? I look back and wish we had done what Wales did, combining the two stadiums (Murrayfield - before it was done up) and built an 80k stadium with a roof. It's certainly needed for the rugby and any OF game plus would be filled in finals by many combinations of teams. Scotland always seems to be full of too many stubborn and parochial people to get together and do anything sensible that benefits us for generations. It's also got to be said that plans to make Hampden decent has been thwarted twice by Tory governments... A time of austerity and loss of income to Scottish football is probably not the best time to think about building a new Stadium - although investing in these kind of things has been good for the economies of some countries in recession or depression, but that's not the path we're currently on.

That's a weird reply - the whole point of the ban is the lack of impartiality.

I don't find those at Rangers TV very on the ball.

I've only sat in the north stand which seems ok but can see that the ends are far from the pitch but what is so badly wrong with it? Genuine question. The thing about moving is that we talk about preserving a tradition to sing the most anachronistic and inappropriate songs, but we have one of THE most historic football venues in the world and would dump it at the drop of a hat. Plus the fact that the likes of Wembley cost about a billion pounds and even Man City's ground cost about a quarter of that.

I think it's better to wait to talk about your medal when you have actually achieved it, if for nothing else but out of modesty and etiquette. If it's guaranteed then there's no need to jump the gun.

Bit early for this kind of talk. There is still a job to do.

I thought the contention was that football debts are expected to be paid but prize money and transfer money in the other direction has been with withheld. We are the same club but they are deliberately picking and choosing the company when it comes to money owed and money due.

I'll start getting worried when you don't find my posts ridiculous, thanks for reaffirming that I've made a good point. If the guy doesn't want to play for us because he's a Celtic fan, that's fine, but he didn't say that. Not surprised in the slightest that you're defending him.

Sounds bigotted to me - a Catholic Dubliner who refuses to play for Rangers? It's supposition but has pretty good grounds. Then their's the veiled implication that Rangers fans would harm him for being a Catholic from Dublin. Again maybe we're inferring it but we're not daft.

At least he has a name that was bandied about before MW got here (although maybe just for the name itself). I haven't seen enough of him but he's been reasonably well received so can't see why he can't at least become a squad player considering our finances. When you look at our results this season and compare us to Hearts, it's hard to say if we're any better, although I think is fair to say we're not significantly worse. I think we may be about the same level with potential to overtake them without great investment - although we do have a squad who must cost about twice and much as Hearts. So basically, taking one of their players is in keeping with the standard we currently have. However, with our wage bill at £6m and Celtic's at least 4 times as much as that, all things being equal I don't think we can't hope to compete for the title without strengthening with players with some who have the talent to command similar salaries to their top stars. Not unless MW can really unearth some amazing bargains and where the whole of the team becomes more than the sum of its parts. However, all things aren't quite equal and while they have been praised for their value for money, which possibly makes them harder to compete with than their investment suggests, their manager brings them down quite a few levels - but that's easily remedied, at least partially. I don't think their current ethos helps them either, and that can be to our advantage. With the current squad I think we'd be competing with Hearts and Aberdeen for second place, but I think our players are good enough that they can make up the numbers around about 5 new top EC level players in order to complete a team capable of competing for the SP championship. In conclusion, I think BK can be one of those who makes up the numbers.

As has been shown with John Spencer, Mo Johnson and Nacho Novo, all threats and danger have been from Celtic fans, so maybe that's what he's referring. But as we've already signed Jon Daly without much of a fuss, I think it might be all down to his own bigotry and trying to play the victim to justify it. You have to wonder how much of the start of Rangers not signing Catholics in the past was down to this kind of stuff where either they are afraid of Celtic fan reprisals, or too bigoted to sign for Rangers, or the fact that only 18% of the population are Catholics and as they are usually sectarian enough to want to play for Celtic due to the religion of the club, that there were not any Catholics left that were good enough for Rangers. The story is amazing in this day and age and shows you where the majority of the bigotry lies.

Not to mention video games, social media, internet, streaming tv and smart phones... And with our diet he'd probably be pretty fat by the age of 12.

I still can't believe the naivety in Scottish football that our top representative has repeatedly stated that he is ONLY interested in the welfare of one club, and has repeatedly acted against the welfare of one of the two biggest clubs.

I was boiling it down to basics but yes you can contrive any motivations - but then you are talking about a conspiracy, and it's far less compelling. I think there are too many people involved. The thing you're ignoring is that the referendum came in a perfect storm of a UK government who mismanaged the economy to create massive deficits and national debt, a Eurozone crisis, a world recession and plummet in the price of oil. Nobody predicted most of that which suggests EVERYONE was naive. Everyone is SUPPOSED to benefit in the long run but it has been shown that just like Rangers, it doesn't quite work for Scotland. Not only that it works badly for the North of England and other parts of the country. IMHO one of the biggest problems with the UK is that our resources are continually lavished on an overheating London. You want to talk about deficit predictions? Seriously? Tell me who got it right? Certainly not the UK governments of Labour or Tory. I'm not sure a Scottish government would be better but like the opinions on McCoist here, I don't see how they could have done worse. A Scottish government, more reliant on oil, would have a much higher motivation to give it the attention it needs. You are also judging the SNP for an non-independent deficit? I don't see how that makes sense. It would obviously be less with the full oil revenue no matter how low but as I've said I've seen independent figures that calculate at least a £10b swing - better on a good oil year. Maybe it's only half that but it would still be less than the UK. And as I've said several times now, it is highly related to Tory tax policy. You are judging the SNP on the performance of the Tories. It's not like the SNP's spending has suddenly increased by £15b or just several billion. Compelling? If you call successful scaremongering and threats compelling. As I've said the vote was too close to give the no the credit you are applying - the no won due to the number of unknowns more than anything. Maybe you misunderstand me - they are the antithesis of the general gamut of Scots' fundamental beliefs. I really don't think many Scots are happy with a budget that robs the disabled to give the wealthy more money in their pocket. There's probably loads of individuals but the polls aren't even close in this in Scotland. And 54% say they would vote for independence if we come out. As said above, fine in theory, not always true in practice. It's also an argument for staying in Europe. As said, so far it's a one off and without control of tax and the other major parts of the economy, it is UK government to blame. It is certainly fallacious to compare Scotland to those two countries. There is a difference to struggling to pay your mortgage for one month and almost defaulting on it. The other fallacious is ignoring that the UK has had it that high and over 10 years is NOT better than Scotland. In context, your argument suddenly becomes compelling for us to leave if these kind of deficits are so repulsive. I think the SNP are supposed to be embracing renewables but they will take time to mature and for investment and so the oil helps pay until we get there. It's the rUK that could be in deep shit energy wise in the event of Brexit and Scot Ind. I can think of no compelling reason for an expanding community to refuse re-entry to a small, relatively rich country who has already been a member for decades. Again there is just no motivation and it wouldn't make the slightest sense. There is a first time for everything. Spain have already intimated they would not vote against and it easy to see why. The pressure on them from the rest of the EC would be enormous, the political cost at home quite high in Catalonia, the loss of trade with Scotland a large blow, and the very big ace in the hole - no legal fishing in Scottish waters. The problem would not be getting in, it would be sticking points like the Euro and Shengen - although there is a precedent there... As I've said several times, the No campaign certainly could not guarantee we'd stay in the EU. The biggest problem for Yes is that the major details could not be negotiated with rUK and the EU beforehand. THAT is the MAIN reason the no vote won. With regards to the currency union - why not? Why would a country be prepared to supposedly subsidise Scotland to the tune of billions, but not keep currency union when the alternatives would be highly detrimental to rUK? It seems like a huge bluff to influence the vote. It would be difficult for the BofE to have currency union but with enough conditions on the fiscal policies of Scotland, it would easily cope and allow both countries to continue to have partnerships and trade without premium. It's a win-win instead of a lose-lose. The irony is that Sterlingisation would be totally out of their control and so of far greater risk. Having 10% of your currency used by a country with no fiscal conditions would be a nightmare for the BofE. Besides, as I said, it's the nuclear option - with Scotland possibly using that to threaten to legally repudiate the share of the national debt. It's better to have a bad credit rating without debt than with it. The consequences of this could be worse for rUK than Scotland. I've given a perfect storm scenario that would leave rUK incredibly weak and possibly losing its lucrative banking centre as well as an energy crisis, and aggressive protectionist trading measures by the EU and 100+% debt. And we are generally a risk averse nation... The No didn't win in my opinion, this is the crux of it. The No campaign obfuscating everything and making it sound impossible was a tactic that's hard to beat. I would rather they won by showing how we're better together. Agreed but it may not have been too late. As we can now see, nothing is guaranteed. It's been a bit boom and bust for them but the boom was long and prosperous. If the Eurozone recovers they will be fine and already are considered the 7th richest country in the world I think. The Celtic Tiger wasn't so bad. I think Scotland is better placed to be stronger than Ireland AND there's the oil too. Maybe it wasn't a good turn phrase but like Rangers and Celtic news, there's usually only one side that gets the negative sensationalism - it might not be hidden but it's certainly not in the domain of discourse. But I'd rather you paid attention to the semantics of my words rather than dwell on my phrasing.

Fundamentally, we can all lie to get what we want - everybody lies, but what I'm trying to boil it down to here is true motivation and reason to do so or not. When you have a whole party involved, lying becomes a conspiracy which all members have to agree to. The point is that they have to live with the consequences of this. There is no obvious reason why a large number of people in the party and almost half the population would want to leave the UK without some kind of payoff or advantage. I'm just applying Occam's Razor. They MUST believe Scotland will be better off, or what exactly is almost half the population's motivation? Any chance of lying is reduced to the ends justifies the means type of stuff, but with the motivation to make Scotland better off. Accountability produces the motivation against this type of lying. If they are found out they become unelectable whether Scotland leave or not. An English based "no" campaign with the scenario that England are worse off if Scotland leave, have a much bigger motivation to lie or exaggerate as they have a potential pay off to do so. If Scotland leave then their accountability is zero which means no disincentive there, and if Scotland stay then their accountability is still low - as shown by the voices to renege on the hastily offered new devolution powers. So we even have actual evidence of a lack of integrity due to low accountability in Scotland. Basically the SNP have no carrot to lie and a big stick to stop them. What they want to achieve is consistent with their message. English based no campaign have a carrot to lie and not much of a stick to stop them. What they want to achieve has a conflict of interest and therefore has no guarantee to be consistent with their message. Their message actually does not show a pay of for them - quite the opposite, which makes it very suspicious. Again I don't get the motivation for such a conspiracy. You have to remember that if Scotland are independent, at the next election the USP of the SNP disappears and a natural order of party politics would take over and they would be judged on that. The actual members of the SNP, having achieved what they think is best for the country would individually now be free to join another party purely based on politics. They have a pay-off which would not be there if they were found to lie - and the ultimate question is why would you shaft Scotland without a pay-off? Me neither. Although the style of no campaign and the repetition of it on here is incredibly off putting, disappointing and at times nefarious. The yes may have been overoptimistic and taking large risks but that at least is understandable. The risks were not only mostly about unknowns and a lack of cooperation from England, but outright threats from them. I can't understand why others don't see that. We don't seem to be in a Union with a country that cares for our well-being. I'm not sure what you mean here. The oil is always going to be a factor in reducing the deficit - that's part of the point - you need to aim for a much lower deficit when not including the oil, but when it's high you obviously need to use it - like Norway just have. When the deficit is clear you use the oil for a surplus to lower the national debt. If the debt was lower then you would invest the surplus for future generations and to even out fluctuations in the price of oil like Norway. You should be mostly budgeting without it and then the windfalls are there to help you out of trouble or to help safeguard the future. The point is that there would not be a £15b deficit in an independent Scotland. I've read some calculations that Scotland would save between £11-12b as independent. Then, like I've previously said, they would NOT be cutting taxes, they would be increasing them, except for the least well off. The one tax they would reduce is corporation tax, and the theory is that with larger business investment, the amount of tax collected would be higher along with income tax from the jobs created. There are plenty of other measures that can be done with a government that is fully targeting the needs of Scotland and tailoring policy to suit - and not the needs of England and especially London. I'm not saying it's that simple but as half the Tories are now saying, you're not going to fix the economy by cutting taxes for the well off and then continually salami slicing expenditure across the board. There are other ways to balance the books as history has shown eg Truman, as well as the new current path of other countries like the USA. Only the Tories believe in keeping taxes low and cutting expenditure to the bone. It will work to an extent but it doesn't make it the best way. There are many ways of raising more money and certain UK expenditure responsibilities would be significantly reduced. And then there's the oil... That is hardly a "bonus". If oil was a bonus then I would have expected the country to be operating on a balanced budget basis i.e. a surplus or small deficit without oil. But in this instance they are operating at a fairly significant deficit even including the "bonus" oil money.

It's boiling down to basic principles and looking at motivation. I thought I'd explained it. The yes side have to live with the decision if they win which means that they have no motivation to leave if it makes their lives worse. At worst they could be mistaken about the consequences, but they are unlikely to knowingly put Scotland in a worse position. If the SNP lie to get there, they would be committee political suicide as they would not be the only party to vote for post separation and would lose the trust of the electorate. They would be accountable. Now the no group who don't live in Scotland, but who would gain from Scotland staying, obviously have a conflict of interest and so motivation to lie. The also don't have the accountability if found out. The more extreme premises that Rab is coming out with don't make sense motivation-wise as he is asserting that Scotland need to be subsidised by England to survive, the question is then why do they want us so badly? Either side could lie but one side have far more obvious motivation due to the conflict of interest. Where has it been demonstrated to be untrue? Everything I've seen shows that Scotland have quite a high GDP per capita compared to most of Europe even without the oil. Discounting the oil as a mere bonus is vastly understating that Scotland's income as the oil price is usually higher and so is production. It is definitely a factor for the next 20 years. In fact the UK government are partially to blame for the current low revenue. Public spending is also partially caused by the UK government and has been shown to have been mismanaged for over a decade. You are also discounting things like raising tax - which the UK government are bafflingly cutting for the upper middle classes. I believe the Scottish government would raise income tax and drop corporation tax to attract investment. Due to mismanagement by the UK government they would have to offer tax sweeteners for oil exploration and increased output but which would pay off now and in the future. There is also a whole load of savings to be made across the board and having the full oil revenue is a bonus but one you seem to be vastly understating. The no side also vastly understated the risks of staying in the UK and pulled the wool over the electorate's eyes by making it out to be the "status quo". A Tory government and Brexit have completely changed the landscape and bringing immediate risk to Scottish life. As I said, I'm ambivalent as I know there are no guarantees either way. I am optimistic that Scotland would eventually be better off but that is balanced by my pessimism about the transition period which I think would be a lot of pain. I also therefore believe rUK would be worse off - and that's where I live. I also see the advantages of being part of a larger nation, which perhaps is demonstrated in the fortunes of our respective football leagues, but then the problem it also starkly shows is that in the union Scotland sometimes not only does not get the benefit of the union, it actually suffers as a result. My main concern here is the presentation of the arguments where I see the no side as far more fallacious and deceptive. The £15b deficit being a typical latest example - as well dwelling on a short term low oil price, fantasies of not being allowed in the EU, blackmail over currency union etc. As I said they try often try to make the case as Scotland being some sort of basket case that needs looked after - but if Scotland leaves England will immediately stick the knife in and twist it. That to me is evidence that they don't want us for our own sake which makes their case lack credibility. I think the vote itself did not boil down to economics, it was far more about political propaganda. I think the yes vote could win easily without showing that Scots would be much better off financially, they could do it by showing that there is a clear, precise and painless path to autonomy which is no more risk than staying part of the UK, but where the future is just no worse off. The advantages of making Scotland a place that reflects Scots values and tailoring the economy accordingly would be enough in my opinion. The no side continuously forget that no does not mean that someone doesn't want it, it often means they are too risk averse to try. Your premises are already being challenged - the Tories, austerity and Brexit are not providing stability. Again I think you're understating the value of oil, it's always a valuable commodity and will not stay a low price for ever. In fact it could be argued it will become more valuable the more it runs out due to supply and demand. It's also not a short term thing and Norway have shown we could have been easily a whopping 50% better off had we become independent in the 70s. They are not too reliant on oil prices due to having half a trillion pounds worth of assets. However, again you are understating the diversity and scale of the Scottish economy which without oil is around or not much less than the UK average in terms of GDP per capita. If the UK can survive then it follows Scotland can too. I think the worst case scenario is like that of an oil rich Ireland. The whole tone of the no side seems to be that the English have been living off the sale of the Scottish family silver and now that there's not much left and the UK government have created a massive debt, Scotland is now dependent on the union to survive, and they'll damn well do their best to make living outside the union as hard as possible if we leave. I think what the English are trying to hide is the risk of the perfect storm of Brexit, Scottish independence, Scotland joining the Euro with a Eurozone revival, both Scotland and Ireland being forced to join Schengen, and the EU treating rUK as a hostile market. That would leave rUK as the basket case, with Scotland suffering to start with until it shifts the majority of trade to the EU. You could add in the spice of no monetary Union and so Scotland repudiates the UK national debt. In that scenario, I could easily see possibility of vast amounts of the London financial centre moving to Edinburgh - or mainland Europe. There are plenty of scary scenarios but they are only talking about the worst for Scotland.

You realise that that doesn't make any real sense? The strange thing is that you think this but are ok with an English bases no campaign that had a massive conflict of interest. Perhaps you need to look up Occam's Razor. You have two groups, one with no real motivation to lie and the other with huge motivation to lie and actual evidence that they were not all completely genuine (with the noises from some about reneging on devolution plus promises). And you come to the conclusion that the first group are lying. You really think this? I think you'll find that most people want independence, the problem is that a large number are too scared to take the risks, and another large number, think the change is too difficult. This probably leaves you in a small minority. Your views are incredibly extreme and it's hard to see where they are coming from as I haven't seen many representations from Scots with this viewpoint. Just ask people if they would vote yes if an instantly prosperous and robust Scotland was guaranteed. The problem is that a guarantee is not realistic.

I think we discussed this before about Panama - there are several reasons why this is not as bad as it sounds - and it is definitely a lot less likely than people think as non-monetary union is a bit of a nuclear option that could leave rUK in a lot of trouble. Firstly it would not be in rUk's interest not to help out if needed - we have already helped Ireland and Scotland are a more important partner. Then there is the fact the risk has been massively lowered due to British and European changes in banking law separating the riskier businesses from the financial. Scotland would obviously go further in a Panama model to have very fiscally sound banking and would also join the European Banking Union. For last resort lending - which would obviously not be necessary on the scale of the latest UK bailout, would have some availability from the EU and finally the IMF. If Scotland used non-monetary union to repudiate its share of the UK national debt, and then successfully show the financial community the reasons this is a one off and that as rUK are picking up the tab as they are the debtors, there is no default of payment, then with no debt, and about £11b of increased income and savings, Scotland could be quickly running a surplus to build up foreign equity reserves that would allow the country to self insure. There are too many scenarios to call it a blind all in - I think there is a false perception that the risk is all one way. Brexit is a stark example of what was missing from the independence debate - ie the huge risks that could arise from the "status quo". There's no such thing as the status quo in this context.