Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lorielus

  1. I guess it depends on whether you're asking practically, in which case the answer is because Shetland is an integral part of Scotland as a recognised nation-state versus the Union which is a political agreement between several recognised nation-states. The latter can be dissolved or altered by another act of parliament (or arguably but unrealistically a unilateral declaration given the rhodesia precedent), versus creation of an entirely new nation-state of Shetland. I agree entirely on principle though, seems strange and hypocritcal to argue so strongly for one but seem to find the other preposterous. I know it's very much going off the deepend, but if there was a desire for it amongst the islands, highlands, central belt. borders and perhaps even the Isle of Man, etc., I don't think a Federated States of Caledonia or the like (similar to Micronesia) would be such a bad setup.
  2. I realised you are getting trolled a bit here, but can I ask regardless of the constitutional questions involved, do you genuinely have a problem with Shetland/Orkney potentially becoming indepedent/devolved and, if so, why?
  3. These are the criteria: The position of the ball, what are the chances of playing the ball in a fair manner? A tackle may still be considered reckless (or even with excessive force) even though the ball is played. Where contact is made with the ball and opponent at speed and without consideration for the potential danger to the opponent, it should be punished appropriately. The speed or the intensity of the challenge. Is the player in control of his actions, or is he “off the ground” and out of control when he makes the challenge? The part of the body used in the challenge. Has the opponent used his studs to cause serious injury to an opponent or does he use his leg or foot to tackle unfairly? The element of Intent or malice – is the player purely focused on his opponent and with no concern for the position of the ball. Hopefully we can all agree that points 1,2 and 4 are not an issue as the ball is there to be won, he tackles normally using his foot, and there's no malice or intent to injure. So only point 2 is really to be considered and is course subjective. The concern for me isn't so much whether it's a red or not, but that the referee subjectively didn't even consider it a foul until there was outrage about the injury. My concern isn't really about the two players involved, but that it's another indicator (and there have been more than a few that have become more obvious in the era of VAR, particularly at the recent Euros) that what Mark Clattenburg said about refereeing may be true - that referees make decisions not just based on the laws of the game, but consciously make them based on how it affects the "narrative" of a game and competition. On a side note, I also have no idea why (unless I've missed it) Klopp hasn't been heavily sanctioned for his quite disturbing behaviour toward the referee at the game.
  4. What criteria determines if the opponent was reasonably endangered beyond what is an inherent part of a contact sport?
  5. With sterling inflation and the price index increase outstripping the euro & eurozone, I'm not really sure a currency deal would be in Scotland's interest anymore anyway, especially given they don't really have a mechanism to control it at the moment as an interest rate increase would impact the ability to service institutional lending, so higher rates of inflation and price index increases are probably here for the next decade, short of a miracluous trade deal (perhaps some kind of single market...).
  6. That would certainly be one way of bringing a lot of businesses to Scotland, all mysteriously having no employees or physical premises.
  7. Are Shetland and Orkney even technically in the Union? It's been a long, long time but didn't they get made into a crown dependency explicity excluded from the union? Personally, I would have no issue with Orkney & Shetland becoming a principality or a nation-state if that was the will of the majority of the populace.
  8. If they did claim to create them, what criteria would you accept as evidence of that being true?
  9. What criteria do you use to determine if a job was created by the SNP?
  10. It's important when looking at performance stats to keep in mind that they don't translate to results - they correlate to them, which is more that a semantic difference. As a simple example, under Clarke we rarely dominated possession (sometimes we had more, sometimes less, but never what I would call "dominance"), not did we tend to create huge numbers of chances (except during the brief period with Stewart), but we outperformed expected goals (both for and against) throughout Clarke's time with us, which demonstrates that both possession and expected goals, while they generally correlate to results, don't translate to them - context is key, as is sample size of course. Unfortunately, I've had no luck finding any meaningful stats for the championship so far, though they might be available from one of the paid services (I gave up my subscription in despair at the end last season). In terms of what to expect from the next few games based on what we've seen, there are so many unknowns in this division for us, along with we as fans still not really being overly familiar with our own players yet, it's probably foolish to really predict anything beyond that they'll likely all be tight affairs, I don't forsee any blowouts in either direction unless a dream signing comes out of nowhere. (Sorry, I know that wasn't really your point anyway, I just went off on a tangent).
  11. It was a typo, would have thought that would have been fairly easy to work out. (Also, it's "waiving"). We agree that results reflect performances. All of our results to date reflect our performances and the performances of our opponents. You said that some of the results to date have been stolen - that is not true. We attacked more effectively than they did and defended more effectively that they did. You said that our luck will run out. Results are not dependent on luck aside from bad refereeing (which isn't really luck either but outside of our influence short of cheating). To address the "Dick Turpin" example - my logic is the opposite of what you've inferred. We got exactly what we deserved out of that game - we made one chance (from memory) in that game and scored it. They created a host of chances and missed them. That's not luck, that's good finishing on our part and bad finishing on their's. They couldn't finish the chances they created and we did, therefore both teams got exactly what they deserved from their respective performances.
  12. Does the Killie women's team get any coverage of their games on Killie TV? Couldn't see anything at a glance but might be missing it.
  13. The "not really clear" part was more out of politeness. To put it more simply, your point is wholly illogical and based on the faulty premise that football games are not deterministic in nature.
  14. I'm not really clear on your point either - we fully deserved to win the games we've won so far this season and deserved to lose the two that we lost. If Morton had laid siege to our goal the entire game, hit the bar or post 10 times, missed a penalty, and had forced a string of world-class saves from our goalkeeper but we'd stumbled in a goal off of someone's backside, we'd have still deserved to win. Their two defenders running into each other isn't luck - it was bad defending (arguably contibruted to by some decent play by us). Similarly, when Kirk Broadfoot bizarrely took out Rossi for the first Dundee goal in the second play off leg, it wasn't bad luck, it was bad defending. There really isn't much luck in football beyond the one thing the teams cannot control - bad refereeing. As far as I can remember we've not had any match-changing decisions go for us that were incorrect so far, therefore we deserved to win the games we won. In fact, the one piece of such uncontrollable circumstance (again, caveat on my memory) that I can think of was the Polworth goal that wasn't given against Hibs, which may well have changed the outcome of that game. You can discuss the nature of the performances all day (god knows I will) and what could be better and what you feel is costing us opportunities, but we deserve to be exactly where we are.
  15. In fairness, there's two different arguments here - one is where the scottish populace is politically and socially today, and the second is where it would be during the economic stress immediately following independence (regardless of whether that "immediately" is a few years or a generation). Ignoring the first argument, as independence is such a fundamental shift that it will have wholesale ramifications even in the actual demographic makeup of the country (particular if it's followed be membership in the EU or any similar arrangement that involves freedom of movement), then the second heavily depends on education and media representation within Scotland. Part of why populations get dragged to the right is the cherry picking of societal scapegoats by media and right-wing parties - something they do much more effectively than the left, namely because generally speaking they have greater resources to do so. A good example of this is welfare fraud. Welfare fraud is (relatively speaking) a non-issue in the UK, it happens on a small scale relative to other nations with similar social security systems and costs the public little in comparion to, say, wage theft, actual tax evasion, or tax avoidance (though slightly separate of course being legal). Tax evasion and tax avoidance are talked about by the left a lot, by the right only when forced to, and wage theft is barely mentioned by either, despite dwarfing welfare fraud in both economic impact and social impact. Even in scotland welfare fraud polls as if it's a major issue - all because media has created an outrage idol out of the issue. You can see excellent examples in these political threads of the effectiveness of this kind of mass marketing of outrage in order to sway public opinion, by focusing attention on relative trivialities - and you can see the confirmation bias on those that both actively seek it out and (in the era of social media) spread it far beyond the previous reach of media outlets. It's important to caveat that the right is hardly alone in doing so, nor are any of us immune to it, they just seem to be better at it. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that, even if you don't believe there will be a swing to the right post-independence, it's important to be vigilant against the possibility.
  16. I think that's likely true, and a difficult thing to avoid, especially as there's already a degree of it in the nationalist rhetoric - it may not be essentially right-wing as yet, but definitely has that unhealthy glean of patriotism and isolation - I tend to cringe at mentions of "sovereignty" in independence arguments, given no nation on the planet (from the most integrated to the exceptionist like North Korea) actually stands sovereign and isolated from the interest of other nations - especially small nations of limited economic influence. I would hope but not necessarily expect that rejoining the EU would stem the tide a little - although plenty of EU nations have seen a similar rise, I do think membership (and in particular freedom of movement) has been a factor in preventing at least cultural protectionism.
  17. I didn't say there would be no centre-right party. Nor did I say anything about Sturgeon's ambitions. Nor did I espouse any personal view of what should happen in the Scottish public sector. Only what I forsee. If you're going to argue in bad faith against things that weren't said, I'd appreciate it if you didn't do it with me. I've no interest in tribal political loyalities, be it SNP shortbread tin nationalism, Tory effetism, or labourite inferiority complexes.
  18. I'm not sure anyone can actually answer this - has the extent of rebuild we had to accomplish in a single window ever taken place in Scottish football before? Even when Rangers were liquidated, the reanimated corpse had more parts sloughed off the of the old monster than we had remaining.
  19. Also had the one earlier where Shaw did get it across but just slightly behind Robinson. We really had plenty of half-chances in the first half and a couple of really good chances in the second, but more from little individual patches of counterattacking play (goal aside) that really cohesive football.
  20. That was a strange game, and even stranger I seem to have seen it differently to almost everyone on this thread as far as I can see. I thought in the first half we played some excellent pass-and-move sequences to find a lot of space, particular on the right hand side in the first 20 minutes and then on the left corner of the box in the 15 minutes or so after that. I thought McKenzie and Naismith looked a really promising combination in the first half, and I was delighted to see us trying to work the ball into the box rather than the aimless crosses we've been a bit guilty of this season. Defensively we looked a bit vulnerable throughout - Sanders looked exposed on a few occasions much like the cup game, but (and I say this with the caveat that they've probably been the standouts of the season to date) I thought he got little help from McGinn and Euan Murray, both of whom seem to be relying on Sanders being the one to bring the ball out of defense and make a telling pass - of course, that may have been an instruction rather than their choice. Second half I've no idea what the plan was, we seem to decide to no longer attempt any semblence of the passing that had made some space in the first half. I can't even say we turned to hoofball as we didn't seem to really try that either, we just seemed to ask our centre halfs (Sanders mostly) to put it out wide into congested areas and (at best) win endless shies. I genuinely wouldn't given a single player from the midfield forward passmarks for that second half performance - Polworth seemed to be in the huff, Shaw seemed to want to beat the entire defense himself, McKenzie and Naismith dwelt on the ball endlessly, Murray seemed only want to collect the ball deep rather than stretch the play and Alston seemed to be only playing in burst - all very disjointed. I've also no idea why Polworth is taking the set plays in Burke's absence - the long, slow floated deliveries give keepers and defenders all the time in the world and remove our ability to attack a ball (already a weakness) Murray, McKenzie and even Haunstrup have better delivery, and I would expect Polworth to be a better option for trying to pick up a shot from any knock-down or second ball from them. I know a win is a win, but we really need to get to a point where we can put in a performance over a whole match rather than fits and starts.
  21. That (somewhat self-inflicted if I remember right) injury to Vareille hurt us badly - were we not top or at least splitting the old firm before it? Also I seem to had traumatic memories of losing 0-1 to St. J at Rugby Park where we laid siege to their goal for 89 minutes with Alan Main playing the game of his life, and Mavis having a penalty saved.
  22. The answer to that question depends, as in every country, on who ends up in power and how competent they are. The massive advantage of a smaller nation with a modern(ish) parliamentary system is that is not mired in cultural nepotism, meaning that it becomes far easier to hold governments accountable via election. I would forsee post-independence the SNP essentially dissolving into three parties - one centrist as the SNP stands at the moment, one to the centre left replacing the utter irrelvance that is Scottish Labour, and one left aligning with (or expanding) the Greens, perhaps a new SSP or Scottish Liberal party. In terms of what they could (as of course no one can say what they actually will do) accomplish, I'd hope for pure pragmatism, e.g. get away from the idea that centre high streets as retail hubs matter at all. Community hubs, yes, retail hubs no. Similarly, to step away from this idea that localised employment is a solution to unemployment - human endeavour no longer needs to be tired to econmic production and hasn't really for a couple of decades now. The status quo serves only a few, and doesn't even serve them usefully - it's purely intangible status. The idea that there will be "jobs for all" is not realistic, nor is it necessary, and only physical point-of-delivery roles need to be local. We live in what should be a post-scarcity world and only economic and social inertia keeps us from realising that reality. UBI and/or direct delivery of services to the individual without requiring employment isn't just feasible, it's absolutely inevitable, and it's just the fetishism of "reap what you sow" that's holding it back at this point. These sea changes become easier to deliver in a small nation with a modern electoral system because power is no longer generational, and reduces public susceptibility to cults of personality. In other words, the smaller the system, the easier it is to break the status quo. The biggest barrier will be the inevtiable economic turmoil that follows independence as the public sector in scotland is (fairly drastically) downsized over a decade or so (at least); EU membership is regained (or at least single market access initially) and (depending on timing) pandemic recovery is required.
  23. Strange attitude from someone who managed to miss the ball so completely he kicked the ground about a yard away before falling on his backside.
  24. Absolutely - it's also great that they're open to discussion on it too.
  25. In fairness, it does happen occasionally - eradication of smallpox, development of dwarf wheat, etc., unfortunately tends to be the exception rather than the rule, probably because they rarely serve market forces well.