All Activity

Did you purposely miss point number 1? Yeh ppl started suggesting Clarke should have tried new players out AFTER our run of bad results. It was only after we started getting bad results that ppl started getting critical of Clarke and suggested new players should have been tried out. I don't understand this mindset. I ain't going to criticise Clarke for something that I didn't want. Maybe you could show me the quotes of ppl who wanted new players(uncapped) tried out before the England game or even the Spain game.

Nothing to do with hindsight I and many others suggested this long before the current injury crisis if you check the Steve Clarke thread.

Yes, if Gunn, a player who earlier rejected playing for Scotland had not changed his position, we would likely have not qualified. I cannot be dogmatic about that, but from a pre-injury Gordon to the other keepers, it is a significant drop and not helped by the fact they hardly had any opportunities. I wouldn't move the needle to the other extreme, but we had chances for larger squads to call lads up and train with them at the very least. The goalkeeper situation served as a warning, IMO to have called up others and look at them up close. My fear is with only two matches before the EURO's some will be discounted because it's considered too close and guys who are passed it like Cooper might get drafted in, who I think is a waste of a spot and was a waste of a spot in March.

Anyone took a risk on one and got any recommendations? Been trying desperately for tickets but not getting any luck!

Depends what is meant be equality. Civil partnerships had already been introduced and many people thiught they gave the legal equality and recognition that same sex couples wanted. Many conservative Christians supported their introduction, seeing them as fair and just, whilst nonetheless retaining the belief that marriage by definition was between a man and a woman - which is probably exactly the definition found in every dictionary until about 15 years ago.

Didn't the Lib Dems, along with Labour, support many of those wierdo (sic) green policies?

Only if it was a shoot to kill policy

Some fear she is not supportive of a society that is equal for all. Is wanting a society that's equal for all 'loony fringe' now?

I think that's stretching it a bit - Jimmy wasn't gay

it wasn’t so long ago that the whole tartan army was homophobic with a song about our friend Jimmy Hill. Whilst she personally might not of voted for gay marriage I believe that she would have brought it to a vote if leader. She sees beyond her own religious views.

As I said on the other thread, it's not so much that she's Christian; the objection some people have is that she apparently said she would not have voted for gay marriage, therefore is seen as not supporting a fair society for all, so is at best divisive, at worst homophobic.

What other 2 clips then? If you fail to see 2 blatant decisions I've shared going Rangers way then you're off your tits. You're probably eating an orange with your sash on as we speak.

He’s been one of Aberdeen’s better players this season albeit the bars nae been set very high.

As you probably know I’m as far from being a hun as possible, you on the other hand have come across as a closet hun in many of your posts 🇦🇹🇦🇹🇦🇹

You OK hun?

yes, he had already killed someone and was threatening to kill again. At that stage he should be shot. Would also save the cost of keeping him jail for the rest of his days.

Sure but my point is that if Swinney s a stop gap then the reasons for/against him are not just abouthis own personal qualities/liablities, but what or rather who he might pave the way for

Aye but what about the other 2 clips 🤔

Kate Forbes’s religion is Christianity which for hundreds of years has been the predominant religion of this country. We are not talking a religion where they stone women to death and throw gays off the top of buildings like extremists of some others we could discuss. She is mainstream. Personally I am an ahtheist and I find her entirely relatable and sensible. I have met her on a couple of occasions and she is bright, articulate and head and shoulders above the Shona Robinson’s of this world. Only the loony fringe would have a problem with Kate Forbes in power.

I've mainly seen him playing for the Scotland U21s but he's always impressed me. Maybe Cagliari feel they can coach him into the finished article. He certainly has time on his side anyway.

Eh? Your criticizing Clarke for not trying out new players yet he manages to get Gunn to commit to us and plays him straight away and basically saves us from having to rely on utter dross for probably the next 5+ years. Lol this place is hard work at times. As I said with the previous post you are saying this now with hindsight. Did you want loads of new players brought in for the last 7 games? I don't remember anyone on here suggesting trying out new guys in the squad. I didn't, I felt that the guys who had us qualified with 2 games to spare deserved a chance at playing the big nations and showing they can continue our good form. It was only Ferguson and shankland that ppl wanted to be given more chances and they did.

That's to her credit, and if she stands she'll almost certainly get my vote. My concern, though, is if she gets the job now this rubbish about her religion will continue unabated, infecting everything else she does to the point where her position becomes untenable. A potentially good party leader and political career over before it really began, and the SNP back to square one, scrabbling around looking for a new leader. Swinney, on the other hand, already semi-retired, wouldn't be there any longer than a couple of years, so Forbes could return to her former role, where she was effective, and possibly act as deputy FM too, thus giving herself a platform and the opportunity to show her abilities and remind the country what she's really about. There's a succession plan, right there.

Never a penalty but you got away with the keeper one.

When you consider who those games was against then it's not that bad. What matters is we qualified with 2 games to spare. That to me suggests the squad and players Clarke has picked are correct and allowing them to continue to play together was always going to be a strong option rather than testing new players. I find ppl on here criticizing him for keeping a bit of continuity strange. It's all very well saying he should of done this or picked this guy. The squad Clarke picked is the same squad that got us unprecedented success in qualifying. Qualifying with 2 games to spare must one of our greatest achievements. Why would Clarke start an overhaul and start bringing in 4 or 5 new guys. Did you want Clarke to bring in 4 or 5 new(guys who are uncapped) guys for our last 7 games or did you want continuity with the squad? Try and be honest with your answer. All I personally wanted was shankland and Ferguson to be given a chance which they got, albeit I think they should have gotten more gametime but that would mean less gametime for our guys who win us matches.(Mcginn and mctominay). Bringing in new guys and testing them out in matches that we wanted to do well in was highly unlikely and you are only suggesting this now that 1. We got bad results 2. We have a potential injury crisis Stop using the benefit of hindsight to unfairly bash Clarke.