Orraloon

He didn't say it after the referendum, it was before the referendum. The point of saying it was to emphasise to voters that the Tories had sanctioned this one off opportunity, and we might not get another chance for a long time. He wasn't specifying any timescale before we can have another one, just emphasising how important the referendum was. And it wasn't an emotional poor choice of words, after the event. It was written into the "Scotlands Future" document. He was basically saying to voters, not to expect to get a second chance at this as there is no guarantee that Westminster will allow us to have another go. So far he has been proved correct. "557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."

If the ref deems it to be "careless" or "reckless" it's a foul, whether the ball is touched or not. The laws of the game don't mention "making contact with the ball". The only thing that the ref needs to convince himself of, is, - was the tackle careless? If it was it's a foul, if he decides it wasn't careless it's not a foul.

It doesn't matter in determining whether a foul has been committed. It's either a foul or it isn't. Whether a player touches the ball before, during, or after, only comes into play in determining the severity of the foul. The ref can consider that in mitigation when determining the level of intent, and hence it can be used to help him decide if it warrants a yellow or red card, for example. Touching the ball only plays a small role in the refs decision making, and should have no bearing whatsoever in whether a foul has been committed.

Do you have a definition of "indigenous Scots"? Is there a granny rule involved?

That bit is largely irrelevant. A foul is a foul, it doesn't matter whether the player touches the ball or not. Not that I've seen this one you are talking about, so I've no idea whether it was a foul or not.

It's just the old "divide and rule" tactic. Seems to work most of the time. You would think folk would have sussed this tactic out by now, but no, people just keep on falling for it. Maybe we are too ignorant to be independent?

Looks like they got some sand from the arabs. Looks perfectly playable to me.

I thought World Rugby told them they had to do it if they wanted to play in the World 7s. I could be wrong though?

Dens used to be consistently one of the best playing surfaces in the country. I wonder what has changed?

It's all part of the grand Unionist scheme. We used to be quite decent at 7s and the better together types don't want us having any of that. It the same with the curling. The World Championships are currently underway and we get no coverage whatsoever. The only time I've even seen it mentioned on the news, is when we lost 2 of our first 4 games. They didn't even report it like that. They just said we've lost 2 games and in danger of not qualifying for the playoffs. Since then we have won 5 in a row and qualified with 2 games to spare. Not a single mention on out TV news. Almost like it hasn't happened.

🤣 🤣

They'll just blame the Russians, maybe they'll blame the Chinese this time?

That will be another 500 of the 3,800. And, quite a lot of them could be from our pal up in the North East. 🤣

As far as I can see it's more making a mountain out of a molehill by the media, and other dafties. Most of the stuff in the new bill are already offences covered by other bits of legislation. One of the drivers behind this bill was to pull all that stuff together under one bit of legislation. The main changes seem to be adding "age" to the list of protected groups, adding "stirring up hatred" as a new crime and, one that doesn't seem to get mention much, is that there is now no longer an offence of "blasphemy".

It will be interesting to see how many of these 3800 complaints reported turn out to be actual offences and how many are just folk having a whinge? A couple of hundred of those complaints will probably be down to JK Rowling alone.

I don't think the Hate Crime bill will make much difference to how football matches are policed.

This stuff is not Me Too but more Me, me, me, me, me............

Aye, she will need to try harder.

How did the "wokerati" (whoever they are) get into that position in the first place, though. They started at the bottom and worked their way up. Nae sniggers at the back of the class. Nicola didn't go cruising round the pubs, picking up folk she thought looked like weirdos, saying "Come with me and I'll stick you on the NEC". I know some folk might like think that was what happened, but it really wasn't.

Oh aye, I forgot about the skeletons in the cupboard. I wonder how long it would take Police Scotland to investigate that one?

You should get your name down as a candidate for the next local government elections. Only 3 years away. Get your interest known early.

You can't change things if you don't try.

I'm in total agreement with this. I don't pay much attention to folk, who are not even party members, whinging about who the leader is, and what the SNP policies should or shouldn't be. It is quite rightly down to members of the party to decide on these things. You can't influence these things if you don't even have a vote. If you are inside the party at least you can have a wee bit of influence, even if it does seem like you are banging your head against a brick wall at times.

I don't. That just crazy talk. You can't change the party from the outside. You have to be in the party to have any chance of changing their policies.

I'm not sure too many folk will have that option.