mccaughey85 - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

mccaughey85

Member
  • Posts

    3,727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Recent Profile Visitors

4,140 profile views

mccaughey85's Achievements

  1. 50 percent is alot when you know the enemy might starve your country or massacre your ppl using the army of one of the most powerful empires ever created.
  2. Even so theres still a large minority of maybe 25/30 percent who are very pro union and see themselves as british as well as scottish. All it takes is for that core of ppl to vote for a unionist party and also a few more disgruntled ppl who feel that indy scotland hasnt been a success and you will have a unionist party in control of an independent scotland who wish to rejoin the uk. Scotland at the moment is split 50/50 which is pretty crazy considering we have a tory party with boris johnson in charge. If we cant get a clear majority in this current economic and political climate then will we ever get one? Imagine if a left wing socialist party was in charge of Westminster with a brilliant charismatic genuis of a leader as prime minister. The indy movement would be fukked. We currently have an open goal and still half of scotland dont want to take the chance. Also this whole pro-uk propaganda newspaper bullshit is a weak excuse, theres men fighting and dying in ukraine and many a country has had to fight wars to obtain freedom. Even our own country 700 hundred years ago, a little(or alot) bit of bullshit propaganda shouldnt deter ppl from voting for independence if they really want it. Problem is a large percentage of scots either dont want it(unionists) or are too pussy to go for it. Either way thats not a good situation for an independent scotland to spend its formative years in. The whole indy movement is running out of steam, sturgeon looks weary imo and a new indy ref vote could easily be lost or won. The whole idea might be far out and you might find it offensive but its possibly a solution that would allow unionists a place to live and be scottish and british meanwhile it would free up the rest of scotland to go forward with a clear majority and a greater chance at becoming a republic. Probably be a better chance of removing organisations like the oo and hardline unionists as well. The solution for the north east would be that slowly over the years pro indy ppl living in the newly formed british/scottish state could move to the aberdeen/north east area making it 50/50 or even pro indy. Also pro independence areas within scotland could promote movement to the north east to help push the area to be more pro indy. Its a far out idea and i understand it would repulse a huge amount of indy supporters but if you were offered the choice of never having an independent Scotland or having this slightly smaller scotland thats very much pro indy with a clear majority then what would you choose? Its a difficult choice but i would take the slightly smaller scotland, especially if we walked away with edinburgh and glasgow although i think the unionists would expect one of either edinburgh or glasgow. Edinburgh being the main option due to obvious reasons. Also it would be slightly different to the partition of ireland as we would not be looking to take back this newly formed state. Maybe the north west of england could be included in this new state and all the ni unionists could emigrate to this area and have all the oo marches and unionist parades they want.
  3. I mostly feel the same way as you but its undeniable that theres a large minority of scots who very much see themselves as scottish and british and they could really cause problems to an indy scotland. They clearly want to be both scottish and british and technically we are on the island of britain. If they did have their own space then an independent scotland could focus on removing the hardline unionists and we could restrict organisations like the oo from having marches. I am just thinking about the future of an independent scotland in the long term. We could potentially have a situation where a pro unionist party rise to power with a manifesto pledge of having another referendum on rejoining the uk. If scotland is split evenly then we could be yo yoing between being in the uk and being independent. Obviously i understand that its a far out idea that seems a little crazy and i very much doubt it would ever happen but its a scenario that i would prefer instead of the possibility of scotland having to rejoin the uk after a period of independence. Its a major problem that scotland is split 50/50. If we get to the point where its 60/40 in favour of indy then great but the polls have shown that there isnt consistently 60 percent in favour of independence so therefore its a risk going forward with such a small majority.
  4. Perhaps scotland could split into two states. One thats a republic and pro indy and one thats british and still part of the uk. A border could be drawn from somewhere in ayrshire along to just south of edinburgh. All the pro british scots could move to this newly formed scottish/british state and have all the oo parades and unionist parties they want while the rest of scotland gets on with independence. I am half joking but it would certainly be a way for unionist scots to have their own british/scottish area where they can do what they want and it would also mean that the new scottish republic could concentrate on being independent without having a large minority of scots unionists undermining it. I know its a crazy suggestion but the countries pretty much split down the middle regarding independence and its not ideal to be dragging at least 40 percent along who dont want scottish independence or a scottish republic which is personally what i want.
  5. I think they are more interested in maintaining the union of parliaments as thats what really matters imo. Plus they know that theres the strong possibility of scotland becoming a republic after independence. Its certainly something that other commonwealth countries have become or at least considered. I think after indy there will always be a hardline group of unionists who will want scotland to rejoin the union. Its something that could cause a major problem imo, if even a third of scotlands electorate vote for a unionist party with a mandate for another referendum on rejoining the union then they will most likely get into power. With current indy polls usually showing a 50/50 split its a case of scotland being very much divided on the issue and that isnt the best situation to be in when thinking about the long term of an indy scotland. Theres also the strong possibility of the oo and other unionist groups growing in popularity as an act of rebellion against an independent scotland. I think its best just to let the oo and unionists carry on and allow them to be pro british if they want to be. Freedom of speech is important and i think it needs to apply to the oo despite many not liking what they stand for. If we dont allow them these rights i think it could cause a resurgence in their numbers and could harm scotlands long term chances as an independent country.
  6. Theres definitely a large minority of rangers fans who are pro indy. Maybe even as much as a third of their support imo. I think in the highlands alot of rangers fans are pro indy as well.
  7. I doubt liverpool would play him there if they bought him. Fair enough mcginns scored goals for us and been a great attacking threat but hes still not a forward that could do mane or salahs job. Alot of the teams we play at international level are quite poor and mcginn has been good at getting goals against them especially when playing the attacking mid role. Imo hes an attacking mid and a centre mid. Both positions he plays well but for us due to our lack of goals we tend to play him in the attacking mid role. He could play the second striker for us but again thats partly due to the poor international teams we face and the fact hes a goal threat which we badly need in games. I think he would be great for any top 6 epl team but theres very little chance liverpool buy him and play as part of front three.
  8. Normal inflation and inflation in football transfer fees and wages are not anywhere near the same. Football transfers have risen exponentially since probably the 90s maybe even earlier. A player worth 3m in the early 90s might be worth 25m or more these days. Alan shearer was 15m in 1996. Today he would probably be at least a 100m. Thats nearly an increase of 7. 5 years isnt a long time but i still reckon 8m would be near 11/12m today such is the craziness of growth in transfer fees.
  9. Yeh looking at liverpools squad there doesnt seem to be much competition at right back unless liverpool intend on buying another right back to be back up for trent.
  10. That was about 5 years ago, 8m then is probably 11/12m now. Robertson also had spent 2 seasons in the epl and 1 in the championship. It would be strange for a guy who cost 4m and has only played 1 season in the spfl to get into the liverpool first team regularly. Saying that i do rate the lad so maybe klopp does and hopes to give him a chance.
  11. Thats a fair point but i still struggle to see ramsay getting much gametime. Its a big jump to go from spfl to a top epl team at 18 years old. Hope he makes it as he seems to have potential.
  12. Point still stands, if liverpool want a back up for trent then aberdeen should be getting at least a few million more upfront. Guys who cost 4m tend not to get into the liverpool first team.
  13. Yeh maybe true but aberdeen should be getting alot more than 4m if liverpool are going to use him in the first team. Especially when you consider patterson went for 11m and has barely played for everton.
  14. That would be the biggest leap any young scottish player has ever made imo. To go from a very poor aberdeen side to playing 10-15 games for one of the best teams in the world is unheard of in terms of our young players.
  15. Epl clubs in general rarely ever buy a non old firm player for the first team. Just too much of a jump in levels most of the time.
×
×
  • Create New...