mccaughey85

Check my post above, that graph only backs up everything i have said so far.

There was a split over the concessions made in the anglo-treaty. Surely the reasons some of these concessions were made was that the north had a huge population of unionist protestants who previously had threatened war over the idea of home rule and wanted the option to remain in the uk. Why was northern ireland given the option to opt out of the "free state" in the treaty? Because a huge amount of pro british unionists wanted to opt out of the free state and wanted to remain british. So if you ask yourself what caused a split over the treaty surely it must the concessions made which were unacceptable to a large portion of republicans which one of main ones was the north being given the option to opt out of this new free state. Not really sure what the disagreement is here, you are saying the irish civil war wasnt over partition and mostly over the other concessions in the treaty? Maybe thats right tbh, i aint an expert, i have read a fair bit online over the years but was always under the impression that the the irish civil war was largely down to partition and that partition was down to huge unionist population in the north who wished to remain british. If thats not true then why is ireland partitioned and why was there a split over the treaty?

Lol that graph backs up what i have been saying. The equally scottish and british is around 26 percent. The more british than scottish and the british not scottish is around 4/5 percent each. That means we have roughly 35 percent who either place their britishness on par with their scottishness or feel more british than scottish. Thats terrible news for the indy side. Worryingly the scottish not british line is only roughly at 29 percent. Its also gone down overall since 2000 whereas the equally scottish and british line has risen slightly. The other description line i am guessing might be the english and british which is sitting about 9%. It would certainly fit in with the stats that i have seen that show roughly 8/9 percent of our population is uk/english born. That graph makes terrible reading for the independence cause. My hope was that maybe 40 + percent would identify with being scottish not british but it looks far worse than what i thought going by that graph.

Lol take a look at his stats for that season and the rest of his career. One season he played 62 times for rangers and for most other seasons he was up around the 40 to 50 mark. These werent sub appearances either, guy usually started and finished games for rangers and the other clubs he played for. There might very well be a grain of truth in the pain injections idea but lets not try and make out it was purely down to that. He wouldnt have played 650 times as pretty much a starter over his career if he was relying on pain injections for most of it. John mcginn has been playing for 5/6 years and hes got more caps than ferguson.

Just because john curtis and some poll told you that doesnt make it fact. Lets for a minute imagine it was true then near enough 36 percent of the no vote are mostly affected by economic consequences. If you then consider that some of the yes vote are voting due to economics too then you could have potentially 50 percent of the population basing their decision on economic success. Thats not a good situation to be in if indy scotland isnt an instant success. Basically we fukk up the first few years and things dont go well then potentially 40 to 50 percent of the population jump straight over to wanting back in the uk. Personally i dont believe that to be true. I believe theres alot more than 18 percent british unionists in scotland. Just because someone isnt in the oo or isnt turning up to ibrox with a uj doesnt mean they dont consider themselves british and they dont have pride in being british. Many scots like being british, most famous scots accept obes and mbes from the queen. For many being british is something they associate with and like. For some they will never vote indy and for others they might if the ecomonics is right but either way it still yields the same result and thats the result we saw in 2014. If you want to bury your head in the sand then fair enough, it seems like alot on here have braveheart on repeat and want to charge about thinking everyone thinks like them but in the long run you will only upset yourself even more when the result doesnt go your way. Theres two things i know for a fact, 1 is we have a large amount of ppl who are too pussy to vote for independence(ecomonics etc) and 2 we have a large minority of ppl who would pretty much never vote for indy due to being proud brits. Thats not a good situation for any country looking to go independent. If you think otherwise then fair enough.

45 caps for a guy who made his debut at 19/20 is terrible considering he was guaranteed a start for nearly all of the 11 years he was an international. What specific seasons were these pain injections taking place? Its obvious that i have really pissed you off on that other thread as this one has nothing to do with it.

Dunno that sounds like a weak excuse. Hes got nearly 650 competitive games at club level. Most seasons at rangers he played at least 40 games a season for years on end. If he was that bad rangers would of rested him against some of the spl dross. Darren fletcher had a serious illness that affected him for 2/3 seasons and he ended up with 80 caps. He either wasnt bothered or his injuries somehow always coincided with scotland games.

Barry ferguson only got 45 caps in an 11 year international career which could of lasted longer had he not retired at 31. He still went onto to play a couple of seasons in the epl after he retired from the international setup. He was one of our best midfielders during his international career and near enough guaranteed a start but ended averaging just over 4 international apps a season. He just wasnt that interested in playing for scotland, especially friendlies. This was a guy who generally played between 40 and 50 games every season for rangers as well but usually pulled out of scotland squads when we needed him. .

Ryan fraser, barry ferguson, alan hansen.

John mcginlay is definitely underrated imo. Guy would be picked up by an epl side if he was around nowadays. His goal record at everywhere he played was excellent and he scored some important goals for bolton wanderers. Pretty sure he was quite late in getting into pro football and was playing highland league in his early years.

Footage of burkes goals.

Its only a friendly but thats good news. Would be nice to see him finally settle somewhere and start living up to some of his potential even if its just becoming a lower half bundesliga player.

I thought he was a perfect fit for our 90s teams. He kept possesion well and basically ran the midfield against very good international teams. We were a defensive team in the 90s and we played to our strengths which was strong centre backs and good midfielders who were mostly defensive and able to control games through passing and protecting the backline.

Yeh tbf i thought gallagher got a raw deal, dont think he got a single minute at the euros and got dumped out the setup after playing pretty well in the limited games he got. Saying that most of our centre backs have a few games were they play well and then they have a few stinkers. Its just the way it is when you dont have any top class centre backs. Hanley had a good run up until the last few games but assuming halkett and wallace will perform consistently better for us is mostly just speculation based on very little evidence. Theres guys like michael rose and dominic hyam who could also be given a chance but are they any better than hanley? If they were they would be playing for teams who are gaining promotion. Personally i think hanley is down the pecking order but still deserves a place in the squad. I dont really trust any of our cbs right now apart from tierney and maybe souttar. The rest are completely inconsistent and equally average/poor.

I would say mcallister was slightly underrated. Guy was probably one of the best epl midfielders in the 90s and he was one of the main reasons we went to tournaments like euro 96 and 98. Mcclair and mcstay was slightly before my time but i always thought mcstay was slightly overrated but he maybe suffered by not moving to a top league/team and proving himself in a top league. Mcclair like most of our strikers from the late 80s and 90s didnt perform as nearly as well as the should of for scotland. Mcclair i would say is rated fairly correctly in terms of his club career. He was excellent at both celtic and utd.

I still dont think anyone rates them that highly though. Mcfadden wasnt used because he wasnt good enough. Used to watch him for everton when i could and he would lose the ball alot and dribble the ball out of play or up his own arse. He did pull out some nice goals and had some decent performances but i can see why he was never a first team player there.

Lol looks like i have ruffled a few feathers which is usually a sign on this board that ppl are hearing truths they dont want to hear. I think the heads are in the sand regarding alot these issues so lets just hope we get what we want.

Does he? Pretty much all the scotland fans i know or ppl on here ken hes average/poor. Hes done reasonbly well recently barring the last round of games so ppl have given a little bit of credit which is fair. You could say that about all our centre backs barring tierney. They are all quite poor when it comes to the top level in the aspects you listed. Lol its all very well championing halkett or wallace but they have never played any kind of decent level. If they were decent defenders they wouldnt be spending their careers at the likes of hearts/livi or millwall. Imagine halkett and wallace up against liverpool or man city. Hanley isnt much better than those two but theres a reason hes plays for teams who get to the epl and thats because hes solid at championship level. Hanley is pretty poor but halkett and wallace aint much better and i would shudder at the thought of those two facing a top european side. Saying that i usually shudder at most of centre backs facing top european sides lol.

Not sure these guys being suggested have ever been overrated by anyone. I would say if anyone was overrated in our current squad it would be robertson. Hes an excellent full back but i believe liverpool could replace him if need be quite easily and i reckon we wouldnt necessarily miss him that much either. Most of our current squad and the squad from the last 20 years are rated correctly. Maybe in terms of club football i would say mcfadden was slightly overrated. He couldnt get a regular game for everton and when he did play he seemed to dribble up his own arse half the time. For scotland he did pull out some great goals and performances tbf.

Not sure anybody has ever overrated hanley tbf. He has gotten a bit of respect for making back into the scotland team and putting in some decent performances but pretty much every one knows hes not particulary great at epl or international level. Not sure we are in a position to drop him from the squad especially if theres a few injuries to the other centre backs.

Morgan with another goal and an assist in the last 2 games. Thats 10 in 20 for him this season. Good stats for a winger. I think he more than deserves a call up in September if he keeps this going. We need goalscorers and guys who can make things happen. Wouldnt be surprised if some teams in europe might try and buy him. He must be one of the top performers in the mls and still only 25.

Lol maybe you can point out the post where you answer the question because i cant see it. Sorry but you are so far off mark comparing ppl who saw themselves as british subjects in the empire 100 years ago and ppl who are born and bred in scotland/britain who consider themselves british. Surely you can see the distinction. British expats in australia still considering themselves as british does not mean the country produces british ppl. Countries that are not in britain do not produce indigenous british ppl. Thats a fact. The only way a person will identify with being native british is if they are the descendants of the brits in places like falklands and hong kong and even ireland. The idea that brits have been planted into southern scotland and thats why we have british ppl in our country is absolutely nuts and i honestly would be astounded that anyone can think this true. Unionism has already surged, countless polls after brexit showed a clear majority for independence but in the last couple of years its went backwards to the point where its either 50/50 or slightly in favour on the union. That to me is worrying and if its not worrying for you then you are burying your head in the sand.

I am fully aware of the history of ireland and the idea that you think i am not is arrogant. also it still doesnt get down to the root cause of why they were fighting and why partition happened. Like craig you will stubbornly refuse to answer a simple question. Would there have been partition and civil war if there wasnt a large pro british protestant minority in ireland? If you can answer that then you will get to the root cause of partition and why ireland is nearly always in a state of civil war and has been for hundreds of years.

Lol you would make a good politician. You havent answered the question. You just keep saying that we are voting on a whole scotland. I asked the simple question of would you rather never having independence or an indy scotland with a slight border change but with a secure future? Simply burying your head in the sand and stubbornly repeating that its irrelevant is not answering the question. Your avoiding it because you dont like the answer that you would accept the first option of no independence ever. Are you willing to accept no independence ever? As with question 3. How can you possible think that australia or india produce homegrown citizens who feel british. Being a british subject is completely different to the british identity that native scots, englush and welsh have.Seriously if you think that australia naturally produces ppl who view themselves as british then you are completely incorrect. They may understand that they originate from britain but in no way do australian born and bred ppl view themselves as british unless they have british parents or grandparents. India probably has a tiny population of white settlers who still view themselves as brits but the idigenous population do not naturally produce ppl who view themselves as british. Is there any other ppl in here who have this view? I would like to hear it because its news to me. British ppl come from britain. No other country in the world has indigenous ppl that view themselves as british unless they move here. It would be like mexicans viewing themselves as british. What has given you the impression that australia or india produces british ppl? As for questions 1, 4 and 5 you and most in here are burying your head in the sand. If its not an instant success then unionism can easily have a resurgence and i guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. The polls clearly show unionism is alive otherwise we would have a clear majority for indy.

It seems to me that alot of nationalists on here are trying to compare ourselves to ireland and other countries that have gained independence from britain. They are also refusing to look at the root cause of why we have a unionist population in scotland. Its a simple fact that we produce british ppl who identify as british. If we dont learn to understand these facts and stop thinking we are like ireland looking to gain our independence from the brits then maybe we can address the problem as opposed to burying our heads in the sand and deluding ourselves that we are home and dry after winning a slim majority in a referendum. Scotlands a divided country and its going to end up swinging between the union and independence which is not what i want.