mccaughey85

1. I wouldnt say they embrace it. They know full well that trying to shut down or campaign to shut down the scottish parliament would be uphill task with not much benefit to themselves and the union. Imagine the upsurge in support for indy if the tories tried to abolish the scottish parliament. 2. Well ireland won their independence through a war and a majority vote for sinn fein. They then had to partition the country because a large amount of unionists still wanted to remain british. So they partly won their independence but had to surrender the north in order to prevent civil war and allow them to move foward with what i am guessing was a hope to regain the north at a later date. Regarding the montenegro situation, i dont really know enough about it to comment. There isnt many countries that gained independence from uk/britain and gave up territories after but this is a different situation imo. Like it or not we very much produce ppl who feel british and are pro british which is hardly surprising considering we are on the island of britain. We have done for centuries and the main reason ireland has a pro british population is largely down to scots moving there. The difference with places like canada,australia,usa etc is they are not in britain and its very hard for their populations(past and present) to have any british allegiances when they are not a part of the british isles or the island of britain. This allowed them to move forward and it was easy for them to promote being canadian, american, jamaican etc when the population clearly know that britain is a far flung place that geographically has no connection to them. Our main problem is geographically we are a part of the britain and this will always mean ppl in scotland will have either a loose affiliation with it or a very strong one. My idea of redrawing the border is basically acknowledging the right of some scots to embrace their britishness and giving them a place away from the rest of scotland to do so. It would allow for a republican scotland to move forward with 65/35(maybe more) majority and would secure our future longterm. We could also be alot more harsher on organisations like the oo and ppl who are hardline unionists. These types would be encouraged or even harshly told to move to this newly formed british/scottish state leaving the independent scotland a chance to flourish without nearly half its population wishing to rejoin the uk especially if indy isnt an instant success. Obviously this sounds like a copycat situation of ireland and partition but i believe it would be different. The difference is that the newly formed scotland would not look to take back these territories and would happily accept the existence of this newly formed british/scottish state. Imagine a newly formed scotland that doesnt have 45 or more percent wishing to rejoin the uk and where we dont have to tolerate organisations who undermine our country like the oo and hardline unionists. Its not ideal but if i was offered this deal right now i would probably take it and be thankful. Especially if it meant taking both edinburgh and glasgow. The borders between scotland and england were often changed and redrawn depending on deals made between the countries and the compromises made based on what each country could get away with. We need to accept that even if we win a referendum and go indy that we could still be struggling to keep hold of our independent status. Theres no point in us going independent if we cant hold onto it in the long term. The idea that we win a referendum and then walk off into the sunset to live our glorious future as an indy scotland is a fantasy at present. Its an ongoing battle and always will be unless we are able to start on strong base of 65 percent which at present we are not anywhere near.

Theres also english immigration into scotland to consider. I am from the highlands and huge amounts of english ppl emigrate to here and places like edinburgh and aberdeen. If this immigration increases over time then the balance could tip over to the unionist side.

Do we have any decent wingers? Apart from fraser who never turns up and morgan theres not much else. Maybe forrest as well but it doesnt leave much room for injuries and rotation. Maybe we could play 433 with morgan being one of the forwards. 442 is not much of an option unless we choose to stick guys like armstrong or christie out wide when a proper winger like morgan/fraser isnt available.

Disagree, if that was the case the polls would often show a 65/35 split for indy. Many unionists dont show their loyalties and can be quite quiet about it but when it comes down to it they will vote to remain in the uk. Trying to tell yourself its a small section of our society is delusional and its not going to help in the long run.

Scotlands a slightly different situation to alot of other commonwealth countries who got their independence. The difference is we are part of an island with wales and england. This means there will generally be ppl who will either strongly or mildly attach themselves to the notion of being british and wanting to maintain a british state. Imo even if indy goes well there will still be a sizable minority who will want to rejoin the uk because of their desire to remain british. If indy doesnt go that well then we could be looking at situation where the britnats want another referendum on rejoining and they might be able to get a majority government in power if they mobilise under one party. Also emigration from england could increase which could end up tipping the scales in favour of rejoining the uk. The native born scots voted for indy in the last referendum but it was the uk born population mostly from england helped win it for the no side. Kidding ourselves that the unionist population will fade away in an indy scotland is not a good idea. They will be here in an indy scotland undermining it and causing problems especially if it isnt an instant success. My idea of partition might not be popular and i understand its extremely unlikely but given the choice between an slightly smaller indy scotland that has a longterm future over one that could easily want to rejoin the uk then i would choose the first option. It doesnt have to necessarily be labelled partition. It could just be a case of redrawing the border and letting the uk have the southern part of scotland which is strongly unionist anyways. This part of scotland will then be filled with unionists from other areas of scotland who wish to remain part of the uk while the rest of scotland moves forward with a 70/30 majority.

You seen the polls? Theres more than 9 percent hardcore unionists. I would hazard a guess that theres at least 20 percent hardcore unionists amongst the native scottish population. Theres also about 10 percent of the electoral population who are from england/uk and they mostly vote to retain the union. You are underestimating both the amount hardline unionists and ppl who have unionists leanings. If it was the case that they make up only 9 percent then the polls for independence would have us at 70/30 for indy. The fact that most of them hover around 50/50 suggests we have a major problem going forward. Even if we were to win a future referendum 52/48 we could still be looking at unsure future and if emigration from england was to even slightly increase then we could be looking at continual divide in scotland that would make the future of being independent uncertain. Also you could say the same about scotnats regarding making noise and putting their views across online. The facts show that the polls are generally 50/50 on independence. If it changes to 60/40 then great but until it does that consistently then we are looking at divided country and trying to say its just 9 percent is just deluding ourselves and wont help us in the long run.

Another goal for morgan in the cup. Thats 9 goals in 19 apps this season. Not bad for a winger. Hopefully clarke considers him for the september games. We need players who score goals and morgan deserves a chance based on his form.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where you reading that? I suppose he might get the odd cup appearance but is he really going to be challenging trent for the rb spot? I cant see it.

Alot of those were pens tbf. Hes a decent player, i think a season or two in the championship then move up like mcginn did if hes good enough. Ramsay wont get near the first team imo. hes best getting a good loan move to a championship club and continue his development. Hes a good young prospect but making it at liverpool is a huge ask. Not sure its the best move for him but the wages on offer would of been too much for him to turn down. Epl clubs are just hoovering up potential these days.

Morgan with a nice header. Hes got 7 goals and 2 assists so far. Might be worth a consideration for the september squads considering we sonetimes lack a flair player who can unlock defences.