W6er

People join the army for many different reasons - some do it out of patriotism, for others it's macho to be a soldier and carry a gun, for others still it's for adventure or to learn a trade. I know many who joined as a young man and feel aggrieved, exploited and guilty at having been made to go and fight in the Middle East conflicts. Some have PTSD.

That's what I would do, if I felt that way. Three apostrophes missed, Rascal! 😉 'Minute's silence'...I thought I'd get that in before @antrin does.

Where's @antrin when you need him? ☝️ If I'm understanding you correctly, you're stating that many Celtic fans have served in the armed forces? I agree that many Celtic fans' politics, in this case opposition to the Monarchy, will have been determined by their allegiance to Celtic FC; something I find extremely moronic. However, if I was a pro-Unionist Royalist Celtic fan, I think I'd switch my allegiance either to Rangers, or if that wasn't possible I'd support a non-Old Firm club. I know three former Rangers season ticket holders who abandoned the club after the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Personally, I am happy to support a club like St. Mirren. Though the virtue-signalling over Ukraine and 'taking the knee' annoys me a little. Anyway, score predictions? I don't want to steal Elvis' thunder, but I think we'll be lucky to lose by fewer than three goals. 4-1, and I'm not sure where our goal will come from.

@faraway saint, clearly lager is just for us provincial yokels. I wonder what a sophisticated, cosmopolitan, cultured person like @antrin drinks?

I'd suggesting you watch too much American television. Since when has the UK been a knuckle-dragging province? Enjoy your day.

Some vocal critics of the Monarchy have been arrested or spoken to by the police. That's not right, of course, but there have been issues relating to freedom for a while - e.g. Count Dankula.

Cellphone? I think what you're referring to is known as a 'mobile phone' or just 'mobile' in the UK.

I believe in freedom of speech and expression, and therefore I obviously do not believe a minute's silence should have to be observed by those who don't agree with it, hence I have defended Celtic fans' RIGHT (not their behaviour) to disrespect silences for Remembrance, etc. At the end of the day, if people are forced to observe these things, then there's no point in having them - as they'd not be a mark of respect, but rather observed out of fear of arrest. That's the kind of thing you'd have expected under Stalin, or in North Korea. The same goes for anything - 'taking the knee', LGBT or Show Sectarianism the Red Card. Folk should not ever be forced to comply with this stuff. What I would suggest is Celtic fans, or Republican Saints, stay in the foyer until it's over and then emerge and take their seats. Then they're not observing it, but not disrespecting it. Then again, the argument is: if you feel that strongly about it, this is an opportunity to make your voice heard. Anyone remember the fiasco when Hearts fans disrupted a minute's silence for the Pope? That was considered Sectarian. Nonsense. Personally, I'm considering taking a Royal Standard with me.

I agree, and said as much yesterday.

Isn't the national anthem Flower of Scotland?

There's only one way to find out! I'll meet you in the Cathedral...bring a crowbar.

@Callum Gilhooley - It appears I have angered you, as you have replied twice to my post. It should only be Celtic that are scandalised, though that may depend on how other Scottish clubs' fans react. You must remember there are a lot of republicans in Scotland (mostly, but not exclusively Scottish nationalists). Hearts fans didn't observe the silence, because one idiot shouted "f**k the Queen" and that elicited a chorus of boos and, I believe, a rendition of God Save the Queen or something similar. As for Saint Mirren's game on Sunday, it shouldn't reflect badly on the club depending on how our own fans behave and also whether the reporting is fair. For example the media could cover it briefly: "There was fury today after a minute's silence for the Queen, held before the match between St. Mirren and Celtic in Paisley, was disrupted, with fans singing and jeering throughout." Some English guy Down South: "Bloody Scots! Animals the lot of them. Bloody well give them their independence and build a fifty foot wall along the border..."

Because Celtic fans will not observe the minute's silence. They will boo and jeer and sing songs like "Lizzy's in a box", as did Shamrock Rovers fans. If the game's televised they will need to cut the microphones, but it will still go viral on Twitter.

https://www.67hailhail.com/news/promising-signs-that-celtic-vs-st-mirren-will-go-ahead-next-weekend/

No reason besides scandalising Scottish football, you mean?

Which is exactly my point! Will it be postponed? No doubt it'll be on TV, too. A minute's applause...for the Queen?

I have just realised next Sunday's game against Celtic is the day before the Queen's funeral. Surely we will have a minute's silence? I suspect it'll be called off.

Is this definitely going ahead? Remember, it's the day before the Queen's funeral, so a minute's silence will be appropriate.

If only the owner realised it should have an apostrophe! English owned?

I must have misread it. Sorry.

It's hard to tell whether you're being serious or not.

It wasn't the Monarchy who insisted upon that though, but the SPFL. I think it was the wrong decision by them, but then again if we held a minute's silence would fans have respected it? Probably not - and I believe they have every right not to, btw. I will miss the football today, and I won't pretend I'm mourning. I support the Monarchy, and I'm slightly saddened by her death, but then she was 96 years old! She wasn't immortal.

I agreed with you - Churchill was a racist. If we're going to go around adorning statues with graffiti describing people's character flaws, then every single one will be vandalised. Show me a man who has no character flaws and I will show you a liar. I never knew there was a referendum on mass-immigration, though (asked in by us - not our government)! Learn something new every day...I think I will leave that there, as I don't like where this is going. Have a nice day, sir.

1) Have you any evidence to substantiate your claim that the local Bristol population was 'predominantly black'? In law one who asserts must prove. Even if that is the case, which I doubt, I suspect the vast majority of the black population moved to Bristol after WWII, in which case it was well over 100+ years since the abolition of slavery (abolished in 1833; nearly 200 years ago). To voluntarily move to another country, presumably for a better life, and tear down its statues is an act of vandalism - though I do not accept it was black people who were responsible. 2) Churchill had racist views, as did many people during that time - "keep England white". He also was premier during WWII, when he saw us defeat the Nazis. If that doesn't deserve a statue in his honour then I don't know what does. I understand the UK threatened to go to war with Brazil over the issue of slavery - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-Brazilian_Treaty_of_1826

Tucker nails it (watch until the end):