smcc

If the UK is totally opposed to currency union and Scots vote for indepence there will be time after the referendum to sort out the currency question. During this time Scotland will still be part of the UK and entitled to use the pound as it does today.
I do really think that you should drop your continual references to the Nazi party!

If the UK is totally opposed to currency union and Scots vote for indepence there will be time after the referendum to sort out the currency question. During this time Scotland will still be part of the UK and entitled to use the pound as it does today.
I do really think that you should drop your continual references to the Nazi party!

An interesting letter in today's Herald helps to offset some of the scaremongering from the "No" camp north and south of the border.
"When George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander issue their dire warnings, presumably meant to plant the impression that an independent Scotland will suddenly have no currency, no means of exchange - just whom do they think they're kidding?
("Chancellor goes for broke in brutal battle for Union", The Herald, February 14).
Just for starters, we already have a functioning economy, a discrete legal system and (still) a highly respected education and training system; all the essential components for an independent nation. Since we also have issuing banks, there is nothing and no-one to stop us continuing to run on pounds and pence as we do now, if we so choose; and whether the Scottish pound will maintain parity with the English (and Welsh, and Ulster, and Channel Islands, and Isle of Man) pounds will be largely a matter of how well we make our economy work when it has been cut free from the mishandling inflicted on it by various Westminster governments.
If, as I would argue, Scotland has a much better chance of thriving when it is run by Scots, for Scots, the Scottish currency might well outperform its bigger (but not better) southern cousin; and in that case it won't matter tuppence (or two pence, or a groat, or a merk) if we are operating in pounds or euros,or merks, or kroner. The question will be whether our currency is underpinned by a functioning economy - and I can't be the only one to have noticed that these so-called fiscal heavyweights are confining their current argument to the wrapping, not to what's in the parcel.
None of our current trading partners is likely to suddenly stop trading with us: they need our products, or our skills, or our custom. Compared to the much bigger question we must answer in September - whether we are grown-up enough to run our own affairs - this one is trivial, empty scaremongering."
There is absolutely no reason why Scotland cannot function and prosper as an independent nation and no reason, apart from the continuing hostility from the UK government (not, I may say, from the population of the UK), why we should not remainon friendly terms with rUK.

Is it? It seems to me that, if the club with which the player is registered agrees, he can play against them. See the clause from the SPFL rules quoted below. Playing in matches 24. A Registered Player must not, except with the prior consent of the Board and the Club to which he is Registered, play Football for any other Football club in any competition or except with the prior consent of the Club to which he is Registered, train with such other Football club

Depends on what the loan agreement says.

I'm actually embarrassed reading this.

I have been for many years, this is actually some of the better shite I've seen.

Seems to me that one of the problems in defence arises when Naismith or Kelly are caught upfield and no one has covered his position. In fact, near the end of the half, Kelly had to come right across to cover Naismith's position.

My brother lives in Ascot and married a Lancashire lass fae' Blackburn. She still hasn't texted me to tell me how much she'd miss us if we vote for independence. I think David Cameron wasted his time.
Maybe her phone is broken. Maybe she doesn't love us or want us anymore.
Tick tock bitch - get texting or I'm voting 'yes'.

You must be hearing something I didn't?
Suppose he could have said "GIRFUY" since he's been through hell.

Did Josef Venglos, Tony Mowbray, Wim Jansen, Martin O'Neill or any number of other Celtic managers you care to mention ever suffer anything even remotely close to what Neil Lennon does?
Answer is no, why is that? I'm not condoning it, just questioning why it does happen to this particular manager.

That last sentence of yours is beyond contempt.
That's you, Rick and bluto now talking about Yes voters being anti-English and racist.
There's not a single pro-independence post on this entire forum which is either.
If there had been, I'd have been criticising it long before you.
WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously is it supposed to be funny or "banter"?

Bluto, you really need to remove your blinkers. If you think that Scotland within the UK can have any influnce on changing the London-centred attitude of successive UK governments you are severely deluded.
Have a look at this letter from yesterdays Herald and give it some thought.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/we-should-compare-competence-of-westminster-and-holyrood.23265463
"The propaganda from the UK Government showing how Scotland would be worse off with independence is just that - propaganda. The forecasts from various supposedly-independent think-tanks all seem to be based on the assumption that an independent Scotland would follow exactly the same economic procedures that Westminster use. But already, it is clear, Scotland since devolution has diverged from some of those procedures. The divergence may not yet be substantial but its direction is. Those Westminster procedures led the UK into its present mess and are failing to get it out. Why should Scotland follow them?
When it comes to competence the Scottish Government has shown that it can perform quite well even though its budget is fixed by West­minster, its tax-raising power is very limited and it has little borrowing power. It has perpetrated few major blunders. (Let no-one mention the Parliament building since that shambles was of Westminster's doing, or the Edinburgh tram fiasco, which was pushed through by Labour and the other parties against the wishes of the SNP.)"
The big problem lies with the English establishment over which Scotland has no influence.

It is interesting that more than 60 nations that were former colonies of Britain will be competing in the Commonwealth Games. Is there any indication that any of these nations has ever indicated that that it wants to return to British rule? Perhaps if the media were to pose that question some of the nonsense about Scotland being unable to go it on its own might be exposed.

" I feel absolutely no desire to go and watch Albion Rovers play Montrose at a run down ramshackle stadium in the middle of January"
I went to said ramshackle stadium not that long ago to see the Wee Rovers play Peterhead... as the alternative was paying £37 for two of us to get in see Saints in Inverness!
The seat I sat on was more than adequate.. and very similar to the seat I sit on at St Mirren park. It cost about £12 for the two of us... and the pies were not only cheap... but better than ours!
As you are usually a defender of grass roots football, I'm puzzled by your disparaging comments and criticism of a lower league club at least trying to show a bit of initiative.
What a strange and very long pointless rant. Did you feel better for it?

So, in your world, the scheme is wrong simply because you don't want to go?
What sort of life do you have when you keep coming on here (a website for fans of a club that you claim to dislike) and posting such long winded and self important nonsense?

What a load of codswollop. I don't have your imagined problem. I simply believe that Scotland would be better governed by people who have its interests at heart.Most people who want independence for Scotland had these feelings long before the credit crunch. You are right that every part of the UK feels that London treats it badly. Are they really all wrong?
As for your mission to govern the lesser peoples of the Earth, this is chauvinism at its worst. I don't believe that the English are worth less than Scots; only different.

Does anyone feel "proud" about shopping anywhere?

Your night time ranting is going well. In case you had not realised, the SNP has been in government since 2007, albeit only a minority government until 2011. Your claim that the introduction of free prescriptions in Scotland has led to everyone rushing to his GP for free prescriptions is simply not borne out by the facts. The average increase in the number of items dispensed in Scotland in the years 2003/4 to 2011/2 was 2.17%, the highest annual increase being from 2008/9 to 2009/10 when it was 4%. Following the abolition of prescription charges in April 2011 the annual increase was in items dispensed was 3.76% dropping to 2.36% in 2012/3. There has, therefore, been no huge increase in the number of people jumping on the free prescription band wagon, nor has there been a huge rise in the total cost of prescriptions dispensed which, in the year to March 2012 rose by 1.4% and in the year to March 2013 fell by 5%. The rise in total prescription costs in the year prior to the abolition of charges i.e. the year to March 2011 was 1.4%.
Granted that the total cost, including dispensing fees, of items dispensed was £118.16m and that a standard charge of £7 for every prescription item would have brought in £657m, would you have ploughed this money into the NHS or used it to partly fund an insurance-based scheme which would pass a proportion of the money to the insurance companies? This sum, of corse, assumes that everyone, including children, the severely ill, the choronically ill, the mentally ill, the physically and learnig disabled and the elderly would not be exempt from charges. If the previous prescription exemtion charge still existed then the money available would be less than 10% of the figure above i.e. £65m.
I have to laugh at your comparing Alex Salmond with Animal Farm's Napoleon and would point you to the many politicians south of the border who are living high on the hog. There are countless instances of UK politicians using their offices and status to give hand outs to their friends in big business, claiming £300 for apearing for half-an-hour on the premises of the House of Lords, defrauding the taxpayer by falsifying expenses and by sliding smoothly from office into lucrative positions in commercial firms, often those directly connected to their previous appointments.
Better together? Better the devil you know? You have obviously made up your mind but, fortunately, there are still lots of "don't knows", not all of whom share your prejudices.

Your night time ranting is going well. In case you had not realised, the SNP has been in government since 2007, albeit only a minority government until 2011. Your claim that the introduction of free prescriptions in Scotland has led to everyone rushing to his GP for free prescriptions is simply not borne out by the facts. The average increase in the number of items dispensed in Scotland in the years 2003/4 to 2011/2 was 2.17%, the highest annual increase being from 2008/9 to 2009/10 when it was 4%. Following the abolition of prescription charges in April 2011 the annual increase was in items dispensed was 3.76% dropping to 2.36% in 2012/3. There has, therefore, been no huge increase in the number of people jumping on the free prescription band wagon, nor has there been a huge rise in the total cost of prescriptions dispensed which, in the year to March 2012 rose by 1.4% and in the year to March 2013 fell by 5%. The rise in total prescription costs in the year prior to the abolition of charges i.e. the year to March 2011 was 1.4%.
Granted that the total cost, including dispensing fees, of items dispensed was £118.16m and that a standard charge of £7 for every prescription item would have brought in £657m, would you have ploughed this money into the NHS or used it to partly fund an insurance-based scheme which would pass a proportion of the money to the insurance companies? This sum, of corse, assumes that everyone, including children, the severely ill, the choronically ill, the mentally ill, the physically and learnig disabled and the elderly would not be exempt from charges. If the previous prescription exemtion charge still existed then the money available would be less than 10% of the figure above i.e. £65m.
I have to laugh at your comparing Alex Salmond with Animal Farm's Napoleon and would point you to the many politicians south of the border who are living high on the hog. There are countless instances of UK politicians using their offices and status to give hand outs to their friends in big business, claiming £300 for apearing for half-an-hour on the premises of the House of Lords, defrauding the taxpayer by falsifying expenses and by sliding smoothly from office into lucrative positions in commercial firms, often those directly connected to their previous appointments.
Better together? Better the devil you know? You have obviously made up your mind but, fortunately, there are still lots of "don't knows", not all of whom share your prejudices.

I worked in the NHS for nearly 40 years before I retired at the end of 2007. I was involved as a front line GP and also behind the scenes as a member of the GP Subcommittee of the health board, so that I too have a very good idea of the internal wokings of the NHS. One of the major problems of the NHSiS has been the snowballing of the number of "managers", many of whom are not managers but administrators. Much more money could be saved by getting rid of many of them than by abolishing free prescriptions.

I worked in the NHS for nearly 40 years before I retired at the end of 2007. I was involved as a front line GP and also behind the scenes as a member of the GP Subcommittee of the health board, so that I too have a very good idea of the internal wokings of the NHS. One of the major problems of the NHSiS has been the snowballing of the number of "managers", many of whom are not managers but administrators. Much more money could be saved by getting rid of many of them than by abolishing free prescriptions.

I worked in the NHS for nearly 40 years before I retired at the end of 2007. I was involved as a front line GP and also behind the scenes as a member of the GP Subcommittee of the health board, so that I too have a very good idea of the internal wokings of the NHS. One of the major problems of the NHSiS has been the snowballing of the number of "managers", many of whom are not managers but administrators. Much more money could be saved by getting rid of many of them than by abolishing free prescriptions.

fac·tion 1 (fkshn)n.
1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group. Stuart, you are, as usual, twisting definitions to coincide with your inerpretation. I really doubt that you can justify your assertion that there is an organised, cohesive group of St Mirren supporters which is bigoted and intolerant towards other sects. I think you will find that those expressing their opinions are individuals and not members of such a group.

No one seems to have mentioned the fact that Kirk Broadfoot was convicted of an assault, which left his victim with a fractured jaw, at an amateur football game, in 2005. After sentencing Kirk was ordered to pay £750 compensation,was given 200 hours community service and 12 months probation.
I have no idea of the details of Gowser's police assault but the damage done is unlikely to be worse than that inflicted by Broadfoot.