Leaderboard

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles I would be interested to know the yes/no stance of the researcher from this most prestigious of Scottish Academic Institutions who has done this analysis- an analysis where the categorisation of broadcast content will inevitably be to a large extent subjective and the product of a judgement or perception on the researcher's part. Which reminds me of a book on WW1 I saw revewied in The Courier the other week and which came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died! Then it emerged that the author was a former SNP MSP who, to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get." Given the current high degree of separatist twitchiness about the WW1 centenary and their paranoia about any resulting feeling of "Britishness" (q.v. Joan MacAlpine MSP's now notorious "misplaced loyalty" rant) you could just about predict a few attempts to foster a feeling of resentment at the sacrifice - real or imagined. I'd assume from no knowledge whatsoever, that he is at a minimum as biased as all those academics who support the Union campaign with their research..and which you believe implicitly.....and a lot less biased than the likes of the OBR and IMF, set up by the two main political parties, but hailed as "independent" and which you believe implicitly..and even less biased than the MSM. When this story broke, there was some discussion by the Yes side about his impartiality, as it would give the No side a stick to beat him with. I can't find the discussion now unfortunately, but it turned out Dr Robertson has no direct connection with the SNP or Yes, and neither was he paid. You can be sure that his bias would have been used to discredit him, but up until now, John Robertson appears to be squeaky clean, so instead they have chosen to bury it. The stance of the researcher is immaterial - the evidence, especially lower down the report, is overwhelming. You'd have a job faking something so blatant. There's plenty of precedent here. Only recently Reporting Scotland ran a story about how a researcher had been paid to write a pro-Yes article, while neglecting the bigger story that this only came to light because of alleged hacking of Yes emails. Or the Latvian official who proclaimed that Scotland wouldn't get EU membership. Jackie Bird read out the first part of his statement but did not bother reporting the rest, which then went on to say the rUK would have equal difficulty. This was reported in the Herald in full. And try looking for "MOD oil boom Clyde" - you'll find loads of references, only not BBC ones. Coming on the heels of the alleged complicity in covering up the Jimmy Savile affair, the BBC, which I am obliged to support by paying the licence fee, seems to have as much integrity as Rangers FC.

I was initially, very briefly, a little miffed that Hearts had managed to engineer this but I now really could care less. Playing St Mirren before it gives them less time to prepare anyway. Hearts aren't exactly on fire with Stevenson, and I would have expected him to play before I heard about the suspension. If we can beat Hearts at their strongest it'll mean we can't be accused of not being there on merit. I'd rather concentrate on ICT and making sure our team are ready and fit and raring to go to be honest.

At Aberdeen last Saturday Tremarco dived close to the goal and headed the ball to safety on the ground whilst his face dived into the turf with an Aberdeen player right beside him ready to pounce. Now that's dedication. Whether he was falling anyway or not, the fact is that he deliberately placed his head forward to get the ball before his roll and that was a spectacular bit of defending.

has left the building..................by mutual consent.

I see nothing wrong with the BBC seeking the raw data before reporting on this. Why on earth should they report on research which criticises them if they genuinely feel the findings are flawed. We all know that mud sticks and if they were to dutifully report it but make a statement that they were challenging the findings, the perception that they were biased would persist even if subsequent analysis of the raw data showed otherwise. Let's face it, this type of social science research is open to a lot of subjectivity and there is some seriously bad research about even where there is absolutely no intentional bias. If the BBC see content in the paper which suggests that the evidence may not reasonably lead to the conclusions reached, they have every right to challenge that. As an example, the report cites a story about a Scottish patient being denied a cancer drug which was available to patients in England. The implication here is that because Healthcare is already devolved matter, independence will lead to more of this. The BBC reporting the patient being denied the drug is therefore interpretted as taking an anti-independence stance! It goes on to state that there are examples of patients in England being denied drugs available to patients in Scotland but that this was not reported thereby increasing the bias. But why would a patient in England being denied a drug be a news story for the BBC in Scotland? The story may be a criticism of the NHS in Scotland and it may be an unfair criticism, but to interpret it as taking an anti - independence bias really is stretching it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the BBC is not biased, but I do think that this illustrates just how complex these issues are. The kind of soft research identified here is fraught with difficulties and the BBC are quite right to seek the raw data before reporting on this. Of course, once they have seen the raw data they should then report it objectively and offer their comments accordingly.

Didn't expect anything less, tbh! I sent an email of complaint after one horrendous example of pure bias, and mentioned a few others of which I was aware. I got a response which denied all I had said, not so unlike the one referenced in Bateman's piece....and pointing me at a blog which, in their eyes, proved they were unbiased. I complained about that as well (imo, you can be biased as much with what you leave out as what you include......and with how you put things..context is all!) Was promised a formal response "after they had talked to their people" and I've heard nothing since...but then I didn't expect a response. Seriously thinking of stopping paying my licence fee and saving it up to pay to the new SBC when it is set up!.. I have lately been on their complaints site, which gives a list of complaints received...and would you believe NOT ONE in the first two pages has been about bias in their Scottish Independence coverage...so that just proves they lie through their teeth, and know they do, because the complaints go in thick and fast. When I remember the BBC when I was a kid, trusted world wide.......and look at the way it is being run now..I could weep!

For all those who equate Independence with a perpetuity of having an immortal Alex Salmond and the SNP in charge, because God hates us.....or more likely because the media is always giving that impression....there will be other options from which to choose. Salmond et al, set out just one vision for Scotland in the White Paper...but there are other visions, some by groups of like-minded people, out of which may or may not grow fully fledged political parties after Independence.. The information is not often set out in one place on their sites..but is mostly under Articles or Policies in the links on the pages. Groups for Scottish Independence Common Weal...... http://scottishcommonweal.org/what-is-the-common-weal-project/ Wealthy Nation.....http://www.wealthynation.org/ Radical Independence......http://radicalindependence.org/ Labour For Indy......http://www.labourforindy.com/ Current Scottish Political Parties for Independence Social Democratic Alliance.....http://www.scottishdemocraticalliance.com/ Scottish Greens......http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/policy/ Scottish Socialists........http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/policies/ Solidarity......http://www.new.solidarityscotland.org/ I'm not including the plethora of FaceBook Groups, though I have often wondered if a political party formed out of all the football related Groups for independence might not herald an era of less sectarianism (given there are 3 Rangers ones,two Celtic ones.and a Rangers and Celtic one)..but what would it be called? I would suggest The Caledonian Thistle Secular Slap Bang in the Centre Party! (you think that would be suitably Scottish and non-controversial?

glad he wasn't a protected bird !

That struck me as well. There's plenty non-Nats make the same mistake in thinking it was Scotland v England, but hey, what the hell, it clears the decks for another paragraph of gratuitous Nat-bashing.

It's Mckay...small "k" Why does the price only go up as far as £3 Million? His value should be set at what we think he is worth plus the cost of a replacement, especially as we don't have anyone to step in already on the books.

What we getting upset about? Before his suspension we'd have been expecting him to be playing. Its no big deal. He's just another player in a team doing badly. When that trophy's held aloft after the final we'll be able to say we won fair and square.

Aye, that worked really well after last years Wilson saga eh. Kingbeastie - tongue in cheek!

I fully expect hearts to try and manipulate as much as they possibly can to their advantage for this game. Bending and stretching the rules as much as they can get away with. Sevco of the east. Whatever happens we just have to go out and win the game. Simple as that. We are more than capable of doing so. TB had a habit of bottling the big games (v falkirk to stay up, hearts semi final, all games after the split) I don't think this will happen under Yogi. Bring. It. On.

This thread has lost its edge without eagle...its wonderful

Even better, if the game was abandoned after say, 60 min. Hearts have had McDonald sent off for violent conduct and a couple of injuries. But unfortunately the weather doesn't look bad enough for that. Does anyone know an electrician?

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles I would be interested to know the yes/no stance of the researcher from this most prestigious of Scottish Academic Institutions who has done this analysis- an analysis where the categorisation of broadcast content will inevitably be to a large extent subjective and the product of a judgement or perception on the researcher's part. Which reminds me of a book on WW1 I saw revewied in The Courier the other week and which came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died! Then it emerged that the author was a former SNP MSP who, to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get." Given the current high degree of separatist twitchiness about the WW1 centenary and their paranoia about any resulting feeling of "Britishness" (q.v. Joan MacAlpine MSP's now notorious "misplaced loyalty" rant) you could just about predict a few attempts to foster a feeling of resentment at the sacrifice - real or imagined. I'd assume from no knowledge whatsoever, that he is at a minimum as biased as all those academics who support the Union campaign with their research..and which you believe implicitly.....and a lot less biased than the likes of the OBR and IMF, set up by the two main political parties, but hailed as "independent" and which you believe implicitly..and even less biased than the MSM. Now, now, Charles...your bias is becoming frankly irrational again. Why would you assume that nobody in the SNP researches anything? It wouldn't be because you never research anything you say on this thread, would it? I wouldn't be so crass as to say you never research anything in your great tomes, because I have never read them for anything in them to strike me as erroneous..but if I had thought you were wrong.....I'd have checked out my facts before I went online and made accusations just because I could. For your elucidation...and that of the relatively few others on here who think you know what you are talking about.......the figures Colin Campbell used were taken from a book entitled "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson. Niall Ferguson is certainly Scottish but is an avowed Thatcherite, has an extensive CV in academia starting with an Oxford degree and encompassing lectureships, chairs and fellowships in history in academic establishments from the LSE, to Harvard.and Stanford..he's been involved in banking management for a hedge-fund and advised Gove on the History curriculum in schools in England and Wales..he also supported the Iraq War. and was an advisor to John McCain in 2008 and supported Romney. I think you'd probably like him, on reading his Wiki entry. I think he's an ass (in the American use of the term). And for your further elucidation, Ferguson took them from "The Great War and The British People" by J M Winter. J. M Winter is not even British.......he is American........educated at Columbia and Cambridge and a Yale Professor of History. I expect you will retract your unwarranted insult to Colin Campbell......and if you manage to prove that Ferguson was wrong, to save you having to do that...I assume you will post on here and tell us that a Thatcherite Scot who has advised the Coalition came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died and that he to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get." I don't have that much of a problem celebrating the end of a War, ..and to compare it to the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations....jesus wept! Who would believe that anyone, save an utter sociopath, would propose that the upcoming 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, which cost so many lives from all the countries involved, including ours, should be cause for national celebration on the lines of the Diamond Jubilee? But the cynical among us may well think that, as Scotland will have the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup in 2014, pre-referendum, and what Olympic Games and Diamond Jubilee "union effect" produced is wearing off, a celebration of the only important UK historical anniversary big enough to spend a few tens of thousands quid on smacks less of being done to celebrate anything but more to try to resurrect that feeling before YES day. It rather smacks of opportunism, given the timing of the announcement, less than a month after the Edinburgh Agreement. Wonder if Scotland didn't have the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup, if there would have been a "Celebrate the deaths of a lot of men in the world, including 26.4% of Scottish combatants. and 11.8% of those from the rest of the UK and Ireland But it happens to be the only whole UK thing in a time scale which might last until September 18th....and jingoism is jingoism...........and who cares if it is appropriate or not. There is no glory in war....and less glory in celebrating the start of any war. The dead soldiers will be birling in their graves to think that we are celebrating their deaths..and before you start, Charles...I'd have said that whenever the anniversary of the war fell.

Yes, so do I and the best by a long way was in December 1995 in front of a 2500 crowd at Clach Park who witnessed a scoreline of Caley Thistle 5 Ross County 2. Iain Stewart scored a hat trick but many would have given MoM to Daisy Ross on a day when Brian Thomson and Mike Teasdale made their ICT debuts. Then before that there was the 1993 final at Telford Street where Jags won 1-0 against Clach and (ironically!) Iain Polworth scored the only goal of the game. In the semi final Jags beat County 6-3 which was the last time Thistle ever scored six goals. Certainly back in the 80s and 90s there was a decent entry with all three Inverness clubs, usually plus Forres, Nairn, Ross County, Brora and I think Fort William. I seem to recollect that there was some slight controversy over Elgin. Whether it was that they turned the invitation down I can't remember. In the early 90s Highland Office Equipment - through Roy MacLennan, a Jaggie - sponsored the cup. After County and ICT went into the SFL they still tended to put in teams, and the 1995 final was between two full strength sides. However the competition went into decline after that, with the SFL sides using kids more and more - or even not entering at all. I certainly remember being at a semi final at the Caledonian Stadium between ICT and Clach which was so dire that we were praying for a goal to spare us extra time! It's a lovely old cup which (according to the Jags' history "Hub of the Hill") dates back to 1895, but I think the competition has gradually faded away completely in recent years.

Aberdeens Zola.

It was that spirit throughout the team that won the game. Until Butcher and Malpass were very much on Hibs radar, the team had developed that approach in every game. Then in St Johnston it deserted them. As we know it was just after the Hibs AGM when they sack managers and line up the next 'I can do it Rod!' The team have been a bit inconsistent ever since but the manner of the victory has the potential to refocus the targets. Consequentially the Killie game is potentially much harder and whoever plays in it, must adopt the same 'get my body in the line of fire' approach. It is the difference between winners and losers basically.

Tremarco has made some good runs and shots, perhaps they are few and far between but he can be dangerous going forward. He is a battler and is perfect for the surprise attack should we need it. Also he fits in so well in defence he is very much a part of that machine, actually more so than Shinnie, who has a tendency when playing full back to go out of position at crucial moments, not often but enough to leave a gap. Shinnie however is the best all rounder we have and likes to roam, he does this so effectively he must be given the free reign he now enjoys. David Raven is our attacking full back and when he goes on the rampage the rest of the machine immediately adapt to cover. I for one am delighted with our defence as it is. I understand where you are coming from and I actually like your comment about Tremarco IHE cause when you have doubts about a player, (i.e. Brill ) they generally prove you wrong and we keep going from strength to strength.

Johnny Walker has helped me forget a lot of players.

Was that not Jamie Hamill? Ah. Yeah, come to think of it, you might be right about that. Obviously I must just think that Stevenson looks like the sort of person that would make sexually provocative gestures at an innocent, impressionable young supporter.