starchief

> Within the context of Scottish Football, what the flag symbolises has been well established, it is used to provoke hate and is a symbol for far right bigotry.

 

Not to me it's not.  Especially when it's marked Inverness.

> Surely they're always in this country and thus should always want to show their support for it? Flag to Tescos, flag to the pub, flag to work, walking the dog, dropping the kids off at school, flags hanging out of the car and house windows etc etc

 

The flag-bearer wears it on his shirt when he puts on his soldier's uniform.  That's enough for me.

> I'd just like to see people on here be honest about why they want a particular flag on show rather than hiding behind the teams strip colour.

 

Honestly? Because it's being flown by a British soldier who has every right to be proud of doing so.

When the cartoons were produced, supermarkets in Egypt were proudly announcing they had no Danish products. Can't even remember why, but they later did the same thing with the Netherlands.  Belgium has also had a number of Islamic terrorist plots foiled. Islamic fundamentalists have attempted to bomb any country they can, connected or not, from China to South America, Russia to Africa, Pakistan and India, even Scotland and Canada.  If Scotland had been the source of the cartoons, my hope is that we would stand up for free speech, not worry about offending fundamentalists (illegal wars is an easier question).

A sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie is not what I hope for either Scotland or the UK, neither warmongers either.

My reply to the poll is YES.

 

Why?

 

Because I believe national flags belong to national competitions and not club level. If the arguement centres around the colours then why not take French flags or flags of any of the other nations who use the same colours? If folk want to have flags then whats wrong with the clubs own one?

 

I've heard the arguement of supporting a particular player but it doesn't wear with me. Its only ever Union flag or Red hand being displayed. Never George Cross or Irish Tricolour and I've yet to see a Norwegian flag.

It's probably because he's a serving British soldier, and not Irish or Norwegian, that he is proud to have the British flag all over the world.  Really small-minded of people to assume that in his own country, it means he is racist, bigoted or that, somehow, despite Inverness scrawled over it, it means he is a Rangers supporter.

Says more about the posters that are offended than the soldier that carries it.  I don't agree with the overseas military adventures but I doff my cap to our military.  I find it offensive for the petty-minded to assume that makes me racist (with an Arabian wife) or Rangers (I was just accused on another thread of being a Celtic supporter).

Can we bring back the voting buttons please to see if the majority are actually offended by a serving British soldier having a Union Jack (the thing about a ship is another story...I was going to post but too off topic)?

What does a British club having a UJ signify about the club? As DoofersDad says, nothing. What does being offended by a UJ signify? Small mindedness. Im married to an Arab African woman who is very proud of her adopted country and its history. If you think a Union Jack means being racist, get your head out of the Seventies.

I think Polworth already was the experiment. I expect him to drop out next week. Not that you can lay blame onto one person but that might mean Ross to central, then Greenhalgh out wide?

The important thing is to be confident and not dwell too long on a terrible result. Learn from it but know we can beat anyone on our day.

I was also very offended by the players who made a point of turning up in the strip of Inverness - very offensive to St Johnstone fans, who are profoundly anti-Inverness, especially when they play against Invernessian teams.  Why o why can't we all just play in the neutral strip of the United Nations, where each player gets a ball and every touch counts as a goal.  Anything else just creates animosity.

Grew up a Rangers supporter, switched to St Mirren when I got my own mind as a teenager then started supporting ICT when it was formed. But I do support Scottish teams in Europe. Thats the only time Celtic and support go together for me.

Despise play acting and also, as I stated, think Celtic would have lost with or without Brown.

Unlike DalneighDons here, I dont have a big team. ICTs first match, the friendly against the Buddies, meant I decided upon ICT from the start. Noone else. Can you say the same DC?

Well, I disagree with the last statement too. Barca would have carved out chances if needed. And all they need is one. Celtic can play well all they like but without a European-level striker, its always going to be in vain. Instead of spending money on squad players, they should have put as much as they could into the best striker they could. Yeah, it wont be Messi, even if they could afford him, but a 10-12M striker that can take and make a chance is all that stands between victory over AC Milan and a draw against Barca.

It does make me feel a little better about Scottish football when a team from our league can stand against European powers.

The referee brought out a yellow card after the kick. He then looked at the 'severe' injury Neymar pretended to have. Then he put the card away and brought out the red. The histrionics were all important in getting Brown sent off. With no play acting, there is no red card from the ref.

There were far more dangerous tackles in the game. If Kayal had play acted on a far more crude and injury threatening piece of recklessness, then its 10 v 10. Its not what I want to see. Get up and get on with the match. Just a piece of handbags at dawn. No injury and no threat of an injury.

Never a red card. Ive had more vicious handshakes. There were worse tackles in that game that went unpunished. Id rather the histrionics were cut out. Give Neymar a yellow card for that pretense at being shot.

Those last 5 matches tell me he is down in the pecking order.

I doubt di Canio could even spell fashist.

Brilliant!

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/news/release.asp?newsID=3266

An error occurred. Please contact webmaster@aberdeenshire.gov.uk if the problem persists.

Dominated the match tonight but if you sell your best striker and get millions for others, then only buy squad players, its unlikely the team will improve. Spend money on genuine world class talent and they could have tucked away those chances.

That's your reading of it.  Mine is that I care nothing for the business side of football and it's the social side that makes history.  A team of Rangers players playing in Rangers shirts in the Rangers stadium managed by the Rangers manager and supported by Rangers fans is Rangers.  They've long been called The Rangers, both in history and by fans of all persuasions - and many clubs, such as Woolwich Arsenal, have slightly changed their name.  It doesn't matter if that's Rangers, Gretna or Accrington Stanley - the financial side is bluff and nonsense.  The fact that we are discussing sport as a business rather than sport as a social event shows how far we are from the game of football.

Wimbledon never went bust but transferred their name/stadium etc to Milton Keynes Dons.  But MK Dons are not Wimbledon, despite the business dealings.  FC Wimbledon are closer to the original club.

And for those that think that means I'm a Rangers fan, having them out of the SPL (or whatever it's called next week) is a great move and long may it continue. I just wish Scottish football had got the finances a little more equal in the intervening time.

I was really worried when he signed (didn't have the best of reviews from his previous clubs) but seems to have slotted in perfectly.  Reguero must be kicking himself.  Cammy Bell leaving must have been a big impetus to sign for Killie but look what happened.  The Highland Curse strikes again.

Scots voting for non-Scottish matters doesn't mean they aren't also working for Scotland.  MPs in Scotland are working for Scotland - most just think it's best to work in a UK context and most view independence as bad for Scotland, hence they work against it.  That's their belief.  Since your year of 1999, Scots have, for the most part, controlled the government.  To think they are somehow Scottish, mainly representing Scottish constituencies and having to be re-elected by their Scottish voters but, somehow, they aren't working to benefit Scotland (unless, amazingly, they are SNP) is disingenous.  MPs, MSPs and MEPs in Scotland are all there to represent their constituents.  Whether you agree with the way they do it or think they are any good is another matter (personally, I wish voters would go a bit more on the MP rather than the party but that's the way it is - I'd rather Ken Clarke than Keith Vaz but it's the party that would win it).

I don't see the British Army, the BBC etc disappearing or excluding Scotland.  We'll certainly have more influence but I don't think independence will give that complete break some are expecting.  I probably used shorthand to explain that as devo max but not in a very good way.

Economics is far from clear but one option isn't necessarily as good as the other.  It's a calculated choice but all too often I hear one side present their case as a fait accompli.  Far from it.  I'd love to hear true independent expert opinion but I fear the waters are too muddied to get any clarity (you present an expert and the opposition presents another - no need for anyone to post a link to one expert to prove your point, there are plenty others with 180degree views for the other thought).

I'm still in favour of federalism as the local scene should be the most involved in everyone's day-to-day lives (I can understand why Bradford has a big BNP and Respect vote, I can get why Nottingham is Labour-dominated, I understand why Greens are in Brighton, I know why Conservatives do well in the countryside and I can see why the Lib Dems are big in the Islands - and these differences should be taken precedence when deciding pressing issues affecting these areas).  I could easily switch to no to independence with substantially increased devolution but I suspect the no vote is just too large for these concessions to be worthwhile.  That's why I am leaning towards independence.

Pretty even game, except DU had Armstrong and GMS. I expect Celtic, Mwell, DU, ICT and either the Dons or St J to be top six. A bit of quality is being seen in those teams.

It kills the image of Westminster having an "ulterior motive which benefits them but not us". For most of those years since 1999, Westminster was run by "us" and directly accountable to the Scottish people at election time.

Im actually leaning towards independence (I suspect it will largely be devo max in practice) but trying to hint being unionist means being anti-Scottish and Macchivelian is disingenious to the majority of people that dont support independence. They can be just as principled, just as freedom loving and just as patriotic but with a different viewpoint. Especially when it comes to economics, which is far from clear.

Having lived through the years since 1999 with Scotland and the Scots being called "subsidy junkies" and lots of other pejorative names........I really struggle to understand why the Westminster Government wants to keep us at all..because I get the impression that if voters in England had a say....we'd be set adrift on a raft with no paddle. You surely don't think that the UK Government, that bastion of probity, fairness, equity and social conscience could possibly have an ulterior motive which benefits them but not us, do you?

If only there had been more Scots in Parliament in that time.  Maybe like a prime minister or two?  Possibly a few chancellors that had to be re-elected by the people of Scotland?  Maybe the odd Scottish foreign secretary?  How about the leaders of both of the main opposition parties?

Larry Lloyd was a stalwart for Brian Clough, yet has never been selected to represent Scotland. He may be retired, massively overweight, not Scottish and living in England but the fact that Strachan hasn't even been to Inverness to see him play is just typical.

No doubt if Lloyd was Scottish, half his age, lost 5 stone and was first choice left back for Real Madrid, Strachan would be right in there. Typical anti-provincial club attitude.

As long as its not green and white hoops, I can live with it.

As for your vision. Yes that would be great but that can only happen in an ideal world. A world where the super powers could all agree. Unfortunately thats a long way off and meanwhile innocent people are being murdered. Actions have to be taken to show any nation that its wrong to do what has been done in Syria. I would hope that an independant Scotland would be one of the loudest voices and one of those prepared to take action against such atrocities.

 

Innocent people murdered by both sides.  Brutal secular or brutal Islamists - why is that a choice we are making (as it is, I'd side with Russia here if I have to - but the point is, we don't have to)?  I don't see why blasting innocent children to pieces with a roadside bomb or helicopter gunship, hacking off a man's head or eating the heart of a dead man is any more moral than releasing gas (ignoring the question that guilt is still months away from being decided but that's not my point).

So what will be the end result of bombing Syria? I don't know either but I'm pretty sure it won't be a liberal secular democracy open to Western values. So why the hell are we going in with only 9% support from the public? What exactly are we hoping to achieve? I don't see any gain from Iraq or Libya and I don't see peace coming from bombing Damascus.  We bomb the Taliban in Afghanistan, we take action against Salafis in the UK, yet we support the heavily-slanted Al-Qaeda supporting Islamists in Syria?  You want to see the brutality of the rebels, it's not difficult to find (especially being at a Uni where that's other people's research).

All to weaken Iran's hold on the Middle East.  And where did that influence come from?  Oh yeah, by getting involved in Iraq.  It's madness to expect this to achieve anything like stability. There are better ways to achieve good than by bombing (such as supporting the DRC govt's efforts to get rid of slavery - diamonds and oil there if you need the incentive).

How does that fit in with independence?  Politicians closer to the voter (same as federalism).  That's the swaying point I think for the Yes argument.  All this about whether Scotland will be richer or poorer is conjecture, supported by arguments by learned professionals from both sides, as is the silly argument about the Scots PMs of Blair and Brown (along with much of the cabinet and leaders in Kennedy and Duncan Jones) deliberately wanting a poor Scotland.  Put it this way, if it could be reasonably demonstrated that Scotland would be poorer, would you still be a seperationist?  Then the economics isn't that important to sway people.

Heather Mills