starchief

I thought I'd already implied my criticism of Israel. I don't think we should be supporting neither Netanyahu or Hamas (both politically or militarily). Both are part of the problem rather than the solution. Neither wants to live in peace. Bombing UN schools was a war crime. Hamas would do the same had they access to the same weapons. Support moderates on both sides. Everyone knows the solution. Two states side-by-side living in peace. Arafat and Begin almost had it (really they did if Begin had survived) and Olmert and Abbas were close too (which might surprise some as he led the Lebanon War but negotiations went well with both sides on the 2-state). Israel may elect a peaceful leader but Hamas needs increased pressure as they have refused to have an election since 2006. There's no way Tony Blair (our leader in 2006) would get elected today, so every chance Hamas would be voted out for a more peace-minded assembly too. But north Iraq is another story. The Kurds, Christians and other religious minorities wouldn't be burying children alive, taking women as sex slaves and decapitating men in pursuit of religious fascism. Invading Iraq was wrong (and it still would be) but letting the Kurds defend their own country (which is what their autonomous region is in effect) from a dark-ages inspired medieval force is absolutely right. It's far from a controversial view, given that the UN condemned IS unanimously (how rare is that?!) and the EU voted to support the Kurds. We could sit back and let others do it, but I would condemn other countries that took that view. We should never have invaded. We still shouldn't get involved in what is basically a Shia-Sunni power battle in the south. But the north is a functioning, reltively safe, secular community, dominated by moderate Muslims, welcoming those of different religions into its sanctuary. Well worth defending their right to exist. I'd hope a moral Scotland, whether in the UK or not, would support them.

Israel isn't committing genocide. They could do that very easily. However, they have (as has Hamas) committed war crimes. When they voted for two enemies (Begin and Arafat) willing to put differences aside for peace, it was within a hair's breadth. Now they vote for Netanyahu, who cares nothing for the Palestinians, and Hamas, who promptly killed their rivals and refused to hold another election (if we did that, Blair would still be in charge). If you vote for the enemies of peace, what do you get? But then why do you care? Remember: your 'Not Scotland's problem' solution? That's pretty selective morality. Caring about one international incident but not about another. Much as I was (and I was) against the war in Iraq and believe Bush and Blair committed war crimes, I would be profoundly disappointed if we let religious minorities and a moderate Muslim society be brutally murdered by an invading force. Be we independent or part of the UK, I would be disgusted if we stood by laughing and washing our hands as such a horror unfolded. As criminal as the war to depose Saddam was, it doesn't approve allowing genocide here.

And your response to religious genocide would be...?

I'm absolutely in favour of impact subs. 30 mins to go and you bring on one of your talented players to skin an already tired full-back. Yep, a great idea. But for that, why not naturally wide players, e.g. Doran and Watkins, even Ross, then bring on another talent, such as Williams (the order can vary). With Vincent, the full-back won't be dragged here-and-there as that's just not his game. It's Christie/Vincent or Tansey/Vincent. That's his position. Anyway, I'm going with Renegade's team for this.

The only player of note Aberdeen have lost is Magennis. And, for that position, they have brought in Goodwillie. I'd say that makes them stronger than last year.

Celtic: weaker Motherwell: weaker Aberdeen: stronger Dundee United: weaker ICT: no change St Johnstone: weaker Ross County: unknown but probably weaker St Mirren: probably a little weaker but nothing too different Kilmarnock: weaker Partick: around the same Dundee have signed well but I'd rather face Hamilton than Hearts. It's definitely a weaker league.

Can we not just keep this to what we thought of the Salmond/Darling debate, rather than a debate surrounding the whole issue of independance which already has it's own thread?

McCourt has been one of the most skillful players in the last 10 years. I'd love to see him here. Look at how well McGinn's doing at Aberdeen, yet he's not a patch on McCourt. Better engine but McCourt's a real game-changer. Not that I think he will come but a terrific player nevertheless.

It's in the Scottish Sun. For some reason, I can see it on my tablet but have to 'join' the Sun to get it on the laptop.

With a settled team of good players that have finished top six in the last two seasons (and only narrowly missed the season before), anything less than top six is a step backwards. It would be accepting mediocrity and being satisfied with a team playing well below their capability. If Terry Butcher's highly limited tactical knowledge can do it with this squad, then what would a bottom half finish say about the current...?

I'd go with Sean127's line-up but if we were to go three at the back, I'd prefer a sweeper with Tansey dictating the play from the back. Although I wouldn't actually go for that system. Raven isn't a wing-back. More likely that would be Doran/Williams/Watkins.

Easy to overlook in the shadows but I would be inclined to let County compete too. I was only putting in the ones that will stay up.

Celtic Aberdeen Dundee United Motherwell St Johnstone Dundee St Mirren ICT Killie Patrick Hamilton I could see us doing so badly that, like the Ross County match, Hughes is forced to abandon his coaching style for his playing style, meaning we start rising in the table.

Don't think we should be too quick to dismiss Gow. He certainly had talent. But who knows what he's like now. Training/a trial seems a reasonable way forward. If he's not good enough or wants too much, then fine. But let's wait and see first.

Let's see, I blocked pullmyfinger for his bad attitude but let's give him a second chance... No-one can stop us using Sterling EU rules exclude use of the Euro unless qualified by a few years tied to the ERM Ah, so we can talk about, rather than conjecture or rumour, what Yes Scotland is actually saying in their white paper or other official information (after all, I'm not going to rely on information from football forums or blogs), then debate the likely future of an independent Scotland and whether simply using a currency they have no control over is the option Yes is proposing. Then we could debate what Yes is actually saying regards EU membership and if that means, like other countries, a committment to go down the route of the Euro...except.... ...yep, another little nasty comment. They can't help themselves. Despite the fact that it's completely unneccessary, doesn't help and turns people off. Back to ignore and leave this thread with it's many pointless personal attacks.

Where do you get your info that the unemployed are more likely to vote No? A quick look at the last poll says Social Grade C2DE (which includes unemployed) are more likely to vote Yes. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wz75xbwh76/Sun_Scotland_Results_16-Jun-2014_FINAL_W.pdf

So, one of you accuses me of being a spineless coward and a crybaby, whilst the other accuses me of lying...you really know how to win people over with your personal abuse. Even on this forum and on this thread, I've waivered between the two positions due to being more interested in federalism, rather than Scottish or British nationalism. Neither suits, so I need the information to choose. Blind patriotism isn't enough, especially when misplaced in a European context. Oddquine hasn't explained Plan B but speculated. That's a big difference. Yes has refused to consider a Plan B. Why? It's a basic question. Similarly with the EU and the Euro. They need solid answers. It's been a poor campaign to persuade the neutrals, aided by the arrogance shown by those posters above and the cybernats in general. Do you really think calling someone a liar or accusing the majority of Scotland as being spineless cowards is going to advance your cause? I don't even just mean with me but with those neutrals also reading this? I was there to be convinced and, until the holes in financial policy became so great, you could drive a ship through it with basic questions still unanswered, I was veering towards a Yes. I still wouldn't be disappointed with that outcome but they haven't made a strong enough case. And it's not just me. I read other questions, such as from DoofersDad, that just can't be adequately answered without individual speculation or, often, abuse. But carry on lads, if you think calling people crybabies, cowards and liars is the way forward. Just never play football in a team of mine. We'd be 3-0 down with the amount of own goals you guys are capable of. Enjoy what was long ago a debate thread but is now just a fan club for one side. Get your excuses in early though. I think you'll need them.

YES should be saying. This campaign seems to be aimed at only those desperate for independence, no matter the consequences (including those that pulled a Sean Connery and berate the public for having an opinion about a country they are glad that they left). I'm surprised YES have so few answers to some basic questions. I, like many I suspect, was there to be convinced. As I've said, I was very much in favour of the EU until the economic crash. Then it switched it's mission from federalism to centralism. I don't. I pay taxes and live in Scotland. My opinion is valid and I have a voting card to say so. So, only most of them then. I don't consider Yes or No gutless cowards, just people with different ideas. This is just abuse. If there's anything going to kill a Yes vote, this is.

Well, I'm neither on the dole or gutless, I just simply disagree. So less of the insults, emigre. Much as I'm proud to be Scottish, I'm also proud to be British. I would have been tempted to vote indy if Yes has done their homework but:- If we aren't allowed to use sterling, what is Plan B? If the EU insists on the Euro, is that acceptable? These are basic questions that should be able to be answered. I'm profoundly disappointed with there being no answer. I can't vote for a pig in a poke. I also have a problem with the European project. I was very much a Euro-phile, where the EU had an interest in federalism. Now it's an over-centralised, anti-democratic institution, where a central bank can fine an elected government for following voted-on policies. In this situation, having Scotland have to satisfy the current regime to gain entry means we can't be on the side of reformers. So, in that case, it's a not yet. Not everyone is so entrenched as a Yes or No. In fact, I'd say the majority are in that field. Having some outsider castigating the people of Scotland and saying he's glad he's not here is just simply insulting. And it's guaranteed not to further your cause. After all, it won't even affect you, so why should anyone listen to you? You want your opinion to be valid? Get back and start paying your taxes. Otherwise, it's not your decision what other people do with their lives.

I wouldn't say Meekings and especially Warren can play from the back. Warren especially is a no-nonsense defender, more Terry Butcher than Alan Hansen. If we are going to go down the road of playing it from the back, I can't see how one or both central defenders fit in. It's square pegs for round holes with that system as was shown up in the last few months. Preferably we'd ditch that system and play to our strengths but if not, then I don't see how Warren can be 'educated' into being the new Beckenbauer, when he's more like the old Yogi. After all, Hughes never managed to convert to a ball-playing centre-half.

We should take a chance on Goodwillie. I also believe we should get in Riordan and O'Connor. Maybe look at a backroom staff of Craig Bellamy and Gazza to finish off the chaos.

Lee Miller's only 30?!?! Seems like he's been around forever. How about that Dundee Utd youngster, Bryan Gold or something. I think Lisburn are hoping to sign him for £2-3. He's much better than that. Edit: ok, now I feel stupid. It's more like £2-3k. We can't match that.

You don't need to agree. That's why the question mark. As I said, I thought he dramatically under-estimated the SPL - probably too much comparison with the Irish League. He still did get to a cup final and did far better than some other ol'manager - possibly even to top six. His pedigree suggests that he does have the ability. I suspect he would be able to take the Hibs experience on board with a different team and do better.

That's not what Hughes said.

More like complete and utter madness. It means not even replacing the departed. A weaker squad. Nevertheless, we're told that the latter half slump was inevitable, so, no doubt the first half of the season will at least equal last season as managers don't appear to have any influence over how well a team can do.