Meister Jag

Another question - full of them tonight: If the Queen stays as sovereign (she will) does this mean that we will get a Governor General (the guy who could recommend that parliament be dissolved if it's corrupt or whatever. Thinking Australia where this did happen - Gough Whitlam government in 1975)? I believe the term is to prorogue - which sounds like something that half the Tory cabinet had to endure as a right of, erm, passage at Eton.

Scotty, in the event of a yes vote, would Scotland gaining independence be sorted in the next 18-months? Yesterday's papers were full of all sorts of stories about how independence could be blocked in the event of a close vote; to include the passage of enabling legislation through parliament. One paper (pro-independence Herald) event mentioned 3-years to sort things out. Maybe the papers just stirring things but I'd imagine there would be a bun fight before the ties were finally cut. (At risk of contradicting my earlier post above, if the markets become jittery, things might progress quicker. Money must be made and markets steadied and all that...) Anyone else got a take on this?

A couple of quick questions: Is this a pension pot that is being managed by a Scottish firm (so monies are being invested in global markets - pretty unusual as many pension investments are spread all over the place; but I'm sure you could stipulate what and where you want to invest your money)? And if not and your invest is being managed by a UK fund manager, does this mean that there will be many others in a similar position? (Thinking other non-Scottish UK investors who may be nearing retirement or simply wishing to check what their pot might be worth.) TBH, haven't seen reports of this type of scenario in the papers. I'm a no vote, but some of the tit-for-tat scaremongering from both sides is mind-numbing. Could it just be that your FA is just using the referendum as a convenient excuse for poor performance - the old investment may go up as well as down routine.

Respect bro. I talk a lot of sh*** at the best of times

I'm with kni on this one... I don't think any government wants to deal with trade unions with "balls" and has been covered in many numerous posts, the yes plan revolves around the creation of a low-wage and low taxation economy. One that might appear attractive to investors. The last thing any investor would want to enter into is a hostile TU dominated economy where profits are threatened by high wage demands. Please don't take us for idiots.

No offence mate; but maybe take a rest. I'm sorry that things haven't been great but i@n's post wasn't exactly packed full of venom. There was really no need to have a go at him in this fashion. The referendum is what it is: life will go on, the bulk of us will keep moaning and posting p*sh; be it serious or in jest. Like most of us, I like my forum to be petty and ill-informed; ideally with a dash of humour to brighten my day. But some of this is becoming very dark and disturbing. People of opposing views should be allowed to state their case and for debate to follow on. After all, this is a discussion forum for all things PTFC and this part of the board lets us discuss matters non-football: music, books, general stuff and even politics. Apologies if that's stating the obvious! As you'll be aware, in time, something else will no doubt take our fancy... something that we think we can solve, and this will set us all off in another direction - posting as we go. This has been the way of it for as long as I can remember. But there's seriously no need to start falling out when someone questions a post you've made that may be difficult to follow.

Are you Siege Siege 00 in disguise?

Agree fully with the above but still have to ask: what's in this for the average guy in the street? I know there are promises of no more food banks, safeguarding the NHS in Scotland (but isn't that being done already?) and inward investment to create new jobs etc. But what jobs, paying what kind of wages and where are the promises to look at the minimum wage / modern apprentice rates (£2.65 per hour!) etc. Or is the expectation that all of this will be taken care of as consequence of independence? If so, how and when? (Or do I hear the cry of 'it will take time, we're sorting out the mess of successive governments...'.) It seems to me that low taxation won't provide the necessary revenue to keep the economy going and the corporation tax plans simply confirm this point (3% as opposed to the current UK 20 / 21% with firms not paying until in profit between, I think, £300k - £1.5m; so if you get a good accountant you need never pay tax again!). With this in mind, how will we be able to continue to pay our welfare bill and maintain or increase public services? So do the services lost as a result of austerity measures stay that way? And with a low wage economy, do we top up by means of tax credits; if so, how will this be funded with reduced tax revenue? I would honestly love to believe in what's being offered by the yes campaign, but can't see the figures to back up the promises. That said, the optimism of the yes campaign astounds me and wouldn't it be nice to be rid of Westminster; so therein lies the conundrum for people like me. But surely not independence at any price, and certainly without fully understanding the facts. Mention has also made of the Norwegian Oil Fund and shouldn't we have similar; but then you get to hear that the oil fund is no more than a mathematical artifice i.e. how much is it actually worth when offset against national debt? When similar questions are asked of Scotland, where do we actually stand; indeed is an oil fund a possibility and will all this money actually come our way? From stuff from the yes campaign that came through my door, the Norwegian fund appears to provide plenty for a country that has around 5 million people; thus the obvious and easy comparison to Scotland. So far so good and yes, seems like a great idea... But dig a little bit and you find that the fund is worth $740m (this will no doubt fluctuate according to markets but let's us these figures from Jan 2014). However, the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion. Quite a sum IMO. So simply subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a fund but it is emptying. So is the leftover amount enough for future generations and is there a comparison that can be made with Scotland? (As we don't have a fund, I suspect not. Plus how quickly could we amass funds?) Also, it's noticeable that Norwegian oil investments are mainly in the unstable economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China; so returns are not guaranteed. Will there be a safe market for a Scottish Oil Fund to be invested; or will we just give it to the Co-op Bank? When playing with the future prosperity of a country politicians are playing for high stakes. In Scotland, as far as I can see, there is no mention of this level of forward planning from the yes campaign. But in fairness, when you look at who is behind the no campaign - the same lot who have zealously given us the 'there is no other way and we must cut, cut and cut deeper Austerity cuts', you start to wonder if anyone is giving you a straight answer. Thus my basic question: what is guaranteed for the man in the street?

Have reached quota of positive 'likes' for today. Thanks for post(s), agree with all comments. Great day, great performance; especially coming back from being one down and not losing faith, shape etc.

Referendoom aside, does the 3000 figure include kids? I know this has been debated before but can't recall if the official attendance figure is with or without the weans. Anyone?

Quite liked that flag, still do... maybe it was something to do with the colours. But good point well made.

Agree with the above. In fairness, no one was thrusting anything in anyone's face; so all you had to do was walk on by. It wasn't as if it was Britain First try to peddle their racist crap. Next we'll be complaining about the classical violinists outside the ground. Two spotted playing away on my way down to the S&G. Bad for our trendy west end image, I thought we all liked jazz!

Ian Mac's analysis aside, surely this is a great bit of business for the club. We all know we're cash strapped so anyone with experience who can come in and hopefully make a difference has to be welcomed with open arms. Poor guy hasn't kicked a ball and is already starting to make an appearance on a future "worst signing of all times thread". Lambie's Mark Hughes "big bustling centre forward who will demolish defenders etc" still leads my list. Watching him getting carted off after a hefty challenge whilst playing against Pollok still brings a smile. Anyway, let's get behind him and give him a f***ing chance!

Thanks for your response, nice to have a discussion without bandying insults about. I seriously don't think I'm underestimating the Tories and I think they have taken a strategic gamble by even offering devo-max; plus haven't they more-or-less said that the parliament will get additional powers even if there is the expected 'No' vote (sorry, couldn't resist!). But whatever happens, the machinery of government will need to grow; especially if Westminster power is devolved further. Salmond appears - to his credit - not to micro-manage but some of the ministerial portfolios seems bizarre and top heavy. Surely the cabinet must increase in size? If there is a Yes vote this will be an inevitable consequence of the referendum. I have to say that I admire your optimism and accept that I'm maybe just overly cautious in that I have no faith in the present administration / political system; to include what's on offer by all sides of the referendum debate. As I think I've said before, here was a golden opportunity to offer the people of Scotland something different by increasing the role of the State for the common good. Perhaps nationalising power companies, some elements of public transport etc. But no, what we're getting is a reduction in corporation tax which suggests that a low-wage economy (presumably based on full-employment) will become the main feature of the economy. However, and this is perhaps where the No campaign has a point (although they are offering nothing other than the status quo), who will pay for the wage top ups afforded by Tax Credits etc. Can Scotland afford to meet this expense and has this been costed? (I bet it has as has the size of our welfare bill - DLA / PIP etc. Indeed, would changes to benefit entitlement mirror England and Wales? How much money will be made available to councils for crisis loans through the Scottish Welfare Fund etc. Do we just get independence and then expect / hope that the money is available?) Or do we simply expect ordinary people to cope with the pain of squeezed services and low-wage jobs? I say squeezed services as we're talking chicken and egg: taxes pay for services etc. No taxes, ergo no services... From memory, the Scottish turn out during SP elections is low at around 50% which is admittedly low. Pretty sure this is higher than Wales but lower than N Ireland (my head is full of sh***!). But the higher than average turnout during European elections suggests that there will be a decent turnout. Add to that the reduction in voting ages (wonder why?) and there could be a decent level of engagement. No bad thing... even if all we're doing is handing over a mandate dictate for a few years (going off topic but once in power they can pretty much do as they please). The second chamber debate is interesting and probably necessary for all the reasons you cite. Taking it away from the Edinburgh power base would also be a good idea. Anyway, still voting No and trying hard to convince my kids who are both firmly in the optimistic Yes camp (as are most of their mates), why independence won't change much. Maybe they've been listening to my dour analysis for too long and can see a bright new future. However, it will come as no surprise when I say I can't (see above). Cheers...

Guy, thanks for your comments, a number of which I agree with. I've elected not to quote your post as it would fill too much space and might detract from the discussion; especially once I start waffling. My position is relatively straightforward in that what has been delivered has been possible with devolution. Whatever further devolved powers come our way should the referendum fail will simply see an extension of existing powers; and why not. To my mind, the Tories can't wait to foist Devo Max upon Scotland as it will allow them step back and allow the parliament to make tough even unpopular decision on matters such as taxation (to meet the needs of the nation, the only way may be up!). In turn, I think they feel this might see them making a reappearance as a force. (Remember that in the last Scottish election over 200k people still voted for them; so not entirely a spent force. The votes cast in the EU elections suggested that their support is growing; but this may be referendum-related.) So why else offer Devo Max and why the distance from the other two pro-union parties? Also, to my mind a 'Yes' vote would see or require a massive increase in the size of Holyrood and consideration would (IMO) need to be given to some form of bicameral system. But who do we appoint on what basis? Surely not the hereditary types of the H of L; although royal patronage will remain and presumably the parliament will would still be able to recommend gongs etc. I suppose this would then give patronage jobs to business leaders, politicians (quota basis?), chosen academics, the odd token TU bod or even church leaders. Whatever is decided, the apparatus of government then starts to grow, more civil servants, new chamber premises etc. (Pretty sure I read somewhere that we have a high level of representation per head of pop next to the rest of the UK.) Parliaments come at a greater cost; especially if a second chamber were to be created. But I return to my point, which is that I don't think a 'Yes' vote will empower the people of Scotland in the way that many believe. Big business will still own / run the country and government will be wary of shaking them too hard. For example, where a company has been arrived and been afforded start-up money to create jobs, if they don't like how they're being treated they will simply up sticks and move elsewhere (Motorola didn't stick about too long out at Bathgate and as for the Chungwa TV tube mob...). Some will argue that this is the beauty of the free market. Chase the profit to where the most money can be made for the lowest possible output. To my mind, the people of Scotland then become pawns in a low-wage economy; or am I being too bleak? Apologies if it appears I'm being cynical, but my distrust of those who wish to exploit people for profit remains. I have no doubt that the current Scottish government is well-intentioned and I can see the argument that local control means tighter control and influence; yet I'm not convinced.

I thought that a guiding principle of 'oor ain wee parliament' was that there would be a move away from adversarial Westminster-style debates. No bear pit politics so to speak. The Gordon Brown comment, if true, is equally outrageous... and possibly an example of the debate being lost in some quarters. Yes, in a democracy and at a public meeting, you should be able to ask relevant questions. (Wasn't there so don't know what happened.)

So who's still out of work: McCall, Calderwood, Coyle, etc. Expect the usual names to appear in all County-related stories. P.S. Does Adams's father-in-law not own the club; or have I been misinformed? Did he sack him? Sunday lunch discussion might be a bit tetchy...

Shades of Farage being hounded? Not great for democracy but showing that some people are, er, passionate (?) about what they believe in?

Hi Jaggy, haven't been posting much but still a frequent forum visitor (past few days excluded due to access problems). Still in regular contact with a few mates / comrades (remember we number many!) on the forum and leaving the political analysis in your capable hands. In truth, I can see both sides of the referendum debate but - and I've made this point many times over the years, have to question what will be delivered to the average punter in the street. Keep the pound, Bank of England controls the economy, The Queen stays as sovereign (you'll like that) so royal patronage will continue and the parliament will swear allegiance etc. The Queen will have the power to dissolve parliament upon the recommendation of who... a High Commissioner as in the case of Australia some years back? So would we ever be truly independent? Low corporation tax suggests a low wage economy with big business in control; this is hardly in line with the 'high wage, high skill' recommendations of the Jimmy Reid Foundation (which I like; but why hasn't any government tried to take us down this road in the past?). I also don't buy the argument that this a stepping stone to Scotland becoming a socialist republican utopia. Look at who will be in charge and making money out of Scotland - the same multinationals making dosh in many other parts of the globe. Recent bumf through my door suggests that a Scottish Government would reign in Atos (so presumably finding no one fit for work... do we become a benefit tourist destination if free border, EU membership etc?), but it's a government department (DWP) who tells Atos what the test is. Presumably this role would be taken on by the Scottish Parliament (department yet to be created) and a budget would have to be created. Would this help benefit-dependency? - it had better be a damn big budget as the West of Scotland's social welfare spend is not matched anywhere else in Western Europe. But if people want to go with this promise then I guess politicians can be held accountable. Not that they'll care as they'll have achieved their project aims i.e. independence of sorts. Cynical about the whole process and just broken a promise that I wouldn't get involved in this debate. I know that many will disagree with what I say and will suggest that if we don't try we'll never move forward. See you about. Hard hat now on waiting for the bombs to fall...

Jaggy, some additional ammo' for your back pocket. Mind and keep it dry and use it sparingly: http://www.communist-party.org.uk/britain/cp-in-your-area/scotland/1876-statement-on-scottish-independence-4-march-2014.html Found this quite enlightening TBH.

Was that you who was shouting that sweary word every 5-mins? Sound analysis IMO

Glad to have secured the win but some scary moments. A more street-wise team could have taken us last night. Morton had chances, some gifted by our defence. But doom and gloom aside, good to get a win and to have avoided an upset.

Apologies, JR, don't know how I missed your post; but I did... Think you missed the bit about them being: "part of the global anti-capitalist movement, which consists of anarchists, Trotskyists, feminists and autonomists." Don't know if they rock or not. Think they're actually pretty sh** myself; but at least they did time for Putin! Cheers mate.

Anyone going to the above? Lars Frederiksen (Rancid mainstay) and the Old Firm Casuals playing what is described as American Oi. Listened to some stuff on Spotify and not too bad. I know the name is, well, unfortunate and given that I'm pretty sure that Lars has a St Mirren connection as usually gives them a shout out at Rancid gigs and has played wearing a ST M top (not that I'll hold that against him), he maybe should have picked a better name.

Watched it a few times and still looks a bit soft. But yes, there was a sweeping movement from Fox with his gloved hand and he did appear to make contact; but not in an overly aggressive manner (IMO). But in fairness, I didn't think McGowan made that much of it. From what I can recall, he didn't dive to the floor clutching his face; nor did he make to have a go at Fox. Late in the day and lesson hopefully learned, but worth an appeal?