1 edit
Since Scotland supports England financially with our taxes, our oil and our whisky, it is only fair that we shouldn't support them in the world cup.
The TV coverage is always outragous - at the last European championships, the commentators mention 1966 within 20 seconds of the kick-off of the 1st game. They mention it at every opportunity, as well as the standard Naraguna-esque stereotypes about Johnny Foreigner - Germans are industrious and well-organised, latin types are hot-headed but individually talented etc etc.
The theme tune for one channel's coverage is the dodgy national anthem - with the verse about crushing rebellious Scots.
That, and the fact that we get hourly updates on the Shrek lookalike's foot injury, Beckham's latest haircut etc etc, all mean that most Scots are quitely waiting for the English team to fail dismally, so that we can collectively pish ourselves laughing at them and their media.
There will be a few tense moments first - they're probably going to qualify from their ridiculously easy group (though a half dozen of the Trinidad and Tobago team play in the Scottish league, and one of them is called Scotland, in case we need another excuse to support them), but they will fail in the usual manner - maybe another Beckham rugby conversion.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeAs usual you are talking nonsense, born of your connection with the Scotch Socialist Party whose supporters clearly live in a world of self-generated fantasy.
Since Scotland supports England financially with our taxes, our oil and our whisky, it is only fair that we shouldn't support them in the world cup.
The TV coverage is always outragous - at the last European championships, the commentators mention 1966 within 20 seconds of the kick-off of the 1st game. They mention it at every opportunity, as well as the ort them), but they will fail in the usual manner - maybe another Beckham rugby conversion.
The official figures, quoted in The Scotsman 21at May 2005, for amounts spent by the UK government per capita in 2002-2003 were Scotland £7640; England £6270.
The total subsidy given by the English taxpayers to the Scotch in that year amounted to £7.7 billion and even if they had been credited with every penny of the tax on oil the Scotch would still have received £2.7 billion from England. Updated to 2006 these figures would probably be near to £10 billion and £4 billion respectively.
So come off it Mikey, with your Glaswegian bluster.
2 edits
Originally posted by NargagunaYou quoted this article before, I showed you how it was nonsense then. Perhaps you've forgotten?
As usual you are talking nonsense, born of your connection with the Scotch Socialist Party whose supporters clearly live in a world of self-generated fantasy.
The official figures, quoted in The Scotsman 21at May 2005, for amounts spent by the UK government per capita in 2002-2003 were Scotland £7640; England £6270.
The total subsidy given by the Eng ...[text shortened]... £10 billion and £4 billion respectively.
So come off it Mikey, with your Glaswegian bluster.
😴
Originally posted by RedmikeAre you saying that one of your most respected newspapers is printing nonsense? If so I suggest you take up your allegation with its editor.
You quoted this article before, I showed you how it was nonsense then. Perhaps you've forgotten?
😴
I still think it probable that you are one of the main beneficiaries yourself.
Originally posted by NargagunaThe Scotsman isn't to blame for publishing what was in the government report, but that report has been discredited.
Are you saying that one of your most respected newspapers is printing nonsense? If so I suggest you take up your allegation with its editor.
I still think it probable that you are one of the main beneficiaries yourself.
Originally posted by RedmikeThey were publishing figures which have not been challenged, even those Scotch MPs sitting in Westmintser under false pretences.
The Scotsman isn't to blame for publishing what was in the government report, but that report has been discredited.
On;y you, the lone voice of the SSP in the wilderness of Glasgow, refuse to accept them. But that's what becomes of following the red trail.
Originally posted by NargagunaNo, not only me. This report is generally accepted as having been discredited, as I showed when you last cited it.
They were publishing figures which have not been challenged, even those Scotch MPs sitting in Westmintser under false pretences.
On;y you, the lone voice of the SSP in the wilderness of Glasgow, refuse to accept them. But that's what becomes of following the red trail.
I know you forget things, but you can go back and look at the original thread, it is all there.
If you're going to insist on posting junk, please try and post new junk, not stuff which has already been dealt with.
Originally posted by RedmikeYou have 'shown' nothing except your own ignorance and inability to accept facts.
No, not only me. This report is generally accepted as having been discredited, as I showed when you last cited it.
I know you forget things, but you can go back and look at the original thread, it is all there.
If you're going to insist on posting junk, please try and post new junk, not stuff which has already been dealt with.
Also since you are able to respond immediately after I have posted a comment either you are living on 'benefits', as I suspect, or are not attending to the job for which you are being paid if you are actually in employment.
Originally posted by NargagunaLook, just go and read the earlier thread where you cited this report. I explained then why it was discredited. Just because it doesn't suit your view of the world doesn't mean it isn't correct.
You have 'shown' nothing except your own ignorance and inability to accept facts.
Also since you are able to respond immediately after I have posted a comment either you are living on 'benefits', as I suspect, or are not attending to the job for which you are being paid if you are actually in employment.
Originally posted by RedmikeSorry to interrupt but would you two mind if I went back to the subject of the thread?
Since Scotland supports England financially with our taxes, our oil and our whisky, it is only fair that we shouldn't support them in the world cup.
The TV coverage is always outragous - at the last European championships, the commentators mention 1966 within 20 seconds of the kick-off of the 1st game. They mention it at every opportunity, as well as the ...[text shortened]... ort them), but they will fail in the usual manner - maybe another Beckham rugby conversion.
Agreed about the TV coverage. I don't get much of it but had to laugh when over the course of two days I heard "We are not a one man team" and thn the following day "England world cup hopes in tatters" because Rooney was injured.
It is silly and the press do insist on creating heroes and they do get everybody into a wild, boring frenzy but I think you'll find that the majority of supporters are far more realistic. I don't think many people really think England will win the world cup. I think most people believe they will have done very well if they get to the semi-finals.
As I said at the start I do not think the home nations, by default, should support England but I, personally, find supporting a team's loss reflects rather negatively on the person doing the supporting. Having said that, I at least, understand how easy it might be to fall into that trap.
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyI think the problem is the coverage and the attitude.
Sorry to interrupt but would you two mind if I went back to the subject of the thread?
Agreed about the TV coverage. I don't get much of it but had to laugh when over the course of two days I heard "We are not a one man team" and thn the following day "England world cup hopes in tatters" because Rooney was injured.
It is silly and the press do insist . Having said that, I at least, understand how easy it might be to fall into that trap.
Because the coverage is so 'in your face', that makes it a delight when England lose - the commentators are just so gutted, and the excuses so ridiculous, that when it happens, usually in a urine-inducing manner, it is a joy to behold.
The English supporters have a different attitude to the Scots too. I watched England go out of the last Euro Championships in a hotel bar in Milton Keynes. When the game was over, every English person sulked and went off to bed while the Scots sat in the bar until late. When Scotland play - win, lose or draw, we drink for the rest of the night. We don't go out and trash cars made in whatever country has just beaten us.
Scotland aren't a good team, but we know it and we party anyway. England are a decent team, but seemed to be gutted everytime they lose to a better team.
Originally posted by RedmikeDo you suppose it would be different if Scotland were a good team (they used to be) and the Scottish press hyped them out of orbit?
I think the problem is the coverage and the attitude.
Because the coverage is so 'in your face', that makes it a delight when England lose - the commentators are just so gutted, and the excuses so ridiculous, that when it happens, usually in a urine-inducing manner, it is a joy to behold.
The English supporters have a different attitude to the Scots t ...[text shortened]... ay. England are a decent team, but seemed to be gutted everytime they lose to a better team.
We're not so different.