Rayvin

Alternatively, nuking the place would be a crime against humanity, destabilising for international politics throughout the world, and reasonaly likely to kick off WW3... Although I agree on the ideology bit - we're not going to win this with bombing. We're not going to win this full stop.

Suggests he's taking this seriously at least.

Watch him win it comfortably...

I thought Ashley had negotiated a single year's pay off as part of this insane 8 year contract, thus minimising the damage? Otherwise it really was fucking mental.

The difference mind, is that Ken is in no position to carry out his threats (mercifully). ISIS actually are running riot...

Well that seems like a reasonable way of looking at things. I was reflecting on this while driving this evening, and I think one of the very positive consequences of this vote, regardless of which way it goes, is that it could allow us to revisit regional assemblies; and that we may even vote for them this time. It has highlighted a disconnect between Westminster and Scotland (and I would argue a good number of other places).

Still don't think we should diminish the efforts here as a waste of time... if it was just another protest of the ilk we see regularly then I'd agree, but on paper at least, that's not what this looks like. I think 30k placards calling for Pardew's head will be noticed - likely taken up by national media as well. It is going to intensify scrutiny on Ashley and Pardew, not just from the fans, but from everyone. And if it doesn't, presumably the plan is to continue making life difficult for them until they acquiesce. Ashley is actually in a difficult position now IMO. He's built this reputation around being 'strong' in the face of the fans, but even if he wants to get rid of Pardew, it's now going to look like a response to this protest, as long as they can keep it up. As if he's buckled under fan pressure for once. There's a potential victory in this.

Even if he doesn't, the team are going to see the writing is on the wall. He'll surely lose the dressing room if he hasn't already - and that should be that.

I just can't quite imagine what's going to happen after this - whichever way it goes, one half of the population of Scotland is going to be disappointed...

This would appear to be the most organised fan protest yet. Good job, might even be effective.

Strangely though, this referendum would appear to be one of the few cases where, while it may not make a huge difference to the way people live their lives, a yes vote would be as serious a blow as the establishment have received in some time. I dare say all of the usual influences will get their grubby hands on Scotland in short order, but an independent Scotland is clearly not something they desired.

Ah ok, sorry - I picked up on CT's point with my thinking more along the lines of what people in general do in voting, not specifically Scotland. My bad, it's the wrong thread for it really. I actually think Scottish people are more informed going into this than most would be in a referendum or election, despite all of the unknowns; people are making as informed a judgment as they can - and I don't want them to vote one way or the other, I can see the merits of both sides; stability and continuity for the no, and the chance to tell London to fuck off for the yes (although I haven't seen any convincing arguments for yes beyond this, much as it has my full sympathy).

I live in Newcastle so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean... EDIT - Unless you meant with respect of Scotland, in which case no.

Didn't say they didn't deserve a vote, just that people are stupid and tribal. I recall when the Obamacare program was being rolled out in the US, people who had serious medical conditions were being brought out to state why they would vote against it - these were people whose lives could have been improved immeasurably by access to cheaper healthcare, coming out against it because they were republican. What is the point in democracy if a) half the population don't vote, and b ) most people don't understand what they're voting for? Perhaps I should have phrased it differently - a lot of people are underinformed and therefore not capable of making decisions that are in their best interests. These people will tend to vote following whatever they read in the papers that reinforces their world view, and don't subject their choices to critical analysis. These people should not vote - they are not fully informed.

I was under the impression that the agreement between the SNP and Westminster was that this would take a referendum off the table for another 100 years. Obviously if enough momentum picks up then this may be revisited, but I think a lot of Scottish people are getting swept along in the nationalistic fervour and equally, off the back of the generally crap economic situation; hence the 20 point swing in the last one year. If it had been this close a year ago, it'd be a different story - but it wasn't. The closeness is coming off the back of all the hype and clever political posturing by Salmond; it's not like that will keep up after a No vote. This is the SNP's one moment, and if they fail here, they'll diminish. Without a strong nationalist party to rally around, the momentum will be lost.

I find myself to be fully in agreement with this statement. That said, we're better over here than the sorts of personality contests that accompany US politics.

Aye, chances are he's been told to get there as fast as possible and the employer has decided that they either pay the fine or get landed with employees who will only go at the speed limit (as if that's a bad thing) It'll have been approved for a reason.

You do seem to revel in it though I'm not sure people would think this so much if you didn't have that smiling doctor in your avatar mind, it just seems to make your posts all the more likely to infuriate - previously you had a beaming Pardew as well. You need a David Moyes avatar or something like that, something a bit more downbeat.

That all sounds like it's nailed on, when you put it like that. I didn't think he was that bad with Cardiff though? Or am I just misremembering?

I don't think he's actually been linked properly, but the Guardian has mentioned that Malky Mackay might be one of the few people who could see some benefit from taking this job after Pardew goes. Anyone have any thoughts on him? I'd consider him an improvement on Pardew to be honest, at least tactically.

They'd have to spend less in the long run though. Less panic buying in January, less players who fail to develop (therefore more resale revenues). These people, much as we hate them, aren't morons. They must be able to see this sort of logic.

I suppose Moyes is unrealistic? He's not going to win us anything and can be as negative as Pardew, but he's a lot better at getting results on a shoestring. Also less annoying.

At the minute, I'm not certain who I think we look capable of beating though, even with a new striker...

On the up side, this will likely be the end of Pardew. We won't win games without SDJ (seemingly according to Pardew himself, given how much stock he was placing on the guy coming back from injury), and Pardew will get the boot around October/November. That still doesn't resolve the fact that our team is chronically under manned though - looks like it's a relegation skirmish this year...

That's just so harsh...and brilliant.