Goozay

I don't think anyone was talking about "ditching" Patterson. I was just saying that as he and Ralston are not getting any game time, it's worth considering our Under-21 right back who is getting game time for a team that's second top of Austria's first tier. And now that Patterson is injured, do you still think discussing other options at right back is a "bit of a joke"?

Max Johnston is a "used" sub most weeks, so he's definitely getting more game time than Ralston and Paterson. I get that he's uncapped at senior level, but to say you have no idea why he should be near the squad is a bit daft, when right back is a significant problem area for us at the moment.

In this scenario the player would be around Scotland squads from Under-16s onwards and I think folk wouldn't have any issues with them playing for Scotland.

I suggest you contact them. https://www.associationoftartanarmyclubs.com/contacts-us/

It's possible that Conway, Doig, Johnston and anyone else that was eligible were told that a competitive Under 21 game should be their priority, rather than a senior friendly. Makes more sense than Clarke being hesitant to change - we've seen Clarke ring the changes in the past by selecting Gilmour, Paterson/Hickey, convincing Dykes and Adams to play for Scotland when the current crop weren't up to scratch. Also this. Is Conway close to displacing Shankland or Adams?

A massive thing that's been consistently missed by the VAR teams, both in Scotland and elsewhere, is that they are only meant to intervene when there has been a CLEAR and OBVIOUS ERROR by the officials on the pitch. This is yet another example of VAR getting involved when there hasn't been a clear and obvious error during the match.

On the most recent episode of The Hampden Roar podcast, it was suggested that having a designated singing section at Hampden would help, as the atmosphere goes quiet if the team is underperforming. Thoughts?

Except she admitted she would.

Strong disagree I'm an atheist, but if there was a referendum for the outlawing of organised religion, I'd vote against. Just because I don't practice, my beliefs shouldn't impact on those who do, otherwise I'd be imposing my beliefs on others. And a vote by an MSP in Parliament carries a lot more weight than one person in a referendum TL/DR: an MSP should never let their faith compromise their ability to represent their constituents.

Deary me, Forbes isn't going to shag you pal. Forbes' religious beliefs include being against gay marriage. When asked specifically does that mean she would vote against gay marriage if it was proposed in Parliament she said "Aye, I would, because of my religious beliefs..." She hasn't changed her position on that, just apologised for the hurt caused and made some comments about equality and democracy that she'd undemined already because she's a politican that's openly against gay marriage! Now onto my original point, can any of yous Forbes fanboys give me an example of Humza getting his faith and his politics mixed up? An actual Islamic-influenced policy decision, not just an example of him practising his religion.

Sheesh. You've gone from "Forbes would never have said that/That's a lie/Got to be a type-o/She actually said the opposite" To "at least she told the truth" in an embarrassingly short amount of time. I'll leave you to your "Joanna Cherry - hooray/Humza_Sturgeon - boo" pantomime cheerleading.

Buy yersel a dictionary 👍

Aye, and if Forbes had the opportunity in that free vote she confirmed she would vote against. Not abstain, not find something else to do that day, she said she would vote against. That's why there was a media shitstorm at the time.

That was Forbes' apology. What she was apologising for was saying that if she had the opportunity to vote against gay marriage in Parliament she would take that opportunity, because of her faith. That's why she lost the support of a lot her MSP colleagues.

When she spoke about gay marriage during the leadership election