revolution saint

Regardless of which way the vote goes I can see there being a backlash afterwards from rUK. I'd imagine for the majority of non-Scots the union has always been a bit of an irrelevance. Certainly I've never really felt much distinction between saying I'm English or I'm British but I think that will change as a result of the benefits the scots have been promised and the sight of desperate politicians prostrating themselves in front of the Scottish public. Up till now I don't think there's been much questioning of the free HE tuition they receive or free prescriptions etc but hopefully rUK will start to question why we're not entitled to similar (and rightly so). I seriously doubt that a Yes vote will be delivered but I reckon there will be a hell of a lot of political capital to be made if politicians engage in some Scots bashing after the vote (whatever the outcome), and proclaiming / championing "Englishness" will probably be seen as less xenophobic and toxic than it currently is.

They'll probably get some sort of favour returned at some point, or maybe Dave is just calling his favours in. Either that or a knighthood. Normally the way things work.

Thanks for the info - I managed to download the paper and very good it is too. I've only had a quick read through and will give it another read later but it is interesting. Even better is one of the companies practising MBTI and mentioned in the paper is actually delivering the test to our department. I wonder if the practitioners we meet will be aware of it's roots? This could be quite good fun..... Oh and hope you get something accepted soon.

Thank you Bath Saint - I knew there was a reason I don't like these things.

Oh and for the record I was ISTP which I suppose makes me Chewbacca or Harry Potter type. I wonder if it's only us logic type people fiercely driven to see if we can break the test?

Thanks for responses so far. I agree that they're not entirely without merit and can be quite accurate (to an extent at least). I've still got an underlying dislike of them but that's probably because they shouldn't really be telling you anything you don't already know - I'd expect managers to also have some awareness of how to manage different personality types as well. It also smacks a little of managing and dealing with people by rote - so the book says if I'm dealing with personality type X then my response to them should be this etc. Obviously this type of information can be helpful and improve people but I think sometimes people can look at it a bit prescriptively and resulting attitudes can come across as a bit false. I'll bear in mind the potential downside but I'm still going to have a bit of fun with it. I'll probably still do the completely random responses just to see what happens.

I'll be taking a psychometric test at work in the near future, although it's not linked to career progression or the job exactly. I suppose it could be linked with development but personally I think it's probably just an exercise in spending money on something that someone finds vaguely interesting. For background I work in a fairly large organisation and in a department particularly dominated by management types with soft skills - there's a lot of meetings, BS, blue sky thinking, run-it-up-a-flagpole-and-see-if-it-flies f*ckaboutery. Anyway, I've done a couple before (I think they were Briggs-Myers or variations on that) so I'm comfortable enough doing them and it doesn't really bother me. However, I know pretty much what the results will be and I thought for a laugh I'd try and fake the test. I'm not looking to create a completely different personality result, or one that I desire, but rather to create something completely undefinable which veers all over the place. I was thinking of not even reading the questions and multiple choice answers and instead just randomly picking my responses so I wouldn't be aware of what I was answering either consciously or sub-consciously. Anyone got any better ideas though? The whole department will be doing this so it's not just me and frankly I don't expect any kind of action to arise from the exercise. Hence my cavalier attitude towards it. Anyway, would be interested in other peoples thoughts on these types of tests and any anecdotal tales of people faking them as well. Funnily enough (and boringly enough) when I did the tests previously in another organisation I came back with an almost perfect profile for the work I do - suppose that's good but it was also a bit dull.

There are ways to make an excuse round selling Morgan, and even if there weren't annoying the fanbase for a moment would probably only be a short term problem. Besides which, if this forum is representative of the fanbase, then some leaked rumours painting Morgan in a bad light would soon change opinion. Fans are pretty fickle and very willing to believe anything that is negative towards the club. As for annoying Koeman - I'm sure they'd live with that, or promise him the funds in the next window. As an aside I love how people think they "know" players or managers just from what they see or hear in interviews. Anyway, not really having a pop at you S-Clarke - just the trend for people to see something an interview that they want to see. As an example I'm sure someone commented yesterday that when talking about the Italian winger we're linked with Koeman had a "twinkle in his eye". Talk about clutching at straws but that's not too far away from assuming that Koeman is direct and staunch based on a few bland interviews.

Appreciate it's well meaning but really not sure how many times I have to say I don't want to give up - I like smoking. I'm just looking for a cleaner, cheaper alternative.

Hmmm, although it's always been the same - Churchill was a Liberal. In the main politicians have always been in it to further themselves although there are a few who see it as a vocation. I think a lot of Tories probably do actually believe in at least a UKIP stance and maybe even their policies so possibly it's a disservice to Carswell. No doubt an increase in electoral chances helps make up their minds though.

Oh and as an aside NRT doesn't really work whereas E-cigs have a much, much higher success rate. This is a really good article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9197731/vape-alarm/ (read the comments as well). Looks as if Big Pharma and Big Tobacco are getting a bit worried about the success of e-cigs and consequently their loss of revenue. Will do, Saint Billy. I should be getting the starter kit either today or tomorrow.

Thanks for the reply - I'm not too keen on the non-cigarette type inhalers although realise why people use them. I've ordered a starter pack from Green Smoke so will give that a go but more than likely will end up with your suggestion if it doesn't work out. Thanks for the advice though and some useful info there. Thing is I don't want to quit - all I want is a "cleaner" and hopefully cheaper alternative. E-cigarettes are also a bit more socially acceptable so thought I'd give them a try but at the moment I've no interest at all in lowering my nicotine intake.

Thanks for the comments so far. I'm not really interested in whether they're being banned / potential health risks etc though - more interested in which ones to go for, prices, experiences of using them and that sort of thing.

I'm thinking of making the switch to e-cigarettes and wondered if anyone has any recommendations or experience of using them. I'm not really interested because I want to give up smoking but because they're supposed to be cheaper, don't have the smell and it's better health wise. So, what are some good deals around? Did a quick google last night and sky cig (now blu?) and green smoke seem to be quite popular? Anyway, any info would be useful. Thanks

Lens is still available as far as I know. Based on the limited amount I've seen I'd prefer him over any of the other suggestions for the winger we're trying to bring in. Probably wishful thinking though.

This is just typical of you. Way back on page 89 you stated exactly the opposite and liked boring prats arguing with each other - don't deny it because you did. Of course I have you on ignore but people insist on quoting you (people please stop doing this) and it annoys me. Anyway, you also said you thought Koeman was out of his depth. You should be hung for that. Even if you didn't say it you probably thought it. I hate you. Oh and Andros Townsend is not just everything wrong with British football but society in general, except he offers us something different and isn't really that bad. Well, some of the time he's total garbage but not all of the time. Whilst I'm at it Pelle is also completely turd like. Even looks like a turd. I hate him as well. To$$er. Mind you a nickname relating to turds would be better for Tadic so in actual fact Tadic is a Turd - he's Turdic. Pelle can be Pukke instead. Whatever, they are both rubbish, or really, really good. I'm not sure. It depends what Alpine says or whether their FM stats are any good. Anyway, I've had it with all of you lot and especially you Ken Bone (Head). You're all happy clappy, bedwetting, judas-like, myopic, disingenuous silly billies who don't know nuffink bout football. Innit.

Ok, in no particular order Turn on the bright lights - interpol Snap - jam Sea change - beck Victim of geography - billy bragg Seldom seen kid - elbow

Ah well that's a different topic entirely and to be fair I chucked that comment in at the end as a joke. With my username it's hardly surprising which side of that debate I'd fall into. However to answer your question it's not really about money for me and never has been. I notice most republicans always bring up money as a counter argument to something that is inherently undemocratic. So, personally I don't really see the need to replace them with anything. I don't think we need them or a replacement for them. If one was proposed then I'd judge it on it's merits but if it was democratic and accountable then that's far better than the current situation. I find the idea of a heriditary head of state to be frankly ridiculous but that's just my opinion - been round the block on this debate and realise opinions are unlikely to be changed. Thanks for asking though and apologies for going off topic.

Hmmm, maybe I'm missing the point but does Salmon want a shared currency, or just a separate currency called the pound? I honestly don't really care what they would call it but surely from their point of view a shared currency would mean they really wouldn't be independant? They certainly wouldn't have control over interest rates anyway and practically I can't see it working. I'd also take issue with him when he says it's as much Scotlands currency as it is Englands - I thought it was the United Kingdom currency which is the very thing they want to leave. At any rate I fully expect a vote to stay in the Union because apart from a patriotic tug-at-the heartstrings / braveheart style appeal the SNP don't seem to have many convincing arguments. Hopefully it'll be the end of Salmon and devolution talk for at least a while as well. If they do split I hope they take the monarchy with them though - they can have that part of the union free of charge......

Bit difficult to say who is better, or worse than the players we've lost until you see them play competively for us.

Good post and agree with all of this. Some people seem to be hailing Pelle and Tadic as being successes before they've even played competitively for us and too early for that. What we're doing is selling proven premiership players and replacing them with unproven ones. No matter how you look at it, it's a gamble and not all of them will work out. In fact I'd be surprised if half of them did. Add to this an unproven manager outside of Holland, learning the league and it doesn't look good at all. We won't even have the stability that the promoted clubs will have (and that played a large part in our success last season). Oh well.

To be fair you seem to be saying the players were gullible enough to believe that, and yet ordinary fans should be more savvy. I imagine the reality is that the players probably never really thought CL football at Saints was possible - and they are all leaving because they have better options. Unfortunate timing though. Ultimately players will make the best decision for them - there doesn't need to be a scapegoat whether that's NC, KL or LR. The only thing you can say is that some players under contract you can hold on to - you don't have to sell every single player you get a bid for. Chambers is a particular case in point - there is absolutely no reason to sell him.

To be fair, Samuel isn't a journalist now - he's a columnist paid to give an opinion. A rent-a-gob if you like. Of course that's not exclusive to him - it's true for any columnist and part of their remit is to spark debate or controversy; if he were the "voice of reason" he'd probably produce quite dull articles. The thing about columnists is they have nothing to recommend them except an opinion and who wants that? You can get that here, or anywhere, if you really want to know an opinion other than yours. I'm not really bothered about his opinion and it's only valid if you want to pay attention to it. Bit like pundits doing a post match analysis - if you've seen the game then you know everything about it. There are some good ones out there but generally they're a bit pointless. Anyway, this is my opinion - I'd probably ignore it though.

To be honest grammar is a humble refuge for an argument against the content. I'm sure the lounge will provide many opportunities to vent your spleen against journalism though.

I thought Wickham did quite well when he came on against us at SMS last season - as long as the price is right then not a bad signing and probably as much chance of being a success as Pelle. Mind you I'd still like to see Ings sign as well.