Brotherluvsduvs

@tagsbo @GoFootballShow The GOebellends

@GoFootballShow The GOebells Radio football show.

🗣"It's clear as day, fair play to the SFA for explaining that" Charlie Mulgrew and Mark Guidi react to the Scottish FA releasing the referee audio from the end of Celtic vs Hearts on Saturday. In association with Scottish Gas

@wottamentions @jonnyrmcfarlane @ScottishFA

@jonnyrmcfarlane Also why have the @ScottishFA not came out and condemned Celtic and their fans for the pitch invasion. Not one word? They are quick when it is any other team. That reads like a Celtic FC PR statement.

A must watch this. Full audio from the end of Hearts vs Celtic. scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-…

@ClydeSSB Separate entity?

🎥 WATCH: “That’s a fairly severe allegation… and that’s not been proved”. 🍀 Martin O’Neill responds to Tony Bloom’s claims that ‘one or two’ Hearts players were ‘assaulted’ by Celtic fans during Saturday’s pitch invasion ⬇️

@DorkSirjur Great upload. When Ali Cooke passed, Pete Tong played The Beloved - Celbrate Your Life (C’est La Vie mix) on his Radio 1 show in his memory. Emotional! RIP

Coming in with a fantastic DJ who sadly passed in 1993. 34 years ago he dropped this mix: This is Ali Cooke (RIP) @ Back To Basics, Leeds, September 1992 There are several recordings of Ali at Back To Basics. As a co-founder, he also rinsed out there a lot. This is the rarer one with an incredible intro. He sadly passed a year later in a car crash. Tracklist in comments. Reminder that all mixes uploaded here today go on my Kofi for download tonight. 👇🔥👇

@laughingatSNP @ScottishFA @spfl Celtic were soundly beaten by Sion over 2 legs and they still progressed to an ineligible player taking the field. Rules are rules and prethas been set by Celtic happy to benefit from a technicality.

Vice versa Celtic would want the default 3-0 victory 100%! Celtic had a ref sacked not long ago for lying to neil Lennon, if the full time whistle wasn’t blown then Don Robertson has lied, as have the @ScottishFA @spfl so surely sackings and resignations?

@JuliaHB1 @JohnHann04 This is the day I have finally lost all faith in this countries judicial system. We’re on our own.

Are the jury blind?

@Empire1872 I cannot wait to see the back of him. He’s always got a calamity in him and his distribution has been a major factor in our poor form.

He’s done. Absolutely done

@JamesCleverly @jfoster2019 And?

One of the first decisions made by Essex Reform was to remove the Ukrainian flag from County Council HQ. Let that sink in. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

@chris_sutton73 “Brother Beaton” you should be ashamed

This is truly awful…

@ScottishFA Maybe if they had dealt with Suttons “brother Beaton” comments then we wouldn’t be in this position.

Scottish FA statement.

@MatthewStadlen This just absolutely confirms that it was never a penalty.

The only problem with Gary Lineker tweeting that the Celtic penalty for handball “might be the worst VAR decision I’ve seen” is that it was a handball.

@PolitlcsUK Could we please get a pm who is less Specky?

🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is now odds on to become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

@derekclarksport I want Danny gone as much as the next person, but this is poor from the captain.

Whatever your opinion is of Tav, this is a dreadful look for the club.

@chris_sutton73 Sutton is part of the problem as he effectively neutered Beaton with his “Brother Beaton” comments. Paid shill that has no credibility.

Much ado about nothing… the desperate have to get enraged about something…

@RyanAitch1 Little Britain back on TV?

Looks like the line up from the series Benefits Britain #uk #scotland @scottishgreens

@JohnSlinger Did he care about the people he jailed after Southport? Their families?

One thing I’ve not heard much of in the debate about who should be Prime Minister of our country is the human being at the centre of this, & his family, & the effect of this on them all. The vitriol is off the scale. Show some humanity. People we disagree with are not enemies

@DownWithTheSNP I’m actually sick of this. Enough is enough.

Here she is turning up for her first day. **Read the captions, how can this be allowed?

@labourlewis @Little_G2 AI written slop.

Westminster may finally be about to have the argument it has spent 40 years avoiding. If Andy Burnham returns to Parliament, the political class will know how to cover it. A leadership drama. Who is up, who is down, whether Keir Starmer can survive, whether Labour is once again turning inward. The familiar machinery of Westminster psychodrama will whirr into life. That framing misses the larger point. Burnham’s possible return matters not because of what it says about Labour’s leadership, but because of what it reveals about the British state: what it can still do, what it has forgotten how to do, and what kind of country it must become if it is serious about resilience. Britain is finally having a more serious conversation about national security. The Strategic Defence Review, the pivot back towards Europe, the recognition that hybrid warfare turns citizens, infrastructure and civic institutions into part of the front line: all of it marks a real shift in how the state thinks about its own survival. But at the centre of that conversation lies a question that the defence establishment, and most of Westminster, still does not want to answer. What kind of society do you need to be before resilience is possible? Finland is now the model everyone cites. Comprehensive security. Whole-of-society defence. Civilian preparedness woven into military planning. British strategists admire the Finnish system and ask how it might be copied. But the admiration stops short of the uncomfortable question: why does it work there? The answer is not geography or history or some mysterious quality of Finnish national character. It is structural. Nearly 80% of Finns say they would defend their country if attacked. In Britain, the figure is closer to 33%. That gap is not an accident. It exists because Finland has spent decades building a society in which people have a genuine stake in what they are being asked to defend. Energy is affordable. Housing is available. Public services function. Institutions command trust. The Nordic welfare state is not a sentimental add-on to Finnish security policy. It is the foundation of it. You cannot ask people to defend a country that does not work for them. Britain has spent 40 years building the opposite. The privatisation of essentials – energy, water, transport, housing – transferred wealth upwards from households to shareholders while making the basics of everyday life more expensive. The state, stripped of the tools to control costs at source, has been reduced to compensating after the fact. Out of every pound the Government spends on housing, 88p goes to subsidising private rents. Just 12p goes to building homes. When energy prices spiked in 2022, the Government spent £40bn in a single winter cushioning the blow, not because it had a resilient energy system but because it lacked one. Debt interest now consumes more than £100bn a year. Britain has the highest debt servicing costs in the G7: the compounding price of financing failure rather than eliminating it at source. This is what bond market dependency actually looks like. It is not an abstract fiscal condition. It is the consequence of a state that has been stripped of the supply-side tools that would let it cure the problems it now pays, indefinitely, to manage. And here is the paradox the Treasury refuses to confront. The countries that borrow most cheaply are often those that have retained the public investment model Britain abandoned. The spread between UK and Dutch borrowing costs has widened sharply not because markets fear public investment, but because they have lost confidence in a model that borrows to subsidise private failure while never addressing its causes. This is the connection Britain’s defence debate is missing. The familiar framing, that social spending is what must be sacrificed to meet the NATO target, is not merely politically toxic. It is strategically illiterate. Cutting the foundations of social cohesion to fund the hardware of national defence is self-defeating. You end up with planes and no pilots, submarines and no crew, an army that cannot recruit because the society it is meant to protect has stopped believing in itself. I think Burnham understands this. That is why his programme is more interesting than the leadership gossip suggests. What he has been building in Greater Manchester – public control of transport, expanded social housing, investment in the productive foundations of the city economy – is not a nostalgic rerun of postwar nationalisation. It is a proof of concept for a different kind of state. The Bee Network is the most visible example, but the argument behind it travels. A state that can shape markets is not condemned to subsidise their failures. A state that produces affordable energy through public generation does not need to spend tens of billions cushioning every price shock. A state with a serious public housebuilding programme does not need housing benefit to rise endlessly in line with private rents. A state that builds institutions people can see, use and trust begins to restore the civic confidence on which resilience depends. The real constraint on Britain is not money. It is capacity: the workers, institutions, supply chains and public purpose needed to turn national will into national renewal. Britain’s tragedy is not that it has run out of money. It is that after 40 years of hollowing out the state, it has made itself less able to act. Burnham’s critics will reach for the familiar warning. Borrow more, spend more, spook the gilt markets, repeat the Truss disaster. But this misunderstands both the problem and the opportunity. Bond markets do not have ideological preferences. They have functional ones. They prefer clarity, credible revenue streams, productive investment, and a state with a plan. What they punish is not public ambition but incoherence. A properly designed productive state programme would not be a leap into fiscal fantasy. It would be an attempt to end the much costlier fantasy that Britain can keep borrowing to compensate for broken markets while refusing to repair them. The defence conversation and the economic conversation need to become the same conversation. Finland did not build national resilience by choosing between welfare and security. It built resilience by understanding that they are inseparable: that a country in which the basics work, where people trust one another and the institutions around them, is one that can face danger with something more than anxiety. That is the deeper argument Burnham represents. Westminster will be tempted to treat him as a leadership story. It should resist the temptation. The question is not whether Burnham can return to parliament. It is whether Britain can return to the idea that the state should make life work. Because a country that cannot command the confidence of its people cannot truly defend itself.

@AvonandsomerRob Lurpak

What is the most over-priced item you've ever bought?

@ShabanaMahmood Eh, the public despise you.

A devastating night in Birmingham and across the country. Good public servants, colleagues and friends have lost their seats. This was a verdict on us not them. The PM has rightly said we must do better. It is a privilege to serve the British people and we must live up to it.