Leaderboard

Won't be a BBC if there is a Yes vote. Licence fees are decided at Westminster. Don't want to derail this topic onto politics, speaking from a footballing perspective only/ Your mistaken. Scotland if going Independent are looking to create a Scottish Broadcasting Service using the assets and staff that they quite rightly will have a share of currently working at the BBC Scotland. A partnership with SBS and the BBC would be likely which would enable Scottish viewers to watch programmes from the BBC.

Health is devolved, setting Scottish Government budgets is not - and that is the longer term issue. Did anyone see £9000 tuition fees coming in England pre May 2010? Any future changes not yet envisaged could drastically reduce Scottish Government funding in direct response to policy decisions taken for England for the same reason via negative Barnett Consequentials. In that regard the Scottish Parliament can only act as a drag on policy implemented at UK level, because the Scottish Government can not go on mitigating the policies of the UK government from a Block Grant that is being diminished by those very policies. Health provision will only be the full responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, if Holyrood controls both sides of the budget, not just the spending.

so dont !!! any more politics - from either perspective - on this thread will be deleted

I thought we were in that forum

Inverness Caledonian Thistle have teamed up with Ness Motors to bring you a great new competition. At half-time during selected home matches throughout the 2014/15 season we will be running "Shoot for the Boot". Three fans will be selected and given three attempts at shooting into the boot of the Ness Motors Car....if you score, you walk away with £100 Cash!!! Full Information at : http://ictfc.com/shoot-for-the-boot

Someone might have given the players the impression that the first to get it in the boot got the keys for the car...hence the celebration

FT 4-1 Accies it was Ferguson that got our goal.

ICT Mackay C Brown Tremarco Horner J Brown Baptie Wilson Polworth Ferguson Blackett Sutherland. ICT subs MacArthur Hull Rennie Maclennan Howarth Hoban 10' Goal Accies 1 0

Which player got ball in boot, deserves car for that, rest were miles off. Russel Latapy worst, good idea though.

Having suffered a pounding on the pound, Alex Salmond will now look to breathe new life into the Yes campaign by exploiting the public's support for the NHS. Oddquine is quite right that Alistair Darling has got some explaining to do on this one and the next televised debate may well see him having some awkward questions to answer. The NHS will surely become a hot topic in the next few weeks. But voting in the referendum should not be based on whether or not Darling has got himself into a bit of bother. As far as the NHS is concerned, the issue is about whether or not independence will make a radical difference to the quality of healthcare in Scotland. No doubt pledges that the NHS will be safe in an independent Scotland will be bandied about but it will be interesting to see whether there is a debate about the real issues rather than the usual shallow sloganising. There must be few things which attract so much ill informed comment as the NHS. We hear people saying we need Independence to keep privatisation out of the NHS. Nonsense! It's here already and it always has been. Do you go to a GP? Do you get NHS prescriptions dispensed at a pharmacy? Do you get NHS dental treatment or NHS eye tests at an optician? If so 99% of the staff who provide those services either are or are employed by private contractors. A variety of other services are contracted out to private contractors and that trend will continue in an independent Scotland. It is true that more services are privatised in England than in Scotland but that is largely due to the fact that the per capita spend on the NHS is higher here and the NHS in England is forced to explore private service provision because it is cheaper. Whether the NHS provides the service itself or whether a private sector contractor provides it, the NHS in England pays for it. Whether you like it or not, healthcare costs are going to rise massively and these rising costs are putting pressure on the service both North and South of the Border. More radical steps to address these pressures have been taken in England than in Scotland because of the more generous public funding in Scotland. But the extra funding and, indeed, any further funding which might come into Scottish public funding as a result of independence, will only delay the inevitable. The fact is the NHS is a victim of its own success and people live much longer only to go on and develop other more expensive conditions. In addition, treatments become more sophisticated and ever more expensive. Any debate on the NHS needs to address how it is going to tackle these massive cost pressures. It is very easy for people to say, as Oddquine concludes by saying "Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes", but what does that actually mean? If it means that the NHS needs to continue to be fully funded by the state then there are two choices for the electorate. Either we need to continue year on year to pour an ever increasing percentage of the public purse into the service (and therefore increase taxes and/or cut other public spending to pay for it) or we limit what the NHS provides so that it stays affordable. That latter option may sound draconian but actually we do it already. There are, for instance, a lot of alternative therapies not available on the NHS or you can get better hearing aids etc if you go privately. Indeed, just in terms of general care and advice or screening for early diagnosis, the NHS could do far more than it does now if it had more money. We therefore currently limit what the NHS provides and if individuals feel that is not enough for them, they have the option of getting private treatment if they can afford it. That is true in Scotland today as the existence of various private hospitals and clinics and the number of folk with private healthcare insurance demonstrates. In Scotland, we already have extensive private health care provision funded by the National Health Service and we already have people paying for a variety of treatments, equipment and health services where NHS services don't meet their needs. With the spiraling costs of healthcare associated with an aging population and the development of ever more expensive treatments we are now seeing a shift in England towards greater input from the private sector and greater private purchase of healthcare. That shift is also happening here but is not yet so developed. What we need to hear from the "Yes" campaign is how these challenges will be addressed in an independent Scotland. Cheap sloganising will simply not do. Having suffered a pounding on the pound? In your dreams, DD...we are creeping up in the polls (if you believe them), since that debate....and even Mark Carney said that "It's never a good idea to talk about contingency plans in public"..so if it is sauce for the Westminster goose, it is as much sauce for the Holyrood gander. (and anyway, plan B is the pound....you know it, and I know it..and Alistair Darling knows it.) Funnily enough, in the YES shop, we have had hardly any queries about the currency, and far far more about the effect of Westminster privatisation on the NHS, about fracking, about Trident, about defence, about disability benefits, about the EU etc. Voting on the referendum is not based on whether or not Darling has got himself into a bit of bother....don't be daft.....but it does illustrate what the MSM(and NO voters) refuse to acknowledge....that Westminster politicians will open their mouths and let their bellies rumble regardless of the facts of any matter. Whereas England takes a market-led approach, encouraging private sector involvement, Scotland does not. It has continued with an integrated system without competition or a split between providers and commissioners. For example, Scotland's local health boards are responsible for both commissioning and delivery of services for their local area. The Scottish health boards are strategic and operational bodies. They have commissioned primary care from community health partnerships and secondary care from hospitals, for which they are also responsible. Health boards and health and social care partnerships are the main provider organisations. (so says Wellards Academy, which trains pharma and meditech salesmen to the NHS in the UK.and they would know their customer base.) "Privatisation" and the rules underpinning it, re non-clinical dentistry, non-clinical opticians and pharmacies, and the PFI hospitals which cost us a heckuva lot of money in payments annually and will for years yet, but involve no clinical input, predate the current Scottish Government starting with Thatcher, and employs about 12000 employees out of 160,000 NHS staff. However, only the PFI hospitals are under fixed long term immovable contracts, the others are paid on a more piece work basis according to how much and what work they do for the NHS..... and they do not bid against other dentists, opticians and pharmacies for contracts. England is now privatising clinical interventions, The following links illustrate privatisation and the consequences as is happening in England now. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/26/nhs-privatisation-fears-deepen-deal http://http://www.nhsca.org.uk/docs/cliveprivate.pdf https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/allyson-pollock/end-to-bevan%E2%80%99s-dream-of-free-healthcare-for-all-britons http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/30/health-act-means-death-of-nhs http://www.badmed.net/bad-medicine-blog/2011/03/secret-nail-nhs-coffin.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/nhs-taken-over-wall-street-cameron-health-service-privatisation http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Thousands-Derbyshire-patients-lose-doctor/story-20840118-detail/story.html http://http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/seventeen-gp-surgeries-at-risk-of-closure-from-nightmare-cuts-9266965.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/21/nhs-control-given-away-tory-minister http://www.buzzfeed.com/anotherangryvoice/12-things-you-should-know-about-the-tories-and-the-wyf2 And the prospects of a NO vote for the Scottish NHS over and above the implications of the previous links http://www.holyrood.com/2013/09/burnham-sets-out-vision-for-whole-person-service/ A quote from one of the above links (the 4th one I think) The experience of the NHS with the private sector so far – whether through private finance initiative (PFI) hospitals, treatment centres or the corporate takeover of out of hours care – has been disastrous. The marketisation of the NHS has driven up costs and produced worse results. The track records of some private providers now entering the NHS, such as UnitedHealth Group, are not impressive. and Competitive tendering fragments healthcare. Patients with chronic diseases will be looked after by multiple providers. The Scottish system is not comparable with the current situation in England yet, however you try to spin it, DD, but it will get like that here with continuing cuts. Currently we in Scotland still have basically an internal and integrated market, while England is moving more and more towards an external competitive one..and an external competiitive market is privatisation. The Health and Social Care Bill 2012 effectively repealed the 1947 act which Bevin brought forward, guaranteeing universal medical care, free at the point of service, even down to removing any ministerial duty to provide health services, and giving the National Commissioning Board and Monitor powers to commercialise and marketise healthcare. What you appear not to be able to accept is that pocket money will only go so far. Currently, the Scottish government has ring-fenced the NHS budget and increased it in real terms, but as Barnett is reduced.....and possibly even scrapped completely, the ability of the Scottish Government to maintain the Scottish NHS at the level it is now, far less improve it, while also meeting all their other obligations, will be reduced..and that may well force privatisation on the same lines as in happening in England now. Can you explain to me why the Scottish NHS will be Better Together in the Union, when post 2015, we will have only the option of reducing the input to free education, free prescriptions etc or reducing the input to the NHS......or alternatively becoming the highest taxed "region" in the UK? Can you explain to me why we should pay more from our personal incomes when we already have enough income per head, with or without oil, to meet our needs, if we were allowed control of it ourselves and had the ability to decide our own priorities, rather than paying for the lifestyles of 1350 legislators and maintenance and replacement of WMDs, transport links for London etc, for example. http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-voting-no-threatens-scotlands-nhs/ Also from the already quoted link...Aneurin Bevan was once asked how long the NHS would survive. He replied: "As long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it." England is losing the fight, despite the large numbers of people with faith who are fighting, as Scotland in the Union eventually will in our turn, if we stay. Scotland, with Independence, will not, as the NHS will be protected in our Constitution. The threat to the Scottish Health Service within the Union is the way the English Health Service is going.....which is down to political policy. Interesting article here..... http://chpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/At-what-cost-paying-the-price-for-the-market-in-the-English-NHS-by-Calum-Paton.pdf <Edited to add another link. >

Started already, Marc Klok released. It was only a matter of time.......

Doofers Dad So you think my comment about Servitude versus freedom was ridiculous, eh? As I posted it I had visions of Mel Gibson crying out something similar in his movie Braveheart and he was spot-on in them thar days wasn't he? But you will find out soon enough as to what I meant. Vote "no" and you will enhance the sense of superiority and power that the likes of Cameron and his ilkalready have. "No" will send a clear signal that Scotland will ALWAYS henceforth be under his control and jackboot whilst he increases his use of the revenue about to flow into Scotland from oil after a YES vote is recorded. Meanwhile throwing crumbs to the Scots from his groaning table laden with sparklingnew loads of money coming over the border in a steady unrelenting stream, always headed south but rarely north. In short, by increasing his iron grip on the powers allocated to the nation's people to pursue their own decisions and dreams, he continues to impose complete control over their lives whilst milkingthem to death of their riches. For EVER. That's servitude in my book. For EVER. DD , you were born in England and naturally have English roots and a deeper sense of loyalty to all things English. My father was English,born and bred,and a fine man but I was born in Scotland and more closely identify with Scotland, it's past, it's future and the possible stifling of all things Scottish by it's continuing to allow the southern political parasites to control our future destiny. Scotland must now go-it-alone, grasp the nettle, forge ahead and NEVER look back. VOTE YES! IF Scotland votes "YES" that will send the very opposite signal--Freedom for the Scots to make their own decisions free of Westminster's stifling, condescending attitudes. Their own say in the cost of doing business and the size of the taxes to be levied. A smaller unit of government to be handled whichshould allow for an easier and quicker turn around in the decision-making process and the quicker implementation of the decisions arrived at , leading to a quicker recognition whether or not the changes just implemented are correct or otherwise. And so forth and so on. That sound an awful lot like more freedom to me.

Thanks for this... two great goals! And the new strip looks great on TV!

....precisely.....and we don't want that! DA is a BELLend! Wee adjustment to clarify....

Sorry for reviving this old thread - well I'm not actually, cos it still makes great reading I was surprised to see the other day that Steve Marsella is still at Hibs - but he has effectively been demoted, now reporting in to Graeme Mathie who Alan Stubbs has brought in to be responsible for scouting and recruitment. It appears that Stubbs was pretty appalled at the scouting set-up he inherited, saying that player recruitment will no longer be done "based on Wikipedia and one person's opinion." Ouch!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04dqfy7/scottish-premiership-201415-6-highlights-motherwell-v-inverness 60 minutes of highlights (in gealic) I wish the bbc would upload sportscene as fast as they do with motd

Fair comment. But interested to hear the "played with width" - "movement on and off the ball " - "pressing the ball when opposition have it " - and the only negative would appear to be getting support for wee Billy. I was concerned about not using the flanks - I was concerned about the midfielders moving more backwards and sideways and wee Billy being too static. I presume that has been worked on. On that note will The Christie role also be tinkered with ? That means that Yogi has noted the flaws and has tinkered with the system. Bodes well for the future. Let's face it - any result (even a back to the wall draw) against Cellic will be an accomplishment . I think Yogi's biggest strength is his willingness and ability to identify what's working and what's not....and to then take that to the training ground with a view to rectifying it. Part of the problem in trying to get Mckay on to the ball more (IMO) is that the opposition know what he's capable of and set up to neutralise him. That's frustrating for Mckay, but it does open up opportunity elsewhere. It's something the manager is working on changing, but I think time itself and the performances from others will play as much a part in that as anything. Other teams will come to realise that there's goal scoring threat throughout and that they perhaps can't afford to tie up a man marking Mckay. I don't buy into the home/away setup thing....never have. Why do half of the opposition managers job for him by having a pre-determined way of approaching the game based on location instead of ability and opposition? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

That's 418 minutes without conceding!! It'll be very difficult to keep Celtic quiet for a full 90 mins next week - but if we can....we'll be close to our all-time shut-out record! Let's say we do keep a 'clean sheet' on Saturday - that will be our current 418 + 90 = 508 minutes. Tantalisingly close to our record of 513! That was set back in 2006. Livingston 2-1 Inverness (9) Motherwell 0-1 Inverness (90) Inverness 1-0 Dundee United (90) Livingston 0-1 Inverness (90) Inverness 2-0 Falkirk (90) Dunfermline Athletic 0-1 Inverness (90) Inverness 1-2 St. Mirren (54) 9+90+90+90+90+90+54 = 513

The only disappointment is that County are too far away from us in the table for us even to cast a shadow over them.

1st Inverness 12th ross county

Can't be bothered starting a new thread but lawl at this...

That's just stupid. How could anybody with any sense post something like this.

It's this ^^^. Why is there a need to put "does he even go to games?" after a perfectly justified "don't rise to him". If we all took a step back and cut out the jibes there would be no negatives or happy clappers. just ICT fans.

Despite what a few 'happy clappers' seem to think, I doubt there is a single genuine fan who would take any pleasure at all in the team failing.