Leaderboard

Can we all just settle down now please. Once again one good performance and a point and the wolves have been called off. How many times have we seen this? Richie is here to stay......there are no alternatives. The players are more than good enough. The manager will learn. We, the supporters, are as much a factor in shaping the rest of the season. So, enough of polls .........let us all unite and sing lustily from the terraces and carry our great wee club over the line.

I have been in touch with our Lord and he asked me to pass on these words of wisdom to Mr Foran. You have been given a second chance young man. Now that you have changed do NOT change again. Find your favoured first eleven, stick with them, play them consistently in the same system. Remember you are the boss and not one of the team. You now have to continue being ruthless. Your job and the future of your beloved ICT depends on YOU. You face tough times in the next four games but you have home advantage in two. Get the players behind you, get the crowd behind the players. I wish you good luck but I cannot influence anything. That is your job.

DD, What change is more material than being removed from the EU, having stayed in the Union on the basis that it was the only way to guarantee staying in the EU? In fact,into the bargain, what is more of a material change than the imposition of EVEL, which prevents Scottish constituency MPs voting on "English only" law, even when the passing of that law will impact on the Barnett Consequentials, which are part of the Scottish income....or more material than the recent acknowledgement by Westminster that the Sewell Convention applies to what Westminster says it applies to...thus illustrating that Scotland can not even define what is a devolved matter within the devolved competencies. However, if you notice, a second indyref hasn't yet been called. It is still avoidable if Westminster does as much for Scotland in negotiations as she intends,it is being said, to do for NI, the car industry, the financial services industry, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands etc. I'm not holding my breath, but you can if you like. What once in a generation pledge? There is nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Memorandum of agreement or the Section 30 order stating anything about any "once in a generation pledge". Because Alex Salmond said it in a BBC interview after the vote and just before he resigned as First Minister makes it a pledge from the first SNP FM of Scotland. He cannot bind any future FM of Scotland to his personal opinion, any more than any PM of the UK can bind any other administration to his/her policy continuation, far less to anything said in a BBC interview. You want a list of all the "promises" made by future PMs pre-election which got either ignored or u-turned on when THEY got into power. Alex Salmond made no promise he didn't keep...he just was not, after he resigned, in a position to keep it. Anyway, what is meant by a generation? A generation in Westminster Politics is five years and, in Scottish politics, four years and we are into both those generations now...and this is the first time those of the 14-15yo generation who could not vote in indyref1 will likely be eligible to vote in a future referendum. I don't actually see what you are getting your knickers in a twist about, though, the bill went through, as we all knew that it would, given the whips imposed...or did you honestly think every MP in the House of Commons should dutifully vote for the bill to show solidarity with a Brexit they never wanted...and allow the Tories and UKIP to claim that the whole country was behind them. Hecky thump, MPs/MSPs won't even vote for bills, decent bills, even if lifted by the party proposing it straight from their own manifestos, because if they are not proposing they oppose(or sit on their hands).

Trudged away from New Douglas Park on Tuesday night totally disheartened.. but I feel that in second half yesterday we got our Caley Thistle back. They showed the effort and passion that has been lacking for a while now. They found it again yesterday and hopefully we now start our relentless fight back into top ten. That will do me this season - top six next season. So YES the buzz is back.

Not sure why Vigz gets victimised so much, but it wasn't his defending that led to us being two goals down.....thought he had a great game yesterday and vindicated Richie's decision for sticking with him

Don't think it was faint today. Crowd was tremendous in it's backing of the team when they could so easily, and understandably, have gone the other way. Stepped up to the plate and showed just as much determination to fight as the players on the park did this afternoon.

Must admit I'm not a happy clapper but from the first league game in 94 until now. I have never booed our team it just doesn't seem right. As for people booing Vigurs when he came back on 2nd half. Unacceptable IMHO

Thought we started well but lost the goals at key moments. Two decent balls into the box which we were unable to defend. Great to see a bit of fight in our boys and got a point, when you could argue we deserved all three. Esson was poor and doesn't inspire any confidence so OFW has to return. Thought our full backs were very good and both put their bodies on line to stop shots etc. I feel Gary Warren has lost half a yard and is being found out of position more than ever before, and on this viewing McCart is very green and not ready for this level yet, and feel we have better options available. Going forward we were very good, with the movement of Mckay and Arnier causing problem, but I question the use of Drapes that far up the park. Feel we have better options to play that role, and Drapes could be far more effective in the holding role. Vigurs is ponderous and his lack of urgency when we were 2-0 down really irked me. in short a good point being 2-0 down, but not seen enough to convince me we will survive. However special mention for the 2 Billy's, they were outstanding today, and Mckay seems even better player than first time around

A Yorkshireman's wife dies. He arranges the funeral, purchases a headstone and goes to see the engraver. "All I want on it" He says "is MY DARLING WIFE, SHE WERE THINE". The engraver tells him no problem, come back tomorrow. The following morning he returns and is shown the headstone. MY DARLING WIFE, SHE WERE THIN. "You've forgotten the E" The Yorkshire man sobs. The engraver apologises and tells him to come back in an hour. An hour later he returns and is shown the headstone. MY DARLING WIFE, EEEEEEE SHE WERE THIN

Bless you!

Not sure I quite subscribe to the logic in that statement. The onus is on us to gain ground on these other sides, and as every every match goes by without us narrowing the gap, the likelihood of relegation increases. Saturday might have been an improved performance but is was ultimately another poor result.

I never thought 3 weeks in Ecuador would get boring

Didn't realise you were a Jock, DD?

Dear IHE Further to our recent conversations, I noticed yesterday that both linesmen were unable to control their flags in the high wind and that this lead to a goal being disallowed for Inverness and to King Billy getting booked for questioning this frequent problem. I am sorry for this act of God and will correct it next time at Paradise. Please ensure all players fight like demented tigers and do not let a little Moussa steel the show. This is your moment, Your obedient servant Lord Believe

Is Kellacher standing on a balance board during this interview?

Coming back from 0-2 down to get a draw was the one bright spot to a horrible football weekend for me with my other side self detonating 0-4 to Sunderland (actually it was the fans who self combusted) ...amazing how Palace can spend £90m in transfers in one season and still look *****! When was the last time ICT paid a transfer fee? Chuffed to see Mckay back with us and back on the scoresheet (less so the missed penalty). I am still trying to get over the shock of Doumbuoya leaving though! We seem to have enhanced (or is that enlarged) our striking options, although neither King or Mulraney seem to have clinched the wingers spot for themselves. Defensively aside from Tremarco we seem to have an issue with every other position (including the goalkeeper) which is a worry. Likewise in midfield does Richie know what his best selection is? It seems an improved performance from Tansey yesterday? (post transfer window). Draper seems to be a shoe-in, so should we be playing 4-4-2 with one winger leaving the last midfield berth between Cole, Polworth or Vigurs? Anyway counting down the days to my midweek trip up for the Celtic game..have a strange feeling we are going to get something from this game, although not sure how the Cup game against them shapes things, I'm guessing we'll lose taht one, but we need to leave a few 'marks' on them to make both sides realise the league result is no foregone concludion!

I hope that's the team that gets picked for the Cup match, I think Ravens a good omen playing Celtic. I wonder if Meekings is fit enough to give a helping hand.

For only getting a point yesterday, I came away from that feeling very positive. For first time in ages, I actually struggled who to award the 5,3,1 points to in the poll. King was standout for me, very pleasing to see him assert himself on the pitch, and hopefully this will give Richie the confidence to start him more often. Esson for me was OK, but as others have mentioned very rusty which I guess is only natural. It's a pity in this scenario we don't still have Cammy as I thought he was great in the Hearts game. Thought for once Vigurs showed great skill and composure and played with real heart, as did all of them really including Tansey. Very unfortunate actually not to have held out for the win, but given where we were at HT a draw seems fair. It seems now we have turned a corner in terms of our firepower upfront, but we must plug that hole in defence if we are to climb off the bottom. Warren is struggling every game, and Raven who had a decent game struggled with a full 90 minutes. We need Brad back in there and possibly reinforcements brought in to cover RB. McCart looked decent but was certainly guilty of giving the ball away now and again.

That was some game!. A terrific effort from the lads and good support from the crowd as well. What a difference Mckay made! But credit Foran for picking a side to play to his strengths. Having Anier and McKay up front with King wide on the right and with Draper playing behind the front two caused Dundee all sorts of problems. All four of them were excellent and put in a fantastic shift. It left acres of space wide on the left which Tremarco exploited very well. He nearly scored when he hit the post early in the first half and had chances later in the game as well. Billy M was superb, but why was he taking the penalties? He has always been rubbish at spot kicks and I'd have any of Tansey, Draper or Vigurs taking the kicks before Billy. It was great to see Tansey score but why oh why does he not provide support to the front men a bit more? How often do we see attacks break down with the ball running loose around the edge of the box and there is nobody there to exploit it. Tansey's goal was a prime example of exactly why he needs to get up the park a bit more. We could have scored a few more, but whilst that attacking performance provides hope for the rest of the season, the defensive performance provides concerns. OFW has not been at his best this season but I'm not sure he deserved to be dropped. Esson's performance was not great and he was unable to command the box. The second goal came from a corner which should never have been conceded. A cross was aimed at the back post but was well short. It should have been an easy, unchallenged take on the 6 yard line but he stayed on the line and left Warren to deal with it. Again we looked pretty fragile in the centre of defence. Clearly it was difficult for young McCart to have been thrown in to this environment and I think that it would be unfair to criticise him. He needs time to settle in and gain a bit of experience. The fact that he was on from the start clearly demonstrates the lack of defensive options we have. There is some serious work to do to make the defence more solid. I predict a 7-3 defeat at Parkhead next week! Finally a word on the referee. He made a few odd decisions but full marks to him for awarding the two penalties. Far too often we see players wrestled to the ground in the box and the referees doing nothing, so it was good to see a referee prepared to take action for once.

Well said. I thought exactly the same when I read DD's reply (without bringing CB into it). A bit of 'pots and kettles' methinks having ploughed through many DD's long, one sided views on things in the past.

You are morphing into CB, dismissing any reasoned and well constructed argument which contradicts your own views as a 'rant'. Some equally coherent and reasoned argument of your own would be a good deal more constructive.

What she says !! Seriously though, I don't think anyone who has the slightest knowledge of international and constitutional law could take exception to a word of that. Sometimes it appears that many unionists believe that if they say often and loud enough that something is so it will be so. The Treaty of Union was and remains a bilateral treaty between sovereign states and at no point subsumed Scotland into a new state. It certainly didn't make Scotland a mere region or province. It's often said that parliament is sovereign. That is the case in England. In terms of Scottish constitutional law and practice, the people are sovereign. The Treaty of Union and subsequent Act of Union did nothing to alter that.

DD....I won't quote your post, because mine is more than long enough to fill the space Let me get this straight....MPs are paid £70,000 a year plus expenses to represent the political party for which they stood, to help individual members of their constituency, if they have problems caused as a result of government/government policy, but not elected to represent the majority in a constituency, when that constituency opinion/position is clearly understood? Aye, right! I am sitting right now looking at a leaflet from my local list MSP, which has, appended to it, a survey proclaiming that my views are important to him, but you are saying that they aren't and he is not elected to represent my views and the views of all his other constituents....just to deal with those individuals who go to him with problems and the survey on the leaflet is just a bit of window-dressing to pad out his succession of photo-ops and self-promotion? Given that relatively few of his constituents will complete and return the form, he will still take it upon himself to take those responses as "the opinion/position" of all his constituents, and respond appropriately, yet you claim that in a constituency which voted in a majority(even if only just) for one specific position, he would have no obligation to take heed of that "survey" and could ignore it. And you think that is acceptable? Regarding HIE, was there an indication that the majority in the Highlands and Islands were against the centralising of the committees which oversee the actions of those who actually produce the plans that you say "betrayed their constituents on the recent vote of the HIE"? Can't say it bothered me, given those who were being "amalgamated" were not the workers but the overseeing quango....and they don't need to be in Inverness to oversee. Regarding "there is no EU state"...there is no UK state either. There are treaties signed forming the EU out of 27 different countries, and there are treaties signed forming the UK out of three countries and what is now a province. Treaties are not set in stone, however much Westminster would like to think they are when it suits them. If Treaties were set in stone, there would have been no Irish Free State or an independent Ireland now, would there........or, if it comes to that....a Brexit? I agree that there is no comparison between the EU and the UK..the EU is democratic, for a start, the UK never has been. It might have been considered so in 1707 when there was an accepted version of democracy which was not applicable to citizens if they were not lords, landowners or burgesses, but, apart from the advent of universal suffrage, Parliamentary democracy is still no more democratic than it was in 1687, when the English Parliament took over the sovereignty of the monarch and reduced him to a figurehead...controlled by the peers, landowners and burgesses, elected by their friends and cronies...or than it was in 1707 when the English Parliament, with all its historic idiosyncracies, became the Parliament of Great Britain and later of the UK....in effect(and probably intention) making the UK a bigger England, with the addition to the English Parliament of MPs from the other countries...(but not enough of them to overrule the English ones even if they all voted together). A sovereign Parliament, created by and for just one of the countries within that Union and which writes the rules and regulations to govern its own actions, with no way for it to be held to account by the people it governs, because there is no jointly agreed written UK constitution for it to be judged against, is not a democracy. Representative democracy in a two party FPTP system with an unelected revising chamber and a whipping system which is intended to prevent MPs actually representing their constituents,is not democracy....that is an elected dictatorship. And into the bargain, instead of a written constitution, we have "conventions" to guide the behaviour of our Government, and "conventions" like devolution, are the gift of the sovereign Parliament which can ignore them at any time. You call that democracy? Scotland does not require the permission of Westminster to hold a referendum on anything, Scotland requires Westminster to pass a bill making the result of a referendum binding. As far as I am aware, nobody in the UK needs Westminster permission to hold a consultative referendum, not even me. However,in the end, it doesn't really matter if the referendum is only consultative....because if it is a vote for independence,and Westminster doesn't agree to put forward a Bill to repeal the Acts of Union, Scotland can declare UDI or, as it works nowadays, call on the right to self determination under the UN charter. The "complex infrastructure" of the UK is not nearly as complex as that of the EU. The biggest problem re negotiations is going to be Westminster, not Scotland, if you are going to take the indyref1 Project Fear pronouncements as any guide, just as the stance of the EU is going to be the problem for the UK in the EU negotiations. I haven't yet seen Theresa May say one word about her plans for negotiating with the EU..just her vision of what the UK can expect to get from the negotiations...can you give me a link to her plans? The negotiations with the EU are the "terms of withdrawal from the EU", not what the UK will be like or do after we withdraw, but what our relationship with the EU will be after we withdraw. The negotiations with Westminster will be the same,an apportioning of assets and liabilities, how to deal with the transition period and how that is to be achieved. Given it was just fine for the UK to step off the EU cliff without having a safety net prepared and spread out ahead of time...why is that being demanded of Scotland. And we do know what currency we will be using after we vote for independence, we always have known....the pound until the end of the transition period....and whatever we decide after that.

credit to the team digging in and grinding out a point. When i seen 2-0 at HT i rolled my eyes and thought here we go again but to pull it back to 2-2 hopefully will give the team a bit more confidence. Shows what some fight can do. We will be needing it for the next 4 games. My eye's will be glued to the TV next Saturday morning. Don't think there is enough alcohol in Belfast to get me through it

I'm not going to respond to Oddquine's rant in full. It would take far too long. I'll just respond to the nonsense at the beginning and the nonsense at the end. Oddquine starts with the standard nationalist trick of making her point based on what she would have liked her political opponent to have said rather than on what they actually did say. I'm not going to waste time repeating what I said but suffice it to say that her reply completely fails to address the point I was making. She concludes by refuting my suggestion that the Scottish Government does not even know what currency we would use following independence - but then makes a statement which clearly demonstrates my point! And all the stuff in between equally misses the point. Yes, I understand that the constitutional position of Scotland within the United Kingdom is complex but I fail to see the point of debating that when the relevant issues are far more straightforward. We have a Scottish Government which is refusing to respect the results of two referendums and which lied to its people about its intention to honour the result of the independence referendum. Yet somehow in her lengthy post Oddquine simply ignores this shameful anti-democratic behaviour. Personally I think the behaviour of the Scottish Parliament in 2017 is rather more relevant than that of the English Parliament in 1687.

I think I'm going to keep out of this having been to..... well you can't really say "Damascus" these days... for my holidays, so let me just describe myself as having had a moment of Epiphany! In order to perform an administrative function with an organisation I'm involved with, I've had to join Facebook - with the collateral effect of having become aware of comments on the Facebook pages of the likes of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and the National "newspaper". So, having taken a few scans through that lot, all I can say to the people on here is - sorry folks... I have probably been far too scathing of a lot you have said on here about the nationalist question, now I have seen the emanations of some of these other pages! I am actually being quite serious here by saying that. Compared with what I have now seen elsewhere from far more SNP supporters than you would ever find on here, the Nats on CTO present well argued, literate (especially literate!), polite cases with not an expletive, term of abuse or outburst of paranoia in sight. So with the genuine observation that Oddquine is actually a relative moderate, I will bid you all good night again and return to a much happier hunting ground for winding up nationalists!