starchief

What was wrong with the way Mo left? He came in as assistant to Butcher. When Butcher was under contract and sitting in the stand beside the Hibs chairman, Mo was in the Inverness dugout doing his best to get a win against Hibs. He then left without any fuss to the same position at Hibs. I see nothing wrong with that. I'd have no problem with Charlie as manager as I thought he did pretty well first time around. However, I'd be even happier with him as Director of Football charged with complete control over the restructuring of the club. I wouldn't like to see him back but I certainly wouldn't say Butcher failed at Motherwell. A dodgy start but soon on to winning ways. I also think he did pretty well at Coventry - a club selling all its' best players, signing almost no-one but still being kept in the (then) First Division. He was sacked as another cost-cutting measure as they could get rid of both a player and a manager salary in one stroke. If it had been Xmas, I would have suggested someone like Jim Duffy but there's no way he would come now. I'd still go for Paul Hartley, who was terrific for most of his time at Dundee. Yep, it ended badly but so has Arsene Wenger. You've got to realise ICT's limits and what a manager could bring, even if he's not not perfect. But then, when you consider the appointments... Butcher: fans not happy Hughes: fans not happy Foran: fans happy Not absolutely sure we should be allowed to choose

It is. Compensation is not an issue.

Who said he didn't? Either Foran takes a strop, quits (as he has absolutely no hand over the board), fails to get the job he is desperate for, leaves football to be a delivery driver a la Duncan Shearer and looks on as Paul Sheerin or someone takes charge with Foran thinking 'I should have taken my chance'! Or he takes the job and shuts up. Those are the only choices. And Foran has a depth of belief in himself only outdone by Roy Keane. Misplaced or not. It's not the first time the latter has happened. Brewster and Park were not on speaking terms either and muddled through undermining each other (although Brew could claim the high ground - he was the one supposed to make decisions) as Park still had a contract to fulfil. It's not Rice's fault that he was taken on to play a completely different type of football for another manager. The chances of him being snapped up by another club are doubtful, in the short-term at least. I'm not surprised he stayed. But the Board should have recognised it's not working and taken even a temporary solution much earlier.

I'm surprised people are mentioning what Malpas got up to before and after ICT, without concentrating on what he did here. Why hasn't Malpas been in management for two years? Because of the disaster of Hibs. How did he get the Hibs job? Because of the success he had at ICT. Someone else brought up the relegation event, without mentioning ICT were promoted and leaving when we were (IIRC) second top and in the semi-final of a cup. Malpas was a roaring success at ICT. It's a great idea to get him back and see if that can be replicated. Malpas sat in the Inverness dugout when Butcher was with the Hibs Chair in the stand. Yes, he left, but he did so with dignity, unlike the manager at the time. Yes, it's very late - maybe too late - but it's a good idea. And I'd be happy to see Mo stay, even with relegation. As for Brian Rice...it's an open secret that he and Foran don't gel. No surprise, given Rice is a tipp-tappy Hughes assistant, whilst Foran is from the kick-and-rush school of Butcher'n'Malpas. It was always a marriage of convenience.

I've been trying to avoid forums for the last couple of years but I felt the need to bring this up: According to Barry Wilson, it's a four year plan, consisting of Foran on a yearly rolling contract, I.e. no to very little compensation.

Most people approve of fighting the Islamic State. This is true for both the UK and Scotland. For the RAF taking part, by far most approve than disapprove. http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/17/full-results-iraq-syria-and/ This is not the false war of Blair and Bush, led in the UK by Scots-born Blair and Brown, supported by most Scottish MPs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm), endorsed by Holyrood (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2665027.stm). This was against the express will of most voters, be they Scottish or rUK. You may be happy to leave minorities and moderate to be killed as it's "not your problem" but you're out of step with the majority again.

july 2013.... got anything more recent? like my poll about people being against the bombing of isis which was taken this month... Nope. You? Your poll is still out of date. I quoted a more recent one.

We don't need to wait, they're already here.

Old data, I'm afraid. Events, dear boy, events.

Fine by me. Replace with a cheaper, smaller alternative the most popular option, according to YouGov: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/public-support-nuclear-weapons/ "Replace with equally powerful system 26 Replace with less powerful/expensive system 35 Give up nuclear weapons completely 24 Don't know 14" Little support for abandoning nuclear weapons mind. "If the government decided there is no cheaper alternative... UK should order four new nuclear submarines 56 UK should give up nuclear weapons 29 Don't know 15"

Most people approve of fighting the Islamic State. This is true for both the UK and Scotland. For the RAF taking part, by far most approve than disapprove. http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/17/full-results-iraq-syria-and/ This is not the false war of Blair and Bush, led in the UK by Scots-born Blair and Brown, supported by most Scottish MPs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm), endorsed by Holyrood (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2665027.stm). This was against the express will of most voters, be they Scottish or rUK. You may be happy to leave minorities and moderate to be killed as it's "not your problem" but you're out of step with the majority again. And replied before the referendum. Most in favour of action against IS, just as most were in favour of staying in the Union.

I'm a bit of a stats geek but it didn't quite work like that. There was a narrow squeeze but not very much when you take YouGov out of it. Now, in UK elections, YouGov has been excellent but poor in Scotland (ICM are far better). The massive narrowing was greatly exaggerated by a change in methodology when YG realised they were hugely underestimating the amount of SNP voters they were picking up. As for broken promises...I suspect many will be upset over what is eventually reached but No would still have won, just more narrowly. What if it would have been Yes? Would the currency union have appeared? Would Junckers have admitted his statements of an application being necessary was a ruse? No to both. Neither side would have got exactly what they want but the Scottish people made their decision. Saying they were too stupid to realise the issues is patronising stuff. There were bigger broken promises there to be found. What would have been interesting is if Yes had laid it out on the line. What were the plans for the currency if no union? How would Scotland cope being outside the EU? Is the Euro something that is a no go, no matter what inducements the EU offer? As you can see on this very forum, I was leaning towards Yes until the White Paper. Maybe they needed to go for the blind optimism approach to get the Labour vote in Glasgow's estates but it certainly turned me right off. As I've said a number of times, there was a case for independence but Yes didn't make it. But can't we move on? Enough with insults about wanting to be Greater England and throwing toys out of prams. I would hope that we all want Scotland to succeed, independent or British. If your hope is that Scotland fails so you can wave your little flag about, it's not patriotism that's driving you but selfishness. If you are simply expecting Scotland to not succeed...well, let's put that aside for the moment and work together. I guarantee you, I would have been waving the Scottish flag if independence had come, maybe even voting Labour to get the best deal from Westminster after the break up (and that's saying something after the Blair/Brown years!). We're all in this together, like it or not, so let's try to make it work.

With the disgraceful scenes in Glasgow that 'resemble a football match' (hmmmm, wonder why?), maybe we should have independence for Glasgow. We won't ask them, we will force them. Bloody Old Firm embarrassment yet again! Can we not just get rid of both of them once and for all? Given that Glasgow had one of (was it 'the'?) lowest turn outs of all, I'm betting a good many didn't even put an 'X' in the box anyway. Still, anything for a drink-fuelled fight over some ages gone Irish feud, eh? Hate them both.

I have voted Yes and of course I will accept the result if, as I anticipate, the No side win......How dare you suggest those of us desiring and campaigning for independence are undemocratic. Oops, maybe I need to apologise due to Yessers being willing to move on... Doesn't sound like acceptance and togetherness to me.

Most people approve of fighting the Islamic State. This is true for both the UK and Scotland. For the RAF taking part, by far most approve than disapprove. http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/17/full-results-iraq-syria-and/ This is not the false war of Blair and Bush, led in the UK by Scots-born Blair and Brown, supported by most Scottish MPs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm), endorsed by Holyrood (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2665027.stm). This was against the express will of most voters, be they Scottish or rUK. You may be happy to leave minorities and moderate to be killed as it's "not your problem" but you're out of step with the majority again.

Well, I'm glad of that. The plans by Yes were completely unreasonable. Low taxes, early retirement, out of the EU with little chance of getting back due to the ending of the currency union and refusal to take debt. That would have led to a mass flight of money - including mine back to Canada. No point Scotland getting back on it's feet when I'm 60 and losing my power. There was a case for independence but Yes didn't make it. Weird that, after all my years of proposing it, it looks like we will have a federal Britain. Personally, I'd like it even more federal. Why should Scots MPs vote on English matters? Why should Edinburgh decide on Highland matters? Why should Inverness decide on Wester Ross matters? Power concentrated at the most local level. Don't get me wrong, the UK won't get that.....yet! But the South-East (the entity, not just Westminster) won't be the sole reason for being elected anymore. Only London approved of that. Not England. As for Britain being completely different. As regards the EU, not that much http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/06/17/eu-referendum-record-lead/ As regards immigration, not very much As regards priorities, little difference: (from YouGov with a larger sample size than all, bar one, of their referendum polls) What is different is an aversion to Tories after Thatcher. Not before. At one time, Scotland was a Tory heartland. Still over 27% (more than 1 in 4 people) voted Tory/Ukip at the last election, so this witchhunt by the extreme left part of Yes was instantly going to alienate a quarter of voters. How stupid is that? Get the government you vote for. Appealing. Anti-Tory. A horrible witch-hunt. Never voted for them by the way, but they have a right to be in Scotland as much as anyone. Let's move on together with hope, not recriminations or celebrations.

What two absolutely lousy campaigns. Be glad to see the back of them. For Yes, it's absolutely incredulous that there was no firm answer to 'what if a currency union is rejected?'. It's no answer to say "there is no Plan B" or "there's multiple Plan Bs". What are they? What's favoured? What are the risks? What the cost? Where's the benefit? Same as with the EU. What if we don't (as so many of the EU have said) automatically get accepted? How does that change the future? I had expected a lot better than that. It's as if they had no idea anyone would ask a question. It turned a previous 'don't know' like me away. As for No, the main reason for supporting them is 'feelings about Britain'. I can't remember a single member of the team saying how proud he was to be British, then listing the humaitarian aid, the World Wars, the democracy etc etc and all the things that might sway natural voters (Yeah, I know one side only sees the evil empire side of Britain but that's only them and they sure as hell spoke about it). Instead, it was all 'independence will lose money'. Yeah, very important but not, according to the polls, the most important issue. And what was that symbol??? Yes has the St Andrews, surely it doesn't take a genius to prompt No to use the Lion Rampant?? Glad it's all over. It's worth remembering, we're really on the same side - everyone wants Scotland to do well, it's just the management that's dividing us (remind me of ICT and Yogi). I hope both sides accept the majority will (but I have a terrible feeling Yes won't if they lose). Any Yes voters prepared to say they will accept the decision and move on with acceptance of the result no matter which side wins? Will they lose though? My gut feeling says it will be Yes. It will be no surprise as they will be the most enthusiastic. But with all the polls, bar the odd fluke, showing No time and time again in the lead, with a high likelihood of 'shy No's', I'm going for Yes 46%, No 54%.

mainstander has got it absolutely right. Pay your taxes and get a vote. Anyone that doesn't has as much relevance as Russians party trumpetting for the Papua New Guinea elections. I also find it incredible some people think the best way to remain in the EU is to vote to be no longer in it with strong signals from both the EU and foreign governments that an application is necessary (it took Iceland 10 years before giving up). Doubly so, if you think Scotland will get the EU unaninimity from the member countries (say, rUK for instance!) by dropping the debt. And that's due to a fear that a party which has virtually no chance of a majority wants to hold a referendum on the EU, which most polls say would result in staying, besides which, that party, plus the other major party and the coalition partner will all (yes, all, even the party that wants a referendum) campaign to stay in the EU. And that's even looking over the fact that there's little chance of the Tories being re-elected and no chance of the LDs supporting that, or Ukip winning anything like enough seats to be a junior government partner. There are reasons for a Yes but the EU one is plainly ridiculous.

There's none that hate their fellow countrymen as much as a nationalist. The reality is, polls have shown the biggest reason for voting 'no' is a love of Britain. A positive choice for them. Anyway, I've been predicting a Yes since it was announced, no matter which side I was veering to. I remember the Arab Spring, when all came out for change. It's much more inspiring but not necessarily best. Mind you, the polls do show a No consistently leading with a high probablity of "shy no's" (a phenomenon most associated with "shy Tories" - they always do better than the polls as people feel intimidated to say they vote Tory, despite them being the largest party in England for the GE and over 1 in 4 voting Tory/Ukip in Scotland for the EU election) but I'll be voting 'no' and I've never been on a winning side, despite being a floating voter that has IIRC voted for six different parties in my lifetime (SNP, SSP, Green, Lib Dem, Labour and, if it counts, Independent if you're wondering). My big hope is, whether Yes or No, Scotland accepts it and unites behind their people. I suspect that will happen with a Yes vote. But will Yessers agree to bury the hatchet, accept the result and move on with the choice of the majority in Scotland in the event of a No?

It's a nice picture to paint but there's little difference between England & Wales v Scotland views on immigration, with a large rejection of more immigration on both sides:

When are you selling up and moving back to Scotland to put your money where your mouth is, SP? Seems a bit 'plastic paddy' otherwise.

As I've posted on here, I was a "don't know" for a number of months but the White Paper and election material completely lost me. There was no wieghing up of the evidence, just sheer blind optimism. All it was is "if everything goes right on the currency, the EU and oil it'll be ok". But what if it doesn't go right? I'd much have preferred a paper/election materials that spoke of the dangers and opportunities. As it is, it's just a pig-in-a-poke, as if questions like currency and EU membership weren't important enough to be examined fully and presented. As a federalist, I can accept that localising power to the Scottish level is appealing but it's complete pie-in-the-sky of how we will automatically be in Europe, even though Junckers himself said there is no other route other than to apply (took Iceland 10 years before they gave up). It would be even more unlikely with the follow through with the threat of not taking any debt. No international loans, except at punitive rates. No EU membership. As for economics, someone on UK Polling Report summed these up: Project Fear? Yeah, I have fears about the economic consequences. Only idiots don't. No, that doesn't make me a member of Better Together. I veered towards Yes before the White Paper. That also doesn't make me a Tory or Ukip. Never voted for either, although, given at the last EU election over 27% voted for them, that means 1 in 4 people are being told a vote of Yes means your affilitation will never have a say in Scotland's future again. I don't even believe that myself but disenfranchising such a large part of the population just isn't right.

I've long thought Bobby Williamson was a good manager. Did well at Killie, did well at Hibs bringing through a crop of youngsters and silverware (hated by the Hibs fans of course for ridiculous reasons). Plymouth might have been a black stain but then did he do as well as anyone could have? Yep, Chester was poor. Seems to be respected in Africa although I know little about how realisticly well he should be able to do with the teams he had. Archie Knox wanted the job but eventually turned us down due to some legal issues with his previous club. I'd certainly have liked to see what he could have done for us. Malpas could well have been a car crash or it could have been stability. Who knows? Chris Sutton? Can't understand that one though.

Happy clappers that said naysayers wanted ICT to fail as it was 'personal' against Yogi A great result like this and the usual suspect tried to make it 'them' and 'us'. Everyone wants ICT to win! Everyone wants Yogi to succeed! As many did with Butcher, all naysayers want to hold their hands up and say their wrong. Amazing this still needs said....

I agree. But you used non-intervention as an argument for independence. And, yes, the West has been guitly of many crimes over the years but that wasn't the question. It was about the situation in northern Iraq today. Should Kurdistan be allowed to be over-run and many thousands of minorities and moderates slaughtered, or should the UK help a secular peaceful community defend it's territory from the Islamic State? For me, the answer isn't 'Yes' because we've had a brutal history. It's also in the history of many other countries. That's also an excuse for turning our back on the victims of the Nazis (to invoke Godwin). It isn't 'Yes' because Israel bombs UN schools. It's also not 'Yes' because there is not the time to get together a multi-agency force from the UN. It's not 'Yes' because they are not Scottish, so why should we care about genocide And it's not 'Yes' because only US and EU countries have the will and arms to achieve it but we should wait for Kenya and Lithuania to do something. There's a few days to do something. It's do it now or not. Washing your hands isn't an ethical policy in my view. BTW, try to talking to someone about peacekeeping missions in developed countries. It basically means standing aside whilst someone gets ripped apart. It's anything but peace, just not actual war.