dougiedanger

DC will be in aboot them.

Loving the growing desperation of the unionist.

Turning that around, if there was no oil would anybody want independence? The SNP has been around since the 1930s but had an insignificant share of the vote until 1974. We have oil, rakes of it, so both points are moot.

How exactly do you "ping" an email?

Does anyone actually read CB's posts any more?

Oddquine, after more than three years in the trenches, even the soldiers in the First World War (Oops! Don't mention the War. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it! ) managed to dilute the misery and the tedium with a bit of humour. Look, we've been suffering this tedious referendum crap for a very long time now with more still to come and I think we need a bit of a laugh as a bit of light relief from it - well perhaps apart from Derek Bateman who, since he vacated the airwaves, seems to have found another medium in the form of a blog to indulge in his apparent life's preoccupation of constantly banging on about this referendum. Puerile attempts at "humour" are a further sign of an inability to engage with the debate and of increasing desperation as the tide turns in favour of independence. Keep laughing CB...

As original mods, the Who were always going to want a UJ flag, no point moaning about it now.

Fair play to Roger Daltrey and the boys.

And as the British government enlists the help of foreign governments to work against Scottish independence, some interesting new data in the latest poll: ICM/ Scotland on Sunday Stated preference Yes 46% No 54% All respondents Yes 37% No 44% Undecided 19% ALEX Salmond is within reach of victory in the independence referendum, according to an exclusive poll showing that support for the cause has grown dramatically by five percentage points over the last four months. The largest swing towards a Yes vote recorded so far in the campaign is revealed today in an ICM survey for Scotland on Sunday, which has found that support for independence has grown from 32 per cent to 37 per cent since September. The surge in those backing Yes was accompanied by a corresponding drop in No support by five percentage points from 49 per cent in September to 44 per cent currently. The poll also found that when the 19 per cent who said they didn’t know how they would vote were excluded, support for Yes is at 46 per cent compared with 54 per cent who said they would vote No. There was more good news for Yes Scotland, when the “don’t knows” were pressed further on their views on independence. When they disclosed how they were “most likely” to vote, the results were factored into the equation and the pollsters found that support for independence stood at 47 per cent compared with 53 per cent in favour of No. The figures represent the largest backing for Yes to be recorded in an independently-commissioned survey and are the first clear sign that support for breaking up the UK is growing after months of stagnating polls. Were the progress recorded over the last four months to be replicated in the eight months remaining until the September 18 referendum, the first minister could succeed in his dream of creating an independent Scotland. The poll of more than 1,000 over-16s was conducted by ICM for Scotland on Sunday between Tuesday and Friday. Last night, the Yes campaign suggested that the launch of the Scottish Government’s white paper offering a blueprint for independence in November has resulted in a game-changing bounce for #independence. Blair Jenkins, chief executive of Yes Scotland, said: “A potential Yes vote of 47 per cent at this stage is an excellent place to be with eight months to go. It demonstrates very clearly that we are getting our message across and that momentum is very much on our side. “The poll represents a very significant swing to Yes and shows that we need just over a 3 per cent swing to take the lead. It is particularly encouraging that there is a five-point increase in support from women and a four-point rise in the number of people who believe independence will be good for the economy is also a welcome shift in our favour. “We know that the more people learn about the benefits of independence the more likely they are to vote Yes. “People are now also carefully weighing up the consequences and costs of a No vote and, as a result, support for Yes increases. The referendum is about two choices. One is sticking with a Westminster system that isn’t working for Scotland. The other is a unique opportunity to make decisions that match our own needs and priorities, to better use our vast wealth and resources for the benefit of all people in Scotland and to build a fairer country of which we can all be proud.” A spokesman for Better Together, the pro-Union campaign, said: “Despite Alex Salmond spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, the majority of people in Scotland don’t want to trade the strength and security of the UK for the risk and uncertainty of independence. We will campaign tirelessly between now and September to convince those who have yet to make up their mind that we are stronger and better together. This poll is a message that there can be no complacency from those who support Scotland remaining in the UK.” Plans to increase childcare provision for working mothers were at the heart of the white paper, a move that was seen as a bid to make independence more attractive to women. The SNP’s failure to win over women has long been seen as an Achilles’ heel of the party, yet today’s poll shows that female support has grown significantly. The percentage of women prepared to vote Yes has grown from 28 per cent in September to 33 per cent. The economy also emerged as a key issue and is another area in which Yes Scotland makes progress. In September, 31 per cent of those polled by ICM thought that independence would benefit the economy. Today that figure has increased to 35 per cent. The percentage of people who felt that independence would be bad for the economy has also decreased, from 48 per cent to 42 per cent. The SNP has argued that independence would offer the chance to create a more equal society in Scotland. According to the poll, the proportion of people who believe that there would be less inequality in an independent Scotland has increased from 27 per cent to 31 per cent. Those who believed that there would be more inequality rose slightly from 20 per cent to 21 per cent. Those who thought independence would make no difference to inequality fell from 34 per cent to 31 per cent. Better Together has made much of the uncertainty over pensions that it claims would result from the dismantling of the UK. But the poll revealed that the percentage of people who believe that they would have a higher pension in an independent Scotland has increased from 16 per cent to 20 per cent. A recurring criticism of the Better Together campaign has been that it is failing to set out a positive vision of what would happen to Scotland in the event of a No vote. Labour and the Conservatives have established commissions to look at whether the Scottish Parliament should be given more powers within the UK. Both parties are due to publish their findings in the spring. The poll found that the percentage of those who were resisting constitutional change remained constant on 28 per cent. Whereas those who believed Holyrood should become responsible for taxation and welfare increased from 59 per cent to 64 per cent. John Curtice: Best news on voting intentions the Yes campaign has ever had TODAY’S ICM poll is the best polling news the Yes side has had yet in the referendum campaign. Once the Don’t Knows are excluded, 46 per cent think they will vote Yes in September; 54 per cent No. This is the highest Yes tally in any independently commissioned poll so far. It represents a six-point swing to Yes since last September, the biggest yet in a campaign in which the polls have been remarkably stable. True, there is one word of caution. The swing is entirely confined to those aged 44 and under. All pollsters, including ICM, find it more difficult to get younger voters to answer their questions. Consequently, their estimates of how such voters will behave are more likely to change randomly from one poll to the next. Even so, there are signs the swing is underpinned by something real. And in line with the message from the Scottish Social Attitudes survey last week, what emerges is that the answer to “What will determine the eventual outcome in September?” is simply: “It’s the economy, stupid.” In September only 31 per cent thought independence would be good for the economy, while 48 per cent reckoned it would be bad. Now 35 per cent reckon independence would be beneficial while 42 per cent feel it would be deleterious. That represents a five-point swing towards a more optimistic view. Meanwhile, people’s perceptions are clearly fundamental to their decision whether to vote Yes or No. No less than 88 per cent of those who think the economy would be better under independence expect to vote Yes, while 87 per cent of those who reckon it would be worse belong to the No camp. None of the other perceptions tracked by ICM has either shifted as much or obviously matters so much. True, the proportion who think there would be less inequality in an independent Scotland – one of the Yes side’s key claims – has increased by four points from 27 per cent to 31 per cent. But the proportion who believe it would be more unequal has edged up a point too, to 21 per cent. That means on this issue the swing is just 1.5 per cent. At the same time, only 63 per cent of those who believe there would be less inequality in an independent Scotland think they will vote Yes, while 63 per cent of those who feel there would be more inequality are inclined to vote No. Both figures are lower than the equivalent ones for the economy. Meanwhile, the proportion who think pensions would be higher under independence is up four points from 16 per cent to 20 per cent. The proportion who believe they would be lower is down two points to 23 per cent – a swing of three points. But having a rosy view of the prospects for pensions is an even less powerful recruiting sergeant for the Yes side. Only 58 per cent of those who reckon pensions would be higher think they will vote Yes – though 75 per cent of those who think they would be lower anticipate voting No. The lesson for the Yes side is clear. Their hopes of winning the referendum rest on their ability to win the economic debate. They may now be a little closer to doing so. • John Curtice is Professor of Politics, Strathclyde University http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...poll-1-3281655

Fair play to CB, gets ripped a new one every time by Oddquine, doesn't/can't engage with the actual topic at hand, then comes back a few weeks later with some diversionary non-argument about Culloden, shortbread, or his bete noire, wee Alec. Quibbling about the numbers of Scots who died in the Great War is a new low though. Fair feckin play.

DD, can you not see that the whole point of the post before last is that I DON'T believe everything I am told - which is maybe just as well during this interminable referendum with its incessant "jam tomorrow" promises/bribes from the yessers. I think your questioning goes in one direction only.

Congratulations, CB, you are the perfect British subject, cap-doffer extraordinaire, knows his place, believes everything he is told, anchor still holding. Give yourself a pat on the head.

I wouldn't worry, as the British Army will always have a place for young, desperate Scots to fight their wars for them. They're nice like that.

Hopefully, independence will mean we no longer send our young to be cannon fodder for the UK's unnecessary wars.

Indeed, the main one being, as the report states, that they have 1 million in the bank for every citizen, while we have the debt and misery that are the legacies of Westminster financial mismanagement.

Am Baile suggests that it may have been a General MacIntyre who owned Bught House during the 19th century. Did he also control the trampolines and the crazy golf?

From the Guardian, on the scandalous waste of Scotland's North Sea oil resources. Dude, where's my North Sea oil money? For a few years, the UK enjoyed a once-in-a-lifetime windfall – only, unlike the Norwegians, we've got almost nothing to show for it. Last Wednesday, every single Norwegian became a millionaire – without having to lift a lillefinger. They owe the windfall to their coastline, and a huge dollop of good sense. Since 1990, Norway has been squirreling away its cash from North Sea oil and gas into a rainy-day fund. It's now big enough to see Noah through all 40 of those drizzly days and nights. Last week, the balance hit a million krone for everyone in Norway. Norwegians can't take a hammer to the piggy bank, amassed strictly to provide for future generations. And converted into pounds, the 5.11 trillion krone becomes a mere £100,000 for every man, woman and child. Still, the oljefondet (the government pension fund of Norway) owns over 1% of the world's stocks, a big chunk of Regent Street and some of the most prime property in Paris: a pretty decent whipround for just five million people. Wish it could have been you with a hundred-grand bonus? Here's the really nauseating part: it should have been. Britain had its share of North Sea oil, described by one PM as "God's gift" to the economy. We pumped hundreds of billions out of the water off the coast of Scotland. Only unlike the Norwegians, we've got almost nothing to show for it. Our oil cash was magicked into tax cuts for the well-off, then micturated against the walls of a thousand pricey car dealerships and estate agents. All this was kick-started by Margaret Thatcher, the woman who David Cameron claims saved the country. The party she led still touts itself as the bunch you can trust with the nation's money. But that isn't the evidence from the North Sea. That debacle shows the Conservatives as being as profligate as sailors on shore leave. Britain got nothing from the North Sea until the mid-70s – then the pounds started gushing. At their mid-80s peak, oil and gas revenues were worth more than 3% of national income. According to the chief economist at PricewaterhouseCoopers, John Hawksworth, had all this money been set aside and invested in ultra-safe assets it would have been worth £450bn by 2008. He admits that is a very conservative estimate: Sukhdev Johal, professor of accounting at Queen Mary University of London, thinks the total might well have been £850bn by now. That doesn't take you up to Norwegian levels of prosperity – they've more oil and far fewer people to divvy it up among – but it's still around £13,000 for everyone in Britain. Hawksworth titled his 2008 paper on the subject: "Dude, where's my oil money?" We don't have any new hospitals or roads to show for it: public sector net investment plunged from 2.5% of GDP at the start of the Thatcher era to just 0.4% of GDP by 2000. It is sometimes said that the money was ploughed into benefits for the miners and all the other workers Thatcherism chucked on the scrapheap, but that's not what the figures show. Public sector current spending hovered around 40% of GDP from Thatcher through to the start of the banking crisis. So where did our billions go? Hawksworth writes: "The logical answer is that the oil money enabled non-oil taxes to be kept lower." In other words: tax cuts. When the North Sea was providing maximum income, Thatcher's chancellor, Nigel Lawson slashed income and other direct taxes, especially for the rich. The top rate of tax came down from 60p in the pound to just 40p by 1988. He also reduced the basic rate of income tax; but the poor wouldn't have seen much of those pounds in their pockets, as, thanks to the Tories, they were paying more VAT. What did Thatcher's grateful children do with their tax cuts? "They used the higher disposable income to bid up house prices," suggests Hawskworth. For a few years, the UK enjoyed a once-in-a-lifetime windfall; and it was pocketed by the rich. The revolution begun by Thatcher and Reagan is often seen as being about competition and extending markets. But that's to focus on the process and overlook the motivation or the result. As the historian of neoliberalism Philip Mirowski argues, what the past 30 years have been about is using the powers of the state to divert more resources to the wealthy. You see that with privatisation: the handing over of our assets at knock-down prices to corporations and supposed "investors", who then skim off the profits. The transformation of the North Sea billions into tax cuts for the wealthy is the same process but at its most squalid. Compare and contrast with the Norwegian experience. In 1974, Oslo laid down the principle that oil wealth should be used to develop a "qualitatively better society", defined by historian Helge Ryggvik as "greater equality". Ten oil commandments were set down to ensure the industry was put under democratic control – which it remains to this day, with the public owning nearly 70% of the oil company and the fields. It's a glimpse of what Britain could have had, had it been governed by something more imaginative and less rapacious than Thatcherism. If Scotland had held on to the revenues from North Sea oil, the question today would not be how it would manage solo, but how London would fare without its bankrollers over Hadrian's Wall. Oljeeventyr is how Norwegians refer to their recent history: the oil fairy tale. It conveys the magic of how in just a few decades, they have been transformed from being the poor Nordic neighbour to being the richest. We have no equivalent term for our North Sea experience, but let me suggest one: a scandal.

We are so well protected by Westminster that they are asking the Russians to work against independence: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/camerons-plea-to-putin-help-me-stop-salmond.23138182 Highlanders must be the most docile and passive people out there, and it's time they woke up and stopped doffing their caps to their perceived superiors. You get the government you deserve, independence or not.

Would you stop going because of a name change ? I doubt it. Plenty did stop going because of the MERGER, and the identity crisis many - like yourself - hold onto keeps those wounds well and truly open. I had a colleague, a Thistle fan of over 30yrs, "I aint supporting a team with the word Caledonian in it", he said, and who to this day watches Clach instead. Want more people thru the gates imho you're going to have to eliminate the barriers that restrict that desire, and your identity is one big barrier. Many years ago, John Boyle proposed a merger between Motherwell, Accies and Airdrie. Had he called it MotherwellOniansAcademical and played in claret/amber/red/white no one would have entertained it. Had he called it Buckfast Utd and played in Blue n Yellow for example ...... it just may have stood a chance. How do you know 'plenty did stop going because of the merger' ? By the end of our Highland League days the combined hard core of Thistle and Caley fans was circa 500 and while a number of those shunned the merged club, the vast majority followed ICT. Whatever the reason for our somewhat disappointing crowds it's not the name which has a unique stamp compared to the ubiquitous City or United and reflects over 250 years of combined heritage nor is it the fact that a handful of bitter and vocal anti merger brigade stay away and shout loudly about doing so. For goodness sake that was two decades ago and the initial 150 or so refuseniks are outnumbered ten to one by fans who if the think of Kingsmills or Telford Street at all, think of houses or a retail park, The issue is perhaps not so much the comparative numbers, but the types of fans who supported the old clubs and those who follow the new club. I come from a family with strong footballing links, both in playing and supporting, and for all three clubs, but mostly Caley. Of all the males in that family, only one has continued to support the new club, and many are hostile to it. Organizing a reunion with old friends in the summer, it also strikes me that all of them followed Caley as teenagers, but none now goes to watch the new club. People talk about the 150 'refuseniks,' but there were many hundreds more who went along to the odd game but who now do not follow the new club at all. The club has done relatively well to attract new fans, those who did not go to games before or who are new to the town, but it has lost whole generations of hardcore Invernessian football people.

Normally don't mind Dougal's posts, but this is a poor show I would say. Charlie was probably the most accomplished player to have come out of Inverness. Maybe things could have worked out differently at Celtic, but he was a young man and there were no real precedents for making the massive switch from Inverness to a team like Celtic. Think also about the coaching and preparation Charlie worked with, which was a world away from what is in place today, and certainly would not have prepared him for the challenges of living in a new city and playing for such a big club. Anyway, unlike others he stuck with the game and went on to be as I say probably the best ever player from Inverness. More than that, he seems to have raised a fine young man, and nurtured his footballing talent to produce a player who should hopefully have a bright future. How many of us could say we have done all that and had such an impact on football in Inverness and the Highlands?

what happened quizzer?

So ye beat the runs at Tynecastle.

Disagre totally Sneckboy I've been a Chelsea fan since the early 80's, ICT fan since merger, pre-merger Caledonian. I would rather watch ICT week in week out but "make do" with Chels as I live in West London. It costs me a wedge to fly "home or away" to watch ICT so I head to the Bridge, but if / when we play Chelsea in Champions League I'll be in the Caley end. I also support any Scottish team that plays Chelsea in Europe so I beleive I can still support ICT 100% but be a bit of a slut and watch Chels..... "Chels" FFS.

Went to Wolves, I think, don't think he quite made it.

That's the thing CB, some people want to live in a modern, forward-looking, properly democratic country, and are not caught in eighteen-oatcake wishing for the return of the days of the Life Boys, the Bumber's Laney, and the Caddie f*ckin rats.