Charles Bannerman

Nicking the Dalneigh minister's apples, then chucking the cores at front windows and running away. Throwing penny bangers into gardens - and also of course running away. Or alternatively, using the bangers to make genies.

And at the 2011 Scottish election the SNP got their overall parliamentary majority with 45.4% of the vote on a 50% turnout. That means that, by your own argument, 22.7% of the Scottish electorate - less than the Tories' 23% - gave them a "mandate" to impose on us these three years of the tedious crap which has been this Neverendum. As a result, 22.7% of the Scottish electorate who thought they would give the SNP a second chance to mismanage the Curriculum for Excellence, let Libyan terrorists out of jail and demoralise the health service find that they have also landed us with this massive distraction from life's far more serious issues. I also suspect that there was more to waiting until 2014 than some kind of pathetic attempt to get everyone painting their faces blue on the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn (a mixed metaphor I know) plus the Ryder Cup and the Commonwealth Games and yet another bloody Homecoming with its caricature invasion of Yanks straight off the set of Brigadoon. Because by 2014 I am sure the SNP are hoping that the silent majority, who really can't be arsed with this whole pantomime and are happy to get on with their lives as they are, will by then have got so fed up with it all that they won't bother voting. And I could see Salmond having the hard neck to want to keep having votes until he gets the result he wants because most people have lost the will to live and the only ones left who can be bothered are his own chums and a wee cabal of Cybernats.

Am Baile suggests that it may have been a General MacIntyre who owned Bught House during the 19th century.

Across history, I really don't think that we in the Highlands have got much to thank the rest of Scotland for.

Mantis... is this you been out for a pint with Tommy Sheridan again? (Well at least I hope it was just the pub you were at ) That list reads more like Citizen MacSmith's election manifesto. 1 - Yes, Macmillan should have done better on that original Coulport deal with the Yanks but I wasn't aware of any consequent surge in nationalistic sentiment during the 60s when the danger of nuclear war was hugely greater than it is now. You also make it sound terribly simple just to snap your fingers and the nukes will magically disappear with no collateral consequence. 2 - I thought even the SNP had put the "It's all the fault of the b*****d English" line on the back burner in order to make themselves more acceptable. And not a mention of the significant prosperity (eg the growth of Glasgow) as a result of being part of the Union. 3 - I get a bit bemused by this assertion about "having the confidence" to separate since it rather presumtuously and patronisingly assumes, without justification, that separation is a fundamentally good idea. Meanwhile it also conveniently ignores the awkward truth that a great number of people disagree - and/or have far, far more important issues in their lives. 4 - A sort of mixture of 2 and 3 above. 5 - The vast bulk of the Scottish population is within pretty easy reach of private education and it's only in the thinly populated Highlands and Islands that this is significantly inaccessible - and that for reasons of geography and population density, not ideology. Just as so much of the separatist case seems to depend on a wish list of what the electorate MIGHT vote for subsequent to any referendum vote, much of number 5 would depend on the subsequent election of a rabidly left wing government. And in that connection, I am not aware of the solely Scottish elected Scottish parliament having set about what it controls with evangelistically left wing zeal. I also thought that Yesscotland was pretty firmly committed to retaining the monarchy.

Gordie, the issue here is that I think there is an even stronger reason in the Highlands for a No vote since the alternative is for us to have to tune called for us exclusively by the central belt rather than be part of the much more diverse society which is the United Kingdom.

OK... here we go. * I would much prefer to benefit from the security and stability of being part of one of the world's leading nations than turn the clock back 300 years to become a small, one trick pony of questionable viability, whose principal claimed asset is going to run out sooner rather than later. Britain has been incredibly successful since it was formed in 1707/1801 and I would want to remain part of that. Small nations have shown themselves to be uncomfortably vulnerable during hard economic times. That is a risk I simply don't want to take for what i see as no benefit. * I am perfectly happy as I am so have no desire to change - as, for instance, are the people of two other major nations Germany and Italy, which underwent unification in the second half of the 19th century, much later than Britain did. The yessers keep quoting the Czech Republic and Slovakia but fail to acknowledge that Czechoslovakia was merely a contrived political expedient at the end of WW1. * In common with many Scots I have a strong feeling of British indentity which I do not want to lose. It is also increasingly apparent that this is also felt by the younger generation who are the ones who would have to live with the consequeces in the event of a yes vote. * Britain offers massive benefits and economies of scale in areas ranging from defence to pensions and from consular facilities to currency which I do not want to lose. All of this is hugely important and not to be thrown away on the say so of a group of people who ideologically want a separate Scotland - irrespective of the consequences. * The separatist lobby have utterly failed to show any credible evidence for what they think would be so much better. Meanwhile they accuse Better Together of "scaremongering" and the like when they quite simply are pointing out a whole range of very obvious problems which are totally avoidable by staying as we are. * Scotland has a number of serious problems such as health and welfare liabilities in certain areas as well as unpleasant sectarian issues. Separation would mean that these problems become a much bigger part of 5 million population Scotland than 60 million population Great Britain. In particular as a Highlander, I have no desire at all to have my entire existence governed by the central belt.

Do your New Zealand press have any sense of Scottish geography or the make up of the Islanders? I can see were the Northern Isles suggestions may come from but the Hebrides? What say can they have on North Sea oil? Also only around five percent of Scotlands total whisky export comes from the islands mentioned. As for the poll, perhaps the NZ press are not the best ones to report truth. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-shows-yes-narrowing-gap-1-3239245 What the Scotsman is reporting is a single poll reporting a 1% (ONE PER CENT) increase in the yes vote. And that's before the publication of the catastrophically vacuous White Paper/ publicly funded SNP manifesto which went such a long way to illustrate the emptiness of the separatist case to the extent that the SNP will be quite glad bombed into obscurity the instant it was published, hence limiting the damage.

I think they managed for several decades to penalise the Highlands for being in such a remote spot by keeping us out of national league football until 1994. That's therefore one of the reasons why I was delighted to see both ICT and Ross County in the top six of the SPL last season. The likes of Clydebank (sic) chairman Jack Steedman, who said that Highland teams would get into the SFL over his dead body are perhaps now gone but I am still quite sure that there is a degree of central belt resentment about what has transpired up here over the last 20 years.

If they do, there could be a few Christmas Carols coming from the main stand, led by Our Mutual Friend, captain Richie Foran. If not the main stand will revert to being something of a Bleak House - and also if Little Doran happens to Oliver Twist his ankle. Will the Old Curiosity Shop be open after the game for the purchase of replica kit which fans still want to buy despite these HardTimes? Meanwhile the identity of the assistant manager remains The Mystery of Edwin Drood.

You mean you expect him to ghost past the Aberdeen defence?

That final, which I remember well, was at Telford Street so the Clach boys must have said they had come from Wick to cover the three hours they'd just spent in the Clach Club after the game Clach beat Thistle 4-2 aet after Jags had been 2-0 up. This was a watershed moment for Clach since it was their first trophy following their first financial rescue in 1990.

The black and red shed ended up as a garage near the Bught opposite the American football sheds quite soon after Kingsmills was redeveloped and survived in that role until just a few years ago when the plot of garages was built on.

The chance would be a fine thing! The BBC in Inverness has one, first generation, Glensound box which is on call for everything in the news department such as election coverage and other remote broadcasts via ISDN as well as for use in conjunction with a satphone. Consequently kits for use at the TCS and GES have to be supplied as and when from Glasgow. As far as I am aware the BBC was obliged to reduce its commentaries for budgetary reasons and I suppose if you have up to six simultaneous online or on air commentaries, some of the listener figures must be pretty small. I understand that MFR have also discontinued their live commentaries but I am not privy to the reasons. Remember also that the only time that a Caley Thistle match won't have live BBC Radio Scotland commentary tends to be when there is a 3pm Saturday kick off. Agreed, that is the majority of games, but in the case of those at other times such as Sundays, early Saturday or Friday nights, there will usually be live commentary in addition to occasions when ICT is the Saturday commentary game which has happened a few times this season already. I can understand that fans want to hear full commentary on their own team's match but personally I prefer the Open All Mics format since you not only get pretty instant coverage of important aspects of the game you are especially interested in, you also get the complete picture across the whole of Scottish football rather than the brief score updates from elsewhere during commentaries. I am, of course, writing this in a personal capacity since I am not on the staff of the BBC. But I would suggest that BBC Scotland offers very generous coverage of Scottish football, given that there are 12 "big" teams plus others and a licence base of just 5 million people. For instance during 3pm Saturday games you have the options of Open All Mics, online updates, maybe a commentary if yours is "the game" and there are also second half TV updates and full times on the results programme on BBC 1 Scotland. In effect Radio Scotland offers football coverage from midday right through to 7pm. Given the demographics of Scottish football support, there is a limit to what is financially realistic for broadcasters but maybe clubs could indeed do something themselves.

The SPFL issued a statement on November 18th which said: "...the final decision on timings and venues for matches rests solely with the SPFL."

Such as on Policing, Fire and Rescue and local authority services in the face of a Council Tax freeze - all instances during the SNP's watch where power and influence have been focused towards the central belt and away from you and me? Not much self determination there under the SNP. And if the Scottish people can vote for whomever they want, Tuesday's 670 page Wishlist seems to depend massively on things which the SNP would have to be in power even to TRY to deliver them.

Alex, I seem to recollect that some time ago in a discussion on this referendum on here, you suggested to us that after separation there would be no need for an SNP. That's not really the way it looks now, given that much of their case rests on the extensive range of populist but economically unproven measures they are telling us they would implement if they get the result they want and in an attempt to get peole to vote for that. And maybe you should also add to what you have said there that we also have Council services which are creaking at the seams for lack of funding due to the SNP's six year Council Tax freeze (for which they are NOT properly compensating councils.) Now that's an interesting one as well. The SNP is the party which wants YOU to have more control over how your life is run by moving centralised power from "Westminster" to Edinburgh. So why are they taking power away from local areas and centralising it in the form of a Scottish Fire Service, a Scottish Police service and Holyrood exercising restraint on local authorities delivering local services. They seem to want to draw everything in towards central Scotland.

I'm really impressed that you managed to read the document so quickly. Perhaps you should give the media credit for having tasked large numbers of personnel to produce digests very quickly such as here... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25088251 What we have in this 670 page "Tome Tabard" (or "Toom Tome?") seems to come in two parts. A - statements about the shape of a separate Scotland such as:- * Keeping the pound and the Bank of England as a lender of last resort - which Salmond, but apparently not the entire yes lobby, seems to assume that UK Continuing would be quite happy to concede on the nod, * Secure pensions which don't seem to have been costed or shown to be affordable. * Keeping the Queen. Brilliant!! Maybe I'll change my mind and vote yes then! B - Project Bribery which is in effect a populist SNP election manifesto - but funded here out of the public purse. This amounts to what the SNP perhaps WOULD do IF it were to be re-elected in 2016... so MAYBE. This part is full of the kind of populist policies which we are quite used to being offered by parties before general elections to get us to vote for them. However there are radical differences here. In particular, if you then decide you don't like the party which offered these promises you can vote them out at the next election. But separation is for keeps, not just for Christmas. Furthermore all these bribes and financial incentives, which the SNP can't guarantee to deliver even in the event of a yes vote, haven't been properly costed since they originate from that well established SNP tradition of Wishlist Politics. And in the case of the Childcare promise, they have the devolved power to do that now - so why don't they if they think it's such a good idea? Or has this something to do with the fact that they realise that they are especially short of female yes voters, so childcare becomes a central part of Project Bribery? In effect they are asking you to stake your future and that of countless succeeding generations on a Wishlist of what the SNP say they would do if they get back in 2016. Basically all the SNP is interested in is separation - irrespective of the consequences. So it really doesn't matter what they tell you just now, as long as they get your yes vote - which unlike at any other election will be irreversible irrespective of how bad an idea it turns out to be.

So that's it then? The Sermon at the Science Centre. "Full of sound and fury signifying nothing" (I must admit I am also tempted by the phrase which immediately precedes that in Macbeth's Act V soliloquy ) After all that fuss and buid up it was a bit like getting summoned to the headmaster's office, only to discover that he doesn't actually own a belt, so all he can do is shout at you!

You are absoultely right there Starchief. People keep binding on about human induced climate change and completely fail to observe that the fundamental problem is not energy use habits but world population. That is the basic issue behind the climate change debate and a lot of other resource based problems on this plant. So it's therefore just a wee bit ironic that that self appointed environmental paragon Al Gore is one of the main offenders against the planet - because he has FOUR kids. Oh... and as I write... live and exclusive from the public launch of Alex Salmond's Wish List at the Glasgow Science Centre - in an independent Scotland, Caley Thistle WILL get a new manager.... with his salary paid from the Oil Fund

Probably round about the same time as it ceased to be the norm to wear a Tetley Tea Folk cloth cap.

Absolutely Yngwie. What do you expect to happen if you are trying to open up colonies and your neighbour, who also happens to have an unfortunate history of attempts to invade or harass you, sets up in opposition. Do you:- A - Ignore your neighbour's activities. B - Say "Welcome on board old chap. How can I help you mess up my colonial apsirations?" or C - Do your best to put a spanner in the works? Or to translate that into a footballing idiom - you are in the First Division and striving to reach the SPL ahead of your rivals Ross County. They put in a bid to buy Dennis Wyness who has two years of his contract to run. Do you:- A - Sell him but at a price. B - Say "Of course you must have him. Take him for free since it will help your efforts to reach the SPL before us." or C - Tell County where to go? There really is so much self-pitying tosh spoken about Darien by the nationalist lobby. Darien was a complete fiasco from the very start and didn't need the intervention of the English to secure its demise. For goodness sake they went out there loaded with trinkets and combs to sell to the natives!! The whole thing was a horror story of mismanagement and naivety from the very start. The Scots promoters of the scheme were simply the architects of their own sorry demise. However the "b&$%&£d English" brigade I referred to in an earlier post have jumped on this (and certain aspects of the likes of Glencoe and Culloden as well) in an attempt to create some kind of Anglophobic reaction, and the myth that the failure of Darien was some kind of English conspiracy. The reality eventually turned out to be that, IF (and I emphasise IF) creating an empire is what floats your boat, the Scots joined up with the English in 1707 and almost immediately discovered that they were Better Together in that Scots played a pivotal role in Great Britain then setting up of the largest empire in the history of the world. Similarly in the event of a yes vote next year, don't expect UK continuing to bend over to help you - such as Salmond seems to expect with respect to the pound (although I gather there are divisions on that one.) UK continuing will and should look after its own interests first and foremost. PS - Oddquine, the "shared monarch of the time" was actually Dutch and had, until her demise in 1695, been married to a member of the Scottish House of Stuart.

Interesting post where I see that:- A - the post-NO vote fall back position is being prepared revealingly early and B - we have another fine example of that traditional nationalist sentiment - "It's all the b&$%&£d English fault anyway."

The verdict of the generation which would have to live with the consequences of a yes vote.... http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/No-vote-in-independence-referendum-22112013.htm

That was also the kind of shocked reaction that I saw in my own mother and which I also couldn't fully understand at the time. My own spontaneous reaction wasn't particularly profound since I didn't at the time appreciate the potential implications which my mother obviously did. As Culduthel says, this was only 13 months after the Cuban Missile Crisis where Kennedy was perceived as having stood firm to carry the day, possibly averting nuclear war. The sudden loss of that source of world security must have been alarming for those who understood what was involved and also the immediate thought might have been that the KGB could have been responsible which would clearly have created an extremely dangerous situation. It is also true that JFK was very popular in the UK - which is a bit ironic since his father, Joseph Kennedy, had been US Ambassador here at the start of the war, didn't like the Brits and did everyhing he could to obstruct American support.