Charles Bannerman

Nor did they vote for Strathclyde, Dalriada, Lothian and Pictland to join together to become Scotland in the first place - largely because voting was no more an option then than it was in 1707. Nor probably would the people of Pictland have voted to become part of Scotland if they had anticipated the central belt domination and neglect they would suffer - which is a further good reason for no Highlander to vote yes next year and have all their affairs run from Edinburgh. (And the "well it's better than being dominated from London" response to that has been anticipated - and rejected!) Looking at the longer passage of history - the bigger picture - Scotland, England, Wales and to a lesser extent Ireland were arguably just transitional stages in between Strathclyde etc up here and Mercia, Northumbria, Wessex etc down there agglomerating into Great Britain. The next step in this historical evolution is further agglomeration into Europe and the current debate is how far we want to become involved in that. But if the separatists want to turn the clock back, why stop at Scotland? Why not go further than that to Scotland's predecessor states because then you can claim that "It's Pictland's Oil" and we don't have to share it with them down there! If the UK was ever going to be broken up, then there's actually a stronger north case for independence for the Highlands and Islands than there is for independence for Scotland.

That rather reminds me of "Margaret" the patient who was in effect my aunt's cleaning lady etc in the massive house which came with the job at Dkyebar until the early 70s. She was clearly low risk and went about the place keeping this huge establishment spic and span for some kind of pittance.

Starchief... it's not a case of fear mongering. We currently exist in a system which works pretty well and certainly gives us better lives than in very many other countries. Unfortunately the separatists seem to expect the other side to "justify the positives" of a status quo which has been there for generations and has been proved to be pretty successful. Well there you go. It works! QED. It is therefore up to them to persuade us that what they are proposing is better. So far they have failed woefully, as I have been at pains to demonstrate in post #38 among others. Demonstrating that what the separatist lobby is offering - or failing to offer - is inadequate in relation to what we have already isn't scare tactics. It's simply an exposure of how totally threadbare their case is. Unfortunately, when challenged and exposed, Salmond and chums simply revert to their default setting of shouting very loud - in this case that their opponents are being "negative". If it ain't really broke, don't try to fix it - especially when the manual for fixing it is as woeful as the SNP are coming up with.

So this "separate" Scotland doesn't want to have its own embassies either. We already know it wants to use its next door neighbour's currency (£ sterling) so doesn't even have its own monetary policy and control. As for the SNP's "arc of prosperity" economic model, they suddenly realise "**** boys, Ireland and Iceland have gone belly up so let's just say Norway's wonderful instead." Then we hear this week that Mr Salmond wants Scots to be entitled to dual citizenship with the UK, presumably so they can also scrounge other facilities from them. Defence policy is non existent and totally anonymous and there's been no answer about Faslane. And it's all predicated on the jam tomorrow of the SNP's latest interestingly timed creation, the "second oil boom" where they scrupulously avoid questions about oil lasting for mere decades while separation is for ever. What kind of "Wee Pretendy Country" do Salmond and his chums think they can con us into voting for? This referendum is to a large extent about Scotland acquiring control over foreign policy, defence, economic policy and monetary policy. Look Alec, if that's the best you can do...... And, as Yngwie also observes... in traditional SNP fashion, as electoral prospects decline and arguments are lost, abuse of political opponents gets louder and louder. Do you write Joanne Lamont's speaches Chucky? The laughable thing about her is that shei s a marked improvement on Iain Grey (sic) Let's deconstruct your post. Embassies? We already have embassies all around the world, we could continue to use them, sharing the running costs with our closest ally. Alternatively we could sell or rent our share of the embassies and then find alternative facilities. It should be observed though that as a member state of the EU our citizens would be entitled to make use of the facilities of any other member state should the need arise. Monetary policy and monetary union are not the same thing. As an internationally tradable currency sterling is the obvious choice for us to use immediately following a yes vote. A new currency would create uncertainty and we wouldn't want that would we Chuck? We would then be in a position to create our own currency after a few years if we so wished or join the Euro if it has recovered enough. These choices should be made by the population and not the political "elite". Arc of prosperity? Have you even thought that through Chuck? Iceland is on the up because they let their banks fail which is what we should have done. Norway has 140% of it's GDP invested in foreign countries, think about that for a minute........Hundreds of billions of pounds invested. They have no deficit, AAA rating? They probably don't have any credit rating, why would they? They don't need it. Yes Chuck Norway is wonderful. Have you seen the news last week? Oil revenues in Scotland would be so much that it is feared, yes people FEARED we'd have to pay more to the EU. So don't go for that job @ £100000 per annum because you'll pay a lot more tax than having a job @ £10000. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Dual citizenship is a no brainer, really. I can't see the issue there at all. Scroungers? Ah there it is Johanne, leader of the "peoples party" in Scotland. So Scottish Labour would do what to universal benefits? How very dare you put SNP and "jam tomorrow" together! Jam tomorrow is a term coined by supporters of independence following the devolution referendum in the 70s when the westminster government rigged the vote. When else has there been a minimum of 40% of the electorate (including those who had died since the last census) required for any outcome? Scotland was promisedt hat things would get better. Poll tax, pit closures, steelwork closures, shipyard closures were what followed. Jam tomorrow, and what is happening now Chuck? Seperation is forever? Scary stuff Chuck. We have been independent or seperate as you like to call it before. Borders change, people change, countries change,everything changes, if we don't change everyone else will leave us in their wake. Change is good, if we work together we can make this a country that delivers for all it's citizens and not just those who have. Wee pretendy country? Please try to be more patronising, it really helps undecided voters to see the too wee, too poor, too stupid argument appear again and again even after the Westminster parties have debunked the myth. I resent that a public servant who is also paid by the BBC (scum) thinks he is entitled to be such a troll on a public website. If he used a pseudonym it would be less annoying. Have you checked your contract lately Chuck? What does this even mean? If that's the best you can do? And yes we will get louder and louder and louder until our message is heard and all the lies and disingenious claims from the no camp are disproved and the people of Scotland have the tools they need to make an informed choice in autumn 2014. .I can see you painting your face blue and white and bellowing in Scots with an Australian accent as you write!

When I was a kid the public perception sort of was that if you were in Dunain House you weren't quite as bad as if you were in the Craig itself. It wasn't until I grew up that I realised that Dunain House was for alkies - and I possibly had a better insight than most since for a few years my uncle was Martin Whittet's depute at the Craig before moving on to be in charge of Dykebar near Paisley. Mind you in these days alcoholism wasn't spoken about in polite company - they were just quietly shipped off to Dunain House. I certainly remember being in DH once in the mid 70s to see a colleague at Millburn who ended up there but even then it was never really said what he was there for. Palatial indeed though.

So this "separate" Scotland doesn't want or can't afford, to have its own embassies either. We already know it wants to use its next door neighbour's currency (£ sterling) so wouldn't want or couldn't have its own monetary policy and control. As for the SNP's "arc of prosperity" economic model, they suddenly realise "**** boys, Ireland and Iceland have gone belly up so let's just say Norway's wonderful instead." Then we hear this week that Mr Salmond wants Scots to be entitled to dual citizenship with the UK, presumably so they can also scrounge other facilities from them. (Sides... butter... both.... bread!) Defence policy is non existent and totally anonymous and there's been no answer about Faslane. And it's all predicated on the jam tomorrow of the SNP's latest interestingly timed creation, the "second oil boom" where they scrupulously avoid questions about unreliably priced oil lasting for mere decades while separation is for ever. This referendum is to a large extent about Scotland acquiring control over foreign policy, defence, economic policy and monetary policy. Look Alec, if that's the best you can do...... What kind of "Wee Pretendy Country" do Salmond and his chums think they can con us into voting for? Their proposals for separation read more like a business plan for Trotters' Independent Trading!!! And, as Yngwie also observes... in traditional SNP fashion, as electoral prospects decline and arguments are lost, abuse of political opponents gets louder and louder.

Ah, but what if the football club tempted Mr Jones by offering him a season ticket at the Under-18 price, even though he wouldn't be entitled under normal circumstances?! If you mean Salmond's attempted dodge to draw in the 16 and 17 year olds by offering "jam tomorrow" because he thought he could grab their vote before they became politically mature, even that has emerged as misconceived. A fairly recent poll seemed to indicate that a lot of these youngsters are smarter than he thought and are not going to be taken in by his increasingly transparent propaganda as the separatist case fails more and more dismally to pass scrutiny in the face of reality. Among the increasing symptoms of that will be Salmond bellowing louder and louder when he addresses the Parliament and his supporters becoming progressively more abusive to the increasing majority who do not agree with them.

How else do I explain what seems to me to be a perfectly obvious observation in logic? Scotland has not voted for separation and all the indications are, as any case presented for it crumbles more and more as the weeks go by, that it will not do so. That is because people are clearly unconvinced by the notion of breaking away. It is therefore completely illogical to quote completely different scenarios where other groups HAVE decided this is in their best interests so you can make the case that it would also be in the best interests of Scotland. Just because the Slovaks might like it, this doesn't mean to say that it is in the best interest of the Scots. Mr Smith went to a football match and liked it so much that he bought a season ticket. As a result, Mr White assumes that it will be in Mr Jones' interests to buy one as well. The only problem is that Mr Jones is a rugby fan with no interest at all in football.

No, what that proposition is trying to say is that if you vote for it, this will make it a good idea - which is a logical con. And you also have to remember the rather more logical proposition that the vast majority of countries stay together either by not having a referendum or by voting no in one because they are very happy as they are. The only reason that we are having three years of incessant tedium about the one we have to have and having our lives thrown into uncertainty until this gets sorted out is that the SNP got lucky and came up against a Labour party which had become so inept that it provoked a protest vote on the way it had been running Holyrood's affairs.

Absoultely not. What Kingsmills' proposition implies is that as long as Scotland voted for separation, then that would make it a good thing simply because it had come to pass. That is attempting to use "after the fact" justification of something which is currently before the fact. You can't simply say "Well look chaps, if you vote for separation, then that will make it good so therefore it is good, so therefore vote for it". That doesn't hold water.

There's a logical fallacy in that post Kingsmills. You are clearly trying to use it to suggest that separation would be "good" for Scotland. But what you are doing is to take as a "given" a scenario which has not actually come to pass before using that to assert that this scenario, on the basis of what you claim other countries think, would therefore be a good thing for Scotland. In short, you are trying to presume the outcome you seek as a lever to justify that outcome. That - as the universe's most famous Vulcan would say - "is not logical captain". You cannot use presumption of a situation in order to justify it. Or would you accept in court the prosecution saying "On the assumption that this man is guilty of this crime, it is clear that he has the expertise to commit it so the jury must convict m'lud"? The reality is that Scotland has not voted for separation and has never, in decades of polling, really looked like doing so. The least far it has come from that in the polls was in the immediate aftermath of Salmond getting his overall majority. But now people are clearly getting wise to him and his policies. So as the separatist case progressively unravels on the basis of monetary policy, defence, foreign policy, citizenship, the volatility of the price of the finite asset of oil etc etc, they are progressively reverting to common sense. I see today that we have got "Nats predict 'new oil boom' as referendum approaches shock" headlines. Well they would... wouldn't they? In the highly unlikely event of a "yes" vote for separation in the autumn of 2014 (yes folks - we've got another 19 months of this tedious crap to suffer before our lives can return to normal!) then that would be a unique departure from what has been, albeit not directly voted for, the settled will of the Scottish people for a very, very long time. As such, this would represent no more than an extremely unfortunate rush of blood to the head which - in the context of your original statement - would provide the classic counter example of "separate in haste, repent at leisure."

Alex.. let me first emphasise that we are debating a theoretical as opposed to a remotely possible outcome here! But I'm not even sure that what you would describe would relegate ICT. The reason is that not only Dundee but all the other intervening clubs would also have to overtake Inverness. I am not sure whether there are enough points on the board for that to happen although it might just still be possible this time given how dreadfully far Dundee are behind everyone else. The general point I am trying to make here is that theoretical, arithmetical safety for a club quite often comes some time BEFORE the bottom club can no longer catch them because you have to have enough points left to play for so that ALL the clubs can do so.

Good to see this happening again. I suppose it is an annual lottery to choose a Saturday which fits in with fixtures. But never mind... it could be and has been worse - in 2009 the end of season ball was on the evening of Falkirk at home which saw ICT relegated! I am sure this one will go as well as previous ones, even the 2009 function which was pretty good despite the general depression! I have to say as a matter of personal preference, I always find after dinner speakers at various functions a massive turn off. OK they do often raise laughter, but usually vastly inflated by the consumption of alcohol. Far too many of them also depend far too heavily on use of the "f word" in their attempts to achieve impact - to the extent that it becomes tedious. And even in the aftermath of a modest consumption of alcohol, it is perfectly possible to wake up in the morning struggling to remember what was said, or any of the "jokes". Quite frankly I would prefer to use any hiatus between eating and dancing to speak to and have a drink with other members of the company who were not at my table. At the Caledonian Stadium that is also a much cheaper option than at the Drumossie where the eyewatering drink prices are a rip off second only to the cost of taking part in running events organised by a certain local company! For what guest speakers cost, I really don't think they come close to value for money in terms of what they contribute to the evening.

The basis on which you seem to be calculating safety from relegation (not that this has been an issue this season anyway) isn't quite right. You appear to be going on the bottom club (Dundee) no longer being able to catch ICT. However for any club to be relegated, ALL the teams below it need to be able to catch it and the point at which there are no longer enough points left for this to happen is usually earlier than a lot of people think.

Commentary from Paul Mitchell with Craig Paterson summarising on 103.5 - 105 FM.

You are a bit premature. The BBC will have an audio outside broadcast at Victoria Park so will be doing.... * Full live commentary on 103.5-105FM. * Robbo on Open All Mics on 92-95FM. * Second half TV updates and full time report on BBC 1 Scotland. * Online commentary. * Text updates. * Full time online report. So choose any number from six options!

My understanding is that Alba had a 5:30 slot when they wanted to show the game but, in view of existing commitments in Dingwall, including a lunch time kick off against Celtic on March 9th, Northern Constabulary were unable to staff the fixture at that time. As a result it reverted to 3pm with no TV.

Doesn't all of that just show just how far these people are right up themselves! One suspects that Kaiser Bill's titles originate from the Unification of Germany by that pet rottweiler Bismarck in 1871 and probably originate from every little village and henhouse in the former Holy Roman Empire. I assume these were initially taken up by KB's grandad who was the first German "Emperor" and when it came to KB's own turn, megalomaniac that he was, he was more than happy to have all these gongs after his name. What a load of pretentious p**h! Our lot (who are Kaiser Bill's relatives anyway) aren't much better. Can you really get your head round the absolute absurdity of one human being addressing another as "Your Majesty", "Your Royal Highness" or "Your Grace". Just think about what that bilge actually means and realise how ridiculous it is that anyone should be grovelled to with nonsense like that. PS do Fergie's daughters - the two Princess Piggies - keep their gongs because of their dad?

I think you are an exception to the above , A master of inverted snobbery I feel By the way are you a prison Officer ? Well I suppose in IHE's earlier professional career he might effectively have been regarded as one! (Were you ever on duty on a locked ward IHE?)

That's actually me walking by on the left, just saying good morning to Mrs Pankhurst and her friends. Seriously, though, I think that photo was taken around the turn of the 20th century. It certainly couldn't have been earlier than 1895 since that building wasn't there until then. The gate in the photo disappeared in the 1950s when the main front entrance was put there as a War Memorial gate opposite the front door. If you look carefully when you go past that corner at the Crown Church you can actually still just see a slightly different colour of stone used to fill in the old gate.

I take it by that somewhat cryptic comment you don't mean "royalist"?

Laurence... do you not get it or something? The message from just about everybody who has replied to this thread is that they couldn't give a toss about any of these overprivileged nonentities who acquired their vacuous labels in the manner which I described in post #4. Inverness has no need whatsoever for an "earl" or a "duchess" and even less need to shoulder its share of the financial liability of keeping these pathetic scroungers. And the only constables that were of any value at all to Inverness Castle were when the Police Station was based there. So if you ask stupid questions - expect stupid answers.

Interesting observation since at pre season training in Montecatini, which I watched, I noticed that Alan Morgan was among the best at the 50 metre sprints Charlie gave them!

I think the original criterion specified "in the SPL"... otherwise I would have been first in the queue to suggest Vetle Andersen with Gary Farquhar and Martin Glancy not far behind him!

Something's not right though, as just the other day we were quoted as being second lowest after Perth saints, with the cabbagemen being a couple of I would now like to amend my sums for the County average attendance in an UPWARD direction since the website I got the numbers from (footballwebpages) for some reason didn't include the Aberdeen game on 3.11.12. which had 6064. That increases County's average for 12 home games in the SPL to 4128 which is now slightly above Caley Thistle's 4017. However, as I said, ICT have had one local derby and two visits of Celtic while County have had one visit of Celtic and no local derbies so far. So if you undertake the (OK theoretical) exercise of adding 2 x 6000 to County's total attandance and instead divide by 14, the like with like comparison is 4396 for County and 4017 for ICT. As I said before, I am merely performing an objective numerical exercise here whilst passing no judgment or making any interpretation. However I think it is reasonable to suggest that any football club will experience some kind of extra bounce with any new situation such as joining the SPL - as both Highland clubs have already found more than once on their way up the leagues. PS - I think I have now worked out the problem 12th man had with his earlier post using my "quotes" and it's as The Fly suggested. It seems that if you select your quotes first and then try to write your post, the system won't let you out of the "quotes" box so it's very easy actuallty to post your post as a quote from the person you are quoting and it seems that this is what has happened to 12th man. So you actually need to post first and cut quotes afterwards.