Charles Bannerman

A book I've been reading about the towns and cities of Scotland says in its Inverness section that there were failed talks about a merger among Clach, Thistle and Caley in 1937. Is this familiar to anyone on this forum, even though Mantis was probably the only one who was around at the time? I am aware that the merger issue raised its head from time to time over a period of several decades, for instance Clach activated the concept in the mid 80s as they began to slip towards their 1990 crisis. In general, I believe that enthusiasm for a merger tends to thrive at periods of weakness, which is why I would argue that 1993 when Thistle and Caley were both on their way down after successful spells was a prime time to have one. In the case of 1937, this wasn't long after Citadel went to the wall (1934 I think) so it may have been a rocky time for football in Inverness as a whole, or there may be other reasons. Does this ring a bell with anything anybody has read or heard? ADDED MODIFICATION - come to think of it, looking at some of the other dates in the Inverness section, there may be a little leeway for flexibility here. For instance the book says that Charleston Academy was in place "by 1988" (it opened in 1978) and the original Caledonian Stadium was completed "by 2000" (1996). There are one or two other dodgy looking dates which are not relevant here, so 1937 may need to be taken slightly flexibly.

Certainly that's the tight medical definition, but the word is also used more loosely to describe gents with abnormally active trouser departments... such as the Stuarts. My interest in this wider topic concerns the hijacking and corruption of history for political purposes. I have no interest in the politics themselves - I leave that to the self interested within society. However I would still remark that it was rather nice in Scotland to be used as a guineapig for a broader UK wide Smoking ban!

Priapism... a tendency among certain males to retain a permanent or very frequent state of sexual arousal. This brings me straight to Glebeict's question about the relative values of the Stuarts. Priapism and related activites really were just about all they were any good at - especially Charles II and James II. A large chunk of the current aristocracy are desendants of the illegitimate issue of Charlie the Lad. (Well OK, some credit to him for setting up bodies like the Royal Society in between extra marital liaisons.) Apart from that the Stuarts really didn't have a terribly good track record. James II behaved so badly that he got chucked out after just over 3 years in the job. His dad Charles I was even worse. He managed to start a civil war and got his head chopped off for his trouble (as did his Granny Mary QoS). A number of the five James before her also met sticky ends (including the poor sod who got blown up by an exploding cannon but that wasn't his fault.) But conspicuously, James IV thought he could take on England Reserves at Flodden in 1513 while the England First Team (in these days probably much more effective than under Steve McClaren) were away to France. Scotland got gubbed and James got the bullet along with many of the Scottish aristocracy (no great loss there one might suggest.) BP Charlie of course ended his days in charge of nothing more important than a brandy bottle. However, although the Stuarts were a disaster, the Hanoverians, from whom the current crew are descended, weren't much better. Frankly I'd much prefer to have none of them. To be quite straight, I don't really have a much better perception of many politicians of all parties either. As for the "Whingeing Jock Lobby", what I mean by that is the section of Scottish society which seems to make a way of life out of moaning about how badly off and how miserably treated they claim the Scots to be. This probably has its origins in the over romanticised spin put on the failure of the 45 and on the Highland Clearances. In turn this has been siezed upon and exploited by nationalism which of course sees perceived disaffection with life in general and the English in particular as a votewinner. How often, for instance, (and I say this as a supporter of no political party - I am apolitical) do we hear the wee self satisfied supercilious Salmond fellow whine on about "The Unglush!!?"

I've now managed to read the link which Johnboy provided and it's a complete historical disaster based on the convenient myth which the Whingeing Jock wing of the nationalist movement would like to promote rather than on much historical fact. There are two monumental errors in the second paragraph alone. First there is the claim that the Stuarts were exiled to France as a result of the Act of Union of 1707. Strange, given that it was in December 1688 - alomst 20 years earlier - that James II, having behaved very badly, cleared off to France in the face of King Billy's advancing army of Rangers supporters which had just come over to Torbay from Holland. Then two sentences later the guy also tries to blame the 1707 Act of Union for the arrival of the House of Hanover whereas this was provided for by the Act of Settlement of 1701. It was then extended to Scotland by the Act of Union which as a result did us a favour by getting rid of those priapistic, drink sodden absolute monarchists the Stuarts and at least replaced them by a bunch who were perhaps slightly less objectionable. There's more, but in summary the main message from this propagandist tract is that maybe after all history IS very badly taught in Scotland. This guy certainly doesn't have much of a clue and this is before he even tries to put his "poor downtrodden Scots, shafted by the English" spin on it. I could imagine the nationalists will be quite delighted that Scots are so clueless about their own history, if it allows rubbish like this to be written and maybe even believed!

"Junior partner in an unequal union"... a phrase like that could only be written by someone called "Kingsmills"!

Let's put it this way... the Jacobite army was there to a far greater extent at the insitgation of the Clan Chiefs who decided to support that cause than the largely professional Government army was there at the instigation of George II etc. Like it or not, the Clan system was already in decline before the Jacobite rebellion, the failure of which simply hastened its demise. When the clan system became redundant the landowners basically decided to make money out of sheep so they threw the people out. I sometimes despair at the over romanticised tosh which, encouraged by the Whingeing Jock lobby, is spoken about Culloden and its aftermath. As I've just said on a different thread, the 45 was the Stuarts' FIFTH attempt since 1689 at reversing the Glorious Bloodless Revolution of 1688. It also happened at a time when Britain was heavily engaged on the continent in the War of the Austrian succession. So the Government quite simply lost patience and this time sent the heavies north to give the natives a damned good kicking. Not very nice but from their point of view it worked.

Maybe Bob the Dog should also ask the "Scottish Prime Minister", aka Wee Jack, to apologise as well. Scotland was up to its armpits in the slave trade. How come Highland history appears to have been so badly taught? Why do so many people blame everything on the English when, as Kingsmills so rightly states, most of the problems were inflicted by fellow Scots such as one Patrick Sellar. So Highlanders beware the rantings of the jumped up Weegie Cooncillors at Holyrood.

Weestie - I think you should do a bit of reading on the Jacobite movement to find out that the event you're discussing definitely wasn't Scotland versus England. It's tended to be hijacked as such by Nationalism and those of the Whingeing Jock persuasion because they would like to portray the Scots as poor downtrodden sods. As a result Jacobitism and Culloden tend to be misrepresented as some Scotland versus England thing. I'll say it again. There were huge numbers of Scots in the armies opposing the Jacobites... including Highlanders. For instance the Clan Campbell were wholeheartedly Hanoverian and fought for the Government. Lots of Scots had no time for the Jacobites and fought them tooth and nail and there were also some English Jacobites. Protestant versus Catholic is a much more accurate definition but still doesn't fully describe the situation. So how about this alternative take on the Battle of Culloden? By 1746 the Jacobites were into their fifth attempt since 1689 to restore the Stuarts and many Highland clans kept supporting these ventures. The British Government was seriously embroiled on the continent in the War of the Austrian Succession and didn't need this hassle at home. So what they decided to do was to come up North and give the Highlanders a **** good kicking to solve this problem once and for all. And it worked. Much of that kicking was administered to Highlanders by Lowland Scots, of whom up here we should perhaps be equally wary. Not nice, but that's the way human nature works. If you want a battle which is genuinely Scotland versus England, the last real one was probably Flodden in 1513 when Scotland travelled South to meet England Reserves and got a right doing...a sort of 9-3 job. (The England First Team were away to France at that time.)

The Sun did this one very well last Friday. The headline was "Last odours" and beside the story was an inset entitled "Stinks are on the house" listing the following offerings:- Dry Fartini Hum and Coke Alcoplops Champong Smella Fartois Drampooie Scotch Whiffky Boakfast Parp Lager Stink Gin. Nobody does these stories like you Cerebral Sun.

Scotty.... from the pics I saw in the Sun and the NOTW, it looked rather more like he fell on his @**e but in principle, yes. Looks like "Heir's" younger brother "Spare" is going just the same way as his Great Auntie Margaret did under similar circumstances.

OK FW... let's break it up into a few simpler stages. 1) One lot at Culloden was as bad as the other. I'd have neither. 2) Being a Royal depends on who your parents were. The job gets passed down. 3) The Royals are notorious for sh**ging around. They've done it big time since time began. 4) So they haven't really got a clue who their parents/ ancestors were. 5) So their case for their existence falls flat on its face.

You mean you want me to choose between a Polish - Italian drunk and a bunch of German imports? Suspect I'd go for the "plague on both your houses" line and opt for a Republic. The concept of Royalty is pretty synthetic anyway since their perpetuation relies on the hereditary principle in an environment where, since time began, nobody in the Royals is really sure who has been bedding whom. In other words, it's perfectly possible that they (and that of course includes the present lot) are quite simply - like you and me - the progeny of stable boys, footmen and butlers. You'd certainly be entitled to come to that conclusion if you look at photos in the Sun and the News of the World of young Harry staggering about the place.

Please let's not fall into the common trap of assuming that the Battle of Culloden was a Scotland - England game. There were large numbers of Scots on both sides as well as not a few English Jacobites. "Old Firm" is a bit closer to the truth but still not bang on the mark. Complicated phenomenon, Jacobitism, and often hijacked by those of the "whingeing Jock" persuasion who like to have a moan about how awful the English have been.

I thought a Clapometer was a device for diagnosing gonorrhoea. I have to say I am hugely disappointed in the extent to which IHE has been drawn in by the English legal system.... libel, County Court, Crown Court.... Presumably this is a result of regular experience down Chorley way. And finally... what happened to the line that was meant to be drawn under this? I can only commend the final words of TM4TJ.

Indeed HC, witchhunts DO still occur in the modern era and these days the victims are mainly users of fossil fuels. In post Renaissance Europe strange old women were needlesly persecuted ... in 1950s America it was alleged Communinsts... and in 21st Century Britain it's poeple with cars and central heating who are demonised on fabricated evidence. Carbon Dioxide... the 21st Centruy's answer to witchcraft. But, to avoid getting bounced to "Anything Goes" I would conclude.... don't worry Charlie, the Little Green Men (and I don't mean Jinky Johnston and Fergus McCann) will ensure that man's fundamental need for something to victimise will soon focus away from you and on to people who use conventional light bulbs.

I've been out of circulation today but my BBC colleague Kenny MacIntyre in Glasgow did manage to get a fairly extended 3+ minute interview with Charlie this morning in response to what the papers have been saying. This was broadcast at 8:30 on Good Morning Scotland and in part on the local bulletins just before 1. I have only heard a couple of clips of this so far, but according to them and to what those who have heard it in full have told me, Charlie is firmly dismissing and denying the newspaper claims about him threatening to stand down. He does agree that there were heated words in the dressing room post match and says these have been misrepresented. Remember this is straight from the horse's mouth whereas the newspaper reports have no quotes. I would presume that what the newspapers had arose from some kind of dressing room leak. Charlie also raises one or two issues which I understand he will be discussing with Graeme Bennett and Alan Savage over the next few days. These include player recruitment (specifically scouting) and the wage structure. He seems to feel that Caley Thistle has come thus far under its present arrangements and the time has now come to adapt in accordance with the club's current status. This corresponds strongly with what he said at the post match press conference at 5:30 on Saturday where he spoke about the club having "reached a crux." And having listened though again to what he said there....just minutes after these alleged heated dressing room exchanges... I can't, even with the beneffit of hindsight, detect any hint of an inclination to stand down. I would also not be surprised if temperatures in the dressing room have already begun to return to normal. I would imagine that management and directors will all now be hoping for the kind of tolerance and support from their fans which they need in order to implement the kind of evolution Charlie seems to have hinted at. This adaptation is presumably very necessary for a club which has had to cope with going from the Highland League to the middle of the SPL in little more than a decade.

Apart from asking the questions to two interviewees during recording, I have no input or influence in this. I'm also not sure what the copyright implications might be. Oh and by the way, the non appearance of this item in recent editions of Football Focus.... that's Charlie Christie's fault too of course!

Captain... there is a cheap alternative in shirt names. Finland's Olympic curling bronze medallist is called Markku Uusipaavalniemi. On the back of his shirt he quite simply (and possibly economically) has "M15". So all Markus P's fans need to get should be "M11"!

You speak for yourself!

Sorry people. I don't know what happened there. The club were also told that it was going to be on yesterday.

It's our understanding at the BBC in Inverness that the Football Focus item on Caley Thistle originally scheduled for 3rd or 10th March will now be transmitted tomorrow (17th.) But don't expect a documentary. This was only ever conceived as a 3 minute look at the ICT success story. The piece was packaged in london but I expect that it will comprise interviews with Charlie Christie and Willie Fisher who managed the grandstand contract for Tullochs... plus Billy "The Legend" Urquhart wandering about the Telford Retail Park, reminiscing about scoring goals from the washing machine department of Comet!

Caley 100.... it's a wee bit more like "This isn't just food, this is outrageously over priced Marks and Spencer's food." This isn't just arithmetic..... JUD and Gordy Bus.... the Einstein and Heisenberg of crowd calculation.

Once you've completely mastered Statistical Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, you are then ready to start an elementary study of the enigmas, anomalies and mysteries of working out the official crowd at a football match.

This idea is absurd and should have been kept under wraps until April 1st. It means that there's a huge swing of six points on the lottery of a penalty shootout. It also leaves no means of proportional reward for two well matched teams. If they want any change at all, perhaps they could think along the lines of "bonus points" which Scottish rugby uses where you get a bonus point (in relation to four for a win) for scoring more than a certain number of tries or for losing by less than a certain number of points.

C100... I believe it was 204 from DU but let's not split hairs!