Charles Bannerman

Predictably, they're at it again...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35625067

Sorry Alex, but the SNP forged the firmest of links between the EU Referendum and a second Scottish one a long time ago, so up here the two have inextricably linked by them, not by me. Hard on the heels of declaring that the outcome of September 2014 settled things for "a generation", they were backtracking furiously and using the possibility of an "IN - OUT" difference as possible grounds to bore the backside off us with another Scottish vote. I can appreciate why any SNP member may not want the two to be linked - until after any "correct" IN-OUT permutation may emerge - but it was you folks who "invaded Poland". In the event of a second Scottish referendum following a "UK out/Scotland in" EU outcome, one would presume that further issued additional to those in 2014 would include - * How happy are you to base your economy on a commodity feverishly promoted by the SNP for decades but which at best is subject to the backside frequently and unpredictably falling out of the price and at worst is getting towards done anyway? * How happy are you for a country which is as independent as EU membership will allow to have its sole land border with a much bigger non-EU market and all the implications that has for customs posts, passport control, trade tariffs, Scots south of the Berwick - Solway line who need benefits..... etc etc? Or will that just be dismissed as Project Fear? Once again I ask.... does the SNP's current position on Europe derive from a fundamentally held viewpoint, or does it represent the best chance they have of creating more dissent?

I've just heard an absolute belter from Sturgeon in defence of the EU - "It's good for independent countries to come together to pool sovereignty...." Wonderful example of oxymoron from the SNP.... and I use the second part of that word advisedly! I just wonder, if the UK polls swing towards "in"... will we see the SNP correspondingly swinging away from same - just to preserve that potential sense of grievance?

Is it not the Kessock Bridge in the early stages of construction around 1979/80 with Longman Drive running parallel to the approach?

I did - 2 hours before you posted yours (but you may well have known that.)

Unless you are quibbling over the omission of the word "but" after the word "Braveheart"...... your point is????

Who are you calling an inuit?

Better be careful advertising this function under that title. To do so these days is almost inviting a police raid!

Tummel? Or wherever the Queen's View is?

Loch Moy??

That must have been taken some time ago. These murals are in a dreadful state now so will need more public money spent on them after the Black Bull diving board is paid for.

It probably did back in Donald Dewar's day but has not tended to do so since 2007!

You mean occasions on which you WEREN'T arrested?

If your friend lives somewhat east of Inverness and found himself excluded from football for about a year before being completely cleared, it's probably the same person as I had a post-match session with in the Social Club on his return. The tale was so absolutely outrageous that I used it as a basis for a Highland News column illustrating the potential liabilities in attending football matches. If some of these people have such sensory awareness that they can quote verbatim what is said by one individual in a stand of screaming football fans, then why are they just stewards?

Funny how I wasn't surprised to see the name of Roman Golobart among the own goals. I also see an o.g. by a Dave Bus. Any relation of Gordy?

I have to admit that I had to Google that term, although the context had already told me that this is not a garment which is worn below the waist.

That's Armageddon for you!

I have to say that last night - as always - Richard Gordon and match commentator Liam MacLeod, who are both openly Aberdeen fans, were scrupulously "down the middle" in everything they said... as was ICT legend Barry Wilson who was summarising. What get up my nose - and every club has them to a greater or lesser extent - are individuals like the impeccably named "Diddy" who, in the case of Aberdeen, positively ooze with Gothenburg Syndrome and tend to give that club a bad name for that reason. I actually quite like Aberdeen in that they represent another chance to take honours out of the central belt and in particular away from the Old Firm. However the likes of Diddy give their commendably enthusiastic and loyal support a certain reputation.

Was that white smoke not simply a symbolic announcement that Celtic had been appointed the next champions - "Habemus Championes!"

Along with half the population of the Antipodes!!

Sheep tend to.

Back for the moment.

Power failure in main stand has taken commentary off air for now.

During the last referendum campaign, I do believe that sentiments of sensible caution like this were simply dismissed as Project Fear!

A very worthy sentiment but unfortunately, as DD rightly says, the SNP have got there first and already hijacked this issue as a possible excuse to create enough grievance for a second separation referendum. So, although Alex' views are commendably only influenced by what's best for the UK, that is not the case with the SNP who, compared with its sole raison d'etre, fundamentally couldn't give a toss about the UK or indeed any of its citizens on either side of the Border. The SNP have just struck lucky. A separate Scotland would be so shaky that they would absolutely have to join in with some larger entity - and hence voluntarily give up the very sovereignty the currently moan about not having - and it so happens that overall we may get a "leave" vote. Conflict created! So although I also wish that it could be possible to discuss the Brexit issue in isolation, the Nats have made this completely impossible. But to turn to Brexit considerations, I think the EU has gone too far and now restricts national sovereignties far too much. It is certainly a very different and more instrusive institution than the one we voted to join in the 70s. I just don't fancy being told how to run our affairs by a bunch of foreigners. I am also rather dismayed at the anonymous nonentities we are electing to the European Parliament and quite honestly I am completely unable to name one MEP (unless Farage is still there - or was he ever?) On the other hand economic cooperation is absolutely vital and there may therefore be severe economic consequences if we leave. It's therefore a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. The price of the economic cooperation is handing over much of how we run this country to other people. My heart says that I would be glad to get rid of foreign interference while my head says that there may be considerable economic risks. If I could get genuine assurance that there would only be very limited economic consequences, then I would gladly leave but I'm not sure if that's possible, so I am as yet undecided. On the other hand if some diluted down membership could be negotiated, I would feel quite inclined to accept that. I think the British view of Europe has always tended to be fundamentally different from that held on the continental mainland because here we have experienced none of the warmongering and hostile armies tramping back and forth which Europe has suffered right back at least to the 30 Years War in the early 17th century. I've forgotten which 1950s politician said that he had no particular desire to unite with six countries, four of which we helped liberate from the other two. I think it may have beren Harold MacMillian who, when invited to attend negotiations which led to the original 1957 Treaty of Rome, said that he was far too busy sorting out Cyprus. And although the Dominion status of Australia, New Zealand and Canada probably should have been dispensed with long ago, we do also tend to have a degree of friendly affiliation with states which departed from our former Empire on far more amicable terms that did the former colonies of the likes of France and Belgium.