DoofersDad

Apparently it clashes with some good sport on the telly

The Treaty of Union was cobbled together when the people had no democratic freedoms of the kind that have developed since then. Rather than go back through the mists of time to a point in history which happens to suit your desire for independence, can you not respect the basic democratic rights of all citizens of the UK regardless of race, creed, colour, sex, intelligence or whatever and accept the basic tenet of democracy in a modern civilised society that everyone's vote is of equal worth? You complain about the larger partner nation dictating to the smaller ones but yet apparently see nothing wrong in one of the smaller nations dictating to everyone else! But the issue of the EU referendum is not a case of Scotland being dictated to by its larger partner, it is about individuals within the UK expressing their view as individuals and having an expectation that each individual's vote is of equal value and that the view of the majority will prevail. Now I fully accept that if the overall result in the UK is significantly different from that in Scotland that might justify people in Scotland wishing to question their place in the Union again. That would reflect Scotland's privileged status as a nation and would provide an option not open to the people of Yorkshire or London should the vote go against their wishes. Why on earth can nationalists not acknowledge their privileged position instead of this constant whingeing and asserting that the votes of their fellow citizens south of the Border should only count if they vote the same way the Scots do.

No. In case you hadn't noticed. Despite not being a nation state, Scotland is a nation with many of the trappings of such. Notwithstanding their respective undoubted charms, The Highlands, Tayside, Greater Glasgow, The Western Isles et al, whilst constituent parts of Scotland, are not nations. Just how far do you propose to distill it down ? Are you proposing that Dalneigh should have a veto should it vote no or perhaps you wish to distill it down to the Bannerman household. If you are going to debate for goodness sake have some sort of coherent and reasonable point to make. The definition of a "Nation" is a minefield which I will not go into because it is actually irrelevant to the debate. Sturgeon's latest offerings are nothing to do with the rights of a "nation" but simply provide further evidence of her lack of respect for the principles of democracy and for the views of the majority of the people living in Scotland. The referendum demonstrated that a majority of people in Scotland wish to remain in the UK. What that means is a collective accountability and acceptance for the views of the majority within the UK in line with the democratic process applied. It means that if a majority of UK voters vote to leave the EU then so be it; we accept it even if we don't agree with it. What is equally obnoxious is the fact that she seems to think that the views of less than 10% of the UK population should override the views of the majority of UK citizens. What she is saying is that she doesn't give a toss for the democratic rights of citizens in the rest of the UK. If she had her way and if the other 3 nations voted 70:30 to leave the EU but Scotland voted 51:49 to stay in, then the UK would stay in the EU despite the vast majority of its citizens wanting to leave. Why would the English even bother to vote! The idea is preposterous and simply illustrates Sturgeon's complete contempt for the democratic process. It is just another example of the SNP wanting to be disruptive to the UK Government and to cause tensions and divisions between Scotland and the rest of the UK. What would be reasonable for Sturgeon to say is that of course she will accept the majority UK opinion, but that if the Scottish people vote to stay in the EU and the overall UK vote is to leave, then she would regard that as a materially changed circumstance which would justify a 2nd independence referendum. That would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say and would respect the democratic wishes of both the Scottish and the wider UK electorates.

That's very interesting. I've been a Villa fan since my childhood and certainly hadn't clocked this strange coincidence. But here's another one. Villa finished 17th in the EPL this year. Falkirk were 5th in the Scottish Championship and therefore also 17th in the league structure. In their respective finals, both are playing the team that came 3rd in the league

I certainly saw compellingly persuasive photos in one of the tabloids. What we seem to have is a mark on one photo which looks like a bite on McAlister's leg at exactly the point corresponding to the position of Ciftci's mouth on another photo of his face apparently in contact with the said leg. He obviously saw the mark and selflessly kissed it better

I believe McAlister was taken to hospital after the game. Not sure whether it was just for an assessment of the alleged wound or whether he had a rabies jab. But even if there is a medical report which states that McAlister has a bite mark on his leg the SFA will presumably find no evidence to prove it was Ciftci. It will be interesting to see what action (if any) the compliance officer takes this week

If you want to be different you could always wear a Celtic shirt and a Rangers Scarf. I don't suppose there will be many of those being worn on the biggest day of the Scottish football calendar. The outfit should also guarantee you a friendly welcome from all the locals as you go on a celebratory pub crawl later in the evening.

I agree with the first bit of this and to me that is the most important thing. As long as we play with a high tempo and look to get forward quickly it doesn't really matter which two of Doran, Christie, Williams Ross and Vincent we have starting as we should be too good for Falkirk. But personally I think we should start with Christie as his outstanding performance against Celtic showed what he is capable of on the big stage. He also showed he can keep it up for 120 minutes so I would start with him and look to run their defence ragged from the word go. I would start with Williams with a view to bringing Doran on around the hour mark.

Hopefully some support for us from St Johnstone fans as a win for us secures European football for them.

I'm a bit surprised at some of the players that are being released but I guess this simply reflects the size of the current squad. Kiss and Burgess are returning to the clubs they came on loan from and of the other 12, only Reguero started on Saturday in their key match against Hamilton which confirmed their survival. There will be a bit of money saved by offloading so many players, and if they can be selective in bringing in 3 or 4 better players and run with a somewhat smaller first team squad they may well be more competitive next season. They will need to be because the league will be stronger next year and a good bit stronger if The Rangers come up and King splashes the cash.

Ah, the joys of commercial interests! I note Ashers display an old shirt design and not the current one with the current sponsor's logo. I wonder why that is

HT 3 - 0 FT 5 - 0 First ICT None First Celtic MacKay-Steven Time 8 mins

Well, he's certainly had a lot of practice this season.

Yup, Collum's the referee.

I imagine Yogi has decided on his final starting line up but if there are any decisions to make it would be whether he starts with Williams or Doran. He may decide to start with both on Sunday and tell them they are playing for a place in the final. I think too much is being read into the Celtic wanting revenge bit and the injury risk. Celtic will be motivated to win this well for a number of reasons but I don't think revenge against us will be the main one. They are being presented with the league trophy and they will want to end the season in style. It is not in their interest to have a game which is too combative and to risk red cards and injury in a game which for them is a celebration more than anything else. We don't have great depth in the squad and bringing in too many fringe players risks us getting a heavy beating which is not the way we would want to end the league season. If that was what Yogi was inclined to do, then surely he would have done it against Dundee Utd. My guess is that he will try to keep things pretty tight at the back with the aim of hitting them on the break. For that reason I would see him maybe picking his usual first choice defence along with Draper and Tansey. Both Williams and Doran to start in midfield. I'd then put Watkins up front instead of Ofere in order to exploit his speed and I would rest Christie and start with Vincent instead. I agree that it is tempting to play MacKay in goals but if he was to be given some big match experience before the final he would have had it by now. He would be likely to have a pretty torrid time against Celtic and whilst the experience may do him good, the risk that it would be damaging for his confidence is significant. Personally I don't see a problem with Meekings playing. Of course he will get some abuse from the crowd but he will get it next year in any case. Any abuse they give him is a reminder that we beat them the last time the 2 sides met. Esson Raven Warren Meekings Shinnie Draper Tansey Doran Vincent Williams Watkins

I guess they were clean out of bitter. Inverness's supply hasn't been replenished yet since the Gelluns used it all on Referendum night. Not even a cheeky wee half pint with bitter undertones and an acidic aftertaste? I think they were elsewhere downing the Murphy's followed by a Grouse or two.

HT 0-1 FT 1-2 ICT Doran Opp Ciftci Time 33 mins

HT 0 - 2 FT 0 - 2 ICT Ofere Opp None Time 14 mins

I've obviously misunderstood something. It was the "Red Tories" Sturgeon wanted to lock out of Downing street! No wonder you are all so happy. I appreciate that you are bitterly disappointed but try not to let bitter disappointment turn into mere bitterness as I suspect you are better than that. Perhaps, although you disagree with us, you will forgive those of us who support the party who one in Scotland enjoyed success and popularity on a scale and with swings unprecedented by far in the entire history of elections to Westminster since union of the parliaments for 'being happy'. You may not like it but something happened yesterday that went went way beyond the normal casting of votes and from which there will and can be no return. It is not too late to save the Union and least for the medium term but that lies in the hands of the Prime Minister. If he fails to recognise what has happened and act fairly and appropriately and instead continues to stoke up resentment between nations rather than to properly implement what was promised towards the end of the referendum campaign he, and not the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon will be responsible for the end of the union. Perhaps there is still a chance but that depends on a new Treaty of Union this time one agreed by the people and fit for democratic purpose. It is always refreshing to have contributions from yourself to provide some sensible points to these political debates. Yes, I do accept that something remarkable has happened in the Scottish political landscape and supporters of the SNP have every right to celebrate. I would, however, take issue with you on your statement that the state of the Union is in the hands of the Prime Minister. Yes, he has a role here but like it or not, he, unlike the SNP, has a mandate to govern throughout the United Kingdom. Sturgeon has told voters in the rest of the UK that they have nothing to fear from the SNP and that the SNP will work with other for progressive policies and reform throughout the UK. She, in turn needs to ensure that her MPs deliver on that promise. Your point about a new Treaty of Union is an interesting one and worthy of exploration. My view was always that last year's referendum was a complete shambles due to the lack of clarity about key aspects of what independence might mean. But it took place and the voters opted to stay in the Union. That decision should be respected and rather than talk about a further ill thought through shambles, surely now is the time to take stock and have some form of constitutional convention to discuss structures of Government throughout the UK. What we have now is clearly not fit for purpose.

Right, so let me get this straight. People who believe fanatically in taking powers back home (well, no nearer home than Holyrood anyway) will, if there's a vote to take massive powers back from Brussels, start shouting for another Scottish referendum so they can hand them back to Brussels again. Oh, and when will the third Scottish referendum be? Ayesettee's scenario is the only one that would see another referendum in the length of time you have left on this earth Charles. Contrary to what people are attempting to spin the SNP have accepted the result of last year and have no intention of having another one. If that is the case it would be helpful to everyone if they would communicate that fact. Sturgeon has been repeatedly asked and has failed to give a clear answer. Answers have ranged from "it will be for the people to decide" to "there are no plans to have one at the moment unless there is something which materially changes the situation" with the "something" being left deliberately vague, whilst the wording leaves room for plans for a referendum to appear in time for inclusion in the Holyrood manifesto. This uncertainty about how quickly Sturgeon would like to see the end of the Union was a prime reason why the English voters were unhappy to vote for a Labour party which might be kept in a minority Government through a deal with the SNP. The irony here is that had Sturgeon behaved more honourably and made it clear that there was no prospect of the Union ending any time soon, then Miliband may have been happy to work with the SNP and voters would have been more inclined to vote Labour. Sturgeon's failure to be more explicit turned people away from Labour in English marginals and was undoubtedly a factor in delivering a majority Tory Government. So why wasn't Sturgeon more explicit about the fact that there will not be a referendum in the next Holyrood Parliament? Simple. It has not been ruled out. It will be fascinating to see whether it is in the manifesto or not next year.

I've obviously misunderstood something. It was the "Red Tories" Sturgeon wanted to lock out of Downing street! No wonder you are all so happy.

I agree on that. Perhaps if the SNP had properly accepted the referendum result and ruled out a 2nd referendum for the time being whilst campaigning for electoral reform as the price for supporting a labour government, voters in England would have been more inclined to vote labour. But no. The SNP is not into the politics of progressive reform as it claims, it is into the corrosive politics of confrontation and division. It was always a Tory Government that the SNP wanted because a Tory Government unfettered by Lib Dem restraint will harden grievance in Scotland and increase the clamour for a 2nd referendum. Well, we have got a Tory Government now and we can expect a period of acrimonious, confrontational politics. A good day for the SNP maybe but a sad day for Scotland.

Salmond claims the Scottish lion roared last night and cannot be ignored. Wrong. The Scottish lion roared last September when 55% of the electorate said it wanted to remain in the communal pride of the United Kingdom. The SNP needs to respect and act on that vote before it has any right to expect the new Government to listen.

Both of you into bowling a maiden over and having the occasional tickle to long leg then?

After tonight's superb win, we are now just one win away from securing 3rd spot. On Saturday our two challengers play each other in Perth. Should they draw then a draw for us at Dundee would be enough. Another pressure game against Utd would be hard and we can't expect to get anything against Celtic (who will have a point to prove) so it really is important to get 3rd spot secured at Dundee on Saturday. Another performance like tonight's and Dundee will find it hard to live with us.