DoofersDad

1707! What was theirs was a political system where there was no democracy and the ruling classes made the Tories look like commies. Is that what you want back? Political structures, borders and above all the movement of people change over the years and is an essential element of the constant evolution of human society. Whatever the truth of what happened in 1707 (and there are certainly more than 1 version of that) we are now in 2015. Looking back to the perceived wrongs of the past has been a cause of conflict down the ages. Can we not get real and move forward in a spirit of mutual cooperation and leave these petty historical grievances in the past?

HT 0-1 FT 2-1 ICT Tansey UTD Ciftci Time 28mins

I think one of the things that so angers the Unionist Parties and ordinary members of the public throughout the UK about the SNP is this smug attitude which claims the moral high ground and which suggests that the SNP are treading the true democratic path. This goody, goody image is spearheaded by nice wee Nichola at the helm who obviously couldn't possibly be associated with anything underhand or dishonest - or could she? Willie Rennie had it right yesterday when he said that the SNP were not interested in stability and unity but in instability and division. Sturgeon's clarion call yesterday was for all voters, Yes and No, to come together in a spirit of unity to "make our voice heard". She went on to say "The more seats the SNP wins on Thursday, the more power Scotland will have - it is that simple." I am sure that all sounds very nice - but it is fundemenally dishonest. The implication is that without the SNP, Scotland's voice is not heard and Scotland will have little power. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask people down South and they will tell you that Scotland already has far too much power. Arguably it will have less power with a large SNP contingent because Scotland is likely to have no more than 2 or 3 MPs at most who are actually in the Governing parties. But that is no matter to Sturgeon because the power she is talking about is the power to disrupt and whinge - and she'll have plenty of that The SNP have stated that they will abandon the rather more principled previous position of not voting on matters which are devolved to Scotland - such as the NHS. This means that policy on specifically non-Scottish matters supported by a majority of democratically elected non-Scottish MPs can be thrown out because a block of SNP MPs vote against it. In addition, Sturgeon's refusal to accept the referendum result in deed rather than word and rule out a 2nd referendum means that a Labour Government could potentially fall within the 5 year term when Scottish MPs are withdrawn. How on earth can one plan for any kind of stable Government or policy development with that kind of uncertainty! The SNP continue with their threat of brakling up a Union and seem totally unconcerned of the fact that 90% of the electorate are directly affected by this and yet have been given absolutely no say whatsoever on this major constitutional change. Of course people are denigrating the SNP. They have good cause to. If the SNP wants to stop that then the ball is firmly in their court. They need to start having a bit more respect for the democratric process and a bit more respect for people in the rest of the UK. But, they won't. The disharmony, the anger, the divisions are grist to the mill. All this dreadful negativity is designed to fuel the sense of grievance which underpinned the case for independence. We saw during the referendum campaign when the momentum suggested that the Yes campaign just might win, that rational argument went out of the window and it was "independence come what may". It is now clear that it is also "independence any way".

Played my joker and still got 14 points less than Wanderer who didn't!

HT 0-1 FT 1-2 ICT Ofere Opp Graham Time 42mins Joker

Absolute rubbish. Of course Scotland is wanted by the rest of the UK. It is what the Union is all about. It is the SNP that is not wanted because it is the SNP who are saying they don't want our country: our wider union of nations. The unionist parties seek to implement policies for the long term good of the UK so what on earth makes anyone think they would want to do deals with a party who wants to break up that Union. It's a bit like planning for ICT's long term future by inviting folk onto the Board who want ICT to demerge. SNP supporters keep saying that independence is not an issue in this election and whilst that is true in the sense that a Westminster Parliament is not going to vote for an independence referendum, it is undoubtedly the elephant in the room. Bateman states that the SNP has accepted the referendum defeat and yet we all know that is not true. We were told before the referendum that this would be a once in a generation thing but now that the referendum is over there is no such talk. Sturgeon won't even rule a referendum out of the SNP's manifesto for next year's Holyrood election! Accepting referendum defeat means to accept that there needs to be a period of political stability where Governments can get on and govern. The fall out from the referendum was the Smith commission which is providing further devolved powers for Scotland, so why can't the SNP, for the good of the country, commit to a sensible period of working with the revised powers? If the SNP would respect the decision the Scottish electorate made last September and commit to a period of constitutional stability then other parties would have a bit more respect for them. If you vote in a UK election for a party that refuses to commit to the UK for longer than next year's Holyrood election, you can hardly complain when parties who are committed to the UK refuse to do deals with it. Bateman rather objectionably uses the phrase "they spit on us". By "us" does he mean the Scottish people or just the SNP? Certainly the unionist parties are not spitting on the Scottish people - quite the opposite in fact. Nor are they spitting on the SNP just because a contrived offer of "help" is refused. Instead, Bateman's language illustrates the rather unfortunate SNP unofficial strategy to look to create division and animosity in order to turn Scottish voters against the union. It's nasty, but it's a strategy that's working rather well.

I've said before that Miliband does not need any deals with the SNP to form a Government. Sturgeon keeps banging on about wanting to lock the Tories out of Downing street and how the SNP will never work with the Tories. By taking such a hard line stance on that the SNP give themselves no room for negotiation - they simply have to support a Labour Government. No deals are required. If the Tories cannot form a Government and the SNP representation at Westminster would allow Labour to form one, the SNP simply have to say they will support a Miliband led Government or else we could end up with a 2nd election with the risk of a Tory Government. This would mean more than simply supporting Labour in any vote of confidence, it would mean voting for Labour policy, much of which, after all, is broadly similar to SNP policy (independence and Trident excepted). The SNP would, of course have opportunities to shape policy through the normal committee and debate process, but the final detail of any bills would, in general, need to be supported. The reason for this is that voting against essentially left wing policies would be something that the voters of Scotland would not forgive the SNP for. Remember, a large majority of those who have switched to the SNP were previously labour voters and they will not have changed from their support of left of centre economic and social policy. If the SNP were to block socialist policy being implemented, the Scottish Labour voters who have turned to the SNP would feel betrayed and would return to Labour in their droves. The 2nd point is that Sturgeon also keeps banging on about the SNP MPs being needed to stand up for Scottish interests. But what is quite clear here is that the loss of so many Scottish seats to the SNP is seriously jeopardising Labour's chance of forming a Government. Labour needs those seats back and therefore it will be bending over backwards to to appease Scottish interests in order to win back Scottish voters. Bear in mind also that by relying on Scottish seats in Parliament, Labour needs the Union intact far more than the Tories do and therefore also needs to demonstrate to the Scottish people that the Westminster Parliament can work well for them. It will be better for them to be seen to be doing that off their own bat without any deals with the SNP, but with the SNP voting for the legislation they put forward. No. Miliband needs to do no deal with the SNP. He has woken up to the fact that there is no need for the Labour dog to be wagged by the SNP tail but every reason for the SNP tail to wag to the dog's bidding. By supporting a Labour Government without receiving any concessions, the SNP can lock the Tories out of Downing Street - which is what they have vowed to do. All Miliband needs from the SNP is for them to keep their word. Fail to support a Labour Government and let the Tories back in and it will be the SNP that will have the electorate to answer to.

If I was being cynical I would say that by coming out in favour of the SNP in Scotland and the Tories elsewhere suggests the Sun thinks the best way to get a Tory Government is for voters in Scotland to back the SNP. If was being very cynical I would say that coming out in favour of the SNP in Scotland is seen as good for sales. Probably more truth in the very cynical theory.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. As an Englishman living in Scotland for the last 40 years I have never encounted any anglophobia nor do I sense any in the changing political climate. That may, of course, be because I'm just such a nice person But why do folk in the rest of the UK not have the opportunity to vote for the SNP? We have it rammed down out throats that the SNP MPs will be working for improvements in the Westminster system and for progressive policies that will benefit folk throughout the UK. So if the SNP have something positive to offer voters in the rest of the UK, why are they not giving voters elsewhere in the UK the opportunity to vote for it? Voting for the SNP would surely be a good vehicle for those disilluisioned with the UK- wide parties and Westminster system to register a protest vote.

Whatever the polls are doing in Scotland, what is remarkable at a UK level is how static the polls have been over the last 6 months. There seems to have been a very gradual drift away from UKIP but the rest seem to be flat lining (in more ways than one, maybe). I guess the reason for that is that no party or party leader has remotely inspired the voters in the way that has happened North of the border. Cameron gives the impression that he just assumed the polls would increasingly move back his way when folk woke up to the prospect of red Ed in Downing Street and is now resorting to stupid gimmicks like his proposed law against further tax rises. Miliband is trying his hardest to look Prime Ministerial but is failing dismally whilst also trying to pull more offers out of the hat. Clegg meanwhile looks increasingly resigned to his party being all but wiped out despite some pretty decent achievents in the last Parliament keeping the Tories in check. It looks as though it is between the Tories and Labour with voters voting for the one in order to keep the others out. I predict a slight shift towards the Tories and Lib Dems before polling day with UKIP polling a little better than the polls predict.

This is actually pretty impressive. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32508618 Who said Chelsea were boring?

What! All 20,000 of us?

He joined us in Jan 2009 when we here headed for the drop. We did go down but bounced straight up in some style. We progressed in the following years and he left us in November 2013 with us sitting in 2nd spot in Scotland's top flight. So that's actually a pretty good record. Clearly we are doing well this year and the squad we have is basically players Butcher brought in. Butcher and his team seemed to have a knack of finding players who were underperforming in the lower reaches of the English game and getting the best out of them here. There is a downside to him as others have made pretty obvious. People here are bitter about the manner of his going but to be fair, that is because before he decided to jump ship to one of our richer rivals, many here thought he was fantastic and wouldn't hear a word said against him. They feel betrayed. Personally I see no reason why he can't do a good job at Newport but if he doesn't take a liking to certain players he will be ruthless in getting them out. As long as he is surround by players who are his players it'll be fine. Oh - and you might need to reinforce the dressing room doors and walls.

In England, those teams dropping out of league 2 tend to struggle in the conference whilst those promoted out of the conference tend to be challenging for promotion the following season. Standards in League 2 and the conference are pretty similar. I expect we will find much the same in the Scottish system. If Montrose do drop out of the league they are certainly going to need to strengthen if they expect to come straight back.

IHE is quite right. And let's face it, things could be an awful lot worse. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32488280

"Can I vote for the SNP if I live in England?" Folk in England taken in the the SNP's shallow sloganising have to resort to Google to find the answer to that!

Poor David Cameron is running about like a headless chicken so worried about the SNP gaining seats he cant remember what football team he supports I like David Cameron even less now that he has forgotten that he is supposed to support the Villa

I think you make my point for me, Alex. What the SNP say can sound superficially attractive but become hollow on inspection and actions speak louder than words For instance, it is highly arrogant and provocative to suggest that they will work for positive change across the UK helping to protect services like the NHS. Remember, health is a devolved matter and the coalition government has invested more heavily into the NHS in England than the SNP have in Scotland. Other parties are correct to bring up the independence issue just to remind the voters of the true nature of the SNP. To suggest they are doing this to deflect attention from the possibility of an EU referendum is frankly absurd. Most people are pretty comfortable with the idea of a referendum and many share my view that whilst I am in favour of staying in the EU, it is perfectly reasonable to have a referendum now given the significant changes in the EU in the 40 years since the last referendum. This is in stark contrast to the SNP who claim they accept the result of last year's independence referendum but yet by their actions make it quite clear that they do not accept it. Anyone who thinks the priority of SNP MPs at Westminster is to work for the good of the UK and not for independence is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I think their ground capacity is only about 12,000 which is very small for the EPL. There is still an outside chance that they could be joined in the Premier League by Brentford who have a similar sized ground and who also have an Inverness connection. They were managed by Terry Butcher who took them to the wrong end of the English 4th tier in 2007 before being sacked.

If you think they are unreasonable, it might be either because you think them too cheap or too expensive. Perhaps a 4 option question? I'll listen to the different points of view before casting my vote!

Thanks. Date's in the diary!

When's the final?

Oddquine, you seem to completely misunderstand where I am coming from. I would accuse the SNP of a lot of things but stupidity is not one of them. The reason why they are surging ahead in the polls is that they are far more strategically savvy than any of the unionist parties. During the referendum campaign I said more than once that the strong YES vote was to a significant extent the consequence of a totally inept No campaign right from the way the referendum was agreed to the appalling "vow" intervention. Since then it looks as though they have learnt nothing. The SNP have been clever in a number of ways:- They have been very astute in understanding the power of the internet and social networking in particular. That has given large numbers of people the feeling that the SNP are more in touch with the voters than the others. In particular the SNP have galvanised the young through social media and it is the young who have the energy to campaign and who spend most time sharing thoughts on social media. This is very important given that the younger age groups have previously not bothered to vote as much as others. They used the referendum to promote the policies they would aspire to deliver in an independent Scotland. Of course it was unfordable but it sounded good. The Unionist parties could not put counter proposals forward because they were campaigning against there ever being an independent Scotland. Having poached shed loads of labour voters with this ruse, they have continued to argue for higher public spending in the UK Government election in the full knowledge that they cannot form a Government, will not be part of any coalition and therefore will never be held to account for non delivery of their pledges. What they "offer" is more attractive to your average left wing voters than what Labour is offering but not so grossly unrealistic as to make those who might benefit most feel sceptical. They have claimed the image of Scottishness for their cause. The "Yes" campaign had a St Andrew's flag as it's symbol whilst the "No" campaign did not. They claim SNP MPs will give a voice to the Scots in Westminster implying that Unionist MPs from Scotland somehow do not. And they dismiss criticisms of unrealistic economic performance forecasts as talking Scotland and the Scottish people down. It is all designed to imply that you must be in favour of independence if you are a true Scot. They have also claimed the image of positivism. Again the referendum handed them this on a plate with a YES/NO option. They capitalise on this by offering things we would like to see but which they will not be in a position to deliver. Sturgeon is constantly using the word "progressive" which implies she is offering something more positive and modern than the others. It seems to be working although I am sure the Tories and Lib Dems would consider their policies also to be progressive. They work on the basis that if you say something often enough people will believe it. They constantly criticise the Tories on Health Spending even though the Coalition's spending record on the NHS in England has been better than the SNP's in Scotland. For all the assertions that the SNP MPs will work positively at Westminster for the good of the UK as a whole we all know that the raison d'etre of the SNP is to secure independence. They will use their numbers at Westminster to further that aim rather than work for the good of the UK as a whole. I am not for a minute saying that they will deliberately set out to wreck the economy but by putting policies in their manifesto that they know a UK Government will not deliver, they will be able to turn round to a Scottish electorate and claim that the Westminster Parliament is not working for Scotland. The SNP has always shaped its strategy and policies on what best suits the Independence cause. When Scotland was voting Conservative in the 50s they set out to exploit the popular ideology and were known as the Tartan Tories. It took them a while but they finally clocked that Scotland had moved to the left and that they needed to as well. And how! They bend with the wind and say whatever they think best reflects the mood of the Scottish people safe in the knowledge that they will not be accountable for putting their views to the test. And having attained accountability in Holyrood they constantly shift the blame elsewhere. They starve the local councils and Health Boards of cash and then blame them when they can't reach targets or need to cut services, and then they blame Westminster for starving them of cash despite the extra the Barnett formula gives them. And now they say they will vote in Westminster on matters which are devolved to Scotland. They claim that this is because it will affect the Barnett formula. But despite this pathetic reason and the "we come in peace to help you" message, the real reason is simply to anger the English. It's the age old proven tactic of divide and rule. Of course the English are very angry at the prospect of Scottish MPs influencing health policy in England against the majority wishes of the English voters - one might as well elect 50 English Representatives to sit at Holyrood to meddle in Scottish affairs. If that wasn't bad enough there is the hypocrisy of Sturgeon's pledge that she will help the English get rid of privatisation of the NHS when the SNP have done nothing to remove the private sector from the NHS in Scotland. I've gone on long enough but I'll give just one more example of the shameless shallow popularism displayed by the SNP in this campaign. During the "Challengers" debate the leaders were being asked for solutions to the housing crisis. Farage pointed out quite reasonably, that in order to develop a solution you need to understand the causes of the problem and that as far as housing was concerned the fact that net immigration was so high was a major factor. Having earlier scored a spectacular own goal by insulting the studio audience, Farage was wounded and Sturgeon exploited the popular mood by deciding to give him a good kicking whilst he was down. She rounded on him saying that immigrants bring a lot of benefit to the country and it was a disgrace that he should blame them for the shortage of housing. How the audience clapped! But later, Sturgeon herself made exactly the same point as Farage had done in saying why we needed to find ways of building more affordable housing. The opportunism and hypocrisy is quite breathtaking. So, yes. I agree the SNP leaders are clever, but they are also dishonest, hypocritical, controlling, manipulative and opportunistic. As for the two party leaders, one of which will be our next Prime Minister - well, words fail me. Inept during the referendum and inept now. Far from being the best Prime Ministerial candidate in the country, Milliband is not even the best candidate in his family. And why on Earth does Cameron get so obsessed about the SNP? Perhaps it is his guilt about how close he was to being responsible for the break up of the Union - but if so, he has learnt nothing. Why can't he learn about being a bit more positive? All we hear about is his attacks on the dangers of a labour Government and particularly one with SNP support. It might make for good copy for journalists but it does nothing for the voters other than to turn them off politics.

I agree and feel that more incisive play was the key also to our semi-final success. Our stuttering form prior to that was in my view a result of a very negative approach to the matches. We are at our best when we look to go forward. Continue with a more positive approach and we shoud get back to winning ways in the league.