DoofersDad

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.

The best game I've seen at TCS for some while. Fantastic performance in very difficult conditions. I was disappointed with the starting line up thinking it looked rather negative but we actually played a much more positive game than usual with the lads looking to get forward at every opportunity and pressing the opposition hard. Hughes was saying the right things yesterday about the importance of this game and it showed in the comittment of the players. Whilst Utd were better than many teams we have failed to beat this year, it was clear that our lads wanted it more. Nobody had a poor game but Williams and Vincent were the two who stood out today. Mention also to Meekings who was excellent at right back and had a number of good runs down the flank. Also Devine who performed very well after his nightmare start when a backpass got caught in standing water. But a couple of little gripes. Why do we persist in quickly taken short free kicks around the half way line which tend to peter out into nothing? Why not get the ball in the box and put some pressuire on the opponents' goal? Secondly, we need to be better at retaining the ball when holding a lead at the end. Of course the big hoof is sometimes the safe option but we should be looking keep hold of the ball in the latter stages. We gave them the opportunity to put some pressure on us but fortunately they couldn't take advantage and we held on for a thoroughly deserved and extremely important win.

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!