DoofersDad

As we head toward the General Election it is worth noting that ICT has its very own David, Ed and Nick David Raven. Gives generally composed performances on the right although prone to moments of rashness. Would very much like an extension to his term of office but this is still far from certain. Ed Ofere. New to this type of contest. Would like to get to number 10 by the end of the season but will need the campaign manager to have more faith in him together with more support from his team mates if he is to achieve that. Nick Ross. Occupies the middle ground and whilst a generally sound performer may well struggle to keep his place in the team That's our version of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. But who is ICT's Nicola Sturgeon and why? And do we have a Nigel Farage trying to keep us out of Europe?

You may well be right. Had to laugh during tonight's STV Scottish leaders' debate when Murphy laid into Sturgeon telling her that she might get away with what she'd just said down South but she won't get away with it in Scotland. It seemed to be a not too subtle dig at the ineffectiveness of Miliband during the 7 up debate the other day. (7 up - lots of gas but little substance). Is it just me but or do others think that Miliband seems to have been spending far too much time watching Tony Blair videos of how to be Smarmy on prime time TV? Murphy is far more natural and I have to say I rather liked his more old fashioned shoot from the hip style.

Personally I favour Brill but what matters is who Yogi thinks is the better keeper. Brill started the season as first choice keeper and Esson only came into the side because Brill was injured. Esson has done fine in the meantime but has not performed in a way that would suggest he has taken over the mantle of first choice keeper. I therefore see no reason to think that Yogi would not still see Brill as number 1 and would expect Brill to play if he is fully fit. I know he has been on the bench but I wonder if he is fully fit yet. My guess is that he's very nearly back to full fitness and we are in the position where Yogi judges that it is more of a risk to play Brill than Esson but at the same time more of a risk to have a 3rd string keeper on the bench than Brill. I would expect Brill to be in the starting line up either tomorrow or at the weekend.

What on earth must that lot have looked like when they weren't smiling for the camera?

Smear campaign against Sturgeon? Pull the other one! The person who this episode smears is Miliband and the person who comes out of it in the best light is Sturgeon. The SNP couldn't have engineered better publicity if they had set it up themselves!

There was just about as much applause for the subs when they warmed up in front of the North Stand as for anything that happened on the pitch.

Angus Robertson? Are you sure about that DD? I was sure it was Alex Salmond. Just based on the various Westminster deals he's been saying he'd be prepared to do with people, like..... Yes, I'm sure. Salmond hasn't been an MP since 2010. One gets the impression that he is simply assuming that he will be elected in May and that when he does, his annointment as Parliamentary leader will be a mere formality - such is the arrogance of the man.

Charles outlines clearly why having a Tory Government suits the SNP. Allow me to outline why it would not suit them to have Labour in power. Miliband has been pressured to confirming that there will be no coalition with the SNP so at least the SNP will not have the offer of one to juggle with. But if Cameron can't form a Government then the SNP will still have to choose between 2 courses of action in response to Miliband trying to form a Government. First option is to give broad support on most issues in order to keep Labour in power and, as Sturgeon puts it, lock the Tories out of Downing street. This should work as long as Labour don't push the replacement of Trident which most Labour supporters don't want in any case. The danger for the SNP in this is that Scotland might do rather well out of such an arrangement. Labour desperately needs voter support in Scotland and by giving a good deal to Scotland's working class Labour will win back a lot of the voters who turned to the SNP in the referendum. The second option is to offer issue by issue support but not actually deliver it. This would likely end with Miliband losing a vote of confidence thereby forcing a 2nd election. That is a dangerous strategy because whilst it may deliver the preferred Tory Government, voters who actually want what is best for Scotland will not take kindly to the SNP sabotaging an opportunity to get a good deal for Scotland and voters might again return to supporting Labour. It would bring back echoes of the SNP's shameful refusal to support Callaghan in a vote of no-confidence in 1979 with the result that Thatcher swept to power instead. It's all very well to state glibly that you don't care whether Labour or the Tories get in, but the fact of the matter is that the outcome of the election will have a major bearing on the likelihood of independence in the foreseeable future. With a Tory Government there will likely be an end to the favourable funding for Scotland under the Barnett formula, rising discontent and support for independence in Scotland. Frankly I doubt the Tories would be too bothered if the next Scottish Government called for a second referendum and Scotland became independent. Let's face it, the English Tories didn't exactly do much to support the Better Together campaign in the referendum. Indepence for Scotland would mean the Tories would have an absolute majority in the the rUK for some years. The scenario with a labour Government would be very different. For the reasons stated above labour are desparate to retain the union would exploit the opportunity to win back support in Scotland. This may well result in the SNP not having enough support in the next Scottish parliament to request a referendum and not winning it even if there was one. Sturgeon can keep repeating that she wants David Cameron locked out of Downing street but surely there is nobody left who actually believes her?

Jim??? Jim Murphy??? is that you? Im pretty sure it is? #ScratchedRecord What? Is Jim Murphy also saying that Ed Milliband is not Prime Ministerial Material? But just as an aside, why are we hearing so much from Nicola Sturgeon in anycase? She's not even a candidate in this election. Do the SNP not have anyone who actually is a candidate who is capable of speaking to the media? For instance, why can't we hear a bit more from Angus Robertson who, after all, is actually the leader of the SNP Parliamentary Party at Westminster. To be fair, he is also quite good!

Excuse me if I don't exactly feel sorry for Ms Sturgeon over the leaked memo when the person who benefits most from it is Ms Sturgeon herself. As for Sturgeon being smeared by the might of the unionists! Get real! it is Milliband who is being smeared from what the memo alleges she has said and he fell straight into the trap by attacking her rather than simply dismissing it as tittle tattle. After all, since when has Red Ed believed everything that's published in the Telegraph! Meanwhile, Sturgeon can complain about dirty tricks and deny the allegations when we all know that even if it was not what she said, it is what she believes. And if asked whether she would rather have a Tory Government than a Labour one she has enough nouce about her to give a more statesmanlike response and say that the SNP will work with whatever Government the electorate chooses. Similarly she will not be drawn into comments on Milliband's suitability for PM and will again say that is for the electorate to decide. The fall out from the affair certainly proves that what she is alleged to have said about Milliband not being Prime Ministerial material is true. It also provides her with the opportunity to repeat the plea to Milliband to lock Cameron out of Downing street - a statement that is presumably meant to give the lie to the other part of the alleged French confession. It also allows her to play the sympathy card. It's a win, win situation for her. But as with other things, there is a world of difference between Sturgeon's words and her actions. The only way to lock Cameron out of Downing street is to have a Labour Government and the best way of securing that would be not to stand in seats where Labour MPs could be elected. That was never going to happen and it's not going to happen now even though SNP success makes a Tory Government more likely. The truth is, as we all now, the SNP would rather have Cameron in Downing street so that they can oppose the UK Government rather than being pressured into some kind of support for a Labour led UK Government. As for little boxes, I think you will find it is the Scottish Nuts who want to retreat to their own little box rather than cooperate and share with others in a bigger box. It is also amusing to hear the oft quoted nonsense about there being little difference between Labour and the Tories. It seems to be a bit of a theme with the Nationalists be they SNP or UKIP

Crowd was better today because of a decent number of away fans. Poor home support but precious little for the locals to get excited about. We were the better of 2 poor sides and had more attempts on goal but stats show that despite our supposed emphasis on possession, Dundee saw more of the ball than we did. Good to see Doran play a full game. It wasn't his greatest game but at least he looks to get forward and is not frightened to have a shot at goals. I'd like to see Ofere play a full 90 minutes - Watkins is not a striker and Ofere looked far more likely to score in the brief period he was on the park. Time to rest young Christie as well, I feel. His work rate and appetite for the ball are 2nd to none but there is very little creative coming from him at the moment. As other have said, Shinnie was the stand out player and he certainly answered those who said he would not give 100% for the team prior to leaving for Aberdeen.

If I sound suspiciously like Jim Murphy then I guess that is because he is right about this issue! The point here is that the outgoing Prime Minister gets first dibs at trying to form a Government. The scenario we could well end up with is that the Tories get the most seats simply because Labour has lost seats to the SNP in Scotland. Whilst that in itself would not change how many seats the Tories won, winning fewer seats than the Tories would certainly weaken Milliband's credibility and would be likely to increase the chances of the Tories and Lib Dems going into coalition together again. Of course, at this stage of the proceedings they are all saying they don't want a coalition but when push comes to shove Cameron will be desparate for Lib Dem support in order to keep Miliband out of Downing Street. As for the Lib Dems, they will know that a 2nd election could wipe them out and therefore will be willing to enter a coalition with either the Tories again or with Labour. And in my view that would be a welcome moderating force in either scenario. Whether or not Labour are willing to court the Lib Dems is therefore irrelevant if the Tories get sufficient seats to form a Government with support from others (Lib Dems, UKIP, Ulster Unionists)

I don't know when the 999 emergency number came in but I assume that before then it would have been a question of just dialing 0 for the operator?

Sturgeon 4th when ICM, ComRes, YouGov, and Survation Polls averaged out. Cameron 22%, Miliband 21.5%, Farage 21% and Sturgeon 20%. Sturgeon's % rather distorted by the YouGov poll which put her 10 points clear of Cameron whilst all others had cameron ahead of her. As always, supporters of all parties claim victory for their party. I actually think all of the leaders did pretty well and there was no clear victor. It is typical of the SNP and their supporters to single out their fellow travellers in independence for criticism. The thing about Farage is that he tells it as he sees it and doesn't say things just because they are "politically correct". In criticising Farage, Sturgeon tried to make herself sound compassionate and honourable when in fact she is being utterly deceitful. If she does not agree with what Farage is saying then just what is she saying? Is she saying that in an independent Scotland the sick of the world will be free to come to Scotland for diagnosis and treatment of any illness free of charge and then go home again? Is that what you think? If it is, then our charity to the sick of the world will quickly bankrupt us. Truth is her policy will be broadly in line with the uncomfortable truth Farage outlined and which she so self righteously condemned. On the subject of health she also repeated the hypocrisy and untruths which featured so strongly in the referendum debate. She made an impassioned pledge to voters South of the border to say that any SNP MPs will support the opposition to the expansion of the private sector in the NHS in England and yet, where has she been campaigning today to support the NHS? In a pharmacy! In a private sector pharmacy! I know it was a private sector pharmacy because all primary care pharmacies in Scotland are in the hands of the private sector! The hypocrisy of using the premises of a private sector contractor to the NHS to campaign against the involvement of the private sector in the NHS is breathtaking. The SNP are also consistently hyopcritical when they constantly fail to acknowledge that most NHS medical, dental and pharmaceutical services in the NHS in Scotland are contracted out to the private sector.

The sight of Tories falling over each other to praise Nichola Sturgeon's performance in the TV debate last night is rather telling. Without doubt she gave a very assured performance but when do political leaders ever praise the performance of an opponent before the result? When are the inept Labour party going to wake up to the fact that their battle is not with the Tories but with the SNP? If labour are going to form the next Government they need to be the largest party and that is not going to happen if they lose a significant number of seats to the SNP. And when are left wing voters in Scotland going to wake up to the fact that voting for the SNP could hand the election to the Tories on a plate? The truth is that there is a really unhealthy alliance going on between the Tories and the SNP. The Tories want the SNP to do well in Scotland to ensure that the Tories rather than Labour have the most seats at Westminster and can form the next Government. The SNP for their part will be more than happy to have a Tory Government which is unpopular in Scotland because that will help fuel the fires of independence. The Tories would be happy for Scotland to be independent because that would make it far easier for them to form majority governments at Westminster in the future; they also see Scotland as a drain on the UK's finances. Indeed, these are precisely the reasons why Cameron agreed to the referendum in a way that made it as easy as possible for the YES vote to win and why their campaigning in the referendum was so low key. They may be poles apart politically but it is in their mutual interests for each other to do well.

HT 0-1 FT 2-1 ICT Tansey Dundee McPake Time 28 mins

The Express is highly selective in what it reports and is certainly not a paper I would ever read. However, the report Laurence posted is correct up to a point in that the Holyrood MSPs did vote for a salary rise which does theoretically make the First Minister the highest paid politician in the UK. What it doesn't mention is that there is a ministerial pay freeze which means that Sturgeon's pay will be restricted to a paltry £135,605. Personally I have no grouse with political leaders earning that kind of salary. What does annoy me is the kind of salaries Union bosses pocket. Sturgeon's pay falls short of that of the General Secretary of Unite for example. Huge numbers of civil servants also earn in excess of the the First Minister including the Chief Executive of the Highland Council. Sturgeon's salary may seem large to some but if reports are to be believed it will be £26,864,395 less than Lewis Hamilton will get next year just for driving a little car round in circles. In fact, Hamilton will get more than twice the amount all the MSPs will get combined. No, the salaries of SNP ministers are nothing to complain about. But their policies? Well, that's another matter!

...not to mention that it will not be too many Olympics in the future before Scotland will be sending a team in our own right. Yes a GB team and a Scotland team. Then everyone will be happy

Read today that the plan to reduce the numbers to 10 is to appease the broadcasters (sound familiar?). Presumably the ICC feel they will get more income to support the development of cricket in other nations by taking a larger sum for televising a more elite competiton. But it is not just about the money - cricket will develop elsewhere if players get the opportunity to play against better opposition. Perhaps a fairer way of formatting this would be to have more of the test playing nations required to participate in the qualifiers. In that way, not only would the emerging nations have more chance of getting to the finals, they would also have the opportunity to play against test playing nations whether they qualified or not. Secondary TV contracts would also provide a bit more exposure and money for the game. It might also spice up the matches between the test playing nations as the rankings following the ODIs between them would determine whether they were required to compete in the qualifiers or not. On a lighter note I was amused to read the tweet sent by the Japan Cricket Association to the England and Wales Cricket Board which read "Dear @ECB_cricket, this might not be a great time, but as there's room in your schedule, fancy a game in Japan on your way home?". Thankfully the ECB declined the kind invitation.

Having created the structure the SFA should be supporting teams who take the step up rather than penalising those who decide it is not for them. I would imagine that if Brora win a place in Division 2 any increase in gate money will be more than offset by additional costs. For instance, if the SFA were to identify criteria by which you could identify whether or not an overnight stay before a match was required, the SFA could provide a grant to pay that. This would support the likes of Brora travelling to Berwick or Annan and equally would support existing league clubs doing the journey in the other direction and who will also have higher travel costs if we have greater geographical spread within the national leagues.

Great wins for Wales and Northern Ireland too. There is a real possibility for all four of the home nations to get through to the finals. That would be great for British football following on from the generally poor showing in European club competitions this year

New Ross County hospitality suite launched.

No. Part of the magic of the cup is the opportunity for the less fancied teams to make it to the final. Upsets can happen on a one off game but very rarely on a 2 leg basis. The converse of this is exactly the reason why matches in Europe at the knock out stage are in two legs. It perpetuates the big teams getting to the latter stages and it's all about money. Whilst the current arrangements are not without faults, it is at least a structure that gives the underdogs a better chance of getting to the final.

At least Milliband has made it clear that there will be no Labour led coalition with the SNP. I trust Milliband will not enter into any sleazy deals either. One would hope that any SNP MPs will vote on what they think is in the best interests of the UK as a whole and in the event of a minority labour Government it should be noted that not supporting Labour on a vote by vote basis would mean siding with the Tories. But I'm afraid I can't see the SNP doing much else other than trying to manipulate the situation to furtrher the case for independence. Supporting legislation or funding packages which help to demonstrate the benefit to Scotland of remaining in the Union are not going to be things which will further the SNP cause. It really isn't in the SNP's interest to work with the Government to see that Scotland gets a good deal from the next administration. Unless you are in the camp which favours independence even if it means Scotland is worse off, then there seems little point in voting for the SNP in a UK Parliament. As far as good Government for the Scotland and for the UK as a whole, the SNP MPs will be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

My post above was very much tongue in cheek and realistically there is no viable alternative to a Glasgow venue even if there is a viable alternative to the timing. But whilst the venue probably should be big enough to take the demand for tickets, I personally don't think Hampden is the correct venue, Maybe I'm old fashioned but to me, part of the romance of the cup is that Hampden dream - a dream which meant you were playing in the final and if you won the match your captain would lift the trophy. Having the semis at Hampden as well rather dilutes the experience and the achievement of getting there IMO. Some would say that is over sentimental and that it is logical to have the semis at Hampden because it increases exposure to the Hampden experience to more players and supporters, it increases the use of the national stadium, it increases revenues and it helps to familiarise players to the venue prior to the main event. All those are probably true but whether true or not, they interfere with the romance of the cup. And if they are true then would those arguments suggest we should also play the quarter finals at Hampden? Getting to Hampden used to mean playing in the final. Oh that that was still the case!