DoofersDad

Looks pretty certain we won't be seeing Ryan in an ICT shirt again. The Times is quoting Delia saying "We've taken him in now." Referring to his injury he says "He'll be out for about six to eight weeks, so he'll start training with us and working with the medical department now." He goes on to say "I think he will have played his last game for Inverness". If he has played his last game for us, it would be fitting if he was given the opportunity of coming on to the pitch before the game next week. It would be a goodbye from us and an introduction to the travelling Celtic support. Not only that, but it was his superb and very brave performance against Celtic at Hampden last year that was such a key contribution to us winning the Scottish Cup. Goodbye, thank you and good luck, Ryan.

Typical SNP response. A one liner making a statement with absolutely no attempt to provide any justification for it. This in response to a post which backed up the con trick allegation with a very specific example of a previous one liner being shown to be complete nonsense.

HT 0-1 FT 1-2 ICT Tansey Opp Doolan Time 32

Actually Alex, the strategy doesn't surprise me at all as I'm reasonably familiar with it. The strategy is basically to have 100% equivalent generating capacity in Scotland down to renewables by 2020. This sounds fine, but works only as long as the current single UK market works. In the event of an independent Scotland there is an assumption that this single market would still operate, but in the event that it didn't, Scotland would be vulnerable when the wind doesn't blow. The lion's share of the renewable generating capacity is wind power and the 2020 target assumes that 12.5 of a total of 14.7GW renewables capacity will be wind turbines. The total capacity from Hydro is projected to be only 1.6GW by 2020 and therefore could only replace a fraction of the wind capacity. Bear in mind also that pumped storage systems can only deliver at their capacity for a few hours before there's no water left. It is debatable whether the renewables target will be met, but even if it is, Scotland will continue to be dependent on English baseload generation when the wind is not blowing. It really is a case of "better together" as far as security of electricity supplies is concerned.

The drastic thing that has happened is that Longannet is to close early next year. That will remove a massive amount of Scotland's generating capacity and with the SNP strongly against replacing the aging nuclear stations, it is clear that Scotland will face a real problem in a few years time. It is great that the government have a positive approach to renewables but renewables are highly dependent on the weather and cannot give the guaranteed base load that nuclear and fossil fuels can. We therefore urgently need a more coordinated energy strategy. Scotland is currently a net exporter of electricity as a result of the investments by previous UK governments. The SNP's lack of a realistic energy strategy will mean we will soon be a net importer of electricity. For such an energy rich country, that really is quite shameful.

The fact that some other countries have also banned GM crops does not justify the introduction of a policy which is illiberal, reactionary and not evidence based. Nor does it justify the autocratic way in which the decision was made.

Whilst attention is focused on the SNP rabble at Westminster, the SNP government at Holyrood slip through almost unnoticed, policy which demonstrates what an illiberal, reactionary and just plain incompetent administration they are. For instance, back in August they introduced a blanket ban on GM crops against all the available evidence. Willie Rennie drew attention to this in a speech this week and it is illuminating to read what he had to say. I quote. "It is patently obvious that we should adopt an evidence-based policy on genetic engineering and biotechnologies. However, in August the Scottish Government took advantage of a new EU opt-out and introduced a blanket ban on GM crops. The Environment Secretary justified it as protecting Scotland’s “clean and green brand”. But it isn’t clear on what evidence, if any, this decision was made. The Parliament didn’t take evidence on a ban or sign up to it. It is illiberal to ban something on the basis of perception, rather than evidence. What kind of message does this send to the scientific community here in Scotland and beyond? How does this help the likes of the James Hutton and Rowett institutes – world leaders in this sector? It suggests Scotland is closed for business. The ban has been criticised by Edinburgh, Robert Gordon and Dundee universities and organisations from the Royal Society of Edinburgh to NFU Scotland. The head of the Scottish Science Advisory Council, which wasn’t consulted either, said there are “no examples of adverse consequences” and that GM crops are kinder to the environment as they reduce the need for pesticides. The last Chief Scientific Advisor for Scotland, Professor Muffy Calder, said it could have “apocalyptic” consequences, leaving key cash crops such as potatoes, soft fruits and barley – essential for our whisky – more susceptible to disease. She said the ban was based on “fear of the unknown” and some “unscrupulous articles in the very early days about potential health risks”. A damning indictment. Her predecessor, Professor Anne Glover, also said it was “not possible to equate ‘clean and green’ with anti-GM” and described Scotland’s failure to use the best available EU-approved technology as “a missed opportunity”. Far from protecting Scotland’s reputation the Scottish Government is undermining it. Just like those who questioned Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, ministers are indulging in an anti-science philosophy. You would expect ministers to at least have consulted their current Chief Scientific Advisor. The only problem is, they haven’t had one for the last 11 months. The post has lain vacant since December 2014. That says it all." As Rennie says, "That says it all". Policy founded on discredited but popular prejudice rather than best evidence is no way to run a country.

I take it from this that you now accept:- a) that the projection for oil and gas revenues which the SNP used to bribe people in the referendum was spectacularly wrong and b) that your previous statement that "Grand Theft Auto generated more income for Scotland in the last few years than oil has done at its highest price" was also spectacularly wrong.

Agreed. It doesn't quite compare with Spain's Casillas who, by keeping a clean sheet against England, has now kept a clean sheet in 100 internationals. Quite an astonishing record! Incidentally, I think it was awfully decent of the English lads to refrain from scoring in order that Casillas could reach that milestone.

The article Alex cited certainly doesn't remotely support his statement and I too would be interested to see if there is anything else forthcoming. I think a retraction rather than a citation would be more in order. Perhaps the statement came from the SNP's fantasy economics briefing document which was used in the 2015 edition of the game "Grand Theft Election"? It is certainly the kind of thing that works well with the SNP's social media one liner strategy. Scottish Government figures state that "in 2011/12 oil and gas production in Scottish waters is estimated to have generated £10.6 billion in tax revenue". A recent Telegraph article states that the entire UK games development sector contributes approximately £1 billion to the UK GDP per year - and bear in mind that in the UK tax income is approximately 40% of GDP. There is no doubting that the games industry in Scotland is very successful, but tax revenues from it are chicken feed compared to historical revenues from oil and gas production.

Aberdeen's rapid and dramatic loss of form means that the title is a good as won for Celtic. Celtic's focus will be to use the rest of the domestic season to experiment a bit with a view to finding a mix and style of play which will be more suited to Europe. Their failures in Europe this season will have been costly and they will be looking to improve on that next year. There seems little point in them buying Christie if he is not going to be part of the forward plans. Personally I would be surprised if he plays for us again this season unless he is fit before the end of December.

It's hardly a surprise that I would not follow the Tory line! They might be getting more right than the SNP at the moment, but that is not difficult and it doesn't mean that I'll vote for them. With regard to prosperity, you may recall that in the referendum the "Yes" vote was massively boosted by a campaign which targeted the poorest in our society and told them the only way they had any hope of escaping their miserable existence was to vote "Yes". They were told that in an independent Scotland a caring SNP Government would give them more money to give them a better life. I fully accept that Scotland has a diverse economy, but the leadership of the SNP clearly did not think it to be diverse enough or strong enough to pay for the bribes it offered the electorate. Instead, the SNP leadership told the electorate that their economic program would primarily be funded by oil revenues and borrowing. The level of oil revenues was predicted based on a price and a volume of production which were utterly fanciful whilst the level of borrowing suggested was such as to risk us going into spiraling debt (if anyone was ever foolish enough to lend on that scale). If Scotland's wider economy was strong enough for an independent Scotland to be more prosperous outside of the Union than within it, then the SNP would not have had to resort to such desperate measures in order to fund it's promises. I am also far from convinced that the Tory Government does want to cling on to Scotland. Of course they have to say they want Scotland to stay, but Cameron appears hell bent on making policy in a way which seems designed to alienate the Scottish electorate as much as possible. He seems determined to give the whingers plenty to whinge about. The way many Tories see it is that rUK would be economically better off without Scotland and would also be more likely to regularly return a Tory government. Cameron also completely played into the SNP's hands with the way he allowed the independence movement to determine the terms of the referendum and in the completely inept way the Tories then campaigned for Scotland to stay in the union. Just as it suits Sturgeon to have a Tory government at Westminster, so it would suit Cameron if Scotland became independent. It is just that both know that to admit it would be political suicide - and so the political silly games continue.

One of the things that really irritates me about the SNP is the way it constantly rubbishes the United Kingdom in order to convince the voter that Scotland would be better off going it's own way. It is therefore rather telling that on Armistice Day, when we pause to reflect on the sacrifices men and women have made to defend our freedoms, more economic news was released demonstrating how well the UK is doing in recovering from the global recession. Unemployment in the UK has now fallen to a 7 year low despite further massive immigration of people from other EU states seeking work. Whilst the SNP continues to peddle their negative message of gloom and doom, people from the rest of Europe want to be part of the UK and flock here to seize the opportunities available in this great country of ours. It is high time people stopped listening to the incessant whingeing and woke up to the fact being part of the UK is a pretty good thing to be.

Interesting article in The Times by Magnus Linklater regarding The Scotland Bill. He writes, "Full realisation of what all this entails came as an embarrassment to the SNP government last week, when it tried to argue that the bill would not let it reverse George Osborne's tax credit cuts, only to be forced to accept that it would. "It was a revealing moment. It suggested that ministers prefer sheltering behind excuses instead of determining how these fiscal powers can be used to best advantage. "The time has come, surely, for the SNP government to stop the buck-passing and start using its new powers. What, then, is holding it back? Could it be that taking on more powers means shouldering more of the blame when things go wrong? That taxes might have to rise and benefits cut? That UK ministers are not the only ones blamed for austerity? Maybe the view beyond the union umbrella is not as enticing as it once seemed." Linklater may only just have twigged what the SNP's game is but some of us twigged it a long time ago. In the coming months I am confident that many others will realise that the SNP are all about blaming others for their own shortcomings.

It is of note that extended Sunday opening in Scotland appears not to have created the problem feared in England, nor have the large retailers made Sunday the same as other days for the current Sunday opening hours South of the Border. Presumably if this is what they are now considering is appropriate across the country then regardless of what happens South of the Border, they will move to this in Scotland in order to balance the books. The real reason USDAW are involved is simply that the workers don't want the more unsocial hours regardless of whether they get paid more for them or not. Of course, if prolonged Sunday opening impacts so much on workers rights that the SNP feel it their moral duty to defend workers across the UK, then we can expect the SNP Government to bring in reduced opening hours in Scotland to bring Scotland into parity with the rest of the UK. The SNP have had nearly 8 years to defend workers rights and to limit the amount of Sunday working but have chosen not to do it. It is interesting you should quote the labour minister saying “We welcome that, after months of indecision and delay, the SNP have finally come to a firm position on this issue. This just goes to show that the best way to defend workers' rights and conditions is to maintain unity and work together across the UK." Clearly the SNP would not be in a position to get involved in this issue if Scotland was an independent country. It is good to see you have come round to the position that the best way of defending Scottish workers' rights is work together as part of a united state

No doubt we will have a Holyrood election thread in due course when the record of the SNP Government can be debated, but for the meantime - back on topic! The latest antics from Angus and his rabble is to oppose a bill on extending the Sunday trading hours in England (and Wales I think?) to make them more broadly in line with the hours we enjoy in Scotland. Their excuse for this unwarranted interference in an issue which is a devolved matter in Scotland is that if retailers extend hours in England they will put wages down in Scotland! Now regardless of whether there is any truth in that (and it seems hard to see any logic in it) their petty interfering only serves to illustrate an argument against independence. If they genuinely believe that decisions of trading hours in England will impact on pay rates in Scotland then they should reflect on the fact that the Scottish electorate will have absolutely no input into influencing these decisions should Scotland become independent. If trading hours in England are so closely related to pay rates in Scotland then clearly the way forward must be to retain the Union and hand back to Westminster the powers around trading hours so that these issues can applied consistently UK wide. The SNP is always bleating on about Scotland not being treated like an equal partner, so seeking to look at trading hours UK wide would be an opportunity for them, in turn, to treat the rest of the UK as equal partners. It won't happen of course. Instead, the SNP will continue to abuse it's privileged position in Westminster by interfering with things that are none of their business whilst at the same time fanning the flames of independence by finding something else to fuel a spurious sense of grievance in Scotland.

If Brora are going to win the title again this year, they just might want to improve on their penalty taking. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34765355

Open debate is healthy as long as it does not undermine a robust system of policy making and that those in power stick to the policy. Cabinets have always worked through a system of collective responsibility with people putting aside their own personal views to support the position of the party. The problem with Corbyn is that he has never been in a position of power before and has a record second to none in defying party leadership and voting against his own party. How on earth can he expect others to meekly follow his lead when in so many areas his view differs from that of the official party policy. How on earth are the electorate supposed to know what they are voting for with such a disorganised free for all? They are a complete shambles both North and South of the Border. South of the Border they handed the Tories victory on a plate and as a result we may see the UK being taken out of Europe. North of the Border it looks as though they will be handing victory on a plate to the SNP and that could result in Scotland leaving the UK. For a pro European, pro unionist party that would be some achievement!

In which case Yogi should be telling his agent to get in touch with the Chairman and have that talk. The whole situation is farcical. If the Board want the manager to stay and if the manager wants to stay then both should be keen to talk ASAP. The fact that they are not talking and that it is being dragged into the media would suggest that there are some significant tensions behind the scenes. There is a need to sort this out soon before the club becomes a laughing stock.

...and getting paid a hell of a lot more for it!

HT. 1 - 0 FT. 1-0 ICT. Tansey Opp McDonald Time. 32

I thought that was a generally better performance and felt that there was a bit more positivity in the game plan. Without ever creating much in the first 45, we at least looked as if we were trying to with a lot of possession in the opposition half. Once Loy had tucked the penalty away early in the 2nd half I feared the worst as heads seemed to go down a bit and the crowd was beginning to get frustrated at the back passing and lack of urgency. Then Tansey's equaliser from the spot seemed to lift both the team and the crowd and the 10 men played with a belief that they could go on and win the game. Dundee also looked to exploit the numerical advantage. Garry Warren making a welcome and unexpected return off the bench, was given a stern test which he passed with flying colours. We ended up with quite an enjoyable game of football. Part of the more positive approach was Tremarco taking on defenders down the left. He was by no means particularly successful but it did draw defenders wide and created openings when he did get down the line. Polworth was again effective when he pressed forward and I really would like to see him and Tansey get forward more. Christie works his socks off but rarely gets a shot away or makes a telling pass. He undoubtedly has talent but he needs more movement and support around him to realise his potential. But despite an improved display, we still had too few attempts on goal. We need to get forward quicker and we need to offer a bit more variety. With only 3 league fixtures in November we may well be able to get 3 or 4 more players back before a busy December. That would be a real boost and would provide a few more attacking options to support a more positive approach.

I'm off to the attic to look for my boots.

HT 0-0 FT 1-2 ICT Tansey Opp Loy Time 51

It sounds from the interview that he has definitely been offered a new contract. If so then I assume the Board will be requiring him to make a decision by a defined date.It is good business to try to clarify the managerial position before negotiating deals with the players and with the January window fast approaching, it would be good to get key players signed up before then. An early decision around Hughes' contract will either confirm his role here or will allow both Hughes and the Board to put feelers out about what happens at the end of the season. It is in everyone's interest to clarify his contract position ASAP but I for one expect him to leave at the end of the season, if not before.