DoofersDad

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.

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.