DoofersDad

It is pretty clear it is going to be a landslide for the SNP in Scotland but will they beat the achievement of the Tories in 1955 when they got just over 50% of the popular vote? In that election the Tory vote was higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. It just goes to show how volatile the views of the electorate are. I just hope there is nothing too volatile coming from CB's underpants on the 7th.

One should remember that some of the North O.F. fans who watch their teams when they play against us and County actually come from Glasgow but now live up here. We really can't object if they continue to support the team they grew up with in the same way as some of the folk who make up our excellent away support now live in the central belt. Having said that, the OF's continuing ability to attract support from far and wide is not healthy for the good of the game in Scotland as a whole.

Yup... I know.... the choice between Labour, Tory and Libdems is a bit like choosing between Measles, Mumps and Chicken Pox. But none of them is quite in the same league as getting the (Yellow and) Black Death. Er, ok. Thanks for your input. One option open to people but rarely used deliberately, is to spoil your ballot paper. In that way you make the effort to participate in the election but don't feel obliged to give your vote for any candidate. Years ago when I was an election agent in a Westminster election, the returning officer showed the agents a ballot paper in which the "voter" had used a marker pen to put a big black cross over whole framework of the candidates' names and had then clearly written below "I hereby exercise my democratic right not to vote for any of these t*ssers". Wasn't you, by any chance, Charles?

Hamilton will be disappointed to have lost out after their good start to the season. Indeed is is still possible although highly unlikely that they could be in the play offs

Aside from the footy, there was a complete lack of traffic management at the roundabout yesterday. Coming from OTB I set off early and just before noon hit standing traffic just North of the North Kessock slip road. 10 minutes later we had moved to just South of the slip road and still a mile and a half from the roundabout. Fortunately my wife was driving as she had things to do in town, so I decided to get out of the car and leg it. I got into the ground 5 minutes before kick off whilst my wife finally reached the roundabout 5 minutes later. There must be quite a few who missed the early excitement because of that.

Really bad news regarding Deano. Can't remember who made the back pass to him but it was played quite deliberately to his left as though he still thought Esson was in goals. Good to see Esson have a good game when he came on in those difficult circumstances. I was very pleased to see a more positive approach to the game and a greater belief in the 2nd half might have seen us get all three points. However, any points against Celtic are points I will always be happy with. Ofere took his goal calmly and seems to have a good first touch and distribution. I don't know whether it was the wind playing tricks but he did seem rather more concerned about where the defenders were than challenging for the ball at times. We certainly seemed a more balanced and threatening attacking force with him up front and he surely must start next Sunday. Thought Christie's work rate was top class. He put a lot of pressure on the Celtic midfield and was a major factor in them being less fluid than sometimes. But he is also frustrating that when he has the ball his distribution is often so poor. As for the ref, I would echo the sentiments of others. Mind you, I was talking to a Celtic boy after the game and he was moaning about the referee as well saying that the referee cost them the game!

I've answered the point about the independence issue in my post above but it is worth simply reiterating that it is simply not enough for the SNP to say they accept the democratic will of the people in the referendum vote, they need to demonstrate that they accept it by saying there will not be another referendum for some considerable time. I'm not entirely sure what point you are making about UKIP but I appreciate the sensitivities the SNP have around UKIP because of the way UKIP have highlighted inconsistencies in the SNP position. On the one hand the SNP seem to be opposed to a referendum over Europe, which is a bit rich when the last one was 40 years ago, and yet the SNP are not ruling out a further independence referendum in the next Holyrood Parliament despite the fact we only had the last one a few months ago. The SNP supports EU membership and you state that the prospect of wanting to leave the largest free trade area on the planet would be lunacy. But yet the SNP want Scotland to be independent from the UK when Scotland trades more with the rest of the UK than the rest of the EU put together. After 40 years I have no problem with the concept of having a further referendum - indeed I would welcome it as a resounding endorsement of our partnership in Europe might well see the demise of UKIP.

You have missed the point that it is the politicians who put the promise of a referendum in their manifesto in the first place. For Sturgeon to simply say that it is in the hands of the people is pathetic. Charles also makes the entirely valid point that people choose to vote for a party because on balance they like their manifesto better than the others. It does not mean that they support every suggestion that is in there. You ask me what authority do I or anyone else have to dictate what future electoral candidates have in their manifestos? The answer to that is simply a respect for the democratic will of the people and the expectation the leaders of the SNP will behave with some semblance of honour. It really is important to acknowledge the fundamental difference between a major constitutional referendum policy within a manifesto and routine policy proposal such as on taxation for example. If the Tories put up tax in one Parliament, Labour can cut them again next time round. But if Scotland becomes independent after a referendum, that is not something that can be reversed in the next parliament, or the one after that if we decide we don't like it. It is for ever. Surely before we take such an irrevocable step we should be satisfied that there is a consistent desire of a majority of the population for the change. That is important because if we don't have that then there is a serious risk that the people could be left with a political structure they don't want. Bear in mind that for the entire period of democracy in Scotland there has never been a majority of the population voting for a parties who support independence nor has there ever been popular opinion expressed through opinion polls to indicate that even a small majority of the people want independence. The Scottish people were given the opportunity to vote for independence and voted against it. That outcome was consistent with all of our previous democratic history. The reason why it is important that referenda such as this are no more frequent than once in a generation is that to do otherwise would be a betrayal of that democratic history. If we have referendum after referendum every five years then maybe one time the vote will be in favour. We would then become an Independent nation for the indefinite future despite the fact that the people of Scotland have never previously wanted it and may possibly live to regret it for the rest of days. That would be an absolute preposterous abuse of democracy. This General Election should not be about independence but we in Scotland all know it is the unspoken elephant in the room. Alex Salmond, to his credit, referred to the referendum as a once in a generation opportunity, but Sturgeon seems to take a different view and is not ruling out a further referendum in the next Holyrood Parliament. If that is what she intends then that will need negotiation with the Prime Minister elected in this General Election and we can all imagine the backroom negotiations around that. With a further referendum on the radar it is clear that issues such as social justice will be dropping down the list of priorities of the SNP MPs in the new parliament. Sturgeon is talking rubbish when she says a referendum is a matter for the people. It is first and foremost up to Ms Sturgeon to respect the referendum result. Yes, I know she says she does but actions speak louder than words. For the reasons I give above, she needs to say that there will not be another referendum for at least 10 and preferably more years. Only once she has done that can we get back to a full focus on the things that really matter to the people.

Just 5 goals conceded in 8 games. How we miss Billy's defensive contribution

Well sounds like someone has never been to a highland derby Been to dozens of highland derbies over many years... Are you familiar with the saying ' One swallow does not make a summer ' Tremarco was very very lucky he never got a straight red during his only derby, All I am saying is that he is no way good enough to replace Shinnie, It would be a huge drop in quality and detrimental to the team. Whilst Tremarco may not have the same quality that Shinnie has, I'm struggling to see how it would be detrimental to the team by having Tremarco in the side. It aint rocket science mate, poorer quality players, poorer performance etc etc Tremarco has had 8 starts this season in the league. We have won 5, drawn 1 and lost narrowly to both Celtic and Aberdeen. In those matches we conceded just 5 goals and never more than 2 in the same match. It seems to me that we have done pretty well when Tremarco is in the side. I

I am sure administrative changes are needed but I think the root cause of England's demise lies far deeper than that. You can have a great structure but it is great players that win matches and there are fewer and fewer coming through the system because youngsters simply don't spend the time playing the game. I am sure there are a range of social factors here (and the weather doesn't help) but it does seem that in the UK we have developed a culture in which playing ball games either informally with your mates or as part of organised coaching set up is not seen as cool. I was in Auckland a couple of years ago and the contrast was stark. On a Saturday morning one large area of parkland was absolutely packed with 20 - 30 games of cricket going on - far too many for the space available but this was presumably a reflection of the demand. Elsewhere seeing groups of youngsters or family groups with bat and ball was common place. Perhaps rising cases of obesity and diabetes among the young will help a return to a culture where kids are once again encouraged and want to go outside and play.

You seem to have rather broadened the debate. You make reference to the SNP's performance in the Holyrood Parliament and I would agree that it started off pretty well. Believe it or not, I even voted for them once! But I'm not sure that you can extrapolate a decent and cooperative performance in a Scottish Parliament which is what the SNP want (albeit with greater powers), to a balance of power involvement with a UK Parliament they want to break up. In one they have an incentive to demonstrate that they can govern well whilst in the other they want to demonstrate it does not serve Scotland's purpose. Whilst I am more than happy to respect your wish for social justice as a reason for wishing independence for Scotland, I do not accept that it is a view shared by everyone. It was very clear in the referendum that there is a large part of the independence movement which wants Scotland to be independent for some vague notion of freedom and for better or worse. But whilst I respect your views on social justice, I personally can't see this as a compelling reason for choosing independence. The current political climate might well allow more social justice in an independent Scotland but political climates can change pretty quickly and a few years down the line there could just as easily be an environment of greater social justice South of the Border. You may see this as an election about campaigning for fairer distribution of wealth but then so do Labour and the Lib Dems. There would be more chance of electing a Government capable of delivering improvements in social justice if the waters were not being muddied by a party whose raison d'etre is to gain Independence for Scotland and whose electoral success makes a Tory government more likely. Finally, I think we need to be clear about what is a matter for the people andwhat is a matter for the people because Ms Sturgeon seems to be mightily confused. Whether we vote one way or another in a referendum is, of course a matter for the people. But what is in the hands of the politicians is whether we have a referendum at all. In being pressed about whether there might be a 2nd referendum on independence Ms Sturgeon has been squirming most uncomfortably and saying firstly that it is in the hands of the people and then that there won't be one unless there is some as yet unspecified "material change". The "independence come what may" brigade and the hordes of new members attracted to the SNP by the nationalistic sloganising of the referendum will be sure to convince the SNP leadership that a pledge to hold another referendum should be in the party's 2016 Holyrood manifesto. It seems pretty clear that Sturgeon and her cronies will require little convincing. This would mean the Holyrood election would be dominated by the independence issue rather than the more pressing needs of the population. That would be a betrayal of the Scottish people. Referendums on major constitutional matters are disruptive and divisive and should therefore be no more frequent than once in a generation. We have had the referendum on independence and the people have spoken. Sturgeon should respect their decision and get on with her job of looking after the interests of the Scottish people by using the devolved powers that the democratic process has entrusted her with. Let us have a clear statement that there will not be another referendum for at least another 10 years and work together with the system we now have to improve the lot of the Scottish people.

I'm often surprised at how they market things like this. What is the "Taste the Real Beer!" about? Was this to distinguish it from Bass's other products that had artifical beer in them? And why make such an exclamation when the customer would be able to taste the beer better if it wasn't diluted with lemonade. And if they were going to give some extra free, why 12.5% to make the grand total 495ml? Why not 60ml free and make it a nice round 500ml. In any case, does any one know why beer sold in cans came to be sold in cans of 440ml? It sounds like a totally random amount but I will give the industry the benefit of the doubt and accept there was probably a good reason for it.

Except that a Tory government would offer the SNP a far better opportunity to glean the votes of the downtrodden proletariat by way of their standard strategy of grievance politics. You can yawn as much as you want but that will not stop certain things from being true. You may find it tiresome but the fault lies with Sturgeon and her quite ridiculous statement that she wants to lock the Tories out of Downing Street. Clearly the SNP cannot form a UK Government. Realistically only the Tories and Labour can. She says she wants work with Labour to lock the Tories out of Downing street, but by fighting against Labour the outcome she says she doesn't want becomes much more likely. If she genuinely wants to work with Labour to lock the Tories out of Downing street then she should withdraw the SNP candidates and support Labour. With a slogan of, let me think,..... ........ "better together" I am sure they could win. But we all know that the SNP is not going to take that kind of sensible, cooperative approach. Sturgeon's pathetic justification for competing against labour is so that the SNP can fight Scotland's corner and "keep Labour honest". But does anyone really believe that? First of all, what is the point of keeping Labour honest if the SNP have put Labour in to opposition rather than into Government? Secondly, the SNP will be well aware that the Labour Party has more incentive than any other party to give Scots a good deal. One would have had a bit more respect for Sturgeon if she could simply have said the sensible thing of "we will work constructively in Scotland's interests with what ever party wins the election". Bear in mind that the whole premise of the SNP's case for independence is that Scotland's interests are not best served by the policies that come out of the UK Government. They are not going to commit political suicide by working constructively with Labour (or anyone else) to demonstrate that the UK Parliament actually works very well for Scotland. Sturgeon can say what she likes but the fact remains that another Tory Government in Westminster, (which will be unpopular in Scotland), will be the best way to keep the flames of independence burning. By engaging in a bitter battle with Labour and trying to win as many seats as possible from Labour, the SNP increase the chance of getting the outcome they want. No doubt a Tory led change to the Barnett formula will be the kind of "Material change" she will use to justify another referendum in the near future. Keep the Labour Party honest! Sturgeon should start by keeping her own party honest first.

HT 0-1 FT 0-3 ICT Tansey Celtic Commons Time 21

I note they are both wearing blue to reflect their preference for that person being David Cameron.

On current form they could win the league next year! It will be interesting to see hopw long they can keep this run going and assuming they stay up, how many of the team they can retain for next season. If they can't stay up they could well find themselves in an increasingly difficult financial position,

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?