DoofersDad

One wonders if McNamara really means that nonsense. Maybe one of his players threatened to shove him in the back, elbow him in the neck and kick him in the head unless he said it. Comparing Ciftci with the likes of Zidane and Cantona is absurd for three reasons. Firstly he is not fit to even lick the boots of those two when it comes to the genius stakes, secondly the infamous episodes McNamara refers to happened when they lost the plot following provocation, and thirdly, Zidane and Cantona did not routinely cheat. Ciftci needs no provocation to behave like a thug. It is, however very interesting that McNamara has used the words C1C3 has highlighted above. Presumably that is an acknowledgement that doing something even more serious is very possible knowing the nature of the man. Instead of making limp excuses in trying to defend the indefensible, McNamara should be apologising for his player's behaviour and pointing out to Ciftci that truly great players like Pele and Law, for instance, never ever resorted to Ciftci's kind of antics. Ciftci doesn't behave the way he does because the behaviour is linked to genius, he behaves the way he does because he's a thug. The message Ciftci must be getting from his manager and the SFA is that there is nothing wrong with his behaviour. It makes you wonder just what he might do next - grab a match official by the throat perhaps?

There's SFA on the SFA website but interestingly the Hibs website has got their semi listed as being on the Saturday - albeit to be confirmed. Perhaps the clubs the SFA would like to be in the final get asked when they would like to play. Just assume that date time and place will be about as inconvenient as possible for the North fans and you can't go far wrong.

Oddquine's lame excuse for her shameful remark simply doesn't wash. Whilst I fully accept that she was not advocating killing in support of the cause, to say that she almost wishes the independence movement had killed for the cause clearly indicates some sympathy for the concept. What she could have said was that it seemed unfair that campaigning in a non-violent way has not achieved independence whereas other independence movements (such as the Irish) have got what they wanted by resorting to violence. That would have made the point without any suggestion of sympathy with the use of violence in such situations. She could have said that, but she didn't - even when challenged. But if if she had said that it would still have been an absurd comment in the context of the current situation. The situation in Scotland today is totally different to the pre-independence situation in Ireland for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, the people living in what is now the Republic of Ireland were strongly supportive of independence whilst the people of Scotland have indicated recently in a referendum that they do not want independence. Secondly, despite the fact that the Irish people did want independence, the British Government acted unjustly to suppress the independence movement. Today in Scotland, people are perfectly free to promote the case for independence and, as Charles and I have pointed out, in stark contrast to their stance over Ireland, the Government have freely agreed that Scotland can have independence if the people wish it. Oddquine should reflect on the fact the use of violence by the independence movement in Scotland would mean violence to supress the wishes of the democratic majority. Isn't that exactly what the British Government she so despises did in Ireland? When, oh when will Oddquine wake up to the fact that the reason Scotland is not an independent nation is nothing to do with an oppressive, dictatorial regime at Westminster? The reason Scotland is not an independent nation is that Oddquine's fellow citizens do not want Scotland to be independent.

I think that Danny Alexander would agree with your first sentence there as the Lib Dems have consistently argued for PR over the years. But first past the post is what we have and whether the SNP like the system or not, you can be sure that they will exploit it for all they are worth after the May election and I certainly won't criticise them for that. Whether they hold the balance of power or not, they are likely to have a far greater percentage of Scottish MPs than their share of the popular vote. FPTP is not very democratic in the sense that representation can be pretty skewed but there is no simple alternative. What is usually considered to be a major benefit of the FPTP system is that a relatively small local area has it's own representative at Westminster. In order to retain some level of local representation, multiple representative constituencies have been established for the Holyrood parliament whereby the person who tops the poll is elected and other representatives are elected according to the proportion of the vote for each party and their position in the party list. The downsides of this are firstly that in order to accommodate some representation from parties with a smaller share of the vote, the constituencies have to be too large for meaningful representation. And secondly, the electorate gets to know next to nothing about some of the candidates on the list. In practise it doesn't seem to me to work very well. If you have an issue you want to write to your MSP about, who do you write to? The winner of the poll? A particular MSP who you think will be more likely to take up your point? All of them? I have tried all those approaches and have never got a reply back from any of them with the exception of a former MSP who I know personally. I have had acknowledgements from the offices of MSPs to say they would respond in due course and I have twice been asked to provide some further detail which, of course, I provided, but all to no avail. This contrasts sharply with my experience of Westminster MPs (Russell Johnston, Dave Stewart, Angus Robertson and Charles Kennedy) who have invariably replied But despite my personal experience on the aspect of local representation, I do think that the FPTP system is fundamentally flawed. A system that can deliver the same party in power for term after term with less than 50% of the popular vote must be wrong. But, of course, what a PR system would do is to make coalitions the order of the day. It therefore really is ironic that nationalists who are so supportive of the principle of PR seem to be the most hostile toward the Lib Dems for entering into coalition with the Tories.

If people wonder why folk in the rest of the UK are concerned with some of the nationalistic rhetoric coming from Scotland, you only have to read Oddquine's latest offerings to understand why. In her first offering she states:- "Almost makes one wish we had emulated Ireland and killed for independence, instead of trying to be civilised about it against an opposition who couldn't even spell civilised, far less act it. Unionists are really bad winners......and there is nothing worse, imo." What an utterly appalling thing to say! It is nothing to do with Unionists being bad winners but everything to do with Nationalists being very bad losers. In her second post Oddquine includes a link to "weegingerdug" - a rabid wee ginger dug by the sounds of things. I read the blog and it really is pathetic. The blogger echoes Oddquine's thoughts (without the shameful killing thoughts) and goes on to whinge about "our" demands not being met and that "we" have been patient for a long time. He goes on to say that his patience has now run out but doesn't elaborate on what that means. But who is this "we" they refer to? Anyone would think that for years a large majority of Scots have been clamouring for independence and their wishes have been denied by an oppressive UK Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of Scottish voters do not want independence and never have done. And remember, in the referendum, all that was needed to get independence was a simple majority of those who voted at a single point in time. There was no requirement for a majority of the electorate as a whole and no consideration was given to the fact that for as long as anyone can remember, support for independence has been very low until very recently. The Government really couldn't have made it any easier for nationalists to get their way. Let's be quite clear about this. It is not the Government that has stood in the way of independence, it is majority of the Scottish people who have always wanted to remain part of the Union and who confirmed that view in last years referendum. So when Oddquine says "Almost makes one wish we had emulated Ireland and killed for independence", just who would she be considering killing? Agents of a UK Government who offered independence on a simple majority of those voting, or some of the majority of her fellow citizens who happen to disagree with her and who want Scotland to remain within the UK? Now, I have no issue with folk who are passionate about independence continuing to campaign and argue the case, but please, please, please, respect the democratic process and remember that "we", the electorate of Scotland, voted to stay in the Union. You may not like the majority view but that's democracy. The alternatives are anarchy or tyranny. Bizarrely Oddquine then goes on to quote Hugo Rifkind saying “It's slightly mad that Unionists oppose the SNP being in coalition at Westminster. Is that not what ought to happen? In a union?” Well, no, Hugo. It isn't. What is supposed to happen in a Union is that the partners work together for the good of the Union. The reason why Unionists oppose the SNP being in coalition at Westminster is that the SNP wish to see Union broken up! Oddquines post continues:- Rifkind went on to point out that the electorate have voted for UKIP in EU Parliament elections despite the fact they want to exit the EU, and the Liberal Democrats have representatives in the House of Lords despite wanting to abolish it. Why is any of this different to the SNP scenario at Westminster? Again the answer is really very, very simple. People voting for UKIP in EU elections is comparable to people voting for the SNP in UK elections. It is not remotely comparable with the representatives elected forming part of the Government. Nobody, as far as I am aware, is questioning the right of voters in Scotland to vote for the SNP in the UK elections or for SNP candidates elected as a result to argue their case for Scottish interests within Parliament. But being part of a coalition that Governs the country is self evidently a very different matter indeed.

I don't normally watch question time these days, but given that my MP Charles Kennedy was on the panel I decided to watch last night. To say I was shocked is an understatement. Kennedy was simply awful. He looked and sounded as if he is back hitting the bottle hard. He said very little and when he did speak it was as though he was struggling to find the right words. If Dimbleby didn't directly ask his view, I don't think he ever attempted to get into the debate except a single frivolous intervention to say he was also on the "have I got news for you" programme when Clarkson threw a pen at Ian Hislop (who was also on last night). For the most part he seemed to be sitting with his arms folded looking out into the audience and simply not engaging with the debate. Whatever your political views may be, he has worked very hard for the Highlands over the years and it really is dreadfully sad to see him like that on a major TV show. I'm sure we will hear a lot more about his state of health in the near future, particularly with the election looming.

You may well be right but on the other hand, the SFA disciplinary process is not a legal one. By their own statement on the website which I quote in my post above, they do not claim simply to enforce the laws of the game (equivalent to a judicial court making a decision on matters of law), they claim to be upholding the integrity and reputation of the game and setting guidelines for acceptable behaviour. Doing that is different from a quasi-legal process and implies that commonsense should be used when a legalistic approach results in outcomes which run counter to the aims stated above. In these situations they could simply state that in their opinion it appears to be intentional and whether intentional or not it was certainly reckless and unacceptable behaviour. If Ciftci has got off because intent was not proved, then surely just about every time someone gets sent off for handball they are going to appeal and get off. The handball offence is for deliberate handball and 9 times out of 10 it would be nigh on impossible to prove intent. As Cif73 implies, if you are right the panel appear to have ignored the incident and have instead made a judgement against the compliance officer and found him to be incompetent - in that, at least, they would be correct.

Those clearly guilty of violent conduct as evidenced by TV footage have got off scot-free whilst the two who receive bans are one player who reacted to an unprovoked off the ball assault and one who was protecting his face from being hit by the ball. It is not only these absurd outcomes that bring the SFA into disrepute, it is their secretive processes. We are not allowed to know who is on these disciplinary panels nor are we allowed to know the reasoning behind the decisions. This is despite the fact that their website states "as part of our new strategic plan, the disciplinary procedures were radically overhauled to provide greater efficiency, accountability and transparency. " One wonders how the SFA could possibly be less accountable and less transparent than it currently is! The website also states that the SFA's disciplinary procedures are "essential in protecting the integrity and reputation of the game at all levels. whilst also providing guidelines of acceptable behaviour for clubs." We must, therefore conclude that the SFA consider it acceptable for players to push other players in the back into the path of their team mates, off the ball to elbow players in the back of the neck with sufficient force to knock them to the ground, and to kick opposing players in the head. By their secrecy and their absurd decisions, it is the SFA who do more than anyone (even Nadir Ciftci) to sully the integrity and reputation of the game in Scotland.

Forgive me for deleting most of Oddquine's lengthy post in the quote above but I don't wish my reply to be too long. I'll focus on these two paragraphs. Firstly I would have thought that the prospect of the SNP holding the balance of power in the UK parliament was obviously entirely different from previous occasions where the colour of the UK government has been determined by Scottish votes. In those occasions the parties voted for in Scotland were unionist parties who were also voted for by folk elsewhere in the UK. Whilst one could argue that it was Scotland voting labour that gave the UK a labour government, you could equally say it was because the North East of England or Wales voted labour. Either way, the fact is that the parties elected to Government were committed to governing for the good of the Union as a whole. So if Scotland voted labour and the rest of the UK voted Tory but we ended up with a labour Government then fair enough! But the SNP is not committed to governing for the good of the Union as a whole. It's raison d'etre is to gain independence for Scotland and to break the Union. It is focused only on Scottish interests. It is entirely reasonable for people to be twitchy about a party committed to the break up of the country potentially having a role in governing the country! This Scottish separatist influence at Westminster is seen as particularly unwelcome because, as the referendum demonstrated, it doesn't even reflect the views of the majority of Scots voters. To go on to suggest the UK parliament is effectively a dictatorship really is absurd. If anyone doesn't like the parties that exist then there is nothing to stop them establishing their own or standing as an independent. People vote for the political parties they do because they feel sufficiently supportive of that party to do so. I agree that parties chop and change with their policies but that is only because they are reflecting the changing views of the people who vote for them. Frankly I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can say that Westminster refuses to cede any meaningful power. We have a Scottish Parliament which currently has wide ranging powers. And if you haven't already received it, you will soon get a booklet from the Government detailing further extensive powers, including tax raising powers, that are now being devolved. I should add that these additional powers are being devolved without any proposals relating to them having been put to the electorate. So, far from no meaningful powers being ceded from Westminster, significant additional powers are actually being ceded whether we like it or not! And finally - Devo-max. Apart from the fact that "Devo-max" means different things to different people, the referendum was about independence pure and simple. There was a referendum on independence promised in the SNP manifesto but not one on Devo-max. You know as well as I know that had there been 3 options on the ballot paper that the SNP would have been 100% behind the independence option whilst Unionists would have been split between the other two. We could have had the largest share of the vote (but still a minority) voting for independence and therefore independence could have been established despite a majority of the electorate voting to stay in the Union. That would have been a preposterous betrayal of the democratic principle. The people of Scotland have voted to stay in the Union and if people want even more powers devolved to Holyrood then they are, of course, perfectly entitled to argue the case within the democratic process. Supporters of the democratic process should be happy with that. But that's the thing about the SNP. It threw this Devo-max nonsense into the referendum debate to muddy the waters in an attempt to get independence through the back door. It's independence for better or worse and independence however it's won - and to hell with the majority of Scots electors who said "no" to independence. No wonder the rest of the UK is worried about them having any significant influence on the way the UK as a whole is governed!

You want more Devine intervention?

Great stuff 11 minutes and they struggled to show any bits where their own team actually touched the ball.

I expect it will be on the Sunday and the pitch will be all cut up from the day before and not conducive to a passing game.

I was listening to Radio Scotland on the way home from the match and rather enjoyed hearing about the Rangers' failure to win any of their last 3 games.

Why am I not surprised? But I actually think there is more of a case for appeal in this one. I fail to see any dubiety or alternative explanation about the assault on Warren but I am sure Utd will argue that the movement of Ciftci's boot into Brown's head was accidental and was simply part of the movement to get up off the ground as quickly as possible in order to keep up with the play. TBH I think it might be difficult to prove intent in this case. It is interesting to see the clip because Ciftci makes himself scarce pretty quick and then, when play breaks down and the referee is aware there is a stramash going on, Ciftci is gesturing to the referee as if to say "Look ref, there's some trouble over there and it's got nothing to do with me!" To my mind that speaks volumes about his intention. If he had not intentionally kicked out at Brown and therefore been keen to draw attention away from himself, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have got involved in the mêlée involving Butcher and Van Dyke (but not Paton!).

Is it just me or is the site very slow again today? No error messages but pages have taken ages to load - far longer than any other sites I have visited this morning.

"Job done" is about the best one can say for that. Sticky pitch didn't help though. Ofere looked useful but needs more and better crosses. Kink looks to have quick feet and promises to offer something quite different. I look forward to seeing him play a but more. Doran looked to have a desire to get on the ball and be more positive in his approach. I would like to see him back in the starting line up. In the post match interview Yogi said that he hoped success in the cup would help give us momentum in the league and went on to say that another 2 or 3 games should secure top six. Perhaps someone could give him the good news that top six is already secured!

The difference here is that the offence is against a Celtic player and therefore obviously far more serious. A ban now could mean him missing the League cup final plus another key game against Celtic. This will help Celtic in their quest for the treble and will mean he will be back to cheat the next time we play Dundee Utd.

or he done good... Dropping the h is mandatory in these situations, so its.... e done good

I seem to recall seeing some sort of official guidance that refers to arms being in an unnatural position in relation to the Handball ruling but can't find it. I'm sure we've discussed it on here before. What CaleyD highlights above is the guidance Fifa gives to the law which blandly states that it is an offense to deliberately handle the ball. This BBC artcle sheds a bit of light on the subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm The concept of the "unnatural position" would seem to relate to situations where the arms are deliberately placed away from the body so as to increase the area in which the ball can be blocked. For instance if a defender is facing an attacker with arms held out to the sides such that any attempt to kick the ball past the defender would likely hit the arms then that would be seen as handball. Whilst it may well be ball hitting hand rather than hand hitting ball, if the hand / arm is deliberately placed to block the path of the ball it is still considered as deliberate handball. That being the case, I still feel it was reasonable for the referee to take the view that had Dixon not raised his arms as he did, a goal might have resulted and he was therefore correct to sent him off. However, I don't think Dixon raised his arm for any reason other than to protect his face and he was therefore very unlucky. He was certainly less culpable then Ciftci, Brown and Butcher, none of whom even got a yellow card for their earlier indescretions.

Agreed. I did hear a cricket journalist on the radio earlier today make a similar point, suggesting that England's approach to the shorter game is influenced far too much by the traditional attitude to the format which lasts for the best part of a week before being rendered a draw by some rain, despite one side absolutely dumping on the other. (Well he didn't QUITE put it that way!) The comments brought back memories of a chronically immobile Colin Cowdrey (under 50s need not recollect) returning six blocking shots straight to the bowler, whose maiden over was promptly hailed by that time honoured round of slow, pedantic, laboured applause. I am sure the English establishment's focus on Test cricket as being the pinacle of the game seriously impacts on the one day mindset. Test cricket is all about not taking risks whilst the one day game is quite the opposite. However, England have a large number of Test matches in the coming few months and I rather fear that it will emerge that we are not very good at that version either. As for the likes of Cowdrey and Graveney I have to say they were great to watch. One of the great things about cricket in those days was that you did not have to be an athlete to play the game. Their skill was in an eye for the ball, judgement of which ball to hit, superb timing and pinpoint placement of their shots. They would gently lean into a slightly over-pitched delivery and send the ball racing between two fielders to the boundry. You rarely see such skills in the modern game. Test cricket is a game of subtle skill and nuance and for me the way the game can ebb and flow and be changed by the weather and the wearing pitch is so different from any other sport that it offers an attraction all of it's own. In a world where everyone is in such a hurry to do everything, fewer and fewer people find the time to learn to appreciate and then to watch the game. It has certainly changed a lot but I fear it may not survive in it's present format for too much longer.

Unless Latapy is content to be a number 2 for the rest of his career, he needs to be applying for posts sooner rather than later. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he was interested in the Alloa post. As long as he doesn't take Yogi with him as his assistant we'll be OK.

Man Utd at it tonight as well but fortunately the referee was excellent and gave yellow cards. Sometimes it can be very hard for referees to spot, whilst we armchair judges can see something played over and over in slow motion before coming to a conclusion over whether the ref got it right or not. TBH I still can't say whether the Dundee Utd lad dived for their penalty or not and to be fair, if you are a little off balance, it doesn't take much contact to take you down. But sometimes video evidence shows very clearly that someone has dived and when that is the case the powers that be really should take retrospective action. It is not just a question of dealing with cheating in the game, it is also required to provide support to their own referees. Referees get vilified when they get the decisions wrong but if players understood that disciplinary bodies would take serious sanctions when diving (or other forms of cheating) were identified from video evidence, then it would happen far less. It is far easier to con a referee or do something when the referee is looking the other way than to fool the cameras.

Never mind, England's Rugby team is through to the final of the Calcutta Cup as well, so we have that to look forward to at the weekend

Rain forecast for this evening and overnight but an improving picture tomorrow with dry weather and light winds for match time. Weather shouldn't spoil the game - it'll probably be the referee that does that.

Actually it might suit Sri Lanka to lose and finish 4th in the group as they would probably rather play India in the next round than South Africa But for Scotland to finish above England, not only do Scotland need to beat Sri Lanka but England would need to lose against Afghanistan. In addition, Scotland would need to avoid being creamed by the Aussies as otherwise England would have a better net run rate. Nevertheless, the fact that it remains possible with England having just one match to play is pretty depressing from an Englishman's point of view I have to admit.