DoofersDad

...and soon will be terrific

Interesting little table there Sneckboy. It would be good to set the record straight against one or two of the sides we have only ever lost against in the cup. Perhaps start off with Rangers, Falkirk, Hibs or Queen of the South from the Championship and sort out Aberdeen or Dundee later in the competition.

Good effort from Nairn as well. Narrowly lost 2-1 away to Arbroath who are well clear at the top in division 2.

Only the Scottish football authorities could manage to make the League Cup draw a few minutes after 3rd round of the Scottish Cup has finished. Meanwhile we need to wait till Monday for the draw for the competition which was played today.

On the face of it a one nil loss at Parkhead is not bad but it seems clear from the commentary that a bit more belief in the attacking ability of the team and this was a game we could have won. Celtic are no great shakes at the back and ealier pressure might have produced a different outcome.

HT Celtic 1 Inverness 0 FT Celtic 3 Inverness 1 ICT Mckay Celtic Guidetti First goal 27 mins

I had a quick look at the Audit Scotland report yesterday and I think it said that in Scotland as a whole there was actually a small drop in the use of private facilities last year although it certainly rose quite a bit in the Highlands. It has also certainly increased significantly in Scotland as a whole over the years during the SNP's tenure of the NHS in Scotland. However, what is more alarming are aspects around NHS funding detailed by the Audit Commission. The report identifies that the Government's National Resource Allocation Committee has a formula which was developed to allocate funding to the Health Boards, but that last year actual funding to NHS Highland was £11.3 million short of that and this year the shortfall is £12.3 million. The Government provided £2.5 million "brokerage" last year to allow the Health Board to balance it's books, yet despite the fact that according to it's own formula it is underfunding the Board, the Government are insisting this loan is paid back over the next 3 years. To add insult to injury, the report also confirms that this SNP Government is cutting funding in real terms to the NHS by 0.9% over the next two years What has the SNP done for the Highlands? It has placed unreasonable financial constraints on the NHS in the Highlands.

Not much of a gamble if you've got your ticket for free!

It's strange how our perception of others is different from our perception of how others will percieve us. We are inhibited about singing because we think people will think we are strange or something, yet when someone just like ourself starts singing we look at them and think "good on yer". It works the other way as well. If everybody around you is singing then you feel self conscious about not singing. The difficulty is to get enough singing first so that others feel more comfortable about joining in.

SP, you ask, "are you still not happy with the progress recently made since the change of management?" I ask, what progress are you referring to? As I said in my post, I am very encouraged by the improved performance at the start of this season compared with the end of last season - but since the change of management? Since Yogi took over we have played 42 competitive games, winning 15, drawing 13 and losing 14. In the year and a bit before Butcher left we played 58 competitive games winning 25, drawing 19 and losing 14. Can you please explain how a significantly inferior record over a prolonged period represents progress? These are the facts. There is no point accusing me of being negative just because I base my comments on the facts. If you read my posts you will see I am actually being very positive about the team. I state "I am absolutely delighted that we are where we are". I refer to our "wonderful squad" which I believe can "do something really special". And in talking about whether we can finish in the top 3 this season, I state "I firmly believe this squad is capable of doing so." Just how much more positive can one get! You also ask "when will you ever just come out and just say that J.H is doing a great job?" The answer is simple. When the results and performances on the park demonstrate that he is! Yes, I know we are second in the league and that is great, but we are only just over a quarter through the season. We have a great squad who should be able to stay close to the top throughout the season. If we can achieve that then I will be absolutely delighted to say that Yogi has done a great job. In truth, there is still some way to go before we can say the team has progressed under Yogi's management but he certainly has my full support and best wishes for the task ahead.

Were you at the County match? The first half was one of the worst displays I have seen from an ICT side for many a long year. The 2nd half was much better and we had a had a thoroughly professional 90 minutes this last Saturday. Reality is that the side is not playing the most attractive football ever. It is pretty variable but has the potential to be the best ever. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Yogi has already surpassed our expectations because he has some way to go before he surpasses mine. Last season he took over after 13 league games with the team in 2nd place. In the remaining games our performance slumped and had the earlier form not been so good we would have been firmly in the bottom six. This season has shown a significant improvement and the side appears to have got back to around the level Yogi inherited it. I don't think anyone on here is saying that as a club we are not punching above our weight and are not delighted that this is the case! But the thing is that with the wonderful squad we have and with the way so many of the bigger clubs in Scotland are floundering at the moment, we have the opportunity do something really special. We will probably never have a better chance of finishing in the top 3 than we will this season. It really is important that we seize this opportunity and I firmly believe this squad is capable of doing so. My long term expectation of this club is that we might fluctuate between bottom six and Championship level and therefore I am absolutely delighted that we are where we are. However, reality is also about basing our expectations for this season on the quality of the squad we currently have and not on the level of resources the club has which might dictate the quality of the squad in future years. Given the talent we have here, the latter part of last season was desperately disappointing. This season has been much better, but progress needs to continue if Yogi is to be judged a success. Let's face facts, if the first third of this season had continued in the same vein as the last 2 thirds of last season, people would be clamouring for Yogi's head by now. He has only sporadically got the best out of this squad and whilst things are undoubtedly improving on the whole (and that's very encouraging), it is far too early to label Yogi as a success.

That's an interesting stat. What about last season?

If he was wanting away, best way of getting money for him is to play him and let everyone see how good he is. So many of the chances we create involve him in the build up and he's not frightened of going for goal himself. 2nd highest scorer both this season and last. He should be on the park playing and not warming the bench - and we shouldn't be looking to sell him unless he wants away.

I'm a lot more encouraged now than I was at the end of last season although I am still some way from being convinced the Yogi is going to take the team forward. When he took over we had secured 28 points from 13 games last season and so to match that this season we need to win our next two games, one of which is away at Celtic Park. What that would mean is that after a slump in the latter part of last season, Yogi will have brought the team back up to where it was when he took over. I accept that to achieve that is no mean feat but equally it doesn't necessarily represent progress. Before we get too excited I think we need to bear in mind that we have had a lot going for us this season. We started the season with a settled side, strengthened with the return of Tansey and the emergence of Christie. We have been generally injury free - Foran is a long term injury but frankly I can't see him getting in the starting XI if everyone else is fully fit. Both Motherwell and St Johnstone seem to be shadows of the teams they were last year whilst Aberdeen and Dundee Utd have both been less impressive than we might have expected. I do worry that our position may flatter to deceive a little. I think Renegade has it spot on when he talks about the need to grab hold of the game every game. That is what we do best and it is what entertains. Even in games where we play well (like this Saturday) there are periods when we seem unwilling to move the ball forward and we pass it sideways and backward and finally to Brill. Yogi has said in the past that the opposition can't score if they can't get the ball. But equally, we can't score if we don't get the ball in the final quarter and the opposition is less likely to score if it wins possession of the ball in their half of the pitch than in ours. We need to be putting the sting into the game, not taking it out. If we do that, this team can be very, very good indeed. I've always said that the time to judge the new manager is at the end of the season and I stick by that. Looking at the the state of the opposition this year and particularly the slump in the performances of Motherwell and St Johnstone, I think finishing lower than fourth would be disappointing and finishing 7th or below would represent failure. The team has the ability to finish in the top 3 but that will be dependent on consistently playing to our strengths.

Fair point! Let's just say that they might have done more for the Highlands if they, like this thread, hadn't got side-tracked by another issue.

I'd be inclined to keep the same side as played today. Vincent played well and he may give us a bit more solidity in the midfield. Today's line up certainly snuffed out United's undoubted attacking flair and we need the same against Celtic. Perhaps look to bring Christie on as an impact sub. Certainly we need to press Celtic and not revert to the tactic of playing keep ball in our own half. Tactics more important than personnel in my view.

Oddquine, the reason why I have been saying the same thing in different ways is to try to get you to acknowledge a simple fact about democratic principle, but you repeatedly fail to answer the question. Let's try one more time - do you or do you not think it would be democratically acceptable for Scotland to be afforded independence based on only 35 - 40% voting for it in a 3 way option referendum whilst 60 - 65% voted to stay in the union with one or other of the other two options. It's a simple question and a simple yes or no answer is all that is required. You also persist in the view that people voted yes because there was no devo-max option but persistently ignore the argument I have used that this makes no sense at all. If devo-max is someone's preferred option then by definition they want to remain in the Union. So why on earth would they vote for independence? In the recent referendum, the only way to get devo-max was to vote "NO" and then, having established that Scotland is to remain in the union move on to the next stage about discussing the level of devolution the people want. It is really basic stuff. You keep referring to "numpties" in your posts, but if anyone can reasonably be described as a numpty it is someone who wanted devo-max in the union but voted for Independence. Of course, if it is actually the case that people did vote YES on this basis, then that further reduces the minority who actually wanted independence and strengthens the case for putting aside any thought of another referendum for the time being. I absolutely do accept that many who wanted independence would have been happy with devo-max in the mean time. But don't have a go at me about it. It was the party of independence who ignored the polls and charged ahead with the referendum on Independence thereby ignoring the popular support for devo-max! Had they gone down the devo-max road it could have been in place by now. And of course I absolutely "get" the bit in the SNP manifesto about a referendum. It was in their manifesto, they got elected, they kept their manifesto pledge and had a referendum. Good for them. But that is not a mandate in the sense I am talking about. They were elected by less than half the electorate and many of them were not supporters of independence but voted SNP because they felt they were doing a decent job governing at Holyrood. It was a mandate to hold a referendum but it in no way demonstrated the support of a majority of the country for a referendum, and with the polls showing a large majority opposed to independence it was perfectly reasonable for the UK Government not to waste time negotiating on a draft settlement for something they were clear the people didn't want. On the other hand, if the Scottish Government had done as I suggested and asked the electorate if it wanted the two Governments to negotiate a separation package to put to the people, and if the people had voted for that, then that would have been a clear mandate on this specific issue. And not only would it have been a clear mandate to the Scottish Government, it would also have been a clear mandate to the UK Government to negotiate. In those circumstances it would have been inconceivable that the UK Government would not have negotiated because the clear implication of not doing so would have been that the likely settlement would make independence look attractive. Refusal to negotiate in those circumstances would have fanned the flames of nationalism north of the Border like nothing else could and would have been political suicide South of the Border. As I say, of course I get the point that the SNP had a mandate to hold a referendum. But that was part of a general mandate for Government. The mandate I am suggesting the SNP should have sought is immensely more powerful because it demonstrates the wish of a majority of the electorate on a specific topic. I am sure Alex Salmond gets that distinction just as I am sure about the reasons why he decided not to seek such a powerful mandate.

No idea. I don't know the names of the Chorley players.

That was a really good team performance. After a bit of a tentative start we got the goal when Utd looked the more likely. After that we played far more confidently and dominated the game. What was most pleasing was the work rate and the way we won the ball in all areas of the park. Utd have good attacking players but they were not allowed time on the ball and time and time again their attacks were snuffed out before they had really begun. The only downside is that our superiority in midfield really should have resulted in a bigger margin of victory. The lesson to take from this (and other games) is that we need to take the game to the opposition early and press them hard - play the game in the opposition half. Sitting back, focusing on keeping possession and being patient only puts pressure on us, particularly when we are not scoring freely. Difficult to pick out standout players as it was a good all round team performance. Watkins and the midfield all good, but for me Graeme Shinnie edged it. He was solid at the back but was also very effective going forward. He led the team by example today. Whilst on the subject of Shinnie, I wonder what his brother must be thinking? Sitting on the bench at St Andrew's watching his team slip into the Championship by getting thrashed 8 - 0 whilst the team he left go joint top of the Scottish Premiership.

You know as well as I do that if there had been the three options on the ballot paper, independence would have got the biggest share. As I have said numerous times before, if someone's favourite option is devo-max then the one thing they would not have done in the referendum we have just had is to vote "YES". It is therefore reasonable to assume that all those who voted "YES" wanted independence. And if you want independence you are not going to vote for a unionist option just because devo-max gets stuck on the ballot paper. The vote for independence would have been broadly as it was with the YES/NO choice. The only way the vote for independence would not have got the biggest share is if the unionist vote was split 90/10 or more one way or another and if you think 90% of those who voted "NO" want devo-max you are seriously deluding yourself. In addition, had devo-max been an option, the unionist parties would have been split between the two options and you can imagine the mischief the SNP would have made about that! The arguments about the level of devolution which is desirable would have resulted in a lack of focused opposition to the case for independence and my guess is that the YES vote would actually have been a little higher. In any case, you still refuse to answer the simple question of whether in the event of a 3 option referendum, granting Scotland independence when only 35 - 40% of the electorate voted for it would have been acceptable democracy. As to how to put pressure on Cameron, I've already told you in my post - and in one before! Had the Scottish Government got a mandate from the Scottish electorate on the specific issue of negotiating a separation settlement to put to the people, Cameron would have had absolutely no option but to cooperate fully. Failure to do so would clearly be to ignore the stated wish of a majority within a democratic process and nothing would fan the flames of nationalism more. Had it been in the "YES" campaign's interest for the electorate to know what it was voting on then it would have been a devastating tactic - but of course it was not in their interest so they didn't do it.

HT:1-1 FT:2-2 ICT: Watkins Opp: Ciftci Time: 24 mins

Oddquine, are you seriously suggesting that on a three option referendum it would be acceptable for Scotland to become an independent country when over 60% of the electorate voted to remain within the UK? If so, then presumably in a 3 option referendum, if 35% had voted to maintain devolution powers as at present, 33% had voted for independence and 32% for devo-max you would uncomplainingly have accepted that as an endorsement of the current position despite a majority (including you) voting for some level of change. Also, if, as you maintain, the reason for Cameron to refuse to negotiate a settlement was "to ensure that the Scottish voter could not make an informed decision," then surely that was all the more reason for Salmond to put pressure on the Westminster Government and force their hand on this? That is precisely why I made the suggestion that rather than rush into a referendum the SNP should have sought a mandate from the people to negotiate a separation package to put to the electorate - a point you conveniently ignore in your response. And of course, the reason why the Scottish Government did not take this responsible course of action was that they knew that giving the voters an informed choice would make a "no" vote more likely. Not only did they not seek a mandate from the electorate, they didn't exactly try very hard to get a draft settlement. There really can be no doubt at all that the SNP absolutely did not want a draft settlement. Anyway, back on topic - I am glad to see today's proposal for a reduction in the legal blood alcohol limits for drivers. This is something positive the SNP is doing for the Highlands and, indeed, the rest of Scotland.

There is really rather too much in your reply to respond to so I will restrict myself to this. Apart from the insidious involvement of the trades unions in the labour party, political parties reflect the popular viewpoints. I don't accept that it all changes when individuals start to represent rather than just support a party. The policies of the party are decided through processes within the membership and the membership is made up of voters who are attracted by what the party stands for. If the members don't like the changing views of the party they can leave it, whilst if the candidates don't meet the aspirations of the electorate the electorate won't vote for them. The strength of the "party line" is that you know what you are voting for. Years ago a colleague who had recently moved into the area and who had very left wing views, had mentioned that she was attracted by the concept of "independent" councillors in Highland and had identified a candidate whose election leaflet had quite appealed. She indicated that she might vote for him rather than the Labour candidate. I pointed out that the candidate might be standing on an independent ticket but was actually the chairman of the local Tory constituency association! The party system has it's faults, but as long as you accept that both candidates and voters have to make some compromises on the way, you know what you are voting for and in general the parties deliver on what they aspire to do to the extent that factors outwith their control allow. Following on from that, it is important to understand whilst we may all have some political aspirations, practical politics is the art of the possible. People are attracted to politics with strongly felt beliefs on social justice or whatever. They feel a strong urge to do something about what they see as wrong in society and get frustrated that parties that would appear to reflect their views, are not doing enough about it. It is only when they get into the mechanics of government in some way that they realise things are usually not as straightforward as they might at first have appeared. A pragmatist's compromise is an idealist's sell-out. Politicians therefore get criticised by their opponents for doing the wrong things and by their own side for not doing enough of the right things. It's a tough life being a politician!

Having three options on the ballot paper with the option getting the most votes being implemented would have been a dreadful betrayal of the democratic process. It might have resulted in independence with less that 40% of those voting wanting independence and the rest voting for one of the two unionist options. It was never a serious option - it was just the SNP playing politics and showing contempt for the people. As you point out, some form of Devo-Max seemed to be the preferred option of the electorate so why did the SNP not acknowledge that and seek to negotiate further devolved powers to put to the Scottish people? By insisting that the referendum be about independence rather than an extension of devolved powers it is, in fact, the SNP that have shown contempt for the Scottish people. This contempt was made worse by the fact that we were not given the opportunity to vote on any negotiated separation terms. You may argue (as you have in the past) that the Westminster Government was not prepared to negotiate ahead of the referendum but then there is no good reason why they should negotiate on something that they have evidence the Scottish people don't want. Now, if the Scottish Government had asked the electorate whether we, the electorate, would mandate the Scottish Government to negotiate terms of independence to put to the people in a referendum, then I might have voted "Yes", and if the Scottish Government received the mandate to negotiate, it would have been very difficult for the Westminster Government to refuse. We could then have had a referendum in which we actually knew what we are voting for! And their contempt for the electorate continues. This desperate push to hold the Unionist parties "to account" over their absurd vow is utterly pathetic. Most would agree that some increased level of devolution is appropriate - so what's the rush? Let's have some mature discussion, take our time and get it right. The push to rush things is further political posturing and point scoring and is not in the interests of the Scottish people.

I think I am in a bit of a minority but I actually have a lot of time for politicians. Sure there are some chancers, as there are in all walks of life, but the majority go into local politics because they want to make their communities/districts/countries better places. Most of them work very long hours for very little financial reward. Over many years I acted as an election agent at all levels of government and met many politicians from all parties. Whilst disagreeing strongly over a range of issues, what the majority shared was a respect for the views and commitment of politicians of other parties. I honestly feel that in general, politicians get paid very little for doing rather a lot. This compares with many footballers who get paid rather a lot for doing very little. A case in point is QPR's Adel Taarabt who 'arry Redknap has just had a rather entertaining rant about http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29688528. Taarabt gets between £60k and £70k a week. That is considerably more than most of our politicians get paid in a year. Sure there are the Blairs of this world who make millions after their time in elected politics is over but they are very much the minority. For most it is a question of sacrificing a more secure and better paid job for an uncertain and often temporary spell in politics. It also often means putting real strains on their family life, but they do it because they believe they can make a real difference to people's lives. Salmond, Lamont, Davidson, Rennie and Harvie are a pretty diverse bunch, but each and every one of them is far more deserving of our respect than wasters like Taarabt. And Taarabt gets paid more in a month than the 5 political leaders combined get paid in a year. By all means lets have political debate but let's also cut the politicians a bit of slack and show then some respect.