DoofersDad

I think the response to this consultation demonstrates the hazards of democracy and the way people manipulate situations for their own political end. Essentially this was a minor consultation document specifically related to access for deep drilling. It was not about the merits of exploiting shale oil and gas per se. The vast majority of responses were campaign responses giving one of two standards texts or free-form responses based on the arguments of those standard texts. The arguments used were related to the general objection to the principle of extracting shale oil and gas even though that was not the subject of the consultation. In effect, the proposals simply align policy for oil, gas and geothermal energy with that already existing for coal. If the vast majority of the respondents ignore the detail of the consultation paper in their responses, it is not unreasonable that the government don't feel that the statements require change in the proposals. And the Government has not simply ignored the people - far from it. The response details the points made in objections even when not directly related to the subject of the consultation and gives clear reasons why these arguments do not justify change to the proposals. This consultation was about access. It in no way changes the requirements for planning permission and regulatory control. Any application will require the appropriate approvals before access is applied for and therefore any reasonable concern about specific proposals will continue to be addressed through the democratic process. What the legislation does is to remove an individual landowner's right to to block developments which appropriate democratic and regulatory procedures have demonstrated to be in the public interest. Those objecting to the proposal are, in effect, defending an individual's right to block (for purely selfish reasons) an application which has obtained approval through robust democratic process - and then they complain about the view of the people being ignored! It is interesting that a majority of local authorities who responded were supportive of the proposals. They represent their local communities and understood what the consultation was about. They understood that this had no bearing on the merits of any individual application but would help to avoid hugely expensive legal wrangles about access and delay to projects in the public interest. As to the scare stories about earthquakes, it is is also of interest to note the attitude of the insurance industry. They are the businesses which could suffer serious financial problems if fracking led to some of the alleged problems and there were major claims as a result. They have looked very hard at the evidence and have no concerns. What is a concern here is the attitude of the Scottish energy minister. This is legislation he should be supporting in order to allow a better understanding of the level of geothermal and shale oil and gas resources in Scotland as well as preventing unnecessary delays in exploiting them. But no. Because this comes from Westminster he behaves like an ill-informed pressure group spokesman and makes comments designed to appeal to the masses. It seems he would rather play silly political games and keep a system that wastes public money and denies us access to energy resources than explain a correct but unpopular decision to a public misinformed by politically motivated pressure groups

HT 1-0 FT 2-1 ICT Doran Abd Pawlett Time 38

How many no voters were happy with the status quo? We don't know. It might be an idea to find out. If the Scottish Government were actually committed to doing what is best for the Scottish people they would be urging the UK Government to take their time with plans for further devolution so that we can get it right. The macho threats of holding the UK Government to account in keeping to some absurdly short time table smacks of bitterness. One senses they want the arrangements to fail so that they can justify a 2nd referendum. How many would have opted for independence had devo max not been so grudgingly offered at such a late stage? Very few actually. If Devo max is your preferred option and its not on offer, then you vote NO. Simple. A no vote retains the opportunity for moving to devo max within the union at a later stage. A YES vote removes any prospect of devo max in the union for ever. Why on earth would anyone vote for an option which removes for ever the chance of getting what they actually want? Some of the people of the UK got to speak on Thursday. Quite. Over 90% of the electorate within the UK got absolutely no say in a vote which nearly split their country in two. Now that the small minority of us who did have the luxury of a vote have voted decisively that we do not wish to split our country in two, I think it would be reasonable to finally allow time to allow the vast majority of people in the UK to consider and debate the constitutional issues affecting our country. It is of note that the article does not question how many of those who voted YES actually wanted independence. Clearly many voted YES as a result of the pledges in the White Paper which was as much an SNP election manifesto as it was a Government White Paper. Finally, it should be noted that the SNP have a mandate to govern Scotland in a devolved parliament and they had a mandate to hold a referendum on Independence - which they have now held. Given that they lost the referendum, I would question whether this SNP Government actually has a mandate to lead on the negotiation about the terms of continuation within the Union. Should it not be the majority who voted for the Union who take the lead?

We can't really decide the fate of a nation on hyopthetical conjecture of how some theoretical / early experimetal technique might increase the level of extraction. Technology is moving forward all the time and work is also taking place about underground gasification of coal and carbon capture and storage. That potentially may make coal a major factor in our economy again and if truth be told, the English and Welsh coalfields are very much greater than Scottish oil and coal reserves. They will be important in the long term but were never mentioned in any of the debate I heard or read.

This narrow nationalism is so desperately negative. The fact is that the union allows people to move freely within the UK and this referendum has brought home to folk just how many non Scottish born UK citizens live in Scotland and how many Scots born UK citizens live elsewhere in the UK. And that's a really healthy thing. Those who move around bring different skills and different perspectives to the areas they move to. This helps to enrich the community they move to just as that community enriches them. It is one of the real strengths of the Union. Independence would restrict the benefit Scotland derives from this exchange of skills and perspectives and it would make it more difficult for Scots born people to benefit from a move in the other direction. Those moving between Scotland and the rest of the UK understand this and that is why there is so little support for independence from those who have made a conscious decision to move to Scotland to live. But just what is a Scot in any case? OK, if your parents have lived all their life in Scotland and you have lived all your life in Scotland then it is obviously fair enough to call yourself Scottish. But if your parents have lived all their life in England but just happened to be in Scotland when you arrived earlier than expected and you subsequently lived all your life in England, does that make you Scottish? Of course not. If it did, then that most Scottish of Scottish entertainers, Andy Cameron was English. At least the famous Indian folk singer Hamish Imlach always claimed he was conceived in Scotland! For many, national identity is not so clear cut and increasingly people are relaxed with that. The reality is that it makes no difference whether we were born here or elsewhere. If we live here we are entitled to vote. And the most relevant fact of all is that more of us voted NO than voted YES.

It will be fascinating to see if the SNP's support gained at the last Scottish elections holds up in a general election. If so, they could hold the balance of power. Sure they have massively increased their membership, but I guess a lot of folk who voted for them in the Holyrood elections on the basis that they seemed to be doing a decent job in governing within a devolved parliament will not vote for them in a general election if they don't also favour independence. These folk are also unlikely to vote for them in the Holyrood elections the year after, particularly if labour can get their act together again. We may argue the toss about a lot of things but I guess we can agree that politics is not going to dull in the next wee while

Think if you check again DD you'll find we also had 16 points from first seven games last season. Oops. And the crowd stats also related to the previous season. I've therefore deleted the post!

I would agree with that in general. I'm not sure whether the 61% is correct but certainly Inverness will have voted "YES". This rather bucks the trend for more affluent areas and I wonder whether that has to do with a relatively young population or whether it is a backlash against Danny Alexander's role in the Government. I rather doubt that he is looking forward much to May!

Macro economics is complicated stuff and I often wonder if anyone really understands all the nuances. There are so many financial indicators and frequently they are confliciting or meaningless in isolation. Take for instance unemployment figures which in general you would think should be a low as possible. But sometimes a drop in unemployment is a result of massive borrowing which is not so good. In the UK the unemployment figure has been steadily falling for some time which is a reflection of an improving economy. The stength of the pound is another one. In fact, the strength of the pound makes imports cheaper and exports dearer which is why the trade defecit is widening. A trade deficit is paradoxically often an indicator of a strong economy. The level of debt in the UK is certainly higher than one would like but it is quite common for countries to run on high levels of debt. There are countries who are considered far poorer economically than us who have far less or even no debt but the difference is that the undelying strength and diversity of economic activity in countries such as the UK means that the level of debt is not seen as a significant problem by the international community. The UK is now steadily reducing its borrowing and increasing debt payment which again are positive signs. There is still much to be done but as long as we can keep away from further cycles of irresponsible borrowing to promote economic growth then things should continue to improve.

Some people come on here to share opinions and engage in debate around the issues - we don't come on here just to ruffle feathers. You come on here and criticise others for expressing opinions and then fail to offer any opinion of your on the issues even when challenged to do so.

I actually think it is fundamentally different. Let's not forget there were scare tactics on both sides, with the YES campaign scare stories on the NHS being described by Johann Lamont as the most shameful bit of electioneering she has ever come across. And of course one person's scare story is another person's identifying the risks of one course of action. What the SNP were doing with what I have called "bribes " was quite different. The White Paper on the independence referendum "Scotland's future" goes way beyond a paper detailing the process and certain consequences and, indeed the case for independence. What it provided was a manifesto for the 2016 election detailing what measures the SNP proposed to implement in an independent Scotland. It then heavily promoted those policies to those who would benefit most. The problem here is that it was a one horse race. No other major party could say what policies they would propose if there was an independent Scotland because they were all opposed to independence. To put forward policies in the event of an independent Scotland would only serve to encourage people to vote YES if they liked the policies. All that the other parties could say is that the policies were not affordable; to which the SNP's response was that they would borrow to fund the policies. This gave the SNP free reign to stick in anything which they thought might be popular. As Charles says. it didn't matter whether the policies were affordable or not, by the time these bought votes resulted in Independence an irrevocable change would have been made. The SNP would then either renege on their promises or plunge the nation into debt. Either way, they wouldn't be caring because we would be an independent country and that was the goal all along. I don't blame the SNP for this. There were no rules of engagement, as it were, to stop turning the referendum into an election. The loophole was there and they exploited it for all they were worth. As with so much, the blame lies with Better Together and the Unionist leaders for letting them get away with this. This tactic of the SNP was obvious from the start - after all, they turned a Government White Paper into a party manifesto! Labour should have responded in kind. They will have seen the White Paper / manifesto and could have issued a preliminary manifesto for the 2015 election and argued firstly that what the SNP were promising was not affordable in an independent Scotland, and secondly that a UK Labour Government would be able improve on much that is currently a problem - and do it before the SNP could in an independent Scotland. Perhaps they felt such tactics were not consistent with the togetherness approach. Whatever the reason, they let the SNP electioneer virtually unchallenged and focused instead on the issues which should have been what the referendum was all about but which was of little interest to some of the most vulnerable in our society who were being offered something tangible by the SNP.

What makes you think that folk on here are not delighted that we are sitting top of the league? It is interesting you say we need to get the feel good factor back. That presumably means that you think we don't have the feel good factor at the moment - isn't that exactly what some of us are saying? And the feel good factor is not going to return just because a handful of fans stop voicing their concerns on this forum, the feel good factor will return when people are excited by what they see on the pitch. Saturday's win put us top of the league and yet we had the lowest Saturday home gate since we returned to the top flight. Why are people staying away? Why do you think that is? If you don't have an opinion then it is not exactly helpful having a pop at those who, with the clubs best wishes at heart, are offering their opinions.

No doubt pollsters and researchers will be looking into the reasons why people voted as they did and, if they changed their minds, why. But until I see some convincing evidence to the contrary I simply can't buy into the argument that the pledge nonsense changed peoples minds. After all, it doesn't make sense. Voters fell into 3 main camps. 1) Those wanting independence. 2) Those not wanting independence but wanting a greater degree of devolution than currently on offer. 3) Those not wanting independence and not wanting further devolution. Clearly the pledge is not going to change the minds of those in the 1st and 3rd categories. The pledge is only going to influence those in the 2nd group thinking of voting YES. But why on earth would you vote for independence if you don't want it! If you want to remain in the Union but want more powers devolved the only way you can get that is to stay in the union and therefore you vote NO. Once staying in the union is confirmed, then there will be an opportunity to debate the merits of further devolved powers. If anything, it might have persuaded some to vote YES on the basis that it showed the leaders of the three main UK parties to be complete numpties and folk might have thought that if that was the quality of political leadership in the UK we might be better off being independent after all. The intervention may have swayed some but certainly not many. It shouldn't have swayed any and it shouldn't have been made. I am sure there will be a number of factors contributing to the late move back to NO but I am convinced the main one is simply the common phenomenon of people drawing back from major change when it comes to the bit. It is the "better the devil you know" mentality. Interestingly, whilst UK political leaders panicked, the bookies held firm. Even though there were a couple of polls favouring YES they consistently had a NO outcome as a clear favourite. That provides further evidence that the pledge probably made little difference.

Given Hughes' comments on "it's all about ball retention" it is perhaps a bit surprising that we are not actually retaining the ball better. I looked at the match stats for the 8 games we've played this season and we have had an average of 53% possession against 47% for the opposition. That's closer to 50:50 than the referendum! Stats for shots at goal and on target are 12 & 4 per match and 8 & 3 per match for the opposition. These figures suggest that we are effective at containing the opposition and restricting the number of chances they get (that's why Draper got the POTM award), but we are not dominating possession and we are not creating a lot ourselves. What concerns me is the extent we play the ball sideways and allow the opposition to regain their shape. We are most effective attacking at pace but such attacks seem a relative rarity these days despite both goals yesterday coming from Doran breaking at speed. The second was interesting because initially it looked as though Shinnie was running to provide the overlap but then he just stopped and let Doran take on two defenders on his own. It was only when Doran got trapped by the corner flag that Shinnie then made himself available again and was lucky to be gifted the ball. Can't help but think that Yogi would have wanted Doran to check when Shinnie stopped his run and knock the ball back to Shinnie in the space behind to ensure possession was retained. Of course it is great to be where we are in the league and a win is a win and all that, but apart from the two goals there was precious little to get excited about yesterday. The crowd yesterday was dreadful and it is clear that the crowds are not going to come just because we are top of the league, they are going to come back if they are entertained. The stats suggest that for all the hype, we are not actually keeping possession particularly successfully and nor are we getting much goalmouth action. Even County who are bottom of the table with no points are averaging more shots on target per game than us. It seems to me not so much that comments on here are negative, rather they are reflecting a negative style of play which happens to be successful. With the talented squad we have, I can't help thinking we could have a much more positive approach to games and still be successful.

That is what I have been saying. The reason they voted "YES" is that the SNP hijacked the referendum and did some shameless electioneering by promoting a range of un-affordable policies which they said they would introduce if Scotland was independent and which would be directed to the poorest in our society. These folk are mainly in labour heartlands where support for independence has always been low. They didn't vote YES because they believed in the arguments for independence, they voted YES because they were promised short term benefits if Scotland became independent. These measures would have required the SNP Government to borrow billions of pounds even allowing for the wildly optimistic forcasts of oil revenues. This in turn is why they were so desparate to have a currency union so that the Bank of England could bail them out when their bribery bankrupted the nation. It is also illuminating how strong the NO vote was in Grampian - Salmond's stamping ground, SNP heartland and the country's oil capital. They knew you can't build a nation's economy on what is left in the North Sea and they knew we need the broader base of the UK economy to keep Scotland prosperous.

With his yellow top and black shorts, Brill's colour scheme was the same as the match officials. I didn't think that was allowed.

I assume these figures are from the survey reported in the Mirror. I think it is highly unlikely that the survey is representative in that it interviewed just over 2047 people of all age groups and therefore if the numbers interviewed of all ages was proportional to the numbers on the electoral register then it might be that as few as 60 were interviewed. However, the fact that the figure is so much in the NO direction suggests that whilst there may be a pretty large margin of error, the true picture is likely to be a greater level of support for NO than YES. This is interesting because all the information coming out beforehand was that this age group was showing a distinct difference in view point from older teenagers and young adults and were actually strongly in the NO camp. Research by Edinburgh University in 2013 with proper sample sizes suggested 72% intended to vote "NO" and when repeated in June this year, whilst the gap had narrowed, it was still 64% NO and 36% YES. This research seemed to confirm evidence from the various mock polls which schools up and down the country had held and which consistently showed the youngsters coming down on the side of the arguments against independence. If this latest post election poll is correct, then I imagine researchers will want to look very carefully as to the reasons why so many people in that age group changed their minds in the latter parts of the campaign. It is really very interesing and I suspect we will hear more about it in due course.

The BBC is always cautious in broadcasting about emerging situations and quite rightly too. Social media provides the opportunity for people to post images of a particular incident but the BBC will not broadcast such images until it can broadcast them within an informed context. Let us consider a hypothetical scenario where images similar to those posted yesterday were posted on social media but with it being YES supporters charging into unionists, and then let us suppose that out of sight of the cameras was a much larger mob of pro unionist thugs who the yessers were running away from. You would be rightly outraged if film posted by unionists in these circumstances was immediately broadcast with a commentary that independence campaigners were attacking unionists. The BBC will be aware of what is being posted on social media and will endeavour to find out the truth. It's early reports refered to them as clashes between the two sides (which was correct) but did not apportion blame because they were not sure they had the full picture. Later when it was able to verify facts it broadcast reports which made it crystal clear where the blame lay. I really fail to see what you have to complain about with this report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29294562 which appears prominently on the BBC website. As for the level of prominence given to the incidents I'm really not sure what you expect. Whilst obviously terrifying for those innocent folk caught up in it, this was a very small scale disturbance in the scale of things and nobody was seriously hurt. After all, there were several rather more newsworthy things yesterday. 99.9% of the more than 2 million folk who voted no on Thursday will share your disgust at the action of the thugs and it is irritating that folk are trying to blow this up in order to discredit the better together cause by association. Meanwhile, Alex Salmond, the man who has led the SNP from being a party with just a handful of seats to narrowly failing to win independence for his country, has resigned and nobody makes any comment about that. By the way, you assured us yesterday that your post then would be the last on this forum - and here you are again today. More lies from the YES camp! - or are you back by popular demand?

No doubting we were the better side but we were hardly great. First half was thoroughly forgettable. Second was a bit better and came to life with a bit of Doran magic down the left. A decent strike from Christie should have put us in comfort zone but we gave away possession far too easily and let them come at us. Felt for Billy again today. Makes some great runs which team mates seem unable to spot. And again had a couple of low crosses which he was just unable to get on the end of. Of course it is great to top of the league but we need to play much better if we are to stay there. After 2 defeats to Partick and Glasgow's 3rd team, the win was more important than the performance, but we will need to play better to get anything out of the Dons next week.

Not a chance it will take more than a referendum to stop us singing that I'd like to see the English football team stop using that equally awful dirge "God save the Queen". Mind you, it seems to be working - the old girl is still going strong.

It will be a shame if you stop posting, Oddquine, as your posts are always considered and you make your points in a courteous way without ever being offensive in any way. It's just that I rarely agree with you! Take your post above. You state "The only thing any of them can agree on is that the UK is sunk without Scotland's oil underpinning their borrowing." Scotland's oil revenues are actually a pretty small amount of the UK's income. The level of Scotland's oil revenues are put into perspective when you consider that even at irresponsible top end projections, they were seen by the SNP to be wholly inadequate to pay for the programme of anti-austerity measures they unsuccessfully tried to bribe the Scottish electorate with. Such was the shortfall that they planned to borrow several billion pounds to pay for them. I do, however, agree with you about the value of the back of a fag packet stuff. But let's not worry too much about pressing them to keep their word and scoring political points. Let's instead do what is best for Scotland. Ed Milliband is calling for a constitutional convention which would give us time to consider what is best for us. Far better to do it right than to do it quickly. Milliband's option seems the way to go. Far better to work together as partners in a Union in deciding these things then negotiating costly divorce terms as competing separate states.

Surprised nobody has commented on Salmond's resignation. I see no particular reason for him to resign and would have thought that having backed Cameron into a corner, he would want to see the delivery of the promised powers through. Surely the last thing the SNP need whilst these discussions are going on is internal strife over his successor. He'll be a hard act to follow!

In 1979.....the MAJORITY voted FOR Independence, but it failed to hit the percentage figure as dictated by westminster I think you will find that was a vote for limited devolution and not independence

Having grabbed 2 or 3 hours sleep after having stayed up through the night I awoke with very mixed feelings. The first is simply relief. The 2nd is a feeling of positivism about the level of engagement in the process and the high turnout. I also have a sense of both relief and positivism that with a few minor exceptions the whole debate and voting day itself passed off peacefully despite the undoubted strength of feeling on both sides. But my overwhelming feeling is one of being hugely let down by the politicians on both sides. I also feel that despite the result being a relatively convincing rejection of independence, of all the political leaders it will be Alex Salmond who will be feeling happiest with the outcome this weekend. I know that sounds odd, so (at the risk of sending both you and myself back to sleep) let me explain because he has completely outmanoeuvred his political opponents in his quest for independence. In the 2011 election the SNP had a pledge to hold a referendum in their manifesto. Being elected with an overall majority they had to have a referendum but Salmond was also aware that polls showed much less support for independence than for the SNP as a Government in a devolved parliament. What he would also have been aware of is that voters want some significant level of further devolution short of independence. He would have realised that he was highly unlikely to win a yes/no referendum, so what does he do? Firstly he proposes a referendum with a Devo Max option. This serves to indicate to the voter that he is listening to the people even though there was more chance of hell freezing over than the UK accepting a 3 option referendum. Had they done so, the SNP would, of course have campaigned strongly for the independence option with the strong possibility of winning the vote and gaining independence even though the majority of the voters had voted against it. This would have been an affront to democracy. Nevertheless, suggesting it gave the impression that he was listening to the people and offering them a choice to vote for something he didn't want. How honourable! It also meant that when this was rejected he could blame the UK Government for denying the voters the opportunity. So, back to the YES/NO option that was actually in the SNP manifesto. He knew they wouldn't win on the arguments for independence alone but they needed as high a vote as possible. The decision was therefore taken to target those voters who don't normally support the SNP but who are hardest hit by the post recession austerity programme. The SNP targeted them by promising that measures will be put in place in an independent Scotland to "protect them from Tory cuts". Not only were these promises unfordable but there could, of course, be no guarantee of an SNP Government in an independent Scotland. More importantly, promises of what one party would do in an independent Scotland have no place in the argument of whether we should be independent or not. Meanwhile, the labour party in particular where left stranded. They couldn't offer the people what they would promise in an independent Scotland because they were arguing against Independence. In the eyes of the disadvantaged, Labour have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Not only have these unaffordable bribes boosted the yes vote, they have stolen votes from labour for future elections. That is crucial because if we are ever to have independence, the SNP need to remain in power in the Scottish Parliament. The strategy worked. It is clear from the results that the few areas which voted YES were among the poorest and most deprived in the country - Labour heartland. Conversely, areas regarded SNP strongholds voted against independence and often convincingly so. What that tells me is that the YES vote was hugely boosted by people who simply saw a YES vote as a short term answer to their current predicament rather than because they believed independence is good for Scotland's future. These voters coming on board caused the Better together campaign to panic. Knowing there is support for more devolution, the response was this back of a fag packet vow nonsense. I'm not sure it changed too many minds and if it is has, it may have changed them toward Independence. The last minute move away from independence was probably more to do with nervousness associated with change and thinking through the issues. Had Better Together spent more effort dismantling the YES case and highlighting what we have achieved together and how the union benefits us, then I am sure the result would have been just as clear cut. What is clear is that this "vow" has handed the initiative firmly back to the SNP. What the SNP are saying now is that the referendum demonstrates a great desire for change. Rubbish! There may well be an appetite for change but that is not reflected in the result. As I say, the "YES" vote overstates the real demand for independence. The "NO" vote simply says that a significant majority of the population don't want independence. But Cameron has been backed into a corner of his own making. When Salmond made his mischievous proposal for a 3 question referendum, Cameron should have offered to have a constitutional convention to examine the options. He could have called Salmond's bluff and suggested that having this instead of a referendum would speed up the process, or he could have had the promise of a convention in the event of a no vote. This would have been a very powerful argument for those who want devo max but are wary of full independence. It would have made this late in the day vow nonsense totally unnecessary because the pledge to look at these issues would already have been made. Importantly, it wouldn't have been a commitment to change - it would have been a commitment to explore options and perhaps to put any carefully developed proposals to the people in a further referendum. It would have been a commitment to do what the people think is in the best interests of Scotland. What we have now is that Cameron is going to pressured to deliver something in very short time which has yet to get the approval of his own party, let alone approval of both houses of Parliament. Salmond will belligerently insist the timescales are met and if they are not met he will cry foul and claim the Scottish people were cheated out of independence (never mind that he nearly cheated us into it!) If it is delivered, it will be very rushed and may not work. If Salmond genuinely had Scotland's best interests at heart, he would not be pushing Cameron on this. Instead he would be demanding we take our time and consider the options carefully. Indeed, given the the level of powers likely to be devolved may be at least as significant as those when devolution first came into being, he should be arguing the proposals be put to the Scottish people in a referendum. After all, it was Salmond himself who proposed Devo max should be an option on the voting paper in the first place (or was that just a ruse to get independence imposed on the majority opposed to it by splitting the no vote!) Salmond does not want to make devo max work. If this back of a fag packet version of devo max does not deliver then there will be only one way to go - independence. As the SNP's unfordable promises and their confused position on currency etc demonstrated during the referendum campaign, they are not interested in what is best for Scotland; for them, it is independence come what may. The Yes campaign should never have got anywhere near winning this referendum. But thanks to Salmond's political savvy and Cameron and the Better Together's almost unbelievable naivety and ineptness they came pretty close and have kept the upper hand in the on-going political debate. Sorry, Charles. The nats have not gone away. They may have lost this battle but they are one step nearer winning the war and that is why Salmond will be sleeping more soundly in his bed tonight than Cameron.

HT: 0-0 FT: 2-0 ICT: Mckay SJ: None Time: 52 mins