DoofersDad

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mps-10-payrise-says-commons-4177390 If that doesn't make you vote yes nothing will **** up the UK then ask for a pay rise the cheek They'll be able to afford it if the Scottish MPs b*gger off North of the Border.

Couldn't agree more. There is a strong case for remaining within the Union but the Better Together campaign has been inept in just about every aspect of getting that message across. I think they never believed the vote would be close and so didn't need to bother with a well thought through strategy. As a result they have been out-manoeuvred on just about everything. I'll post a bit more on this if I can find the time, but just one example for now. The YES campaign have adopted the Scottish flag on which to over-lay the word "YES" for it's posters and stickers. The No campaign is using some maroon background or whatever that has no bearing whatsoever to Scotland. Why on earth did they not simply use the Scottish Flag as well? The (not very) subliminal message here is a that a YES vote is a vote for Scotland and a no vote isn't. What the NO campaign is actually saying is that Scotland is better off remaining in the Union and therefore if you want the best future for Scotland, you should vote NO. Using the Saltire would not only have helped get that message across, it would also have prevented the YES campaign benefiting from folk equating pride in the Scottish flag with a presumption that they should be voting YES.

I must admit, that's a very clever little video, Ayeseetee. I particularly like the way it moves forwards with the Union and then backwards with independence

It just might work. There was a time when flat caps were common in the stands and crowds were good in those days.

International recognition is surely not a measure of a player's worth? Graeme Shinnie is in a different league, ability wise, to Thierry Gathuessi. Both current/former full-backs for ICT. Shinnie's not yet been recognised at full international level, whilst Gathuessi is 'international class' as you would put it! Did I mention Shinnie ??? Did he say you did? I get his point, playing for your country is irrelevant on how good you are. Quite. I expect that if Adam was qualified for Northern Ireland and Billy was from Dublin, Adam would be playing international football and Billy wouldn't.

Thanks for clarifying that. What this means is that despite Oddquine's outrage about the alleged corruptness of the British political and financial system, we are actually one of the least corrupt nations in the world. And the YES campaigners want to split from the union with the rest of the UK and join in a union with a hotch potch of other European countries who are mostly seen as more corrupt than Britain.

Folk will be wondering who George Monbiot is. Is he some eminent economist? No. George Monbiot is a zoologist by training who used to be a member of pussycat George Galloway's "Respect" party and who now earns a living writing controversial articles for the Guardian. He's not exactly someone whose opinion should influence us in making the momentous decision of whether or not we want to end a 300 year old political union. But given that Oddquine has jumped on his views on the currency as supporting her position, it is worth looking at what he says on that. Oddquine quotes Monbiot saying "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the city." Why then, is the "YES" campaign hell bent on insisting that an independent Scotland will use a currency which allegedly harms Scotland's manufacturing industries? Elsewhere in his article Monbiot identifies that there are other small countries who have their own currency, so why does the YES campaign not have the confidence and belief in the strength of their own economy to prosper with their own currency under their own control? We hear all this scaremongering nonsense about how corrupt the British Government and financial institutions are, but the truth of the matter is that the Scottish Government's desparation to use the pound post independence is because they know that whether they have any control over it or not, the strength of the British pound and the way it is managed, far from damaging manufacturing in Scotland, is the best way to support the Scottish economy.

And us being "free people" is not going to change in the event of a Yes vote, so I do still view the original statement as pointless. And if I did have to attempt to find a point to it it would be as mild doom mongering. Apologies if you if find that offensive, it's not meant that way. No offense taken at all. And apologies if my comments have caused offense to anyone - certainly none intended. But just a final thought. We are having this referendum because we have the freedom within our current democratic structure to discuss these matters and because the UK Government has respected the fact that the SNP has been elected to the Scottish Parliament with a mandate to seek a referendum on independence. Further, the UK Government has accepted the result will be binding and that only a simple majority of those voting will be necessary. Of course, the ability for the Scottish people to seek independence through the democratic process has existed as long as we have had a parliamentary democracy. The fact that we are only voting on the issue now is a reflection that over the years, the majority of Scots have been happy to remain proud Scots within the United Kingdom.

Does it mean that "NO" voters have to draw the Union Flag? If so, I might vote "YES"

What is the point in this statement? Are you suggesting that this is going to change with a Yes vote and Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night? Of course you are not - so it's a pointless thing to type. The No campaign is founded on keeping people in fear. A lot of the Scottish public are starting to realise this and now it's the No camp that is getting the fear. No, it is not a pointless thing to type. You are right that of course I am not suggesting Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night but equally I am pointing out that it doesn't happen now because we are free people. What independence will give for some is a release, if you like, of the Scottish identitiy within an Independent Scotland. I understand that for many that will give them a sense, as Dougiedanger says, of "pride, honour and identity" and it also gives a greater level of self determination for Scots, but please, do not confuse that with freedom. The freedom we currently have is the envy of many and has been hard won. Many proud Scots have fought and died to win and protect our freedom over the years. These basic freedoms are the right to vote, the right to read what you want, say what you want, watch want you want, the right to criticise the Government, the right to go where you want, the right to practice any religion or none etc. These are the rights that we now all take for granted in this country but which are denied to millions in other parts of the world. We already have our freedom. Independence does not give us freedom, it simply transfers our freedom to an independent state where those who live in Scotland will have a greater level of self determination than at present.

That'll be why we leave the Israeli's to oppress. Lets just turn a blind eye to that one because Palestine has nothing to offer and the sons of Israel are the financial blood of the good old US of A. Britian has been involved in conflict in Afghanistan since Hannibal was a boy. Dont you think maybe the threats from the fundamentalists there may have something to do with that? Britian took near riots in the streets before becoming involved in Syria. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in central and southern Africa. We denounced the Angolan people in their fight for Independence from Portugal. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in South America. If the oil and mineral wealth of those nations was known about then as it is now I think our stand would have been a helluva lot different. Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people. But Britain doesn't just leave the Israeli's to oppress. Britain has been very strong in it's condemnation of Israel's latest actions. Just what do you expect them to do? This dispute is incredibly difficult and whilst one can be rightly critical of Israel's attitude to the Palestinians, it should not be forgotten that the Palestinian Government denies the right for a Jewish state to exist in the first place. Despite this, Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is far less oppressive than the Taliban's oppression of its own poeple in Afghanistan or Saddam's oppression of his own people in Iraq. You say "Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people." Really? if that was the case, would the Government provide the freedoms and support given to the Muslim communities in Britain? The picture I get is one of trying to encourage ethnic and racial respect and integration.

National destiny and freedom are two completely different things. The Scottish nation may have had control of its destiny 300 years ago but the people had no say in it and precious few freedoms. Forget the Braveheart nonsense, the Scottish people certainly have far more freedom and say in their destiny through being partners in the Union than they ever did 300 years ago. The Scottish people have freedoms that others would give their right arm for. You, for instance, are not going to disappear in the middle of the night having called your Government tyrannical and oppressive. Britain has freedoms that are the envy of the world. And, given the length of the Union it really is quite extraordinary how the distinctive identity of Scotland has been preserved with our separate education and legal systems being evidence of that. Of course independence would give the Scots people the Government they voted for every time, but that in itself does not make us any freer. It gives us more self determination on one level but I would hardly call that having control over our own destiny. At a local level we will still complain about our health and social services, our schools and our roads only for local government to say that central government doesn't give them enough money. And at national level our destiny will be still be hugely influenced by the financial markets, big business, international bodies and EU legislation (which incidentally, the hated Tories are complaining inhibits this country making its own decisions!). Our freedoms in engaging in normal life and work activities within rUK will certainly be reduced. Independence will maybe give the Scots a little more self determination but to suggest it will give us more freedom has more to do with romantic notions of independence than the reality of Scotland's position as part of the UK. The question about freedom in this referendum is whether or not we want a Government which is prepared to fight to preserve our freedom or do we want a Government that condemns from the sidelines but expects others to fight its battles for us.

Of course Britain has a colonial past and much of what happened then is considered outrageous by modern day standards, but to call the British Government a tyrannical oppressor today is totally absurd. You refer to the Empire in the past tense and that is the clue here. The Empire has morphed into the Commonwealth where former colonies, most of which are now independent democratic states, choose, of their own free will, to participate as part of the Commonwealth because they know that it is in their interests to maintain a partnership with the old colonial power. As a result, most of these countries are relatively prosperous. This post colonial policy of supporting democratic freedom within the world has continued through two world wars, a strong line against the spread of the undemocratic communist oppression of the Soviet empire and onto taking a stand against Muslim fundamentalists who, as you read this are butchering folk who refuse to sign up to a highly oppressive creed which removes any semblance of freedom. Is it to Britain's own advantage to do these things? You bet your life it is! It is in our interests to have a world of democratic nations where people have the basic freedoms that we tend to take for granted and where those nations respect the rights of other countries, trade with them and co-operate on issues of mutual interest (e.g.environmental treaties). Of course Britain picks and chooses where it gets involved based on the nature of the oppression being inflicted and the more immediate impact the issue has on Britain's security and economic interests. One may argue with some justification that it doesn't always get the balance right, but that does not take away from the principle that the UK is prepared to make a stand in promoting and protecting the democratic rights of folk throughout the world.

Are you saying you know that this is the rule at all clubs (apart from Cownty of course)? With all the matchday duties that people have at clubs I can't see the motivation for providing anything but an estimate with 10 mins left because fans expect it. It also adds a level of difficulty in the case of our club as we don't have a separate gate for STs so somebody would need to do a few (admittedly fairly simple) sums. There's also the legendary situation in Scottish Cup matches where everybody, yes probably everybody, rips off the away club by underannouncing the attendance, although with computerised turnstiles I'm not 100% sure how they get away with it. I know it's the rule here and I assume at others. I can't see getting accurate figures would be too difficult. They know how many tickets they have handed out. The sum of that plus the number of season tickets sold is the number of folk who have paid to see the game and that is the offical attendance. The number of clicks through the turnstiles is the actual number at the game and from a fan's perspective, that is the figure we would like to know. Deducting the latter figure from the former would give the number of ST holders who didn't go to the game. I would imagine the club has these figures but I can't see the club making them public. It is often pretty clear that the actual crowd is less than the crowd announced. For instance when the crowd is officially half the capacity it is pretty obvious that the ground is less than half full.

I think the "YES" campaign is really scraping the barrel if it thinks the increase in terror status within the UK has some ulterior motive to win votes for the "NO" camp. Quite the opposite is true; some voters will see an independent Scotland as being less of a target for terrorists and this might tempt folk to vote "YES". The reason the UK is a target is because the UK takes actions to tackle these extremists who in turn see the UK as a threat. The terrorists carry out their outrages to mobilise public opinion to stop the target countries governments' involvement in those parts of the world where the terror groups are trying to impose their evil ideologies. It is highly significant here that Muslim leaders in the UK have issued a fatwa informing Muslims in this country that it is religiously prohibited to support or join ISIS. They refer to ISIS as "an oppressive and tyrannical group". This is therefore not the British Government playing political games, it is the British Government being engaged in supporting others in the fight against oppression and tyranny. There is a famous saying that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Some may want an independent Scotland to sit back and preach the moral high ground without raising a finger to stop the spread of these oppressive ideologies, but I am actually quite proud of the fact that the UK is prepared to put its money where its mouth is to stand up and fight oppressive regimes and ideologies. Think about folk in the middle east who are being butchered because they oppose an oppressive and tyrannical heresy of the Muslim faith. Those folk will tell you the real meaning of freedom.

Whatever the "official" attendance was, the actual attendance will have been less. Official figures are arrived at by adding the number of season ticket holders to those paying on the day. The figure relates to the number of folk who have paid to watch the game, but obviously not every season ticket holder goes to every game.

HT: 2-0 FT: 3-1 ICT: Warren Killie: Pascali Time 11 mins

Lennon, Butcher and Locke would all be decent choices for county. Intrigued by Grant Munro at 12/1. Can't see that happening - but maybe he'll come as Butcher's deputy?

So I beat their announcement by 2 minutes then!

Just announced he's been sacked

Good point. Celtic seriously miscalculated by resting 9 of the players who faced ICT in the clash between the league champions and the league leaders last weekend.

I'm not convinced they are that far ahead of the rest as they have been. They look far more beatable than previously having already lost matches to Leiga Warsaw and Maribor - and to us, of course. With all due respect to Warsaw and Maribor, they are a far cry from Barcelona who Celtic beat under Lennon. Sure they have a large and expensive squad but will the new manager be able to get them to play consistently together as a team? What will the team sprit be when so many of these players are only involved occaisionally? How will the expectations of the fans and their reaction to failure impact on the team. I can see Celtic failing to win quite a lot of games this season. If one or two of the rest of the teams steps up and can develop the winning habit even when not playing at their best, Celtic could be given a run for their money. I certainly fully expect them to win the league but it just might be a good bit closer this year.

I am a supporter of PR and always have been, but one of the downsides from personal experience is how you are represented on an individual level. Over the year I have occasionally written to my elected representatives at various levels on a number of issues. Where there is a specific single representative I have always received a reply. Where there is some multiple representation I rarely get a reply and, in fact have never received other than an automated holding response from a representative elected by virtue of a list system. It seems these people feel accountable only to the party that determines their place on the party list and not to the electorate.

Can you explain just what it is about having bricks put through your windows or being in jail fending of rape attempts that you would find so rewarding? Give me your address and I can arrange the former if you'ld like but I'm afraid you'll need to look elsewhere for the latter.

Thought I'd hold off responding to Oddquine's post at 1056 till after the "debate" between Darling and Salmond to see what they had to say about the subjects. It is clear that Oddquine's plea that someone clarify why an independent Scotland can't use the pound without a currency union needs to be answered by someone in the "YES" camp. Oddquine seems very clear that this is option B and that seems fair enough to me, but the question really needs to be directed to Alex Salmond because again last night he refused to state what plan B was. It seemed to come as a revelation to him when Darling explained that of course he was free to use the pound, the rouble or whatever. Bizarrely Salmond then went on to say there were actually 3 plan Bs! As usual he thought he was being frightfully clever but as we all know, 3 plan Bs means no plan B. He is focused on what he has been told time and time again is not an option yet now he grandly states that he is seeking a "mandate" from the electorate to negotiate for a currency union. This is just mind bogglingly arrogant, inept and irresponsible. What was also of note was Salmond's clear assertion that if there is no currency union (which there won't be) Scotland won't pay it's share of the UK debt. Do we really want to start life as an independent state with the world knowing we are a country that does not honour its debts? As to the NHS, Salmond continued with his scaremongering tactics yesterday and just sailed blithely on completely immune to the utter hypocrisy of what he was saying. Oddquine specifically asks about Andy Burnham's remarks and my response to that is to remind folk that we are engaged in a referendum debate about the long term future of Scotland and should not get over-exercised about speculation voiced as part of the internal cut and thrust of English politics. Let's just stick to the facts and ask questions about how we might cope with the ever growing pressure on the NHS in an Independent Scotland. Fact is that despite their scare tactics of talk about the "privatisation threat", the SNP have increased the involvement of the private sector in the NHS in Scotland. Fact is that despite scare tactics of talk suggesting Tory cuts into the NHS will result in reduced funding here, the current Tory Government have delivered increased public spending to the NHS and are pledged to continue to increase spending year on year despite the post recession austerity programme. Fact is that Scotland gets something in the region of £1,200 per head of population more for public services that the rest of the UK and this gives Scotland the opportunity to provide more public funding into the NHS than the English NHS gets. Much of the greater engagement with the private sector in England and speculation regarding future policy is because their lower level of funding means that they are having to cope with the growing healthcare demand pressures sooner that we will. But even if we may not like their responses or speculation at least they are grappling with the problem. Up here, the gradual but steady increase in using the private sector is proof that Salmond and his crew are well aware of the coming pressures but publicly they pander to the public affection for the NHS and condemn what's going on down south whilst having no public strategy for dealing with the inevitable crisis. This is both hypocritical and irresponsible. Ah, but of course, the NHS in an independent Scotland is going to be protected in the Constitution so we don't need to worry! Obviously there is no need to say how it is going to be protected or paid for - Alex says it will be OK and we can trust Alex. A further point made by Darling yesterday in response to smug Alex claiming the moral high ground over Trident was the Salmond is wanting to shelter under NATO's nuclear umbrella but is not prepared to have the nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. It is worth pointing out that not only is that his line, he expects a NATO partner to pay for resiting them so that he can adopt his hypocritical position. I can understand why folk felt Salmond won the debate yesterday, but it was all show over substance. We are no further forward other than receiving confirmation from Salmond that he won't pay his debts and that finally after 2 years of campaigning he now understands that it is possible to use the pound outwith a currency union. We are left with the usual unanswered questions of what currency we would use, will we be in the European Union and if so, under what conditions? How will pressures on the NHS and other public services be funded? There are other issues of course. One which has received little attention is what plans does the Government have for replacing the ageing nuclear reactors at Torness and Hunterston and the coal fired power station at Longannet which are all due to be closed in a few years time? The SNP's position here is that "The matter of what generating stations will be built, and when, is currently down to the proposals the market brings forward for new or upgraded thermal electricity generation capacity in Scotland." In other words, not only is there not a plan B, there isn't even a plan A! In a few years time a supposedly energy rich independent Scotland could be importing electricity from England to keep the lights on! The sad thing about last night was the inability of Darling to exploit the hypocrisy and lack of substance behind all of Salmond's arrogant and often patronising bluster. Whether or not we break from the Union is a massive decision to make and the people of Scotland deserve to have that decision made on the basis of a clear understanding of what independence will mean for Scotland. The people of Scotland deserve better debate than we witnessed at last night's shout fest.