DoofersDad

Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.

HT - Motherwell 0 - ICT 1 FT - Motherwell 2 - ICT 1 1st ICT - Tansey 1st Motherwell - Ojama 1st Goal time 37 mins

Now that I am retired and hopefully have a bit more free time, I hope to be able to get to more matches and have bought a season ticket for the first time. Unfortunately I won't be able to get to the game tonight and therefore seat 55 in row S of section D will be vacant. If you happen to have the seats either side, please PM me to say "hello". Hope to see you at the Celtic game.

It makes sense really because Billy is the sort of striker than the Germans in particular tend to favour. Looking at Tomato Terrace's excellent video of Billy's goals I was reminded of the video showing all of Miroslav Klose's record number of world cup goals where his longest range strike was a penalty! Germany previously had Gerhard Muller in a similar role. These sort of players may not be spectacular but they can be very good at winning football matches. The Germans appreciate them and know their worth. If we are talking in the region of £500K then that is the sort of level where the next stage up gets into silly money. Whatever fee Billy may eventually go for (and go he certainly will at some point) it will be important to get a clause which gives ICT benefit from any subsequent move. Another point to make is that whilst I would expect Billy to score a good few if he stays here, the need to get a replacement or back up is probably not as urgent as some folk think. The style of play Yogi is bringing in is a bit more fluid and not reliant on a traditional striker role. We have several players capable of scoring and who, in the style of play, will get into scoring positions. A windfall from selling Billy might be best spent on securing longer term contracts for key players like Shinnie and Christie rather than an out and out proven replacement. Yes we will need to bring at least one more striker in but in my view we should be looking for someone with the potential to develop within the team we have and who won't break the bank - which is what we did when we signed Billy in the first place.

I've only seen brief highlights and will therefore restrict my comments to Billy's goal. It wasn't a spectacular strike or the result of a breathtaking passing movement but it really was a brilliantly taken goal. His awareness to see the opportunity, his vision to see what needed to be done, his control to execute it and his bravery to take that deft touch when he knew he was going to get clattered by the keeper were all top drawer. There are very few strikers who would have taken that opportunity and lets hope the qualities he displayed there gives him the confidence to score many more.

Combining this with the bullying thread, is the "prize" for topping the poll some swirlies at half time on Wednesday night?

HT 1-0 FT 2-1 1st ICT - Mckay 1st Opp - McGowan Time of 1st goal - 39 mins

That would be because he is trying to work within the Edinburgh Agreement...and Westminster isn't. Plan A is Plan A and will be until, if we vote for Independence, and all Westminster parties refuse to negotiate a currency Union.........we go to Plan B. However, in the end, it won't be Westminster who decides, we all know that.......Westminster doesn't have as much power as big business nowadays.....it will be the money men who decide...those same money men who obliged Westminster to take ownership of all the debt Westminster had run up. They want to guarantee they will get paid, so while we are waiting to see whether Westminster or Salmond will blink first, it will be interesting to see the reaction of investors, shareholders and companies (the market) to the possibility of 10% of the UK balance of payments being wiped off the balance sheet (and Scotland not paying any share of the UK debt). You say Westminster does not have as much power as big business. Maybe you are right and maybe you are wrong, but are you seriously suggesting that Edinburgh will have more power than both? The reality will be that in the event of independence, what you see as the unhealthy relationship between the bankers / financial institutions and Government at Westminster will simply be transferred to Edinburgh. The difference is that Scotland's disproportionate dependence on the financial sector makes the Scottish Government even more vulnerable to pressure from the institutions, particularly given that they have the option to simply relocate south of the Border to where the bulk of their customers are.

The Adam Smith statement makes sense to me. Why then is Alex Salmond so fixated on the idea of currency union when the option of using Sterling or a Scottish pound outside of a currency union are perfectly viable options? I think both sides are playing political silly b*ggers here. On the one hand Salmond appears to be adopting his position in order to create the idea of Westminster being deliberately obstructive, whereas the unionist parties are making a big play of the suggestion that Scotland will struggle not being within a currency union and they suggest Scotland will not have the pound - which is not actually true. I think it is entirley reasonable for the Unionist Parties to say there will be no currency union and I personally think it is helpful that this is being said now rather than having to wait for post referendum negotiations. If only Salmond had the commonsense to accept that and say we'll use Sterling or the Scottish pound without currency union then this would be a non issue. It would also defuse a major argument that the BT campaign is promoting.

I don't doubt it, but it is Alex Salmond you need to convince. He is still hell bent on the one option which is not available.

We should be thankful that we are in a position where the journalists actually want to interview the manager. And we won the game! An ideal opportunity for Yogi to throw their gloomy predictions back at them. I would have thought he would have relished the opportunity.

Very strange. As someone else said, he comes across as an honest, likeable sort of guy and what you see is what you get. He may be prone to the odd strange statement but there are always opportunities to correct misunderstandings if he has said something which has been interpretted differently from what he meant. I don't know why he chose not to speak to the media after the first game of the season but making himself available is really part of the job. He needs to win over the fans to his style of play and refusing to give interviews doesn't help.

So still being in the commonwealth after a yes vote means squat? Of course! There are no independent nations in the commonwealth who have a currency union with the UK - why should Scotland be any different? p.s the queen will still be head of state in an independent Scotland so it will be under the british crown like the above countries it just wont be a part of the uk It would become an independent state like Australia and New Zealand but would be quite different from the other "countries" you mention because they are Terretories with defined constitutional links with the UK.. Of course, an Independent Scotland could vote to become a Republic if it wanted to! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign "situated outside a place or country; especially : situated outside one's own country" So it would be england in our eyes that is the forgien state not scotland by that logic. Yes, it works both ways. The rest of the UK and it's terretories would become foreign countries for those of us living in Scotland whilst Scotland would be a foreign country to them. Nothing in what I am saying is an argument against independece, it is simply a plea that before we decide how we vote we understand what independence really means. Sometimes I get the impression that Salmond doesn't.

Guernsey etc are British Crown Territories whilst the Falklands etc are British Overseas Territories. That is quite different from sharing a currency with a foreign state which is what Scotland will become if there is a "yes" vote. Australia and New Zealand both had a currency called the pound which their own monetary policy sometimes aligned to the UK pound, but there was no formal currency union with them as independent countries.

Billy Bragg! The Yes supporters slagg off David Bowie for encouraging the Scots to vote "No", but it's apparently OK for Bragg to come up and encourage us to vote "Yes".

I'm no expert on these issues and look at them from the perspective of an ordinary confused voter. From that perspective I am very concerned about Salmond's continuing intransigence illustrated here. He has no plan B because he continues to insist that currency union is in the best interest of all concerned. Regardless of the opinions expressed in a report written for the Scottish Government, The Unionist parties continue to be adamant that there will be no currency union. Salmond needs to come to terms with that. It is perfectly reasonable for him to continue to argue that a shared currency is best and to pledge to pursue that option, but he does need to have a fall back position in the likely event that he does not manage to get the Unionist parties to do a u-turn. He also needs to understand that it is not the Scottish pound, it is the UK pound. He walks away from the UK then he walks away from infuence over the pound. What he does not walk away from is the Scottish share of the national debt With the focus on what is best for Scotland, people tend to forget about how this is will all impaact on the rest of the UK. The break up of the union will have a number of practical difficulties for the rUK as a result of a unilateral decision by one partner to leave the union. The rest of the electorate in the UK will have had absolutely no say in this massive constitutional change and will not be inclined to do the Scots any favours. The view that will be taken regarding what Salmond may perceive as shared assets is that if Scotland has walked away from the Union then it relinquishes any right to certain assets. For instance, DVLA provide a very smooth service for Scottish road users and whilst it may be relatively easy for procedures to change to accommodate a service to an Independent Scotland, rUK may take the view that they are not prepared to make any changes and therefore the Scottish Government will need to set up it's own agency. Any area requiring negotiations around what are currently shared assets will be met with the line that these are UK assets and given that Scotland has unilaterally left the UK, Scotland's access to those shared assets will be strictly on the basis of whether or not it suits rUK.

Not joined Gringo's NPL before so it's about time I gave it a go. Can I add to the bragging rights of being defending Prediction League champion? - no chance, I fear. HT 1-0 FT 1-2 First ICT - Warren First Hamilton - Longridge First goal - 14 mins

Good luck to those new to the competition, but it would be good to get a few more signed up as I will be completely unbearable if I win -again.

Interesting article which only goes to illustrate the confusion in the Yes camp. Jim Sillars seems to have no problem with a separate Scottish currency for plan B but as Oddquine points out, that does not seem to be an option for Salmond. As for Salmond not being the only choice as the face for independence, it is Salmond himself that you should be saying that to. As others have quite rightly pointed out, in the event of a Yes vote, there would be a subsequent election of a Government and there is no guarantee the SNP would win. We really need to be hearing the opinions of others in the Yes campaign and whilst the media no doubt focus on Salmond, the campaign should not be using him as their spokesman quite as much as they do. I also thought Darling's reluctance to answer the question about whether Scotland could be a successful independent question was strange. The answer I would have expected is that it probably could be but it would be more successful as part of the Union. It's actually a very straightforward question to answer with interest. I think he was probably worried that acknowledging Scotland could go it alone would be misinterpreted. He therefore messed around with tippy tappy stuff in defence rather than launching into a swift counter attack

...because (to paraphrase one of Oddquine's strap lines) Sterlingisation would give us uncertainty without power whilst remaining within the UK would maintain our current stability with power. Salmond does not state openly that Sterlingisation is plan B because he knows that the general view of economists is that using another country's currencywith no control over it is generally felt to be a pretty poor idea. Salmond keeps banging on about it being Scotland's pound as though there will have to be a currency union whether rUK like it or not, but that is not the case. It is Scotland's currency only in as much as it is the UK's currency and Scotland is part of the UK. If Scotland choses to leave the UK then it also leaves the currency. If Sterlingisation is Salmond's plan B (as Oddquine asserts) then he really needs to spend time in the 2nd debate explaining how it might work and why it would be in Scotland's interests. This is absolutely fundemental to the debate and the fact that Salmond appears incapable of doing anything more than use a few words of one syllable as a beligerent soundbite is really quite pathetic.

It is completely unjust given that Celtic were to all intents and purposes soundly beaten before the illegible player was put on. Celtic were beaten fair and square. However, if the rules state that if an ineligible player is played at any point in the tie the tie is forfeited to the opposition then Legia only have themselves to blame - somebody must have known he was illegible. It seems like another example of stupid officials making stupid rules and thereby making a laughing stock of the game. There should be some scope to use a bit of discretion in situations where the offence clearly had no impact on the outcome of the tie. Trouble is that the numpties who run the game want to avoid making difficult decisions and having to use a bit of judgement. Allowing Legia to progress but giving them a fine would be far more appropriate, but if the rules don't allow for that kind of discretion, it aint going to happen.

Punching above our weight, then, without England doing it on our behalf! Another example of the Scots being able to thrive and do well as a part of the Union. Support for the Better together campaign should ensure another fine performance in Australia in 4 years time!

Whatever that means doesn't take away from the fact that he said he would be happy just to avoid relegation. Despite saying "we'll let everyone else tell everyone what they're going to do" he also says that he expects we'll win more games than we'll lose - which, of course, is telling everyone else what he thinks we're going to do. So he thinks we will win more than we will lose (so presumably that's top six again) but he will still be happy if we just avoid relegation. I'm sure he does have higher ambitions for the club but his words don't exactly inspire confidence. Ictchris makes a good point about small changes having a big impact on league position and therefore it would be foolish to make any more specific predictions, but surely nobody at the club will be happy if we just avoid relegation - relieved, maybe but surely not happy. I would have thought the line should be that we have been top six for the last 2 seasons and will be looking to build on that. At the same time he should be acknowledging the progress other clubs like Aberdeen and Dundee Utd in particular are making which will make the league very competetive. That would demonstrate ambition whilst playing down expectations.

Is there any reason why this discussion can't be on the well established Independence debate thread? I think the two threads would be better together.

There is nothing to indicate this was written tongue in cheek so I will bite and take it at face value as I think this illustrates why we are never going to agree on whether posts are positive and negative. SP starts with a quite extraordinary statement which begs the question of why anyone would consider favouring either positive or negative posts in the first place. Surely reasonable folk would favour objective posts - whether you then perceive those posts as positive or negative is a matter for your your own perspective and expectations. SP goes on to refer to himself as amongst the "standard balanced folks" but he seems pretty firmly in the "happy clapper" camp to me. SP finishes by saying "The old saying ''Oh,wid the guid lord the gift tae gie us tae see oorselves as ithers see us"springs to mind as something the non-happy clappers and negative criticisers could ponder over". Note that he doesn't see those sharing his own happy clapper views having a need to see themselves as others do as presumably their views are unquestionably the only views that have any validity. The truth is that it behoves us all to reflect on how others see us and to respect the views of others. To me the issue is not about positive versus negative posts, it is about the intolerance of some towards those who offer objective comment on aspects of this football club. Far too often when the comments are critical, the happy clappers condemn them as "negative" yet rarely offer any objective argument to counter the points made. There are many folk who are no longer posting their views or who feel intimidated to post any views in the first place because of the way any critical posts are responded to. Interestingly, it seems to me that those who are often branded as negative are the first to acknowledge improvements. Renegade makes an excellent post relating to this. Whilst not agreeing with the OP, he raises an important point in questioning whether critical postings on this website have a negative impact on the players and the potential support. As far as the players are concerned I would expect that objective criticism will always be welcomed by players with any ambition to succeed. The players will know when criticism, however well meant, is misguided and they'll not worry about that in the slightest. But where they can recognise that objective criticism has some validity to it, any professional worth their salt will use it to motivate them to respond positiively. As far as the fans are concerned, surely honesty is the best policy - tell them the product is better than it is and they'll feel cheated and won't come back There is nothing so negative as an intolerance to an honest exchange and debate of sincerely held views regarding concerns that fans may have. I wish that what we were seeing on the park was such that everyone was saying it's brilliant to watch - but it isn't. If you don't like what you're seeing then why pretend that you do? I doubt that there are any fans who don't hope that the faith Caley D has in the development of Yogi's plans is justified, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for folk to raise concerns based on what was undeniably a season of two halves last year. Let's end this positive v negative nonsense and have a bit of respect for other folks views and concerns and debate the points raised in an objective and respectful way. That is the kind of positivity I would like to see.