DoofersDad

Agree. The downside for me was the rolling out of Rod Stewart but at least he wasn't quite as awful as Sir Paul at the Olympics. Other musical elements blended in with the ceremony beautifully and were performed, often in a wonderfully understated way. The piece involving the Scottish Youth Choir and the interpretation of "Letter from America" with two young dancers from the Scottish Ballet was particularly effective. Unheralded performers outshining the bigger names at Celtic Park - hope that sets the scene for ICT's visit to Celtic Park in a few months time

I quite like the Ado Den Haag strip as it is. No blue and no red. Change the name simply to Inverness FC and we can move forward supporting the new club with a clear identity of it's own with no one whinging about whether the identity of one of the merged clubs is more prominent in the kit or the name than the other. Having a name that is a constant reminder of the past, keeps the pot stirring and gives us an identity crisis - and folk on here wonder why the wider football community doesn't take us seriously enough!

Decent mix of red and blue, some stripes and a general image to reflect the amicable union of two clubs with proud traditions. Is this the sort of thing folk are after?

...whilst you just keep on completely ignoring the arguments of others and making assertions based on no facts or rational argument at all. Without repeating the arguments you chose to ignore, let me just say that I too have an unshakable belief in social healthcare. The difference in our views appears to be that I acknowledge the fact that significant parts of our publicly funded health service are delivered by the private sector whilst you appear to be unwilling to acknowledge that fact. I am not telling anyone what is right. I am simply offering a few facts and giving a few opinions of my own. I am not telling anyone what they should be thinking but I am asking you what you are thinking and you are not rising to the challenge. Let me put it simply; do you think that current private sector service delivery in the NHS should be phased out and replaced with public sector provision? My view is that where private sector service delivery allows public money to be spent more efficiently then the government should make use of the private sector. That is because where the private sector can deliver services more efficiently it releases public money to spend either on other public services or tax cuts. That is a view shared by all the major political parties and, I suspect, by about 99% of the population. Where the parties disgree is whether savings made in this way should be reinvested into other public services or used to cut taxes. What is your view? Do you share the view of the SNP or do you take the view that poorer public services or higher taxes are an acceptable consequence of keeping the private sector out of publicly funded healthcare provision? It's a simple question and I really would appreciate a straight answer. Well you seem to have moved the goalposts somewhat, from promoting a US style healthcare system to now posing a rhetorical question on a common sense policy. Anyway, great to see you backing SNP policies. I haven't changed the goal posts at all. I never for a moment gave any support for the American Healthcare system - I stated agreement with the SNP Government's strategy of learning from certain American service providers about how to run a service more efficiently. Glad to see we appear now to be in broad agreement and you too are backing SNP policy which embraces private sector service provision when necessary. Rather than do yet another post, let me give a brief response to PMF's posting of Phillipa Whitford's speech. She talks very eloquently and I very much share her concerns about what is happening in the NHS down South. But what she fails to do is to explain why that threatens the health service here. The fact is that what is happening there is not happening here. In Scotland Healthcare is a devolved function and the fact that health care policy is going in a different direction North of the Border is an example of how well devolution is actually working. It is good to have two very different approaches. I know which one I prefer but the proof of the pudding is in the eating so to speak. What will the patient outcomes be of the two different systems and t what cost to the public purse? Evidence about that in a few years time may result in changed opinions either North of the Border.

You must be onto something - both Oddquine and I like your post! I think the point you make about the need for the current structures to change is the key thing. I would like service provision to be public sector run if at all possible. There are a number of reasons but a key one is because specific services don't work in isolation and the linkages between the different strands of the NHS will be harder if a range of different service providers are contracted to deliver very specific bits of service delivery in line with a contract. But if public sector delivered services are run well then they should be able to delivered for less money than the private sector can do because the public sector does not need to factor in a profit element to its costings. It is a sad reflection on the way the public service manages it's affairs that it is increasingly neccessary to contract with the private sector either to get a service delivered within available budget or simply to get the service delivered at all. The big question is how do you completely overhaul the NHS management structure to allow service delivery to be more efficient? It will be extraordinarily difficult to do and would require the shedding of thousands of posts with redundancies on a large scale and the retraining of many other staff back into clinical roles. I don't think this type of radical overhaul will be entered into easily. Ironically, what might provide the trigger is the TIPP intiative that Oddquine is so worked up about. If the private sector is allowed to bid for certain aspects of service provision which are currently blocked to them then the current managed service will face the prospect of major job losses in any case. The iniative may force them to get their act together to ensure they can compete with the private sector. If they don't rise to the challenge and improve and contracts go to the private sector then whilst public money would not be being spent as well as it could be, it would at least be spent better than if we do nothing. But to be honest, I don't see that addressing these issues will be any different whether we are independent or not. NHS costs are threatening to spiral out of control and radical action is required. I don't see anything in what either the YES or NO camps are saying that leads me to think that this crucial issue is more or less likely to be tackled whether we become independent or not.

...whilst you just keep on completely ignoring the arguments of others and making assertions based on no facts or rational argument at all. Without repeating the arguments you chose to ignore, let me just say that I too have an unshakable belief in social healthcare. The difference in our views appears to be that I acknowledge the fact that significant parts of our publicly funded health service are delivered by the private sector whilst you appear to be unwilling to acknowledge that fact. I am not telling anyone what is right. I am simply offering a few facts and giving a few opinions of my own. I am not telling anyone what they should be thinking but I am asking you what you are thinking and you are not rising to the challenge. Let me put it simply; do you think that current private sector service delivery in the NHS should be phased out and replaced with public sector provision? My view is that where private sector service delivery allows public money to be spent more efficiently then the government should make use of the private sector. That is because where the private sector can deliver services more efficiently it releases public money to spend either on other public services or tax cuts. That is a view shared by all the major political parties and, I suspect, by about 99% of the population. Where the parties disgree is whether savings made in this way should be reinvested into other public services or used to cut taxes. What is your view? Do you share the view of the SNP or do you take the view that poorer public services or higher taxes are an acceptable consequence of keeping the private sector out of publicly funded healthcare provision? It's a simple question and I really would appreciate a straight answer.

Let's be clear, nobody is advocating introducing the American system here in the sense that Healthcare be funded through insurance. It is that aspects that brings inefficiencies into the american system. But if you read what I said above, you will see it is not me that is holding up American services as examples of good practice, it is the SNP Government that is doing that. It is they who have sent managers from here over there and invited their managers and clinicians over here so that we can learn from them. It is far from absurd to say that the drive for profits cuts out inefficiiency. It is what market forces are all about and all capitalist economies are based on the truth of that. Of course everyone wants their cut - that's what incentivises the system - but if providers get too greedy about profit margins or dont drive inefficiencies out of their systems then costs will be higher than people are prepared to pay. If they don't provide the quality the customer requires then the customer won't buy the product. The end result is that customers get the products they want and prices they can afford whilst the supplier makes a fair profit and everyone is happy. There is no irony in the situation. Traditional "British" values are of embracing a market economy. The market may drive the economy but it is important that the market does not drive policy. It is some on the "YES" side who seem to want to do away with the market economy altogether and have visions of a separate socialist state. That is simply not going to happen even if there is a Yes vote. If that is what you want then a one way ticket to Cuba is what you need. I am certainly no Thatcherite but you are increasingly sounding like a Marxist.

Never voted Tory in my life and unlikely to start now! Sounds hoora like a Tory "healthcare" policy. As I have said in my response to Alex, private sector service provision has been a part of the NHS since its inception. That has been accepted by Governments of all colours since that time and remains a policy actively adopted by the SNP government in Scotland. Your earlier jibe about me being a Thatcherite couldn't be further from the truth. The thing about Thatcher was that she saw the involvement of the private sector in the NHS (or anywhere else for that matter) as an opportunity for the private sector to make money out of healthcare rather than an opportunity to use public funds better as a result of more efficient service delivery. That is an important distinction between the Thatcherite view and the view of the other parties and, to be fair, most of the Tory party. You are, of course, not alone in using the Thatcher card in the "YES" cause. Thatcher was rightly unpopular in Scotland and by labelling anyone seen as supporting the "Better together" campaign as a "Thatcherite" the "Yes" campaign attempts to link the Better Together campaign with the views of that odious woman. Talk about "project fear" and being negative! Making a reasoned argument to support your view would be far more constructive. My view on healthcare policy is broadly that the bulk of healthcare should be funded by the state and provided by the public sector. Where it can be demonstrated that the private sector can provide public services more cost effectively, then it makes sense to pay the private sector to provide those services so that best use can be made of public funding. That is also broadly the view of the SNP, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservative parties. Given that you are so dismissive of that view, I wonder if you could explain why you disagree with the involvement of the private sector in NHS service provision when it can provide services more efficiently than the public sector?.

I doubt that my healthcare world is much different from yours. That is unless yours is an entirely state operated structure where the private sector has no place. That's been tried in the old Soviet Union and Cuba without a great deal of success. My point is simply that the state funded NHS has always operated with a significant level of private sector service delivery. As far as I am aware no political party is suggesting that the state will no longer fund the NHS broadly as now but there is undoubtedly an argument for greater input from the private sector in service delivery if they can do it more cost effectively. Personally I would rather see service delivery provided by the public sector than the private sector, but if it is a choice between the public sector providing an inefficient service or the private sector providing an efficient service then it would surely be foolish to insist on the inefficient public sector service delivery. If the private sector can provide the service more cost effectively it either means we get better outcomes for patients for the same money or the same quality of outcomes for less money. We either get better patient care or release cash to spend on other things. I think that is a good thing. If you disagree with that I would be fascinated to understand the reasons why!

Never voted Tory in my life and unlikely to start now!

I agree that it has been a good tournament. For me Messi was a huge disappointment and whilst he had the odd touch of something special, for large parts of most games - including the final - he seemed pretty disinterested and contributed little to the team. It is illuminating to look at the FIFA stats in this regard. In terms of distances covered most players ran over 1K every 10 minutes - even the much maligned Fred managed that. Schweinsteiger managed 1.26K but Messi only 0.90. Apart from his goals he didn't contribute much. 5 of his Argentinian team mates made more passes than him and all had a better pass completion rate. 9 of the German team exceeded him in both respects. Messi's pass completion rate was 68%. Even Pirlo made more passes than Messi (and with a 90% completion rate) and he only played 3 games compared to Messi's 7. Of course, Messi is renowned for his running with the ball and his shooting but he only had 8 runs into the box in his 7 games and had 22 shots on goal with only 10 on target. The awful Fred had 9 on target in his 6 games. Ronaldo only had 3 games but managed 23 shots on goal with 14 on target whilst chewy Louis managed 9 on target in his 2 games. Messi's contribution has been average at best and to have him named as player of the tournament is a real kick in the teeth for the many players who are far more deserving. Far from getting player of the tournament, Messi wouldn't even be close to my team of the tournament. In fact, he would struggle to get into my Argentinian team of the tournament. Well done to the Germans though. They thoroughly deserved their victory. Their work rate, team work and style of play was all excellent. The only downside is their tendency to appear to be injured more than they actually are or pretending to be injured when they are the ones who committed the foul. The otherwise excellent Thomas Mueller was chief culprit and having got Pepe sent off in the first game he was up to his old tricks again in the final. If they could eliminate that from their game, I could get to quite like them! Of other teams, the Dutch again thrilled but fell just short, Mexico, Costa Rica, Columbia, the USA and Algeria all provided some superb entertainment and excitement. Most of the other teams had their moments and came with the intention to play attractive attacking football. The competition will perhaps be remembered most for the astonishing 7-1 thrashing of the hosts Brazil but in many ways the most significant result was the thrashing the boring World and European champions Spain suffered at the hands of the Dutch and their subsequent elimination at the first stage. The world cup is over and the beautiful game is alive and kicking.

You say that "the prospect is a lot more scary than anything I've heard so far from the No Better Together Thanks/Project Fear side" yet seem to miss the point that it is you - a fervent supporter of the Yes campaign - who is shamelessly using the fear factor to push your case! Not only that, but your whole argument is complete nonsense from start to finish. Firstly, the Barnett formula is not just about health service funding. If there is an overall decrease in funding coming to Scotland as a result of a reduction of public spending in the UK generally then it is a matter for the Scottish Government to decide how it wants to spend its allocation. If it wants to spend proportionately more on the NHS then the Scottish Government currently has the power to do so. Secondly, the Scottish Parliament also has devolved powers to increase the rate of income tax. If the Scottish Government feels that the amount of funding received from the UK treasury via the Barnett formula is not enough to support public services here then it currently has the power to raise more money in order to carry out that public spending programme. Thirdly, despite scare stories from the "Yes" campaign, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have all said that in the event of a no vote there are no plans to change the Barnett formula. It is therefore clear that in the event of a "No" vote, any reduction in NHS funding will be a result of what the Scottish Parliament decides. What happens to NHS funding in England is a completely unrelated issue. But the real vitriol in Oddquine's post is about the prospect of privatisation impacting on the NHS. It would appear that this is an evil to be avoided at all costs - but nothing could be further from the truth. Oddquine talks about the prospect of American style healthcare being imposed upon us and I take this to mean that she fears we may increasingly replace our government funded NHS with Healthcare being provided through health insurance paid for by the individual. This prospect is extrapolated from the TIPP consultations which might open up healthcare provision currently provide by the state to private companies. But nowhere in this is there any suggestion that the fundamental basis of the NHS would change - they would continue to be paid for by the state but the way the services are provided would change. And why would that be a bad thing in any case? Any provision of services would be open to a process which looked to award contracts to companies which provided cost effective services. If current managed service providers were not awarded contracts it would be because private sector companies were either able to provide the same level of service cheaper or a better service for the same money. Surely that is no bad thing! The next point is that Oddquine's post implies we should not allow private sector provision to creep into the the NHS. But it is here already and always has been! Patients' most common contact with Healthcare providers is with GPs and Community Pharmacies, but with the exception of few salaried GPs, all of these services are provided by independent contractors. We have homecare providers from the private sector providing services to patients in their own homes supporting patients who need injections and other aspects of care in a range of conditions from cancer, though inflammatory bowel disease, hepatitis and MS. Private companies have these routine contracts because they are structured to deliver the specified level of service in a way which the non-profit making but over-bureaucratised NHS cannot match. In addition many of the targets the Government sets the Health Boards are only met by the Boards contracting out work to the private sector. A further irony here is that despite Oddquine's obvious abhorrence of American style Healthcare coming to Scotland, the NHS in Scotland has sent senior managers to private health care providers in the USA to learn about some of their patient safety and quality processes. Some of the very best healthcare is provided in the USA simply because the providers have to provide a cost effective service in order to provide a return on investment capital and to attract business from the insurance companies. It drives quality up and cuts out inefficiency. The tragedy for the NHS in Scotland is that whilst there is a recognition that the best care will be provided by focusing on quality and reducing waste, the Government lacks the guts to take the political decisions necessary to address the massively cumbersome management structures which have developed over the years which actually hinder the delivery of cost effective high quality services. It is actually quite extraordinary that the current SNP administration has a "no-redundancy" policy in place for the NHS. This completely stifles meaningful organisational change as savings can't be generated because you still have to pay staff who are no longer required. In some situations staff can be redeployed into other roles (with pay levels protected) but often they are not really suited to that role and the fact that they are put in those roles removes the opportunity for more able staff to move into the roles. No business would ever make a profit if it did that! In the case of the NHS read "reinvest in patient care" for "profit". The result is we have an NHS which is massively over-bureaucratised, with loads of management duplication, numerous posts which are not really necessary and staff who are in posts they don't like, aren't good at and for which they are paid more than the going rate. If we want a better health service we need to embrace either the private sector in service provision or a more business-like approach to the management of the service in order to drive this waste out. As I said at the top, the Scottish Government currently has the power to manage the NHS as it sees fit. What is happening in the rest of the UK is not going to impact on us unless we want it to. However, if a greater engagement with the private sector in England helps to increase quality and reduce wastage then we, in Scotland need to learn the lessons. If we are to invest in better front line services we need to be far more business-like in the management of the service. We need to embrace major reforms in the way the services are managed and delivered in the NHS. Keeping our tired old NHS structures and outdated restrictive attitudes within an independent socialist Scottish state is a recipe for continuing pressures on front line services and poor levels of care. Oddquine's post is a classic example of the "YES" campaign claiming the the "Better Together" campaign is "project fear" whilst at the same time promoting a scare story of their own which is totally without foundation. I sense the thrust of Oddquine's posts is a genuine wish for a more compassionate society - which is admirable - but the NHS is currently stifled by stale socialist ideology and is riddled with restrictive practises and a massively cumbersome management structure. This prevents better patient care. In order to allow the wonderful health care practitioners in the NHS to deliver a better and more compassionate service to patients we need to embrace radical change. Evidence from elsewhere is that better patient care can be delivered cost-effectively through appropriate engagement with the private sector. What matters is the quality and cost of the service provided - if the private sector can provide service delivery more cost effectively then so be it.

One has to look on the bright side in life. At least I can be assured that one of them is going to lose.

I'm not sure whether I've commented on this sad and negative thread before, but as it is now over 600 posts long I think i'll say my bit. Not having been born and bred in Inverness I never developed a particular alleigence to any of the inverness teams. When I moved to Inverness in 1975 I would watch any of the three teams to fit in with when I was free or if there was a game that had a particular attraction. For me, supporting the merger with the prospect of entry in the Scottish league and progress within it was an exciting prospect. From a purely footballing perspective supporting the merger was a no brainer. On the face of it, it seems absurd that over 20 years later this is still something people feel compelled to talk about. I can well understand that at the time many people were very unhappy with the prospect of a merger and about the way things were handled. But whatever issues may have caused hurt then are over and done with. What we now have is a new team which is far more successful than either of the merged teams ever were and which deserves the support of all local football fans. I am not going to speculate on how many refusniks there are because I neither know nor care. Whilst I can understand the passion these folk may have had for preserving the identify of the team they had supported over the years, I fail to understand why, if they are genuine lovers of football, they don't give their support to ICT. OK, so they were deeply upset about the merger but ffs, get over it. Just what is the point of denying yourself the pleasure of supporting the local team as it progresses over the years? These are the sort of people who, if a Marathon bar had been their favourite chocolate bar would refuse to eat a Snickers because they didn't think the name should have been changed. But I suspect that many of the so called refuseniks were actually never particularly keen on the football. For them it was an identity thing and supporting either Caley or Thistle was like being in a big gang. When the gangs disappeared there was nothing for them but to mourn the loss of their gang and they are mourning still. Asking them to come along and watch ICT was a bit like expecting gang members to trot along to the boys' brigade (if it still exists). Refuseniks. Either stupid or not interested in football. Yes, they may influence their offspring (if they're allowed access) but youngsters are also influenced by peer pressure and increasingly this pressure and the good promotional work done by the club will reduce the impact of any refuseniks on the youngsters to an insignificant level. Of course, this continual obsession with the merger merely keeps the poison flowing. The refuseniks have cut off their noses to spite their faces and they aren't going to start supporting ICT now. There is nothing productive to be gained by continuing to speculate on their numbers and the potential loss of support they represent. We will progress better as a club if we ignore them - just as they have ignored us for the last 20 years. Hopefully I'll do my bit by not posting on this thread again but it would be much more productive if Dougal stopped posting his nonsense on the subject.

Last night Shearer was going overboard about how good the Germans were but the scoreline is much more about how shockingly bad Brazil were rather than how good the Germans were. The Germans played very good competent football but they never did anything exceptional. They had two particularly good strikes for goals but by then the match was as good as won, there was little pressure from defenders and it was almost like being on the training ground. Had Gernany played like that against say Colombia or Costa Rica they would probably have won but only by one or two. The fact is that Brazil's defending was woeful for each and every one of the goals. What was really astonishing was not the utter ineptness of the defending but the lack of passion or effort. This was a World Cup semi final which Brazil were playing in their own country and yet for 2 or 3 of the goals David Luiz, the captain for the night and key central defender, was missing upfield. And whilst Germany patiently passed the ball around to create the opening, Luiz was walking back into position watching his team mates get pulled apart. I can't remember seeing such deriliction of duty from a player in any match ever. The "Special One" must be thinking he did a great bit of business selling Luiz to PSG for £40million! He was the worst of the bunch but others were not far behind. Part of the reason why Germany's play was so fluid was because they were never closed down. Nobody put any pressure on the Germans and they were able to trot into space without being tracked and then they were given time to spot the next pass. No other team in the the whole of the competition would have allowed the Germans that freedom. Up front, Fred has been totally ineffective throughout the tournament - he has offered no movement and when he has got the ball his touch has been hopeless and he has generally lost possession straight away. It is extraordinary how he has been allowed to start every game. Brazil weren't just very poor - they were a disgrace. Ironically, this astonishing result may backfire on Germany. Whether it is Argentina or the Netherlands in the final, Germany will face a far sterner test. And unless we see something equally extraordinary tonight, Germany will go into the final as hot favourites after their demolition of Brazil. That will put pressure on them and they do have vulnerabilities at the back which were not exploited last night. I think they will win but I expect the final to be pretty tight.

I hope I'm wrong.

The Costa Rican keeper did play well but it was not a one man show by any means. Defensively they were excellent. The backroom staff had done their homework and they developed effective game plans which the players then delivered in a very disciplined way. They all worked tremendously hard for each other. If they had had a little more quality in the final third who knows what they might have achieved. I was also sorry to see Colombia lose to Brazil. Rodrigues is clearly the stand out player but again it was a great team effort. Brazil resorted to the dark side of the game with an astonishing number of fouls which the referee let go without showing the yellow card. It all rather backfired on them when Colombia started dishing it out on Brazil's star player who will now miss the rest of the tournament. It's a shame because he's a great talent who seems to have a good attitude. I can see Germany winning it now.

I suspect we may see the tactic a little more often in the future and I fail to see why people think this is somehow insulting to the keeper who has played the match. Saving penalties is a very specific keeper task and whilst one keeper may be a good spot kick stopper, another keeper in the squad may well be a more rounded keeper better at narrowing angles, collecting crosses, coming off the line to make blocks etc. It's a bit like taking off a defender and putting a striker on when you're chasing a game - it doesn't mean the defender has played badly, it is just that you need a different skill set on the park at that time of the game. In the context of the world cup game I think the strategy of bringing Krul on worked brilliantly. He is a very big man and his sheer presence immediately puts a bit of pressure on the kick takers who feel there is that little bit less margin for error. Added to that is the fact that it gives a message to the opposition that the substitute keeper is good at saving penalties and again this must put pressure on them. Krul also used psychology effectively by his general swagger and body language which oozed confidence. But regardless of any pschology here, Krul actually did the business making 2 stops, the second of which was a particularly good save. It is a sensible tactic and the keeper who has played the rest of a match should not have a problem with that provided it is a strategy agreed in advance.

I couldn't really care as long as he doesn't run onto the pitch when the manager wants a sub on

Well I doubt he's making it up... Kingsmills makes a fair point. It may or may not be true but it's not "official" till the club confirm it. If it is true I would rather players wait for a formal announcement before tweeting about it. Having said that I would like to see the club announce these things promptly. There should be no reason why a brief press release can't be fired off as soon as the agreement is made.

Looks as though he's been sleeping in a subway.

I'm reliably informed that the delay in releasing the new strip has been caused by concerns regarding the image of a 12" baguette on the shorts.

What a thrilling game between Belgium and the USA last night! It goes to show that it is not quality football that necessaril;y entertains, but a real desire to play attacking football. There was some poor defending with players being out of position and allowing attacking opportunities to develop for the opposition and there was some poor finishing by the Belgians who kept aiming at Howard's legs rather than lifting the ball over his flailing arms as he went to ground early time after time. Made for a really exciting game though. If Iain Stewart had been in the Belgian side last night he would probably have scored about 10.

Used to live just 3 miles from St Andrews and would love to get down to Brum for the game and catch up with friends and family down there but we'll be out of the country that weekend. Sounds great that so many ICT fans are planning to get to the game. Favourite Brummie joke. Q. What's the difference between a buffalo and a bison? A. You can't wash your hands in a buffalo!

With all due respect to SP, I found his post above to be one of the most depressingly negative comments I have read on the Independence debate. It comes across as a plea for Independence so that the youth of the country aren't forced to emigrate as he did. It is sad that he felt he needed to leave Scotland to progress but obviously it is great that the move worked out well. Nearly 40 years ago I moved to Scotland to work and was certainly never short of opportunities to progress. No doubt views are coloured by one's own experiences and the kind of business you are in. It may well be that 40 years ago someone with ambition and ability found it hard to progress in Scotland (and the rest of the UK for that matter) but Scotland is not like that now. Whilst North America may have led the way in encouraging ability, the UK has caught up and in my view has a far more balanced approach than is evident across the pond. Moving from company to company may provide one kind of experience but staying put in the same company provides experience and knowledge of the business that many employers have the sense to value. In any case, there are loads of folk who simply want to stay in jobs they like and are good at and don't wish to be pressurised into feeling they constantly have to move and "progress". My experience of the workforce in Scotland is that we have a great balance of opportunity for those who wish to change and progress whilst offering job security for those wishing to stay put. Scotland is undoubtedly a more vibrant and dynamic place than it was 40 years ago. Far from people feeling the need to emigrate to find work, the population of Scotland has been rising steadily as folk from the rest of the UK and Europe move to Scotland to live and work. The Scotland SP knew 40 years ago is not the Scotland I know today. There are no yokes and shackles for the Scottish people to break free from in order for Scotland to flourish. Scotland is already flourishing as an integral part of the UK - and long may it continue to do so!