DoofersDad

Very clever comments from Yogi IMO. He puts the pressure on Aberdeen and Motherwell by not going overboard with public expectations, whilst at the same time casually referring to being in one cup final, still in the other cup and being in "the mix" for 2nd place in the league. He is saying in a beautifully understated way that we have ( in Yogi speak) a right good team.

It could have been played this week if the abandoned game against County had been rearranged far earlier - as it should have been. Some fixture congestion is the price of success, but when matches need to be arranged for other reasons, they really should ensure rearranged matches are played as soon as reasonably possible, particularly with a league structure that requires all rearranged matches to be played well beyond the end of the season because of the slpit.

It's a question of trade the other way. There is a strong sense of wanting to "buy British" but if Scotland ceases to be part of the union and no longer "British" in the sense that it is no longer part of rUK, then there will be no parochial loyalty to Scottish produce. With good transport links to closer producers across the channel and the Irish sea, rUK consumers will increasingly source from elsewhere. Of course, as Alex says, there are key Scottish products which will continue to be bought no matter what but the bulk of exports to rUK are more mundane. The fact is that Scotland is heavily dependent on the rest of the UK as a market for its produce and even a modest shift will have a noticable impact on Scottish producers. The fact that rUK purchases a far greater proportion of Scotland's output than Scotland purchases of rUK's is undeniable. All I am saying is that this makes Scotland vulnerable should political and financial changes impact on where consumers and businesses in rUK buy goods and services from.

What price is the first class seating?

Many years ago I went to an early evening meeting at a school where the premises were surrounded by a 6ft iron fence with 3 pronged spikes at the top. I parked in the school car park. After the meeting 3 of us decided to go to the pub and we stayed a while. When I returned the gate was locked so there was no way I was going to be able to drive home. However, the bigger problem was that my house keys were in my coat pocket - and my coat was in the car! I therefore decided to climb over the gate to get my keys. I did that fine but getting back again was more of a problem and I caught my foot on the spikes and gave myself a significant gash on the ankle. I limped the 2 miles home and then limped back the following morning to collect my car. I couldn't blame the school caretaker for doing his job, the fact that my car was locked in and then that I injured myself was the result of my own stupidity. I was happy to have a laugh about the situation and move on. From what 12th man says, it would appear that as my car remained in the car park, the caretaker should have left the gates open. How absurd would that be! The gates are there for a purpose. I could have decided to have a few beers and walked home leaving the car there all night. That would have left the gates open for anyone to come in at night and do whatever it is that the gates are there to stop them doing. In these circumstances, if the law says the school caretaker should have left the gates open then the law is an ass. No. Irrespective of the technicalities of the law, if you park inappropriately then it is at your own risk and if your car gets locked in then so be it. Accept responsibility for your actions and get over it.

Thanks Starchief - saves me from responding in a bit more detail. The point I would elaborate on is the absurd suggestion that in the event of Scotland walking away from the UK, rUK may be seen as no longer being in the EU and might have to renegotiate entry. The UK is a member state of the EU. If Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will still exist and there is absolutely no reason why it should not remain part of the EU. What it will have to do, however, is to renegotiate its terms because clearly the population, finances and number of members etc will be different. This may well cause problems for rUK and with fewer MEPs the UK will undoubtedly have a little less influence. These problems will be problems imposed on rUK by the voters of Scotland deciding they want out of the Union. The voters of rUK will have no say in this. The "Yes" campaign need to understand that people in the rest of the UK do not like being messed around in this way. It is all very well saying that as we will be living next door to England, the separation needs to be amicable, but whilst Scotland will need an amicable relationship with rUK, it is far less important for rUK to have a close relationship with Scotland. If they feel that Scotland's abandonment of the Union creates difficulties for them, there is no reason at all why England should cosy up to their Northern neighbours. Remember, for a large part of England, Scotland is not their nearest neighbour, Wales and Northern Ireland are closer to the Republic of Ireland than they are to Scotland and 5 European Capital cities are closer to London than Edinburgh is. rUK does not need Scotland. On the other hand, an independent Scotland will be highly dependent on rUK for trade but with no monetary union with rUK and with Scotland having weakened the influence of the UK, Scotland should not assume that trade with rUK will remain the same. Voters in rUK and the UK Government may not have a say in the referendum vote but they sure as hell will have a say in what happens afterwards. If the actions of the Scots are seen to have damaged the interests of rUK, then rUK will owe Scotland absolutely no favours at all and political and financial activity will reflect that. Scottish voters and the "Yes" campaign need to understand that.

Trains plural sounds promising. Yup. One going down and one coming back

We saw that as well. Looked like he was sarcastically having a go at someone in the main stand. Players can only take so much slating. Maybe it's the same people big g was talking about on a previous post :) no doubt some will say they should accept it but some of the vitriol and crap aimed at the players is ludicrous. Good on Richie I say for letting them know. I thought he was applauding Yogi's decision to take Draper off

I think these two issues and the way they are presented sums the debate up for me. In essence we have those who are philosophically passionate in favour of independence and those who are philosophically in favour of retaining the union. It is a bit like a debate between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians - they both passionately believe what they are saying but they are poles apart and to outsiders, much of the rhetoric of both sides is seen as nonsense. With regard to the independence debate, one of the things the "yes" lobby don't seem to clock is that as we are currently in the union, the onus is on the "yes" campaign to make the case for change. We have constant complaints from them that the no campaign is not presenting a case for the union - but they don't need to! All they need to do is to respond to the arguments made by those wanting change. Oddquine's points illustrate this nicely and the way she uses the phrases "sums it up" and "says it all" illustrates the importance she, as a passionate supporter of independence, attaches to the points. The first one relates to the "Yes" campaign's blind faith in the assumption that an Independent Scotland will be part of the European Union. The fact is that Scotland is currently part of the U.K. and the U.K. is part of the European Union. If Scotland chooses to leave the U.K. then it seems to me common sense that Scotland also ceases to be part of the E.U. It is a bit like being a member of a Trades Union that gives you 10% off at B&Q - when you cancel your Union membership you can't still expect the discount at B&Q. I have no doubt that the wider European community would welcome Scotland back into the EU but there are two points here. Having chosen to break away from the United Kingdom and, by definition the EU, an independent Scotland might only be able to gain membership at terms very considerably less favourable than we currently have. An independent Scotland would not have the same negotiating power as the UK and it would be foolish to assume that membership terms would be the same. Of course, the "yes" campaign might argue that we would be able to enter under better terms; unlikely I think but it may be true. The problem here is that we simply don't know. The second issue with re-entry into the EU is that as an independent nation there would need to be a demonstration of the wish of the Scottish people for Scotland to be part of the EU. We would need another referendum! We might vote "Yes" to independence but "No" to EU membership. That would come as a real choker to those voting "Yes" to independence based on Salmond's assertion that an Independent Scotland would remain in the EU. Oddquine's second point relates to currency union. We do seem to be agreed that the union is not a partnership. In fact the union is a union and the "Yes" campaign is wanting to walk away from that union. Part of the union is the currency. The assumption of Salmond and his followers that an Independent Scotland will maintain monetary union and keep the pound is simply breathtaking in its arrogance and/or naivety. Why on earth would rUK want monetary union with an independent Scotland when it fought tooth and nail to avoid monetary union with the rest of Europe? The UK Government (rightly or wrongly) has decided as a point of principle to keep its own currency; it isn't going to change that philosophical position just because the Scots, having just walked away from the political union decide they would actually quite like to keep the monetary union. Salmond argues that it would be in rUK's interest to have monetary union with Scotland. That may or may not be true but it misses the point. The point is that the UK wants its own currency - end of. Salmond should be grateful to the united front of the 3 main unionist parties for making this point quite clear. This is not bullying, it is providing information to the Scottish voters so that we can be a bit clearer about what we will actually be voting on in the Autumn. The problem with the "Yes" campaign is that we are being asked to vote for an uncertain future. Of course, for many, independence is about national identity and self determination. To them it doesn't actually matter whether we are better or worse off as a nation; all that matters is that the Scottish people are free to make decisions about how Scotland is managed - and I can respect that view. But the majority of the population will only vote "Yes" if they can see clear economic and social benefit from doing so. Salmond is arrogantly asserting some key issues as fact when the reality is that we don't know. I believe the intervention from Osbourne et al is helpful in that it does provide clarity to the extent of what will not happen. It is up to Salmond to say what will happen and he is failing miserably to do so simply because he doesn't know either. The same applies to the EU membership issue. The problem for the "Yes" campaign has been its failure to get a definitive statement on an independent Scotland's position in relation to EU membership signed up to by all member states before the campaign started. Both sides point to statements made by various influential folk but the bottom line again is that we just don't know. Against this background, the "No" campaign does not need to do very much to get the voters a bit twitchy. People are fearful of the unknown and there are a lot of unknowns here. Pointing out these uncertainties in an objective way is perfectly reasonable and is not scaremongering or bullying as some would have it. But the "No" campaign does need to be be very careful here in what is perceived as bullying. Where I do agree with Oddquine is in her following post in which she quotes an article which says that clumsy bully-boy tactics may back fire. Nobody likes a bully and we are in a culture where even mild assertiveness is often interpreted as bullying nowadays. Whether Salmond is being naive or arrogant or a mixture of the two, Cameron and Osborne appear to be pretty contemptuous of him to the point where they are almost making fun of him. I can understand their attitude will be seen as bullying. They are the opposite end of the spectrum to Salmond and because they are so entrenched in their philosophical beliefs they fail to understand how others perceive them. As a result, they will antagonise many undecided voters by their attitude This is all a bit like a divorce. After many years of getting along pretty well, having had loads of children, (most of whom have now grown up and got their own independence), one party is considering leaving against the other's wishes. The party that wants to leave is saying that it is consulting with various people and will let the other party know their decision soon. However, what they are also saying is that if they do decide to divorce, they will decide what the terms of the divorce will be. The other party is saying that they don't want a divorce but that if there is to be a divorce they will be using a good divorce lawyer and be under no doubt that there will no longer be a joint back account. What I want to see in the coming weeks and months is for the "Yes" campaign to provide some genuine clarity on the many areas of uncertainty and for the "No" campaign to ask constructive questions and to respond to the "Yes" case in a dignified and respectful way. At the moment we are getting neither.

I think I might buy the Highland News for a change this week. I'm sure they will have something to say. I would have thought it was entirely reasonable for private owners of property to close off access to their property when they no longer require the access themselves. I know that at other times when their staff have required access they have found it difficult to park because of football fans parking there. If you park on private property when you have no business with the owners of that property then you do so at your own risk. If they then lock their property when they leave and your car happens to be in there then that's just too bad. If people want to use a car park close to the ground they can always use the club car park. Not only will the gates be open at the end of the match, the parking charge will make a welcome contribution to the club's coffers. But make sure you bring your wellies.

Fair enough, but what a poor perfomance! It looked like the priority for all the players was simply not to get booked. Far too often there was nothing on except a square ball or playing it back and it illustrated what an important player Doran is for us. When he came on he provided an outlet and was always looking for the ball. We suddenly looked a much better team. To be fair, Nick Ross started brightly and offered more penetration than anyone else but then he slipped back to the mediocre standards of the rest of the team. Yes we won, but play that poorly against anyone else this season and we'll lose.

Wasn't at the game but the highlights make for interesting viewing. Appreciate you just get a few key moments, but several of ICT chances came as a result of good flowing passing moves and it seems that a combination of the woodwork and good goalkeeping prevented this from being a pretty comfortable victory. Greg Tansey seemed particularly unlucky but at least he is not frighted to have a go and could well get a useful few in the weeks ahead. With Vincent signing an extended deal we now have just about every main player in the squad signed up until at least the end of next season, and with several beyond that. Of course it is disappointing not to have won yesterday, but with the continuity the contract situation provides, the team will continue to develop their understanding of how each other plays and I honestly think this side can develop into something pretty special. Some team some day soon is going to be taken apart by ICT and I have a sneaking feeling it just could be Stranraer on Tuesday.

We had a good laugh at County being dumped out of the league cup by Stranraer earlier in the season so we certainly don't want to suffer the same fate in the Scottish Cup. I would hope the team got a bit of a scare at the weekend and will be in the right frame of mind next week. They should not be under-estimated and I don't think they will be. A factor here is that with fixture congestion looming we need to be business like and not allow the game to go beyond normal time.

Hmm. Just think what we might have achieved with a decent manager during that time.

I don't think the English South of the border really care one way or another. If pressed they are probably generally in favour of the union but at the same time probably have the view (rightly or wrongly) that the Scots receive more Government spending per head of population than they contribute and therefore won't be greatly missed. It is more likely the exiled Scots who won't have a vote who will let us know what they think. Anyhow, they can say what want. I live in Scotland and will vote the way I want to and not how someone who doesn't live here would like me to vote.

I've suddently become an ardent Albion Rovers supporter. I fancy a cup upset.

Very much a potential banana skin today after the euphoria of last week so I am just glad we are still in it. With Celtic going out it is a very open competition so we have as good a chance as we are ever going to have to pick up a trophy. Apart from making it more open, the good thing about Celtic's elimination is that it removes the possibility of them being drawn against the Rangers. When those two clubs have their first meeting the publicity surrounding it will be all encompassing so it is good we can avoid it for another year and have the focus of attention on other more deserving clubs. Well done Aberdeen Obviously it would have been better had we won but with Hibs getting beaten by Raith it's not been a bad set of results today. Aberdeen being drawn against the Rangers tomorrow would make the weekend even better.

I think I'm right in saying that 8 of the starting XI on Sunday were English. In recognition of that, I think a nice celebratory Morris dance outfit in team colours would be appropriate.

Who? You should know. He's talkin' bout your generation.

If they had been making any noise themselves, they wouldn't have heard what our small section of the crowd was singing.

Blame Nick Ross.

Perhaps they feel it fitting that the final should be played at a Premier League ground.

Was just going to say the same. I can't think there can be a good reason. Efforts should be made to get these games played ASAP because you simply don't know what is going to happen later in the season. We are clearly going to have some level of congestion and if we get a period of bad weather in the next two months, the congestion could be worse still, requiring more than 2 games a week. Smacks of County wanting to wait till they strengthened and for when it was most inconvenient for us in preparing for the latter stages of cup competitions.

I'm sure they'll choose Ibrox. After all, it is overdue a game between two top flight teams.

I spoke to someone on the train who confessed to leaving when Meekings was shown the red card. He was very philosophical about it!