DoofersDad

Yes, but the survey was about what the clubs are saying and not what the actual position is.

Maybe he'll go to both.

Good planning, son. Definately going to yours!

If it's your Birthday (and many congratulations, by the way ) then it should be the family doing what you want to do. Bring them along to the game instead! In any case, taking part in a haggis eating competition seems to me the sort of thing you should do as far away from the gaze of family as possible. Take it from me, he'll thank you for not being there. Mind you, I'll not be at the game - also for family reasons. One of our sons (not Doofer) is getting married down South on Saturday with kick off also at 3.00. The sacrifices we make for our children, eh. I just hope it's appreciated!

No idea what she was doing under that car - she only had clearance to work on Land Rovers.

It's an article not intended for your regular punter but the key argument is a good one. It is that Independence is a legitimate argument when the people feel a sufficient national identity. It goes on to argue that national identity is reflected more through popular culture than our economic activity. I think most people will understand that concept. It is also an angle which is far easier to argue because it is self evident that there are distinct cultural differences. In contrast, debate around the economic and political issues are bound to be inconclusive because they are subject to layers of misinformation and misinterpretation over and above the fact the they are just so complex. The beauty of the cultural argument is that it makes the economic argument largely irrelevant. It is rather like entering a marriage where you commit your future "for richer or poorer". It is saying that what matters most is who you live your future with and not whether you will be better off financially. It is an angle which I am surprised is not being used more because the yes campaign is not going to win the nation over with the economic and political case for independence because there are simply too many unknowns and disputed issues.

And it looks as though he's jost got plenty satisfaction.

This defies belief. Can you back up those assertions with evidence? Yes These are the results of all the general elections since 1945 and show which party got the biggest share of the popular vote in Scotland and in England. 5 July 1945 - Labour (Clement Attlee) Scotland voted Labour (47.9%). Got Labour. England voted Labour (48.6%). Got Labour. 23 February 1950 - Labour (Clement Attlee) Scotland voted Labour (46.2%). Got Labour. England voted for Labour and Conservative exactly (48.8% each). Got Labour. 25 October 1951 - Conservative (Winston Churchill) Scotland voted Conservative (48.6%). Got Conservative. England voted Labour (46.1%). Got Conservative. 26 May 1955 - Conservative (Anthony Eden) Scotland voted Conservative (50.1%). Got Conservative. England voted Conservative (50.3%). Got Conservative. 8 October 1959 - Conservative (Harold MacMillan, and Alex Douglas-Home) Scotland voted Conservative (47.2%). Got Conservative. England voted Conservative (50.0%). Got Conservative. 15 October 1964 - Labour (Harold Wilson) Scotland voted Labour (48.7%). Got Labour. England voted Conservative (44.0%). Got Labour. 31 March 1966 - Labour (Harold Wilson) Scotland voted Labour (49.9%). Got Labour. England voted Labour (47.8%). Got Labour. 18 June 1970 - Conservative (Edward Heath) Scotland voted Labour (44.5%). Got Conservative England voted Conservative (48.3%). Got Conservative. 28 February 1974 - Labour (Harold Wilson) Scotland voted Labour (36.6%). Got Labour. England voted Conservative (40.1%). Got Labour. 10 October 1974 - Labour (Harold Wilson, and James Callaghan) Scotland voted Labour (36.3%). Got Labour. England voted Labour (40.1%). Got Labour. 3 May 1979 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher) Scotland voted Labour (41.5%). Got Conservative. England voted Conservative (47.2%). Got Conservative. 9 June 1983 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher) Scotland voted Labour (35.1%). Got Conservative. England voted Conservative (46.0%). Got Conservative. 11 June 1987 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher, and John Major) Scotland voted Labour (42.4%). Got Conservative. England voted Conservative (46.1%). Got Conservative. 9 April 1992 - Conservative (John Major) Scotland voted Labour (39%). Got Conservative. England voted Conservative (45.5%). Got Conservative. 1 May 1997 - Labour (Tony Blair) Scotland voted Labour (45.6%). Got Labour. England voted Labour (43.5%) Got Labour. 7 June 2001 - Labour (Tony Blair) Scotland voted Labour (43.3%). Got Labour. England voted Labour (41.4%). Got Labour. 5 May 2005 - Labour (Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown) Scotland voted Labour (38.9%). Got Labour. England voted Conservative (35.7%). Got Labour. 6 May 2010 - Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition (David Cameron) Scotland voted Labour (42%). Got Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition, England voted Conservative (39.5%). Got Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition This shows that since 1945 Scotland has only failed to get a UK Government in line with the popular vote in Scotland on 6 occasions out of 18. That is actually not very different to the English position. Apart from the elections of 74 and 64 mentioned earlier England did not get the party of the popular vote there in 2005 or 1951 and the results of 2010 and 1950 did not entirely reflect the popular vote. I think views are clouded by relatively recent history and the Thatcher years, Four of the six occasions when Scotland did not get the Government it voted for were the four consecutive elections of the Thatcher / Major years. There seems to be an urban myth that Scotland votes labour and we are lumbered with a Conservative Government - but when you look at the bigger picture you see that the Thatcher / Major years are the exception rather than the rule. The only other times Scotland has not got the Government it wanted is with the current coalition administration and in 1951 when, believe it or not, Scotland voted Conservative and England voted Labour! As for my last point about devolution I am sure you can't seriously mean that part of my argument defies belief. Even when Scotland does not get the Government of the party of the popular vote, Scotland controls those matters devolved to it. The English do not have that luxury. I stand by what I said. All I am saying is that whatever the other arguments may be for independence, the argument about being disenfranchised in the voting system and being governed according to the English vote is simply not supported by the facts. Scotland gets the Government it votes for just about the same as the English do - that's a fact.

This is the kind of contribution which simply puts people off the debate, The tone is condescending and yet the writer apparently fails to understand the points made and is, herself just plain wrong. She asks "What has Labour in Wales to do with anything regarding Scotland?" well, it has to do with Scotland precisely what I said in my post. That is that there are times when England votes Tory but get a Labour Government because Scotland and Wales vote Labour. In those situations, despite being far and away the biggest of the home countries England has a Government imposed on it by its smaller neighbours. Oddquine states somewhat unpleasantly "Which part of "in 300+ years, Scotland has had influence in deciding this Conservative/LibDem Coalition Government, an 18 month long Labour Government and a Lab/Lib pact. Government " do you not quite grasp that you maintain Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales. England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours. So you and others justify fifty and a lot of + Governments chosen by England because "sometimes" .as in one time in three hundred years..Scotland actually got got what Scotland voted for against the wishes of the English voter? Well shucks!" "One time in 300 years!" What complete nonsense! In both 1964 and 1974 the UK Government was Labour despite England voting Conservative. So that's 2 more for you. There are others as well but you can look those up yourself. And no, I have no intention or arguing either here or anywhere else that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English. What I am doing is simply making the point that the current set up does not oppress the Scots anything remotely like some stating the independence case would have us believe. In my posts on this debate, I am not taking one side or the other. I am genuinely interested in reasoned debate and frankly get a little annoyed when people from either side drag the debate back into the gutter by spouting such ill-considered nonsense - particularly when delivered in such an unpleasant manner.

Yes you did.

Fair enough but what if you had told them beforehand it was the ConDems rather than the Libdems they were voting for (still haven't worked out how to access the smileys using this otherwise mighty fine iPad)...... Well, actually you might argue that they would have got more votes. The usual consequence of our antiquated first past the post system is that the Lib Dems get a decent vote but few MPs and even less influence. By siding with the Tories the Lib Dems have had a lot more influence in Government and have got some of their favoured policies through. Had voters known that the lib dems' alliance with the Tories would allow them to have some influence in Government, and a few more voted for them as a result, then we might have found that they were much less the junior partners than is currently the case. Clegg's mistake in my view was not to hold out for PR as a condition of joining in an alliance. Refusal might have triggered a second election in which the lib dems would have stood to fare even better. As it is, clegg's lust for power has meant we can kiss goodbye any chance of PR for at least another 10 years. Coming back to the independence debate, the point here is that the UK electoral system means that a strong SNP vote will, from time to time, hold the balance of power in the UK parliament. When that happens Scots voters will get a far greater level of influence and the English will feel they are being ruled by a Scottish minority. Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales. England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours. It is disingenuous of the "Yes" campaigners to say that we need independence because the Government we get is the Government England votes for and we have little say in decisions which affect us. The English will see the Scots and Welsh as having a disproportionate say in UK affairs - and this is without devolution. Devolution gives Scots their own voice on devolved matters whilst they can still interfere on the same topics as they apply to England. There are many who would argue that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

It is difficult to conclude what tonight's results say about the state of Scottish football. Both Rosenborg and Malmo are currently lying 2nd in their national leagues half way through the season and both have only had 2 defeats. They are therefore both pretty decent opposition. It was a great win for the Saints over two legs but there is no way Hibs should have lost by that kind of margin. Perhaps the lesson here is that European places should be determined by league position only.

Why? Have you got a bye?

It's always the same. Those who already have fast broadband are the first to get the upgrade. We're in an internet black hole on the Black Isle. We're nominally served by the Dingwall exchange but we simply cannot get broadband through the landline. Instead there is a satelite receiver on the hill behind Dingwall which then sends and receives signals to and from mini satelite type dish on our house. We get 1Mb and pay over £30 a month for the privilege over and above the cost of our landline. Some neighbours have the same whilst other have slightly different solutions with the detail depending on the precise location of the house and whether satelite, phone or landline gives the best signal. The Dingwall exchange is set to be upgraded by December so hopefully we will end up with a much better provision for a lot less money. One of the frustrating thing about this is that there is a fibre optic cable going past the house because the Government decreed that all schools were to have a certain level of broadband provision. So the local Primary School gets a decent broadband signal but domestic customers are not allowed access to the cable. We'll see what comes of this but no doubt the emphasis will be to get the maximum number on the superfast broadband as soon as possible to make the statistics look good. Those in real need of an improved service have never been a priority for BT and I can see the current situation continuing amidst claims of a major improvement in Broadband provision.

Both set ups have a Doncaster that does not perform very well.

What was he doing under a car? Well, being a 33 year old coming out of a night club at 3.30 in the morning I expect it is a simple case of him being exhausted.

Total waste of money. In many ways, playing the small teams is much better preparation. We know from cup results that competitive matches against these sides can be hard even when the team is match fit and has knit together well. Pre-season is about trying different things out and that is best done against a small team who will not hold back and who are anxious to get the kudos of embarrassing the big boys. These friendlies therefore have a much more competitive edge than a glamour tie would. But then it depends on your perspective. No doubt to fans of Arbroath, tonight's match was a glamour match and they'll be talking for years about the night when the great Billy Mackay graced them with his presence and scored 5!

I can understand folk voting yes because they want to be independent and not be "shackled" under London rule, but I am less convinced by those who still wish to remain in the EU. I mean, do you want to be independent or not? Yesterday I spent some considerable time at work on an issue where legislation has had to be changed to comply with EU law. This is EU law made by people who simply do not understand the way this particular activity is carried out in the UK. The result is that the revised legislation forces us into changing something that up to now has worked very well. Were we living now in an independent Scotland, I would have had exactly the same problem. The ethos of the EU is to increasingly move toward a more united and integrated European state on the basis that common laws and freer movement across boundaries will lead to greater overall prosperity and peaceful co-existence. It is a noble aim and if you buy into that you have to take the rough with the smooth. Broadly speaking, I share the European vision but get frustrated by some of the nonsense that comes out of Brussels or wherever. I struggle to see the logic of wanting to break free of a British union in which Scots enjoy very considerable influence and are gaining an increasing number of devolved powers, whilst at the same time wishing to remain within a European union which is getting increasingly controlling and which just 5 million Scots will have next to no influence over. If folk are truly wanting an independent nation then they should be campaigning for an independent nation out-with the EU. That would be a more credible position and a clearer and more convincing case could be made. "Independence" within the EU strikes the public as anti British and slightly ironic given that an "independent" Scotland within the EU would still be in a union with the rest of Britain.

The sad thing about cycling and athletics is that history tells us that you never really know who is clean and who isn't. These are sports that men and women excel in because they have a particular physical attribute rather than any particular skill. Obviously there is an element of technique and tactics but essentially it is the physical attributes which are the key thing. These athletes have to train exceptionally hard and pay strict attention to diet etc but having done all that, the use of performance enhancing drugs can add that crucial extra edge to a performance that makes the difference from being just one of the pack to becoming number one. Every time someone does something remarkable we question whether it is genuine or not. It's a shame. We should get excited about performances like Mo Farah this week when he ran a 1500 metres just to gain some speed practice for his 5,000 and he breaks Steve Cram's British record. It's astonishing really and most of the guys are probably clean but I'm afraid the cynic in me prevents me being too excited about these things. For me, there's far more to admire in Phil Mickleson's magnificent final round in the open where supreme skill, good judgement and nerves of steel saw him through. Performance enhancing drugs to make him stronger, faster or to keep going longer would have been of little help to him at Muirfield.

A bit of firefighting needing to be done in the Aussie camp if you ask me.

Proper 5 day test cricket really is something special. It may not be to everyone's taste but it is an acquired taste and one that is definitely worth acquiring. It helps if you've played the game a bit just so that you can appreciate what is involved with a hard cricket ball whistling past your ears at over 80mph and the rest, Cricket is an extraordinarily complex game in the 5 day version and it is not just the skill of the players, but the tactics and the drawn out drama that is so enthralling. Enjoyment of the game comes with some level of understanding of the way the ball behaves differently depending on the type of bowling, the age of the ball, the condition of the pitch and the atmospheric conditions. The batsman has to judge each ball and decide whether to risk a scoring shot or whether just to block or leave it. The captain of the fielding side will be placing fielders either to make scoring more difficult or to provide more men in positions to catch. Often fielders are absent from a large part of the outfield to tempt batsmen to hit into that particular area in the knowledge that the shot risks catching the edge of the bat. Then as the game progresses and time becomes more of an issue it becomes a question of do you play for the win or settle for the draw and this changes the dynamics of the game again. The whole game is a psychological battle, a tactical battle and a battle of skill. To me there are two very appealing aspects of the game which make cricket pretty unique. The first is that whilst it is a team game, at any one point it is largely the bowler pitted against the batsman and the pressure is very much on the individual taking centre stage at any one point. The other aspect is that for most of the game, it is often not clear who is winning and who is losing. People will have differing opinions as to which team has the upper hand at any one point but it is often not at all obvious. The picture can change suddenly with 2 or 3 quick wickets but then as a stand develops so the balance changes again. It is fascinating the way the game swings back and forth and in a close game this creates a building tension. In football we may feel a bit of tension as our team gets battered in the last 10 minutes whilst we grimly hold onto a single goal lead, but believe me, that is nothing compared to the nervous tension of defending a 300 run lead in the final innings and seeing the opponents total get closer and closer. As the Australians so brilliantly demonstrated, it's not over till it's over. The drama and tension of a good test match is without comparison to anything else in sport IMHO.

An argument has always been that despite the fact the matches are shorter, the women still need to spend as much time and effort in training to reach the top. There is also the argument that because they are not as powerful there are are likely to be longer rallies because there are fewer aces and outright winners. In the old days there was some truth in that because the men played a serve and volley game and there were very few baseline battles. Games last far longer now despite the fact that there are tie breaks in all but the last set. I do think that sometimes men's matches are too long and women's matches are too short. In the women's game there is sometimes little opportunity for a good comeback and players can be blown away before they have really settled. In order to restore some equality what I would like to see is 4 set matches with a slightly longer tie break set such as best of 21 points if they ended at 2 sets all. As well as introducing equality, it would also end the ridiculously long matches that sometimes occur and which can be disruptive of schedules and which seriously disadvantage the player in the next round. As for prize money, I do think that equality is inappropriate because more people come to watch the men play than the women. Where there are separate tournaments for men and women (Queens and Eastbourne for example) there is more media interest and sponsorship money for the men's event. If prize money was awarded pro-rata to paying customers, media rights and sponsorship deals for separate mens and womens events, then women would not get the same as the men. Women footballers may play for 90 minutes but they don't get paid the same for the simple reason that women's football does not attract the same level of paying customers. It is simple market forces. The problem with Wimbledon is that in general it is difficult to differentiate between what the paying customers are hoping to see and therefore market forces cannot be applied to the allocation of prize money. So whilst equality of prize money may be inappropriate, I don't think there is much that can be done about it - although deducting £10 for every unnecessary grunt would be a step in the right direction.

The season hasn't started and already we've gone on a cup run.

It reminds me of the story about the football match between the insects and the animals. The animals were dominant in the first half and scored at will. The half time score was 50 - 0. In the second half the insects brought on the millipede as a sub and he was fantastic, He ran rings round the animals and scored the winning goal just before the full time whistle. After the game, the captain of the animals asked why the millipede wasn't in the starting eleven. "Well", said the captain of the insects, "it took him all the first half to get his boots on!" Yes, I know, the old ones are the best. But I offer it just to say that there is probably a perfectly reasonable explanation for what, at first sight, appears to be a remarkable change at half time. I am sure the investigators will come to that conclusion when they speak to the same people that arranged the scorelines.

I'm going to vote yes just to annoy all the union flag waving, stone island-and-adidas-booted Rangers Ruffian types. They are going to be seething. I'm going to spoil my ballot paper just to annoy everyone. Nobody will give a toss.