DoofersDad

Planning to be at the game but just couldn't make it - probably just as well, we'd be 3 - 0 down if I was there. Fantastic score line - c'mon Billy still a chance of beating Higdon to top scorer of the season.

I wish that was true, but politics is about winning, not about the truth, and the no camp is pulling out everything it has to 'win ugly'. Calling in favours from anybody from rich American politicians to dear old clueless Ken Clarke, as long as they have no interest in Scotland at all, but can come up with an 'authoritative' quote. The McCrone report shows that we have been cynically lied to before in the interests of preserving the UK, so why should it be any different now? As licence payers we should expect the BBC to be impartial, but a quick search will show you that it is not. I have to agree with TheMantis on this one. Look at the success of UKIP in the English local elections yesterday as evidence of this. Their cynical policy was simply to tell the voters that they were in favour of what the voters wanted to hear - more schools better council services, more road repairs etc etc and all for no increase in the Council Tax. Interviewed on the radio today Farage said their manifesto was aspirational and the voters needed to know what UKIP wanted to achieve. Does he really think that other parties want to close schools and have worse services and worse roads! The voters should be looking for prioritised plans consistent with the available and increasingly limited local authority budgets - but unfortunately, far too many of them don't. Instead it is a combination of punishing parties for their perceived performance at a totally different level of government and going along with a party that promises to deliver what they want to hear without a thought of how that might be achieved. The independence vote will be little different. The SNP will imply that independence must be a good idea because the SNP have been good for Scotland in Government whilst the "no" campaign will imply it is a bad idea because the SNP have been bad for Scotland in Government. Both sides will claim we will be more likely to be far better off if we do as they say and they will pander to wants and play on our fears. A few valiant souls on both sides will try to make rational arguments for their positions but, sadly, will be largely ignored. On this forum, the quality of argument for the "Yes" camp has been streets ahead of the largely unevidenced rants of the "no" camp. But come election day the verdict of the people will not be based on a mature analysis of the argument, it will be based on a conservative fear of the unknown. For all PullMyFinger's thoughtful and passionate arguments it will the rants of Laurence and co that win the day. Whatever the sound arguments against independence may be (and there are many), it is actually not in the interests of the "no" campaign to use them. Too many voters are simply not going to balance the argument of one side against that of the other and it is far easier to frighten these voters than to influence them by reasoned debate. I am afraid that this analysis is as bleak as the weather, but I firmly believe it is why Scotland will not vote for independence.

Yep. Its rectangular in shape and has a variety of white lines. So is Maradona

Football in the summer - with grass on the pitch! Can't see County voting for that.

If you want a wee drink you'll need to go to church and take communion. Often ends up in a bit of a sing song as well, I understand.

Whilst we should already have secured our place in Europe, I do think that people are right to be angry at Lennon. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to rest players and rotate things a bit so that you can field your best team for key matches and have them properly fit for the game whilst giving fringe players an opportunity. But there is still an obligation to field a side that is competitive as failing to do so gives an unfair advantage to other clubs. One might normally expect Celtic to win certain matches and if Lennon is publicly stating he is sacrificing games then that is not acceptable as that may well distort league positions thereby making a serious financial impact on those clubs disadvantaged. If Celtic are sacrificing matches then the fairest thing would be for the SPL to even things up by taking sanctions against Celtic and awarding all their post split games to their opponents and giving them a fine proportionate to the potential financial consequences to smaller clubs of their actions. Lennon himself should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute.

That would be true if you don't want an independent Scotland, but it would seem to be a sensible thing to do if you do.

Couldn't agree more. Let's not forget that they won the 2nd division title before The Rangers won the division below. Queens have 9 more points from the same number of games and a goal difference of 69 compared to The Rangers' 57. Mind you, I would have thought Alan Archibald is unlucky not to be short listed as well. If Partick beat Dumbarton at the weekend they will beat County's points total of last year when Adams got the award.

When you get these pathetic bigotted morons behaving like that at an U17 match, one dreads to think how they will behave when the first teams next meet. Punt Celtic off to the League of Ireland where they would presumably feel much more at home and The Rangers down to England (Evo-Stick North league should be about their level) and then the rest of us can get on with a proper football league watched by proper football fans.

I'm worried. We had a good flurry of players signing up for next season but its dried up whilst others have confirmed their exit. We have a lot of players out of contract at the end of the season and we need more signing up soon. Of course, our scouts down South may do wonders again and sign up players at least as good as those who don't want to stay but we currently have a good squad who are capable of becoming a very good team and building on what has been acheived this year. It may be that some are keeping their options open until they know if we win a European place, but if we lose the likes of Doran I think we could find ourselves struggling next season.

Higdon for me as well. I think the fact that there is no Celtic player is a reflection of the fact that their success has been about a generally good team effort. In some games there may be a standout player but it is rarely the same one from one game to the next. I can't imagine why Lennon thinks Hooper should be in the mix. He's scored the same as McGinn and less that Higdon and Griffiths. He's scored two less SPL goals than our own Billy McKay who also isn't on the shortlist. There is no doubt that Celtic are clearly the best team in the league and they create significantly more chances. If Lennon is dissapointed with anything he should be disappointed that his main strikers have not scored more.

Adams 20 votes ahead. Terry needs lots more votes.

I think we should bring in 3 or 4 players none of us has ever heard of. Seemed to work OK this season.

Never mind the defence, with Warren out, who's going to score the goals? It is time for Richie to score a few again - he's not been on the scoresheet since Boxing Day

It's not often you lose but yet can say it's been a good weekend - but I think that's a fair summary of this weekend. Getting anything out of the Celtic game would have been a huge bonus, but for none of the 3 teams behind us to win is a real boost. With 4 games to go we are 4 points clear and have Celtic out of the way. It is very much in our own hands and depending on how other results go, wins in our next 2 games could have a European place secured with 2 games still to go. But even if we only drew our matches with the 3 below us and lost to Motherwell and if Celtic beat the 3 below us, then the best any of them could do would be for St Johnstone to match our points tally. Looking at it from St Johnstone's perspective, they really have to beat us next week. I'll be happy with a draw - but a win for us would be nice!

he's awful now, he hardly plays for Swindon He's playing tonight and has scored twice in the first half!

They may have said they want a change but the sad fact is that they didn't vote for it. They may not have liked the structure that was on the table but that was part of a package which, rightly or wrongly, was the only package on offer. However, what was part of the package was a move to a 9 - 3 voting system which clearly would have made it easier to bring about change in the future. There are several on this forum defending Gilmour and MacGregor on the basis that they dislike the structure which was part of the package. Some are proposing alternatives. These alternatives may be better, but whether they are better or not is totally irrelevant to the debate - they were simply not on offer! If you wanted an alternative to either the current structure or the one in the package then you have to ask yourself, is it more likely you will get a specific structure with a 9 - 3 voting system or an 11 - 1 voting system? Frankly, it's a no brainer. If Gilmour and MacGregor wanted something different there was simply no alternative but to vote for the package which would have made change more likely in the future. There were really only 3 reasons for voting against the package: Because they think the pyramid system is a dreadful idea and no way must new blood be allowed into the league. Because they think the 11 - 1 voting system is great Because they think the current league set up is the best Gilmour and MacGregor should come clean and tell us all which of these reasons was their overwhelming reason for voting no. Yes, they may have said they want change but not only have they voted for no change, they have voted to make change a lot more difficult in the future.

The current system (not just the league structure) is rotten to the core and we desparately need change. What is wrong with the system is evidenced by the fact that clubs were given the option of all or nothing. Obviously clubs might be for a change in the voting structure and against the restructuring proposals but were simply not given the option of voting separately on the issues. In my view, the current system with the 11 - 1 vote for change means that no meaningful change is ever going to happen. I appreciate that a lot of fans don't fancy the league structure as proposed, but frankly, that was just a side issue in this sorry state of affairs. Voting for change today would have seen a change to the voting structure, the development of a pyramid structure and the first steps towards a much more sensible structure for the game. OK, so with that comes a league reconstruction which a lot of folk don't like but let's face it, there is no consensus around what folk actually do like. What was wrong with giving it a try? It just might have worked! And if it didn't work, at least we would then have the mechanism in place to change it. All this opportunity for change has been lost because 2 club chairmen have messed up big time. And please don't give me this crap about Uncle Roy standing up for his principles and listening to the fans - since when have the County fans been in favour of the 11 - 1 voting system? I've had a lot of respect for MacGregor in the past but that's gone I'm afraid. He's sold Scottish football down the river. Rangers will soon be back at the top table and it will back to square one. A sad day for Scottish Football IMHO.

Memories of a great scene from Blazing Saddles

A good number of Hibs "fans" left the ground when the Bairns went 3 up

The being out of position argument seems to be the one that is used but it doesn't hold water when both CBs come all the way up for corners.

It gets mentioned every season. Grant Munro had a great long throw but Terry stopped him using it and throws have been dross ever since. Most of the players never seem interested in finding a bit of space and making themselves available. It seems to be the fringe players like Sutherland, Ross and Pepper (remember him?) who seem to look interested. We are not only bad at our own throws, we often don't mark up well for opposition throws. I simply don't understand why this area of the game is so neglected. It is actually quite extraordinary that our results have been so good when we are so poor at throw ins.

I fear it will be Woods.

Thatcher. Divisive in life, divisive in death.