DoofersDad

HT 2-0 FT 3-1 ICT Tansey Opp. El Bakhtaoui Crowd. 6211

HT. 0-2 FT 1-3 ICT Tansey Opp Sammon Crowd. 3476

HT. 0-0 Ft 1-1 ICT. Tansey Opp. Bingham Crowd. 2378

The much more pertinent question is why on earth does anybody think she should say anything other than "now is not the time". There are a number of reasons why now is not the time. She has already said the matter is settled. There was an agreement signed between the Holyrood and Westminster Governments and it is surely reasonable for her to honour that agreement and to expect the Scottish Government to do so too. The scenario which has been used by the Scottish Government to request a referendum is precisely the scenario that the Scottish Government, in their case for independence, told us we would have to accept if it happened. Again, it is surely reasonable for the Prime Minister to expect the Scottish Government to accept what they told us we must accept. The Prime Minister currently has a duty to honour the instructions of the UK electorate and lead the process of the UK leaving the EU. Clearly, regardless of the outcome, it would be highly disruptive to the negotiations to have an independence referendum on going at the same time. That would be in nobodies interests. Even without the first 2 points, May would be right to say her prime duty is to see the Brexit negotiations through before considering a 2nd independence referendum. Any referendum should be on an informed basis. At the very least that has to mean that Brexit negotiations are done and dusted. And that might be well beyond the nominal 2 years. If there is to be a 2nd referendum, then does anybody disagree that it should be on an informed basis? If not, why the rush? It seems to me that the only reason there is such a push for independence now is that the SNP are desperate to exploit a period of maximum uncertainty as the best hope of achieving their goal. If the SNP truly believed that independence was in the best interests of the country rather than simply political idealism, they would play a longer game. They could seek to negotiate a separation deal with the UK and the UK's agreement to seek to negotiate a package for entry to the EU. In that way, the electorate could have some certainty of what they were voting for. In the interim they could use the powers devolved to Holyrood to demonstrate that having more say in our own affairs actually does make a positive difference. If the case for independence is sound, then the Scottish Government has everything to gain and nothing to lose from such an approach. So why are they so determined to demand something they know will be knocked back. Why are they so afraid of a constructive, co-operative and informed way forward? Note that May has not said "no" or "never". She has said that "now is not the time". And quite self evidently it isn't. But if the Scottish Government had a bit more respect for the 2 million people who voted for Scotland to stay in the Union and took a less confrontational and more constructive approach, then there could be some meaningful dialogue once Brexit is done and dusted.

HT 1-1 FT 2-1 ICT Tansey Opp Boyce Crowd 4921

Just because Nationalists keep repeating this argument does not make it true. Let's stick to the facts. It was the SNP Government who called the referendum and put their independence proposition to the people. In that, as I stated above, they specifically addressed the prospect of an UK wide EU referendum resulting in us being taken out of the EU against our will. Part of their formal case for independence was that independence was the best way of ensuring we stayed in the EU. They also suggested that following independence, Scotland's entry to the EU would be little more than a formality. It was this that the Better Together Campaign particularly latched onto. They pointed out, quite correctly, that Scotland's entry was not a formality, was not necessarily assured and almost certainly would not be achieved until some time after Scotland became independent. In saying that voting NO was the only way to ensure we were in the EU after the referendum, they were correct in the sense that we did vote NO and we are still in the EU. Of course, the UK is now leaving and had we voted YES, then an independent Scotland would, in all probability now be joining the EU, so if people were looking at what some Better Together campaigners were saying, and thinking that applied to the long term, then they may have felt they were being misled. But if so, then they really only had themselves to blame because, putting election rhetoric aside, the facts were there for all to see. As identified in the SNP's case, at the time of the referendum the Tory Party were promising a referendum on EU membership and the polls were showing it was too close to call. In fact, in the 3 months prior to the 2014 referendum there were no less than 9 polls on EU membership with an average of 39% for staying, 41% for leaving and 20% undecided. With those facts clearly in the public domain, the UK's continuing membership of the EU had to be in some considerable doubt. On the other hand, in Scotland, the Government were strongly supportive of the EU and the polls were showing strong support for the EU. Whilst there may have been some hurdles to cross, it was unlikely that the EU would not admit an independent Scotland in due course. If EU membership was your main consideration when voting, then these facts make it pretty clear that voting for independence was the best option.

No. The majority in Scotland who voted to remain in the Union.

Better together as long as we accept the will of the majority.

I can't accept that analysis. A democratic referendum showed that Scots wished to stay in the UK, an opinion which has never been accepted by the Government of Scotland despite having signed an agreement to respect the result. Additionally, in their proposition document to the people, the SNP Government specifically identified the risk of being taken out of the EU against our will if we rejected independence and made it clear that if that happened, we would have to accept it because there would be no 2nd referendum. The fact that we might be taken out of the EU against our will was a risk that Scots were prepared to take in order to stay in the UK. It is a problem that the Scottish Government has broken it's word on this. Hundreds of thousands of Scots voted, like me, to stay in both unions. But our votes count for nothing because the SNP Government is using our votes to stay in the EU as justification for them to break their word and as proxy votes for a call for a 2nd independence referendum. By voting to stay in the UK, Scots voted to accept the outcomes of UK votes. The result of the EU referendum was that the UK voted to leave. Having only recently affirmed our wish to stay in the UK we simply have to accept the result of the UK referendum. We have a Scottish Government, therefore, that is refusing to respect the results of not one, but two referendums. It is an appalling situation when a government displays such contempt for the views of the people. By the way, Nationalists repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims, as you have done here, of the Tories showing contempt for Scotland. The reality is very different. Scotland gets around £1500 per head more in public spending than the UK as a whole and as a result, over the last few years has had stronger growth than any other part of the UK except London and the South East of England. That would not be the case if the Tories treated us with "utter contempt".

The problem is that a minority in Scotland are not prepared to accept the democratic will of the majority. It is a problem that our democratically elected Government in Scotland has broken the Westminster agreement and is focussing all it's efforts in trying to undermine the will of it's own people. Let's not forget that twice as many Scots voted to stay in the EU as voted for the SNP in last year's elections. WTF ever happened to better together? The Scottish Government refused to accept that that is what the people want. That's WTF happened to that.

Significantly, the club statement does not say what role Malpas is going to have. Foran says he is joining the coaching staff but you can be sure that he's not here just to do a bit of coaching. What is needed is better decision making around who to play, where to play them and the game plan. If Malpas is coming in to assist in that, I'd love to know what the dynamics will be between him, Foran and Rice. There would seem to be scope for a bit of confusion and a lot of tension I would have thought. I'm with Dougal on this one. A very odd appointment indeed.

The general view in the UK is that what with a proportionately higher number of MPs and a devolved parliament with significant powers,Scottish votes count for rather more than those in other parts of the country. As for our destiny, we have the power to choose that for ourselves and did so in 2014 when over 2 million voted to remain in the UK.

Nonsense. If she was calling it for narrow political advantage I don't think for one moment the other parties would have supported this.

Over 2 million Scots gave the the Scottish and UK Governments a proper mandate in 2014 when in a single issue question they affirmed their wish for Scotland to remain in the UK. It needs a lot more than half of that number voting for the SNP's wider policy manifesto to overturn that emphatic result - a result, don't forget, which the First Minister solemnly pledged to respect when she signed the Westminster Agreement. But the General Election does provide the SNP with a real opportunity to establish a meaningful mandate. The question is; do they have the guts to go for it? It's simple. They could stand on a single issue. They could simply say that a vote for the SNP is a vote to demand a referendum. There are 2 reasons why this would be a supportable position to take. The first is that the Prime Minister is clearly calling the election to give her a more meaningful mandate to negotiate the Brexit deal and to get a larger majority to get any deal through Parliament. But as the raison d'etre for the SNP's referendum demand is that Scotland has been taken out of the EU against it's will, then it is an opportunity for the SNP to put their Brexit position to the people. Secondly, if the First Minister gets her way and has a referendum in her timescale, then Scotland would be independent within the term of the next Parliament. Any Scottish MPs would therefore have to vacate their seats at Westminster before the end of the Parliament, so does it matter whether they have stood on a wider platform or not? Of course, if the SNP took this approach, the vote for their position would need to be meaningful. No doubt the SNP would claim that winning a majority of seats with 30% of the vote in a turnout of 70% represents a mandate. Clearly it would not. That would be nowhere close to the 55% of the vote in an 84.6% turnout which opponents of independence achieved in 2014. But obviously, the bigger the vote the stronger the claim for a mandate would be. So, will the SNP put their money where their mouth is and campaign for a meaningful mandate or will they continue to bleat about grievances and hide behind their current trumped up mandate claims? They say the Scottish people want a referendum and here they have been presented with a heaven sent opportunity to let the voters actually say whether they want one or not. Are they going to have the guts to let the people have their say on this issue or will they continue to claim that a vote for parliamentary representation is something altogether different?

And why would Hartley do any better than Foran? He's at a bigger club with players on bigger wages and yet the team he is in charge of is in free fall. There must be something seriously wrong with the dynamics between manager and players at Dundee.

HT 0-0 FT 1-2 ICT Tansey Opp Moult Crowd 3772

The fact that the County development squad are 4 points clear at the top of the Scottish Development league table with 3 games to go suggests there is plenty of talent in the Highlands.

er - I think that's what I said. It's the same statement. But what the statement does not do is to to say that the Board has given its backing to Foran although the headline suggests it does.

That's simply the same statement they issued earlier in the week. It's the kind of sloppy reporting you expect from the Highland News.

If the Board thinks Brian Rice can save us in the last few games, then it rather begs the question of why they didn't offer Rice the post when Hughes left (always assuming they didn't, of course!). Maybe Rice prefers being in the number 2 role - many folk do - but it always struck me as bit of a strange one that an experienced guy like Rice would be happy to be number 2 to a rookie manager who clearly wanted to play in a style radically different from the Hughes style that Rice was familiar with. Whether this relationship has resulted in tensions I don't know, but on the face of it, it is not an ideal pairing. We always knew it was likely to be a rocky road with Richie but I thought he would grow into the role and would succeed. I think he's been unlucky with injuries and the rub of the green at times and it is also clear that some of the senior players are not as effective this year as previously. But is that Foran's fault for not getting the best out of them or the players'? Tansey seems to have picked up from a generally poor season but Draper has been regularly below the standard we have come to expect from him. Warren is also not the player that he was and I wonder whether he has ever fully recovered from his leg break. He is not as young as he was and sadly it seems his best days are now behind him. With key players like this under-performing and players like Meekings and Doran plagued with injury it has not been made easy for Foran and I think he is rather unlucky to find himself in the position he is. But he is where he is and the more the season goes on, he seems to be going backwards rather than forwards. There are times when it seems the side is screaming out for the kind of attacking intent which he promised he would deliver, but increasingly he has not been brave enough to play a creative side. Instead, too many players are played out of position and things are changed from week to week. He persists with some players who have not played well and then inexplicably drops players who seem to have brought fresh life to the team. It's all too easy to criticise Foran, but whilst he is the manager, he does not work in isolation. He has an assistant, a team captain, experienced staff like Charlie Christie etc to seek advice and get opinions from. So what advice are they giving him? One get's the impression that he is floundering with little support but we really can't know what is happening behind the scenes. Of course, a win against Motherwell could kick start a little run which could see us climb to safety, but with each week, relegation looks a step nearer and it does look that all is not OK behind the scenes. The Board is not going to sack itself and the shareholders are not going to change the Board. We simply have to trust that the Board has the matter in hand, although if it has a strategy, there is no evidence that it is anything other than hoping that remaining results go our way.

The statement says that the Board are to have a routine Board meeting. Presumably at routine Board meetings they discuss how their product is faring in the market place and how that is impacting of the finances of the business. No doubt they will do the same at this meeting . But equally, just because it is a routine meeting doesn't mean a big decision won't be taken.

HT 0-0 FT 1-1 ITC Tansey Opp Craig Crowd 2626

HT 1-1 FT 3-1 ICT Billy Mckay Aberdeen Rooney Crowd 11,111

Well, I suppose you can't be wrong all the time!

From the BBC highlights there is one angle which makes it look as though he may have got a touch on the ball but the other angle shows he was nowhere near it. But as Celtic1Caley3 says, there was an early foul by Sammon on Brad which would not have been out of place in American Football. Even more of a stone waller but obviously not given. I suppose we can be grateful that Madden didn't penalise Warren for his well timed tackle on the ponderous Boyd.