DoofersDad

It surprised me! I had no idea you could appeal yellow cards. I thought it was just straight reds.

Respect works both ways. Shinnie was a great player for us but by the same token, the club gave him a lot. There was someone in the crowd on Saturday who summed it up for me when he shouted out something like "I still love you Graeme - even if you are a traitorous wee b******d!"

It's not a striker we need to buy. It's a referee

Things started well with a delightful goal after absorbing some early pressure. Then it all went pear shaped. There is no disputing that Aberdeen were the better side and we were generally below par, but it really is sad to see a side resort to the level of gamesmanship that Aberdeen did today. Of course, teams can only get away with it if the officials let them - and boy did they let them today. I don't usually like to criticise referees because they have a very difficult job to do and have to make difficult decisions in a split second. Clearly they will get things wrong at times. But there really can be no excuses for Clancy today. Apart from his failure to stop Aberdeen's antics, he made the most appalling decisions in relation to two episodes in the 2nd half. In the first of these, Maddison was dispossessed deep in our half. He went down and stayed down. In fact it looked as if he was praying to Mecca. We broke forward with some of our best play of the game. We were heading towards the edge of their box with Aberdeen struggling to cover when Clancy decides to stop the game for Maddison. But although he stopped the game, he didn't call the Aberdeen Physio on. Maddison didn't need any treatment and soon trotted off without any sign of being hurt. If Clancy wasn't going to call the physio on to treat Maddison there was absolutely no reason to stop the game. Just a few minutes later, just inside our own half, Shinnie hacked down Mackay and Clancy didn't even give a foul. He waved play on and then actually ran past a clearly distressed Mackay to keep up with the play. Fortunately Aberdeen's attack came to nothing. OFW then kicked the ball out of play before Clancy took notice of our injured player. Unlike the cheating Maddison, Mackay didn't get up and trot off. Instead he had to be stretchered off. These two incidents are not simple mistakes, instead they represent utter incompetence. It is easy to to fault the players when they have a bit of an off day, but it can't be easy playing when you have such incompetent refereeing. Yes, we were 2nd best today, but it might have been a very different game with a different referee. Rant over

The Guardian reports that this (The Investigatory Powers Act) went through parliament with barely a whimper. I think it is important to reflect why any opposition was relatively token rather than full on. It is easy to brand such legislation as a "snoopers charters" but the reality is quite different. I'm sure we all worry about our privacy, but personally, I worry about my freedom more. The Act may give the authorities new and extensive powers but I am firmly of the view that if you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear. Why on earth would the authorities waste time watching everything we do? What is important is that the authorities have the necessary powers to collect evidence to address the kind of crimes that threaten us. With massive advances in modern technology going hand in hand with the rise in cyber crime, terrorism etc it is important that those protecting our freedoms have the necessary legal powers. One Lib Dem peer is reported to have argued that the danger of this type of legislation is that if we were to have a far more repressive Government, then the powers in this act would allow them to monitor us as you suggest. But the thing is, if such a Government as that was to come into power without the legislation being in place, they would either put the legislation in place or just do it anyway. Senior political leaders are privy to information that we are not. They will know what the authorities assess the threats to our freedoms to be. I am sure it is their recognition of the threats we face and the powers required to combat them that led them to only lip service opposition. Whilst I understand a feeling of unease, I think this is probably a necessary reflection of the times we live in.

HT 0-1 FT 1-2 ICT Cole Aberdeen Rooney Crowd 4821

Regrettably I agree with everyone else here. There was a time he would have been my first name on the team sheet but he is generally pretty anonymous these days. Draper, Polworth and the oft criticised Vigurs have all been more effective this season. When he does get fired up he is more likely to lunge into a reckless tackle than deliver something positive. There was a time when he would give useful central support to the attack but he frequently sits too deep now. On current form, I can't see Aberdeen maintaining their interest in him. Such a shame for such an obviously talented player. Still the go to for penalties though.

The shocking thing about these figures is that the average pay of The Rangers players is £316,888 more than any of the creditors of the club that preceded them have yet been paid.

I'm sure Trump and Prince Philip would get on just fine!

Good summing up from Scarlet there. One of the things about the US system is that the President is severely restricted by what he can get through the Senate. Obama got elected on a wave of optimism about how he was going to make big changes, but the reality is that in his 8 years in office, he didn't really achieve a great deal. He has been the "Yes we can, no he couldn't" President. Trump really doesn't have too many allies in the Republican party and even if the Senate and Congress have republican nominations, Trump is not going to get things through unless there is mainstream support. Regan was surprisingly successful because as an actor he was used to playing his part and doing what he was told.

I can believe Trump did not initially want to be President but I imagine that the prospect increasingly became more attractive to his ego. He could have withdrawn at any stage but has obviously decided to go through with it. In this politically correct world we live in we expect our politicians to be squeaky clean, but one thing that has struck me from listening to interviews with potential voters is the number of times people say that they don't like this or that about him but the most important thing is whether he will be good at the job. They feel that as a successful businessman he is someone who can "get things done" There is also still a huge number of folk in the USA who hold very reactionary views and felt Clinton was far too liberal. One woman who I saw interviewed said she was a God fearing Christian and thought the job of the President was not "appropriate" for a woman! Another said she thought the allegations of his misogyny weren't a concern because "he has repented before God" He seems to have struck a chord both with the disaffected left and with the reactionary right. We may speak the same language as the Americans (sort of) but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that our attitudes are the same. The other thing that those who know him say is that he delegates well. Truth is, you cannot run a successful business empire unless you do delegate and then trust those you delegate to to get on with the job. He is also said to listen to those with expert advice, accept they know more than he does in their area of expertise and takes that advice on board. These are highly valuable skills for running a country. He does not have a lot of political baggage and won't be frightened of taking difficult decisions if he believes they are the right ones. As long as he listens to sage advice and doesn't press on with some of his more stupid ideas (such as banning Muslims from entering the USA) he might surprise many with how inclusive and effective he is. He would not have been my choice but we have to respect the verdict of the American people. We need our political leaders to give him the benefit of the doubt and work constructively with him to further mutual interests. He needs to be judged on what he does as President and not on what he said during the campaign. You don't become an effective CEO of a country by being nice, you do it by getting the job done. Can't say I'm not worried but at least it will be interesting!

Referendia! That could be a new anthem for the SNP! Oh, and let me tell you that I love youThat I think about you all the timeReferendia you're calling meWe want another one.

And, at this 3rd time of asking, are you going to justify your assertion that Charles and I are ignorant when we state that a 2nd indy referendum needs the consent of Westminster before it can take place?

The question is surely more one of where he is in the UK all time list. There are some stand outs like Redgrave but for all his achievements, he competed in an event that very few people do and which really only gets publicity for a race once every four years. His success has also been helped by able partners. Tennis is played in a large number of countries by large numbers of people (or at least large numbers have played it at some stage and those with the talent will have had opportunity to emerge). It is an individual game requiring a challenging combination of fitness, skill, tactical awareness and determination. In addition, to get to number one in the world you have to demonstrate a consistently high level of performance. Murray may have just reached number one but he has been in the top four or five for some years playing in an era with 3 of the all time greats. Not only has he reached number 1, he has won slams, Olympic golds and the Davis cup. It really is a pretty impressive record. Who else in British sport compares? Personally I would rule the cyclists out. Whilst I agree that Hoy has been outstanding, several cyclists have come to the fore and I think that a lot of their success is due to the advantage of the technology and the conditioning of the team for the big events. They are not performing at a top level week in and week out. Golfers also compete in an internationally popular sport week in and week out and so I guess Nick Faldo with his 6 majors must be up with the best. Football must be the game with most players across the international stage but whilst we can think of loads of very good players (Best, Charles, Charlton and Law - to pick one from each of the home nations) I can't think of any players that would clearly fit the bill as a stand out player. It is difficult to look at any name and say that they are ahead of Murray on the all time British list. If Murray can maintain his number one status for a couple of years and win another 2 or 3 majors then surely there will be little room left for debate.

Armistice Day is the 11th of November. Wearing the poppy has become something of a competitive sport whereby sporting your poppy earlier than anybody else is trying to project a message that you care more than anyone else. I'm sure some of these folk dig their early poppies out of a drawer from the previous year which not only gives the "look how much I care " look but also saves them having to donate to get a new one. Personally, I'd prefer to see them worn during the limited period between Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday. Back on topic though, whilst we retain our top 6 slot despite defeat to Celtic, we are 5 points behind 5th but only 3 points off the bottom. Our reduced bench yesterday is a reminder that it will be a very challenging season if we keep picking up these injuries and we simply can't afford to have players unavailable through suspension. Hopefully the international break (hopefully with poppies) will see a reasonably full squad to choose from.

No Raven either! Horner starts and no defensive cover on a bench of 6. Shows what a threadbare squad we have. Huge test today, but whatever happens, we've still got one more point off Celtic than anyone else this season.

I don't have a problem with admitting my ignorance on the constitutional position here. I started my previous post asking you to back up your earlier statement, but rather than do that you chose to criticise me for my ignorance rather than enlighten us. There are 2 questions here. 1. Can Westminster prevent Holyrood having a 2nd referendum? 2. In the event of vote for Independence in a Scottish referendum, can Westminster block the creation of an Independent Scotland? These are perfectly reasonable questions asked with a view to establishing basic facts and are completely separate from any debate on whether Westminster should or would block if a referendum was 1) proposed and 2) subsequently held. My view on 1) is that Westminster can block it - a point which the Scottish Government themselves have made clear in their consultation document on the draft independence bill. My view on 2) is less clear. Internationally, countries have achieved independence in a wide variety of circumstances - sometimes peacefully and all too often following bloodshed. Peaceful routes to internationally accepted independence are won when the "mother country" agrees to the country's independence but I am not personally aware of any international law which binds a "mother country" to accept secession following a referendum. In this context it is pertinent to note that the Republic of Ireland only gained its independence once the Westminster Parliament had passed the Irish Free State Constitution Act in 1922. Precedent in the UK would seem to suggest, therefore that independence for Scotland would require the Westminster Parliament to pass an act of parliament to allow Scotland to secede from the Union. I fully accept that there are probably different arguments too, for instance there may be arguments based on the 1707 Act of Union. I simply don't know. Kingsmills, if you are claiming superior knowledge on these issues, perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten us with your views on the 2 fundamental questions I have posed.

What is the basis of your comment? The Edinburgh agreement came about because Westminster agreed to an exception from the Scotland Act 1998 to allow the Scottish Government to hold a referendum. Similarly, they will need Westminster's consent for a 2nd referendum. What would happen in the event of a 2nd referendum producing a vote to leave is less clear. Whilst the SNP complain bitterly about the current confusion around Brexit, the situation around the break up of the UK would be even more complex for a variety of reasons and the SNP has done nothing to provide the voter with any idea what the process and terms of separation would be. For a start, Brexit is simply (although it is not that simple!) a question of an individual state deciding to leave a collective. Scottish Independence would be the splitting of a sovereign state in which the day to day life is far more entwined with the infrastructure of the the rest of the UK than the UK's is with Europe. It is all very well for Scotland to vote to leave, but what would the terms of that be? Because the UK is a sovereign state and unlike with Brexit, the UK would need to agree for Scotland to leave. It will agree when the Westminster Parliament is happy with the terms of the severance - terms which the Scots may not be happy with and would not have voted for had they been agreed prior to a referendum. Of course, Holyrood could always make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence but it wouldn't get much in the way international support if it did that. This is why we really ought to think things through a bit more seriously as a nation. An independence referendum should be about giving an instruction to Government to negotiate a package for an independent Scotland. When a package is finalised, that should then be put to the people to vote on whether or not we wanted to accept the package. In that way, a Yes vote at the 2nd stage could be viewed as a clear, settled and informed decision by the electorate. For such an important and irrevocable issue we should be demanding nothing less from our constitution.

HT 2-0 FT 3-1 ICT Polworth Opp Griffiths Crowd 52,287

The UK's Parliamentry constitution is a complicated thing having emerged in 1707 based on the pre-existing Westminster based Parliament. We don't have a written constitution and as a result of this there is great uncertainty around fundamental constitutional matters. Different "constitutional experts" tend to be able to find some justification to suit their own particular standpoint. It is all very well referring to "constitutional niceties" but the ultimate legal ruling on what powers the UK's constitution allows to the Executive or Parliament may have significant ramifications. But whatever the future ramifications are, my view is that if it comes to a parliamentary vote, Parliament will vote to trigger section 50 because regardless of their own preferences, sufficient MPs who voted to remain will vote to respect the will of the people. Implications for Scotland are interesting. Just because Cameron said that the result of the Independence referendum would be binding does not mean that it would have been or that a future one would be. My understanding is that notwithstanding Cameron and Salmond's agreement, for independence to have actually happened after a "YES" vote, legislation to disband the Union would have been required to be passed by the Westminster Parliament. Implications here for Scotland are that if the SNP rabble at Westminster vote in defiance of the stated wishes of the UK electorate in a UK vote, they may potentially find that others vote in defiance of the stated wishes of the Scottish electorate should the Scots ever be foolish enough to vote for independence. I agree with ictfcsince94 that the correct legal position for dealing with the result should be clarified prior to any referendum taking place. My personal view of what should happen is that if parliament votes to hold a referendum in the first place it should respect the result. I voted to remain but I believe that Brexit means Brexit - just as "NO" means "NO".

As an Englishman, the prospect of some of England's so called "supporters" mixing it with some of Russia's so called "supporters almost makes me hope the Scotland and their proper supporters make it to the World Cup finals ahead of England. Almost. On the footballing side, I'll make a prediction that Scotland will get the better of England in the qualifiers but that England will go on to win the group narrowly. This will be followed by a brief and embarrassing participation in the finals. All in all, the 2018 World Cup is not exactly firing my enthusiasm at the moment.

He's been selected by Chris Sutton in his team of the week, which is deserving of congratulations in its own right but I don't think it merits a call up to the French national squad.

One of those games where I would have taken a draw beforehand but felt disappointed with the draw at the end. We gave away two shockers but in general it was a pretty solid performance all round in what was an exciting end to end game. Having lost OFW in the warm up and then Tremarco soon after the start we did brilliantly to establish a 2 goal lead. On reflection, a draw is a good result but what will be more important is the seriousness of the various injuries. Special mention from me has to go to Lonsana Doumbouya. I thought he put in a fantastic shift and worked the Hearts defence very hard. He held the ball up and distributed the ball well under a lot of (usually illegal) pressure. He thoroughly deserved his goal and I hope the performances like that will give him that little extra confidence and sharpness that translates into scoring for fun. A real blow to lose Tremarco who has been the season's stand out player, but what a great performance off the bench from Dave the Rave.

HT 1-0 FT 2-1 ICT Polworth Opp Sutchuin-Djoum Crowd 3713

HT 1-1 FT 1-2 ICT Doran Opp Moult Crowd 3523