DoofersDad

Its the sort of job that would really show what Hughes is made of and the sort of job he really need to get them back into Management at a decent level. I can't see him getting offered anything more attractive but Gus MacPherson appears to be the hot favourite.

Last year we seemed to do better against the top six and struggled against the weaker teams. I think this was due to the fact that Hughes' stultifying football philosophy meant that the weaker teams would let us have the ball, make it difficult for us to pass the ball through them and the squeeze us and look to capitalise on mistakes when they came. The better teams would play a more open game which gave us opportunities for counter attacking and a bit more time on the ball. Rather than sit off the packed defences of the weaker teams, this year we will be constantly taking them on; pulling them wide, trying to slice through them and shooting on sight rather than patiently waiting for an opportunity to present itself. I agree with IHE that there is a much better balance in the squad, we have competition for places and options to vary the play according to the situation. I think we should do better against the poorer sides this season and we should be seeing some really exciting games.

Thought more might have given 3 or even 1 point to Billy King. MOTM in the first half by some margin I would say. Not just a terrific goal but working really hard and causing the Celtic defence a lot of problems. Faded in the 2nd half but Hearts fans must be looking at his performances for us and wondering whether their management have lost their marbles but agreeing to a season's loan.

2nd Celtic goal was well taken but was poor defending on our behalf. Someone (Draper?) lofted a longish pass back to Meekings who was immediately under pressure from Dembele. He tried to play a hurried ball to Warren which Sinclair nicked from him and left him for dead. Meekings was initially standing off Sinclair to cover the pass to an otherwise unmarked Dembele. He continued to cover Dembele in the hope that Polworth would get back to challenge Sinclair which he very nearly did. At the same time, I am sure Meekings was also aware of Rogic overlapping on the left and completely unmarked. Meekings was on a hiding to nothing. One can possibly fault OFW who could have been further off his line to narrow the angle and I'm not sure where Mckay was in all of this. However, the root cause of getting caught out like this was an unnecessary pass back which put our back line under real pressure. Hopefully Foran will instil into the players that it doesn't matter if you lose the ball in the opposition half but you can't afford to give it away in your own back line.

Fixed it for you Charles

I don't think it would have made any difference which end Draper had been

Excellent draw and a very entertaining game. It is interesting to note that the four matches Celtic have played in the league this season before today had resulted in wins against the teams that are 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th in the league and they have won them by an increasing margin. 2-1 against Hearts, 4-2 against St J, 4-1 against the Dons and then 5-1 against The Rangers. I think that suggests Celtic are head and shoulders above the rest of this league and emphasises what an excellent point that was today. Personally I'm not sure that the substitutes were the best. Whilst great to see Mulraney, King and Doran on the pitch at the same time as a statement of attacking intent, they need to get the ball in the first place before they can show what they can do. We lost a bit of midfield bite when both Vigurs and Polworth went off and that, I think, contributed to Celtic being so dominant in the 2nd half. I think Foran should have kept Polworth on and taken King off. King had a fantastic first half but did seem to tire later on. Mulraney and Doran both showed good touches and are clearly going to be quite a handful to lesser teams this season. OFW was great and we rode our luck with the woodwork as well. Had Celtic got another 2 or 3 with all that pressure, I imagine folk would be questioning the substitutions. Again, Tremarco was terrific. His level of commitment is just fantastic. I hadn't realised that Mckay also has a long throw. With Tremarco and Meekings also able to launch long throws, an area of the game that has been abysmal in recent years should now be one of our strengths. There are still too many empty seats in the stadium but with games like we've seen this season hopefully the seats will begin to fill. Way more entertainment than last season.

Drapes should have stuck the ball in the back of the net before anyone could get anywhere near him. That would have stopped any argument.

I don't think they know what they are expecting themselves. The stated reason for not using newly devolved revenue raising powers for modest tax increases for the better off was that the better off would either utilise tax avoidance tactics or would b*gger off down South. If the Government of a newly independent Scotland tried to fund the economic cost by hitting the better off with even bigger tax increases, then presumably they would be even more likely to use tax avoidance tactics or b*gger of South. What is left is either spreading tax increases across society and/or massively reducing public spending. Either way, it is the poor who have naively turned to the SNP in the hope of something better who will be hardest hit. Perhaps, as part of their "conversation" the SNP would be good enough to tell us how they propose to address the massive budget deficit which an independent Scotland would find itself with. We can then also participate in the conversation and tell them what we think of that.

It's an interesting poll that Charles posts about. The figures the poll gives refers to net popularity and disguises the fact that more people think she is doing a good job as party leader than any of the other leaders. It is also the fact that a lot of people think she is doing a bad job. I think that her extraordinarily high popularity ratings in the past were boosted by many who were not SNP supporters but who grudgingly admitted that she had done well even if they did not like some of the things she was doing. It is understandable now that these folk will feel angered by her absurd post Brexit posturing. Her popularity levels now seem to be more in tune with party preference and I don't see any evidence in this that she is losing support within her own party. That is not to say that support within her own party remains as strong and unquestioning as it was. The level of support shown for independence is consistent with other recent polls and seems to confirm no significant post Brexit move to a separatist position. There are two interesting points hidden in the detail of the poll though. The first is that the 52 NO to 48 YES figure is based only on those voters who expressed a preference and said they were certain to vote. The figure for all people interviewed was 51 NO, 41 YES and 7 don't know. In other words there are a fair few opposed to independence who are basically pissed off with the whole situation and saying that they are not certain to vote. Also, the number of people who feel there should be a 2nd referendum within the next 2 years is well below the numbers who would vote for independence if there was one. That suggersts a real lack of confidence in "YES" supporters that they would win. So whilst the level of support for independence remains high as does support for the SNP (although not tested in this poll) this poll provides signs that there may be a weakening in the strength of that support. There hasn't been the predicted post Brexit surge in support for independence, voters not included in the poll headline figures because they are not certain to vote are predominantly opposed to independence, Sturgeon's popularity has dipped significantly whilst her unpopularity has risen significantly, and people really don't want a 2nd referendum in the near future. This all suggests a weakening in the strength of the SNPs support and we may well see that reflected in the headline figures before long. Much though depends on the Labour party. The poll also shows that support for independence is strongest amongst the most economically deprived. These folk have shifted in droves from labour and have supported independence on the basis of "what have we got to lose" and "it can't be any worse". The ratings of Labour leaders north and south of the border are dire. Labour recently slumped to just 16% of the popular vote in a poll - well behind the Tories. If they can get themselves back on track and win back the support of traditional labour voters then the SNP will see a significant drop in support and any prospect of a 2nd referendum in the foreseeable future will disappear.

Thanks for that. Iain Blackford's response was along those lines although the specific point of my letter was the role of BT in having control over Openreach and therefore control over the role out of the fibre network to suit their own agenda. Ofcom is looking into the problem but many people and other ISP's feel Openreach should be completely separate from BT. We are hit with a bit of a double whammy here because a lack of 3G, let alone 4G phone signal means you can't get on line via a mobile either. Instead, we have a wireless signal beamed over from above Dingwall and if we are lucky we get 4MB and pay £20 per month. This is over and above landline rental which costs exactly the same regardless of whether line supports broadband or not. 4MB is OK for most things but we increasingly encounter problems with the speed of pages loading or buffering as content becomes ever more data rich. It's irritating for us but a real problem for small businesses. Even the B&B owners find problems because guests expect to be able to get a reliable internet connection but find there isn't one and they can't even access their emails etc via the phone. The stated intentions of Government is great but I will believe it when I see it.

HT 0-2 FT 0-3 1st ICT Vigurs 1st Opp Dembele Crowd 6,022

I recently wrote to my MP, Iain Blackford about the dreadful Broadband service we get in our part of the Black Isle On previous occasions when I have had cause to write to SNP MPs, MSPs or councillors I have usually received no reply. However, on this occasion, not only did I get a reply, I got a quick reply and it was actually helpful! Could this possibly be the SNP finally starting to focus on the day job?

I don't see what the 70's has to do with this discussion. Sure football hooliganism was a lot worse then but that doesn't make the lesser level of hooliganism now OK. Cable Guy has it spot on and it is unfortunate that some of the youngsters cannot distinguish between good vocal support for your team and being threatening and/or offensive to the opposition and their supporters. You do not need to be offensive to create an atmosphere. In fact you absolutely need not to be offensive in order to create a good atmosphere. The picture of the young lad "flipping the birdie" ictfcsince94 posted is an appalling example of how the behaviour at football matches still remains at gutter level in some quarters. I absolutely agree with nopyronoparty94 that the lack of any sort of vocal support from some of our older supporters is pathetic, but what he doesn't seem to understand is that the more subdued supporters are much more likely to join in with any vocal support if the singing and accompanying behaviour is not offensive. He also seems to miss the point that offensive behaviour actually keeps a lot of potential supporters from going to games in the first place. I'm no fan of Rugby as a game but boy can we learn a lot from them about creating a proper atmosphere. Go to any of the home internationals and you will experience an electric atmosphere with both sets of supporters singing their hearts out and cheering their teams on. Not only is there an absence of being offensive to each other, there is no segregation of the fans who, as a result enjoy a lot of good humoured banter at the game, followed by a drink or ten after the game. In terms of creating a good atmosphere we are a million miles away from that. The singing of the young lads at TCS is really welcome in developing a decent atmosphere, but as soon as the exuberance gives way to abusive songs and behaviour which is or is perceived by others to be threatening, then all the good the singing does is more than undone. As for the booing of Shinnie when he went off injured, well, words fail me. Shinnie gave brilliant service to this club and gave us lots of excitement over the years. He had every right to move to a club that could pay him more and he deserves our continuing respect. Is it any wonder more people don't attend matches when we get our own so called supporters showing such disrespect to the very players who have done so much to make the club what it is today?

It's a funny old game. Last weekend whilst Celtic were impressive in thumping The Rangers, Barcelona were losing at home to newly promoted Alaves. I am sure the Celtic starting line up will have a good few changes from last night with guys coming in looking to press for a start in the next Champions league game. But IHE is spot on. If we can contain them early on and then take a chance, then it will definitely be game on. Our lads will be in their faces and it is a game Celtic would rather not be having. I think it will be a good game but Celtic have quality in depth and I do expect them to win comfortably and go on to win the league at a canter. Of course, on the day, anything can happen. As I say, it's a funny old game.

There are clearly double standards in the way the relevant authorities deal with inappropriate behaviour. There is a bit of fall out between the ugly sisters after Saturday's game with the BBC reporting as follows:- "Rangers said it was aware of "the disgust" felt by fans who "were subjected to a sickening and shameful display of outright sectarian hatred". Rangers fans group - Club 1872 - said banners which read "kill all Huns" and "know your place Hun scum" were threatening and disgusting. Supporters were also offended by two blow-up dolls - one wearing a Rangers scarf, the other an Orange sash - which were dangled by ropes from the upper tier of the stadium. Directors at the south side club said they shared the anger of their fans." Celtic have responded by saying they don't want to get involved in a tit for tat spat. Apparently no apology or condemnation of their own sectarian supporters! Notwithstanding the fact that fans of The Rangers would,of course, never resort to singing sectarian songs, and trashing a toilet block is clearly fair game, why did the stewards and the police not deal with these issues at the time? The banners and blow up dolls The Rangers fans are complaining about are clearly inappropriate and probably illegal and did not just magically appear. Why did Stewards and Police not take action there and then? If the albeit OTT high jinks of some of our young supporters is seen as fair game for stewards to come the heavy, why was no action taken at Celtic Park? If (as I have heard said before) the police do not think it safe to intervene in that kind of situation, then sanctions should be taken to limit crowd numbers so that police can readily get to where they need to be in order to uphold the law and apprehend the sectarian scum that break it. Unless the authorities concerned take their responsibilities seriously and do the job they are paid to do, this cancer will continue to affect the game we all love.

I wonder if there is any chance that any SNP supporter is going to participate in this "conversation"? The SNP is hoping that party members can reach out to the rest of us and personally engage with 2 million voters. It doesn't look like that target has any hope of being reached if members and supporters of the SNP have so little belief in the political position of their party that they cannot even come up with any valid points to make in the more impersonal environment of a forum. The SNP has a huge membership such that approximately 1 in 37 adults in Scotland is a member. I don't know how many of the members of this forum regularly log in but I guess that on any day there might be 3 or 4 SNP members on the site with several more logging on relatively regularly. Over and above that, there are presumably several others who have supported the nationalist cause in recent years. Are there none of you out there who are prepared to take up your party's rallying call and engage in the conversation? Or is it, that unlike your leadership, you have actually been listening to the frequent coherent and objective arguments of those opposed to independence and have come to realise that independence is not such a good idea after all? In the absence of any engagement in support of this farcical "conversation" idea, I can only assume that if you haven't yet been totally convinced of the bankruptcy of the nationalist case, you at least have serious doubts. Why else would you not heed Nicola's rallying call?

If they are publishing nonsense motions like this, one can only assume they have run out of grievances and are not aware of any matters of concern affecting Scotland which need to be brought to the attention of the House. If you go to the Parliament website it is of note just how many of the SNP's EDMs are frivolous. There is a stark comparison with more serious EDMs from the other parties.

I always thought that a conversation was an exchange of views. It seems that the SNP's view of this "conversation" is to establish what the priorities of those opposed or undecided about independence are, and then use that information to make some ridiculous promises to bribe the electorate. A bit like the first referendum but more targeted. Rather than just make disparaging (albeit justified) comments about this charade, I decided to go to the website (www.survey2016.scot) and engage constructively. What I found there is, quite frankly, an insult to the electorate. Given that we are being told this is a genuine attempt to get the views of people, I had hoped that there would be a wealth of information about why the SNP thought independence was a good idea and would be asking people why they were not persuaded by those arguments. But, unsurprisingly, there is absolutely no information at all. All there is is a one page survey form which, apparently, is the method they are using to establish what we all think. And what an appallingly incompetently designed survey it is! As an example, there are some of the most basic errors of survey design in the demographic section. Question 9 asks "do you have any children or grandchildren under 18? It gives 4 options - None under 18; Children under 10; Children 11 to 18; Grandchildren under 18. So, if you have a child who is 10 years old, there is no relevant box! Also what are you supposed to do if you have an 18 year old? Whilst 18 year olds are included in one of the age groups, the question is specifically about under 18s. And what conceivable relevance is it if we have grandchildren under 18? I am a grandparent but all my children live in England! My next door neighbours' grandchildren are in Australia! It is quite appalling that the SNP should allow someone so brainless to design the survey and even more astonishing that nobody in their organisation noticed these errors. The rest of the design is pretty shoddy too. The main information gathering section is question 4 which asks "If there was a referendum on Scottish independence, how important would the following issues be to you in deciding how you vote? It then lists 12 things and we are invited to rank them on a scale of 1 to 10 as to how important they are to us. These include "Feel Scottish", "Economic stability and affordability" (whatever that means!), "Retaining EU membership" and "protecting human rights". If they think I, as someone opposed to independence, am going to answer those questions and help them to more accurately target their bribes and lies in any future referendum, they can think again. The shoddiness of all this makes it clear that this is all an act. They are not interested in what people think - it is simply a sham exercise to pretend they are listening to the people. There is one good thing about this survey however. It is a section at the end which says "If you would like to tell us more about your views on Scotland's future, or you've got an idea you would like to share with us, please email [email protected]". I will certainly be using that facility to give them a thought or two! One of the things I will be pointing out is that this exercise has been designed the way it has in response to the SNP's outrage of "Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will". The reasoning of the outraged SNP is that unless the post EU referendum negotiations manage to retain Scotland's place in the EU we will need to have a 2nd independence referendum in order to respect the will of the majority in Scotland who voted to remain. However, in a recent opinion poll when given a choice of 2 options, only 37% said they would prefer to live in a Scotland in the EU but not in the UK, whereas 46% would prefer to live in a Scotland in the UK but not in the EU. In other words, the SNP's response to the situation we currently find ourselves in is to get all indignant and try to force something on us that even less people want. Sturgeon should listen to what the polls are telling her loud and clear and put an end to this ridiculous and very amateurish charade.

I blame his science teachers.

Trawling through threads from July, Charles? Sounds like an exciting evening! Funny you should comment on the Turner thread though. I am just back from New York where we visited a small private museum called the "Frick Collection". In there they have the largest Turner painting I have ever seen. It is of Dieppe Harbour and it is quite magnificent. Apparently he was able to quit his job with Auld Reekie Cooncil after selling it.

With the Beatles - Damn it. Just can't remember who it was by

I remember years ago being in the same badminton club as a guy who was some big wig in the BB. Someone asked him what exactly the BB was. Before he could reply I said that it was the para-military wing of the Boy Scouts. If looks could kill I would have died young.

You don't see how many red dots people get. You just see the net result. As I write this you have a net reputation of zero for your post but it might be that one person have given you a green dot and someone else has given you a red dot. But I agree with the gist of what you are saying - folk tend to give far more likes than dislikes and only a few posts get a significant number of red dots.