DoofersDad

For goodness sake. No one is disagreeing that more should be done to help the "ordinary joes". But there are 2 points you seem to miss. Firstly, unless footballers get the help they need then they very soon lose all the privileges they had and become struggling ex-footballers. They become ordinary joes as well. Secondly, more openness about mental health issues within a high profile group must be good in generating a better understanding of mental health generally. It therefore helps both the footballers and the ordinary joes. It's a win win situation.

I disagree with both the Commissioner 's options above. There is no reason why allowing folk to see who put dots of either colour forces those who disagree with a post to say why. Rather, it makes people publicly accountable - a fact which will deter the cyber bullies who currently hide behind the anonymity. To abolish voting altogether is not really an option IMO. It is important that a mechanism exists to show support for something which really strikes a chord with the community. This could just be a summary of a game or perhaps acknowledgement of something above and beyond the call of duty by someone at the club - thanks for organising travel at short notice, perhaps. whilst I personally favour having both colours and showing who used the dots, the red dots are less important. No doubt a post which deserves a few red dots will get at least one reply which shows why it was a bad post. If we can only give likes then we have the option of liking the reply.

I do think people should be able to express their disagreement without always being expected to argue the case. Some posts are simply out of order in one way or another and the number of negative marks allows people to gauge the strength of feeling without people needing to respond. But the red dotters should be identifiable so that they can be identified just as the poster who they are criticising can be. One thing that is annoying about the current system is that you just see a net reputation for a post. There is no way for anyone other than the poster to know how many positive and negative votes they got . For instance, a post could have 10 green and 10 red dots but with the current system you would not know that anyone had been bothered to like or dislike it at all. I'm not sure whether option 2 would show who expressed both likes and dislikes but if it does, it would have my vote. It would allow people to see the extent of interest in a particular post.

I think someone is missing the point here. Mental health is not something to be judgemental about. The point is that the initiative I mentioned in my original post reaches out to a group of young men who, whilst on the face of it are privileged, are actually very vulnerable. One of the lovely things about this is that if the macho world of professional football can be more open about mental health issues, then it is more likely that others will acknowledge and get support for their problems too. Indirectly this should help those who Wynthank15 thinks are more deserving.

If Sturgeon was willing to listen she wouldn't be calling for any conversation. Listening to footage of herself stating that the 2014 referendum was a once in generation thing should end any further thoughts of another one. But because the SNP are so lacking in integrity, that will not happen. The danger here is that unless those who oppose independence make their voices heard loud and clear, the floating voter will be taken in by the kind of lies and misinformation which made the 2014 referendum relatively close. Hopefuly the unionist parties will get their arguments together better than they did 2 years ago. If so, we should be able to put this nonsense to bed once and for all.

I'm genuinely taken aback by Hallett's letter. I can't remember ever having seen anything so incompetent by a professor in any field. Let's do some sums to show how simple it is. Let's suppose that the price of oil is £100 per barrel and that the price at which a company can make a profit is £45.5. This means they make a profit of £54.5 per barrel. If the price drops 54 per cent it will cost £46 per barrel and the profit will be just £0.5 per barrel. The drop from £54.5 to £0.5 represents a drop of 99 per cent. The dim prof's "discrepancy" is explained by very basic arithmetic. The SNP supporting prof also conveniently forgets that the UK government has given oil companies tax breaks to help cope with the fall in oil prices. There is no sinister accounting here - just more evidence of Scotland being better together as part of the U.K.

Unfortunately he's not been picked. I can understand the reasons for the captain's decision but it does seem harsh. He is after all ranked at about 20 in the world and that should be good enough , one would have thought. Living and playing in the States would also bring advantages. Looks like he will need to comit to the European Tour if he wants to be in with a chance in two years time.

Nobody seems to have picked up on the news item about Richie Foran supporting an initiative to help players who may have mental health problems. Inverness manager supports mental health initiative for footballers http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/37225204 In this story it is really good to hear that as team captain Richie would visit players who were out with long term injuries recognising that this can be very depressing. He also talks about the importance of recognising that some unusual behaviour on or off the park can often be a symptom of a problem. We moan often enough about what players get paid these days, but it is important to recognise that it can be emotionally very difficult for these young lads. They are often living away from friends and family, they are subject to the pressures of high expections from the club and to oftenunfair criticism from the fans and media. The mental health of the players is therefore a vitally important issue and it is brilliant to see our new young manager providing some leadership here. Well done Richie!

Downside today was all the empty seats and, in particular, mine. Had to be in for a delivery which was late. Gutted to have missed the game but delighted that the lads delivered today. From the previous home games I think Givmeaccccc sums up my feelings of the way the team is playing. I get the sense that regardless of where we finish at the end of the season, games are going to be far more entertaining than last year. This is the message that needs to get out to those who don't attend regularly so that they can be persuaded to come back with the promise of being entertained whether we win or lose. If the style of play can bring in more folk then that not only brings in more cash for the club, it creates more atmosphere and support for the team.

HT 2-0 FT 3-1 ICT Tansey Opp Hayes Crowd 12,311

HT 1-1 FT 2-2 ICT Vigurs Opp MacLean Crowd 2961

A couple of good posts there, Col. It is an important point you make about the support for the SNP and for independence being helped greatly by the ineptness of the Tories and Labour. The SNP have been much smarter politically and have ruthlessly exploited the infighting in the Labour party. They have kept internal discipline with all their MPs and MSPs openly supporting retaining EU membership even though we know they are deeply divided over the issue. They know there is not a cat in hell's chance of winning independence unless they show a united front on that prior to independence being won. Labour is being taken over by the hard left and it is actually very sad to see them spending so much effort in doing the exact opposite of the SNP and making themselves totally unelectable. Not much point saying more about them just now until we know whether their rent a mob "members" re-elect Corbyn again. It's a complete and utter farce. You say folk on the street are not going to be discussing the deficit. You may be right but isn't that a shocking reflection of modern society and the media? It is things like this that really matter. These sorts of facts underpin whether or not we really can honour pledges to fund the NHS better, for example. The reality of the deficit serves to underpin the lies behind the promises. Scotland's deficit is at a level significantly higher than the EU considers appropriate for entering the EU. You can't just brush it aside as the SNP's new Finance Secretary Derek MacKay does. His comment that the UK's per capita deficit post recession was about the same as Scotland's is now and the EU didn't kick Britain out, is utterly facile and irresponsible. The 2 big differences are that the UK was already in and has subsequently taken action to significantly reduce the deficit. Scotland would be joining and actually proposes to increase the deficit by increasing public spending in an Independent Scotland. Regarding oil, I agree there is too much focus on it. But having said that, the SNP need to be hammered on their pre-independence referendum position. Apart from being utterly fanciful, it was also dishonest in what it implied. Since oil started flowing from the North Sea, I think there have only been a couple of years that revenues for Scotland's share have peaked the £10bn mark; firstly at the peak of the oil boom in the mid 80s and secondly during the brief boom in 2008/9. But even at that level of revenue, Scotland would still have a deficit of around £5bn! The reality is that in an independent Scotland, the Scottish Government would be compelled to reduce public spending and/or raise taxes by a considerable amount. But the good news for Scotland is that despite the poor state of the Scottish economy, levels of public spending and taxation are maintained at a level other countries envy. That is possible because of the stability the larger and less volatile UK economy brings to Scotland. I know posts can sometimes seem like a fixation on the SNP, but unfortunately they are the party of Government and are hell bent on a single course of action which will be hugely damaging for the country and which the electorate have already clearly rejected. Whilst I agree that we should not lose sight of the bigger picture, the SNP have become so fundamentally dishonest that they need to be constantly held to account. One final point on the legitimacy of a 2nd referendum. The fact that it was in their manifesto does not give them a mandate to call one. People vote for parties across the whole policy range and not on one issue. There are good reasons why referendums should be once in a generation events at most, and prior to the result, that is what the SNP leadership promised. They should honour their promises and respect the will of the people as demonstrated in the result.

Reading through this I see I missed out a rather important "not" in the highlighted section. Sorry Charles! With regard to the red dots, others only see the net reputation on the post. The post actually had 3 green dots and 2 red dots. In other words some folk are still willing to dish out the red dots but are not prepared to make any attempt at saying why they disagree. But to be fair, I accept that defending the indefensible is a tough ask. I referred earlier to the report the SNP belatedly published on Tuesday on the possible financial consequences of Brexit. Sturgeon said this could be up to £11.2bn a year by 2030. Everyone agrees this is highly speculative but yet Sturgeon used this as an argument why she would do all she could to ensure Scotland stayed in the EU. And then the very next day, the Scottish Government issue the GERS figures which show that Scotland's actual budget deficit now is £14.8bn. Consider these facts:- More Scots voted to remain in the UK than voted to remain in the EU. Public expenditure in Scotland is £1,200 per head higher than in the rest of the UK despite the Scottish tax take being about £400 per head lower.than the UK average. The UK therefore massively subsidises public spending in Scotland and an independent Scotland would need to somehow massively increase revenue just to allow our public services to stand still. The shortfall between our revenue and our spend is around £2,600 per head! If you think austerity over the last few years was bad, just wait till we're independent! If Scotland were independent it would have a higher per capita budget deficit than any country in the EU. Whilst I don't think the EU would necessarily block an independent Scotland from joining, it would only be allowed to join provided measures were taken to reduce the deficit. As a result, It may well be that the electorate would not vote to join the EU on those terms. I would suggest, for example, that it would be highly likely that the EU conditions would be to block the kind of irresponsible borrowing Swinney was proposing in order to fund his promises / bribes to the traditional labour voters in the Indy referendum. That is the kind of irresponsibility that led to problems and subsequent sanctions in Greece. And people talk about independence meaning Scotland would have control over its own affairs When the democratic process has demonstrated that more people want to be in the UK then want to be in the EU, why on earth does this wretched Government want to plunge us into certain turmoil by walking away from the ecomomic security the UK provides and plunging us into massive uncertainty and all sorts of potential "strings attached", in continuing to pursue this "independence in Europe" nonsense? The case for independence is utterly discredited.

And where is your "rational, lucid and coherent debate" with those who disagree with your position? Throughout this thread we have had numerous rational, lucid and coherent criticisms of the SNP but all we get in response is cowardly red dots and meaningless little one line jibes. Nobody appears to have any arguments to actually address the points raised. Constant one-liner digs at Charles does constitute coherent debate. You have been challenged on more than one occasion in this thread to respond to the criticism made but you consistently fail to do so. There is actually more "rational, lucid and coherent debate" in Charles' last post than in all your posts in this thread put together. As I've said before, I don't mind the red dots. In the absence of any rational reply it simply confirms to me that those dishing them out are utterly incapable of responding to the points raised. So, now that you have advocated "rational, lucid and coherent debate" it would be really good if you could finally engage in some.

I see Sturgeon is at it yet again. This time it is the release of a Scottish Government report detailing how much worse off Scotland will be as a result of Brexit. She is reported as saying that this could have a severe impact on public spending and repeated her view that a 2nd independence referendum is "highly likely". I suppose the first question that comes out of this is why has this report been published after the referendum rather than before it? If the report has any validity at all then it was Sturgeon's responsibility to ensure that the information was available to the public for debate prior to the referendum in order to help inform our decision. Of course, the reality is that the report cannot be anything other than highly speculative. Had it been published before the referendum it would no doubt have been subject to rather more scrutiny and been shown up as speculative scaremongering. Publishing it now allows Sturgeon to claim some justification for public spending cuts which she will say are a consequence of a right wing Tory engineered Brexit. Again it is the strategy of blaming problems in Scotland on the Tory Government at Westminster in an attempt to drive a wedge between Scottish voters and the wider UK. Truth is that any spending cuts will be a reflection of a continuation of SNP austerity. A continuation of their failure to raise revenue with the powers delegated to them. It is also worth remembering that Brexit was not the consequence of voting by the Tory right, it was a consequence of the voting of precisely the same socio-economic groups in the UK's industrial heartlands that have put the SNP into power in Scotland. Sturgeon is quoted as saying it is "simply unacceptable that Scotland faces the prospect of being dragged out of the EU against its will". This is illustrates that she either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore basic principles of democracy. Two years ago the Scottish electorate voted to remain in the United Kingdom. That meant that it was the will of the Scottish people to accept the democratic decision of the UK as a whole on UK wide matters. In this particular instance, it means that the will of the Scottish people is to accept a decision made by the the UK electorate as a whole even though we don't agree with it. Accepting the decision of the majority at all levels of Government is the bedrock of democracy. Sturgeon needs to understand that what is "simply unacceptable" is to have the First Minister of Scotland not abiding by the basic principle.

I suggest you go back and read Scotty's helpful post again. He is the guy who runs this excellent site and if he says this is not the appropriate route to elicit a response from the club, that's good enough for me. Personally, I am not expressing any view on the change to the badge but I respect your right to feel very strongly about it and agree that you have a right to expect a response from the club regarding your concerns. What I fail to understand is why you seem unwilling to do the one thing which you can reasonably expect will get a response from the club; contact them directly. Clearly you feel others ought to feel strongly about the club's decision on the badge, and it may well be that if others knew the answers to the questions you have asked they would be more inclined to support your views on the matter. If you want others to support you on this you need to get answers to your questions and, if those answers do not satisfy you, use the information in those answers to make an argument why the rest of us should also be concerned. Do that, and I might support you at the AGM. At the moment though, my position is this:- Do I think the Board should have consulted more widely regarding the change? Yes Am I bothered that they didn't? No. If you want others to support you, the ball is firmly in your court.

That's the way to do it! There is no point waiting till the AGM. Writing directly to the club should elicit a response which can then be communicated more widely on this forum if you feel it appropriate. If anybody is not satisfied with the response then they can still take it to the AGM, in which case there can be an informed debate based on the response previously received, communicated and, no doubt,debated on this forum. Further to what others have said, I see absolutely no reason why the club would respond on this forum to the concerns raised in this thread. Apart from the fact that it is not the appropriate channel, it seems pretty clear that it is just a very small minority of people who feel strongly on the issue. People criticise the club for lack of communication but the club is actually very open with regard to personal contact. I speak from personal experience having previously had a meeting with the Chairman over concerns I had a while ago.The Chairman was remarkably open on the issue in question and pro-actively asked me my views on other matters as well. The difficulty was not getting into the chairman's office, it was getting out! Bottom line is that this forum is for having a general discussion about things. That includes having a good old moan about this and that from time to time. But if you really feel strongly about something and feel something needs done, then you need to take the bull by the horns and contact the club direct.

Mad Gav, eh! Interesting. He's a pretty decent player but it would be a risk to take him on. It's all right him picking up the ball and walking off the pitch when he's playing against us but I wouldn't want him repeating that if playing for us. A bit injury prone too. He's probably the sort of player that just needs the right manager to bring the best out of him. Foran has had a rush of blood or two to the head in the past so may be just the person to relate to Gunning and get the best out of him.

I wasn't at the game but did notice the stat on the BBC website that we had 13 attempts on goal. They may not have been very effective attempts but it does demonstrate a more positive approach. Last season there were only a handful of games where we had more attempts at goal. Against County our midfield was consistently 2nd to the ball in midfield and it sounds that the same was the case against Hearts. A midfield containing Draper, Tansey, Vigurs and Polworth really should not be out-fought in midfield by any team in this league, Get that sorted, and coupled with the more positive approach we should be creating enough chances to win a lot of games. A lack of cutting edge puts pressure on the defence so perhaps taking an early chance or two will settle the team and get us back on track. We certainly need a little more depth to the squad to provide cover and competition for places, but we should have enough quality to hold our own in this league. Foran had it right when he said he hasn't got the best out of the players yet. I just wonder how much of this is to do with a change in playing style. When Hughes came in and changed things round we changed from being a side which played with confidence to being an absolutely dire, nervy side for some while. Once players got used to the new system and what was expected of them, confidence grew and we got much more assured (if boring) performances. We now have a transition to a very different style again, and that transition is particularly challenging for the midfield who tend to control the pace of the game, and for the wing backs who have a very different role. To be effective, what is required has got to be second nature, and until it is players will appear to be hesitant. For instance, where Hughes may have looked for a midfielder to sit back off a player with the ball, keep shape and make it difficult for the opposition to play through us, Foran may want the player to pressure the guy with the ball further up the park. Not only will players be expected to do things differently, they will be finding team mates are not always where they are used to them being. Adapting to this change in style does not come overnight and is not as easy as it looks. It's a bit like driving in Europe. Yes you can drive OK on the right hand side of the road, but it takes a little while before you can drive as naturally and hesitation free as you do back home. We need to be patient. It will be worth it.

Spot on, Charles. An interesting point here is the question of which country athletes would choose to represent in the event of independence. It is interesting that in the Scots heroes tally, both Andy Murray and Heather Stanning are well to the fore, but whilst Murray was born in Scotland, he lives in London, and Stanning lives in Lossie but was born in England, Both are claimed by the Scottish media to be Scottish. Large numbers of people would presumably have dual nationality and top athletes may well choose not to represent Scotland if they felt they had a better chance of success by being in the team GB set up. Things could be very complicated indeed. Best just to stick as part of Team GB, both in sport and other aspects of life, and to celebrate the success that folk from all parts of the UK can achieve when given the opportunity to work together.

What! No takers yet for a pun or two? Although it would appear to be a product aimed at the colts squad, it sounds like an appropriate product for the first team as well given that some players had a mare of a game.

...but we've got one more cup than she has.

Who for?

Welcome to the forum, CaleyCol! It is good to have someone who wants to exchange a few thoughts and is prepared to debate a few things rather than have the usual vacuous one liners from the SNP / Independence supporters here. Your first post contains a lot of interesting points - too many to respond to, I'm afraid, but I will pick up on a couple. The first is the point you make about the EU referendum only being wanted by UKIP and the Tory right. It has been repeated so often that it is now regarded as a given in many quarters. But it is patently not true. Presumably it was wanted by the majority of the electorate who voted for change, but it was also wanted by many "remainers" who felt that a vote to remain would herald the demise of UKIP and would confirm our commitment to Europe for the long term. In other words, it was a majority of the electorate who wanted the referendum and that includes a very significant left wing element as evidenced by the strong Leave vote in England's industrial towns. Not only was it wanted by a broad swathe of political opinion, it was democratically appropriate to have one. We voted to join with European partners 40 years ago and the EU as it is now is completely different from the Union we voted to join then. In addition, polls have been consistently showing a pretty high level of support for leaving the EU for a number of years. I voted to remain, but I can have no complaint at either the legitimacy of having the referendum or the outcome. Related to that you criticise Ruth Davidson for changing her view post Brexit, but I think that is unfair. Rather than change her mind, she has done what Sturgeon seems pathologically incapable of, and that is accepting the result of a referendum which has not gone the way she wanted it to. Davidson has basically said, "I don't like the result, but it is what it is, so let's make it work." That is the sort of practical, democratic political leadership we urgently need but will never get from the SNP because they are fixated on a single goal. Analyse any policy / statement / response they come out with and you can see that it is always made in response to the question "does this further the cause for independence?" You say "Passing the buck to the Snp for 'creating instability' by not ruling out another referendum is hilarious from many conservatives, we all know where all this instability has come from and if the Union does split Brexit will have been the catalyst." I agree that Brexit has caused instability but it was a democratic decision which, like it or not, we simply have to accept. What we need from our political leaders of all persuasions is to work together to minimise instability and to get the best deal out of this for all in the UK. Rather than do that, Sturgeon is muddying the waters with talk of a "reverse Greenland" solution and a 2nd independence referendum before she has the faintest idea of the kind of deal we may end up with. We need the Scottish Government to work constructively to promote stability and promote Scotland's interests in working towards a UK wide settlement with our European neighbours. But does a Brexit settlement which works well for Scotland within the UK further the cause for independence? No. Of course it doesn't. And that is why Sturgeon is muddying the waters and creating further instability. One final point. Please don't confuse grievance with objective criticism! The Independence movement will only win their case if they can persuade the Scottish electorate that Scotland will be better off separate from the UK. The current SNP leadership has decided that the best way to do this is to instil into the Scottish voter a sense of grievance - a sense that Scotland is denied investment, that we are electorally disenfranchised, that unionists "talk Scotland down". It's all rubbish of course, but say it often enough and loudly enough and promise often enough and loudly enough that independence would bring a raft of unrealistic things, and a gullible electorate will begin to believe it. I don't have a grievance with the SNP, I am simply very critical of them. And that is a very different thing.

When McNaughton went off, it was the slowest walk to the touchline I've ever seen. It seemed pretty obvious it was not the sort of knock you can simply run off so I wonder why he wasn't taken off on a stretcher? Apart from the fact that trying walk was obviously very painful for the poor lad, putting any weight at all on it surely risked making the injury worse.