DoofersDad

HT 0-1 FT 1-5 ICT Boden Opp Caldwell Crowd 711

Accusations of Charles's posts being sh*te would be rather more valid if anyone making those accusations actually bothered to make some kind of comment on the legitimate points he raises within his colourful phraseology. It seems as though Nationalists no longer have any arguments other than those which have been shot to pieces several times already. By the way Charles, in your lengthy email you made no comment on the current state of UKIP! They appear to have got their wish of the UK leaving the EU, but, like many other parties, find themselves with leadership issues. They also appear to have burdened themselves with rules which mean most of the high profile members of the party are ineligible to stand as leader. Having got and then won the referendum they clearly need to refocus and define what the future role and vision of the party is to be. At least that's not a problem the SNP are going to have any time soon.

It is amazing how quickly things can move in politics. The Tories seem to have sorted themselves out and we have a new PM. The top posts in May's cabinet seem to reflect a good mix of Leavers and Remainers. I think we will see a real sense of purpose from a Government led by a woman who is a long way from your archetypal Tory. I thought her brief speech was very interesting for a number of reasons but perhaps mostly for the emphasis on reaching out to the under-privileged in society. Of course, words are easy and it is actions which matter, but I thought it was a pretty impressive start. From a Scottish perspective, May's strong words in support of the Union are significant. Whilst I am sure she will want to have the political leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland closely involved in the Brexit discussions,it will be very much on the understanding that the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU and the negotiations are about leaving the EU and not about any part of the UK somehow staying in. In response to May's phrase that "Brexit means Brexit", Angus Robertson has rather foolishly stated that the position of the Scottish Government is that "Remain means Remain". I rather think he and his party are also going to be told in no uncertain terms that "No means No". It looks as though the UK Government has quickly accepted the will of the people and is moving on decisively to deal with the reality. For pity's sake, can't the Scottish Government finally do the same?

At the recent Q&A someone asked if, now that Raven was back in favour, Meekings would be resuming his central partnership with Warren. The answer was very non committal but I got the impression that this would not be Foran's preference. We shall see.

On the one hand it is great to see Celtic humbled in this way, but on the other, it is a sad reflection of Scottish football. We really need our representatives in Europe to do well both in order to maximise the number of Scottish teams who qualify and also to attract better players into the game here. But unlike the Brexit Referendum, Celtic get a chance next week for a re-rerun to reverse the result. I fully expect them to make a real effort to minimise the level of embarrassment over last night's debacle and win by at least 5 goals.

Last night it looked as though some of the French team did the same.

Well, I think one positive thing some people can do is to stop chanting "Deano, Deano" when he makes a mistake. The fact that Brill has now left the building should, of course, be quite a help in that regard. It is great that Owain has had this wonderful experience with the Welsh squad, but let's not get too carried away. After all he got precisely no game time and, apart from being part of the overall squad "togetherness", has not made any contribution to team's success. A football cult hero without actually playing any football! I quite like the idea of a rendition of the Welsh National Anthem though - perhaps when they line up for the handshakes before the match?

We've really got ourselves into a constitutional mess with these referendums. We are leaving the EU despite the fact that a minority of the electorate voted to leave. Then, because more people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU than to leave, we are now threatened with a second independence referendum. This is despite the following facts A minority of the electorate in Scotland voted to remain in the EU Approximately 300,000 more people voted to stay in the UK in the Indy referendum than voted to stay in the EU in the EU referendum. People voted in the independence referendum in the full knowledge that there was a high likelihood we would soon be having a referendum on EU membership and leaving the EU was a real possibility. Clearly, if membership of the EU was more important to people than being part of the UK they had the option to vote for independence - but they didn't. All of this mess could have been avoided if we accepted a simple principle for major constitutional change. This is that there should be more than 50% of all those eligible to vote, actively voting for change before change is implemented. Such change is too important to be made on the will of a minority of the electorate and the apathy of another minority. It should only be made when at least half the electorate positively want that change. Had we applied this common sense principle, support for independence would be seen as nowhere near the level required for change and the numbers voting to leave the EU would also have been well below 50% of the electorate. Life would now be moving on smoothly without any constitutional or financial crisis.

I assume this is preceded by a hearty bowl of porridge?

Wow! What a performance! Belgium started strongly and got a superb early goal. They were playing well and I feared it might be a comfortable win for Belgium. But what fantastic spirit from Wales to snuff out the threat and then take the game to Belgium and turn it round. A bit like the England/Iceland game but much more exciting and much higher quality.

England were well and truly Schoen up and Schaafted last night. Of course, you don't need to go to Barcelona, Amsterdam or Germany. You just need to watch Wales's next opponents.

I hadn't realised John Hughes had taken a role with England to advise on tactics. But well done Iceland. They were superb and actually looked more likely to score a 3rd than England did a second.

Ruth Davidson was actually pretty impressive in the BBC debate just before the referendum. She repeatedly attacked the Leave side for their lack of any plans following a Brexit. She said "it simply isn't good enough" nearly as often as the Leavers asked us to "take back control". Sadly, the leaders of the UK Government and official opposition parties were as woefully inept in this referendum as they were in the last one. But, yes, it is almost beyond belief that the Leave camp should expect No 10 to have the plan for us leaving the EU, after all, No 10 don't even have a plan for us staying.

There is! Just click on "Home" in the Forum menu bar and all the different categories will be displayed. You can then give your views on the referendum result! (That's not in the General Nonsense section by the way although some of the comments probably should be.)

I'm in the 55-64 age bracket but voted to remain. It seems that social media is alive with youngsters having a go at us oldies for ruining their future. But before folk get too carried away with criticising us oldies, I think there are a few points to bear in mind. Firstly, if the young want to have a pop at anyone, how about starting with those in their own age group who couldn't be bothered to vote. They could also have a pop at the Government for not allowing 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in a referendum which so clearly affects their futures. Secondly, whilst a referendum on such a big constitutional issue clearly does have more implications for the future of younger people, older people are likely to have children and grandchildren and will be well aware of the implications for them when deciding how to vote. Thirdly, older people obviously have more experience of life and will look at issues in the light of that experience. If you have lived through all our 40 years in Europe as an adult, you have a bit more experience of the project to know how it has delivered on expectations over the years. Fourthly, the kind of angry reaction there has been displays a real arrogance. There is almost an assumption that remaining in Europe was the correct choice and all the 17 million who voted to leave are either selfish or stupid. The fact is, there is no right or wrong about this. Nobody can possibly know whether we will be better or worse off in 20 years time by leaving the EU. Finally, and linked to the last point, everyone is entitled to their opinions and rather than vilify people for having different views, the constructive thing to do is to engage in civilised debate. Rather than having a pop at the pensioner leavers, it would be better to criticise the Remain campaign for failing to appreciate and to address the extent and depth of the concerns people have regarding the EU (and immigration in particular). Recriminations won't help. We are where we are and the road ahead is not going to be easy. What we need now is for folk on both sides of the debate to work constructively together to make the future work.

I think the reporting following the appalling murder of Jo Cox brought home to a lot of people just how hard many MPs work and the kind of motivation and dedication they have. Of course there are bad eggs amongst them and often they are less than honest in the way they argue their case, but the vast majority enter politics because they want to make the world, or just their local community, a better place. Most make huge sacrifices in terms of jobs they give up and in time with family and friends. And, as Ms Cox's murder has highlighted, many MPs get bombarded with hate mail and threats. To carry on with serving the people the way they do in these circumstances demonstrates the strength of their motivation. This is true right across the political divide. At a very local level, the chair of our local community council must spend hours every day in engaging in discussions with all sorts of official bodies in trying to make life better for local residents. This might be in trying to improve Broadband provision, getting potholes repaired in the roads, completing applications to get improvements in a community hall, responding to consultation papers, phoning round to get helpers for a pensioners lunch etc. All very unglamorous and with the sole reward being the feeling that he making life a little bit better for local people. And yet there are people who will complain to him that the Community Council has not done this or that despite those who complain not doing a single thing to help in anything themselves. These people deserve our respect regardless of political persuasion. If they abuse their position of public trust then by all means take them to task, but to compare the lot of them to evil despots like the Ceaucescus is simply sick. If our politicians were remotely like the Ceaucescus you, Charles, would have disappeared long ago.

If you voted "YES" in this last one it will have been counted as a spoilt paper! - It should have been in the one before as well

I know what you mean. I have spoken to a lot of Americans in the last few months and none of them have had a good word to say about Trump. I think what is going on here is that there is a large number of people who don't want to express their views or own up to them because the other side demonises them. The two big issues in the EU referendum were immigration and the economy. As soon as people expressed concerns about the level of immigration some from the remain side would accuse them of being xenophobic and racist. For most people it is simply a concern about pressures on public services and the impact on wages but they keep quiet in order to avoid the accusations. On the economy, people felt that we would do better outside of the EU but were again demonised for not wanting to work collaboratively for the common good of a wider Europe. On both topics they were made to feel they were deserting the moral high ground. Rather than suffer the rather self righteous lecturing from many in the Remain camp, those supporting leave just kept their views to themselves. This is a particular problem with social media where someone can express a perfectly valid opinion on Facebook and suddenly have several family and friends jump on them with a more PC view. Rather than expose themselves to that many folk just say nothing. In fact, I suspect that this arrogance amongst Remain supporters may well have cost them the result. Farage was a subject of particularly vindictive behaviour and whilst folk may have got a rousing round of applause for ridiculing him, the fact remains that a lot of people agree with him. Attacks on Farage will have been taken personally by these people and will simply serve to make their views more entrenched and to make them less willing to discuss them. He and UKIP were vilified in the General Election but still got over 3.8 million votes. You would have thought that politicians from other parties would have got the message - but no. Had Remain treated Farage, and therefore his huge silent following, with a bit more common decency rather than appealing to the mob, they might have been able to address the concerns of some of those marginalised and vilified voters and we might now be celebrating continuing membership of the EU.

Charles, some of the points you make in your posts are very valid, but the validity of them is lost as a result of all the utter sh*te you post as well. Your point earlier about euro-sceptic SNP voters abstaining was a very interesting point and worth further discussion, but all this nonsense about a Cybernat contract etc seriously harms the credibility of any argument you have. I appreciate that there is an element of tongue in cheek but it is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that for all its faults, we live in a democracy where we can be very critical of the party of Government and have absolutely no fear of any repercussions on our civil liberties. Unless we treat the democratic process and our political opponents with respect, that may not always be the case. The serious political point that both of us are making is that there is a significant silent minority of SNP voters who do not follow the strong pro-EU line of the party membership. The implications of that can safely be discussed without fear of a dirk up the jacksie. It is now a serious possibility that Scotland could become independent following a second indy referendum called on the back of "being dragged out of the EU against our will". Presumably, if an independent Scotland applies to join the EU, we would need yet another referendum to confirm the will of the people on this. Having gained independence, that is when those nationalists who believe that having control of your own destiny means being independent from both the UK and the EU, will come out of the woodwork. We might vote to stay out of Europe! So having voted to stay in the UK and to stay in the EU, we might end up in neither! Best just to accept the will of the people in the 2 referendums we've just have. This will then allow the SNP to do what they have been elected to do - govern the country for the good of the country rather than pursue a goal which the people have already emphatically rejected.

Correct. Whether or not we are part of the UK was clearly seen as a far more important issue than whether we remained part of the EU. The almost complete lack of the fervent campaigning and flags and posters on the street and in the windows was further evidence that this was not seen as so important. It is all very well to argue that campaigning was low key because the result in Scotland was a forgone conclusion, but that argument simply doesn't wash. There can surely not be too many voters who didn't understand that this was a UK wide referendum and it was too close to call - so get out there and f"cking vote! The fact is that more Scots voted for us to stay in the UK than to stay in the EU. We've had 2 referendums and we remain in the UK and are going to leave the EU. Lets just accept the will of the people and move on.

You may be correct - but if so, that merely strengthens my point. The polling data showed that UK wide, Labour and Lib Dem voters were more pro EU than SNP voters. If the SNP vote was boosted by folk who would normally vote Labour or Lib Dem, then it indicates that the hardcore SNP support has an even higher element of Euro sceptics than I was suggesting. But we shouldn't be too surprised by this polling data, after all, there is consistency in being a euro-sceptic nationalist. If you want Scotland to have control over its own destiny then wanting to sever legislative ties with both the UK and Europe seems the logical position to take.

I can agree with you on that one. Well said!

Predictable, but wholly inaccurate. The point about the EU issue in the independence referendum was not about Scotland's long term place in Europe but about how Scotland would take it's place in Europe following separation from the UK. It is the UK which is the member state and if Scotland were to separate from the UK then, so the argument went, Scotland would no longer be part of the EU as it was no longer part of the member state that is a part of Europe. Scotland, as a newly independent country would therefore need to apply to join the EU and if accepted, there would be no guarantee that its terms of membership would be as favourable as the UKs. For instance, an Independent Scotland might be required to use the Euro. That was a perfectly valid argument and it was important voters were made aware that EU membership was not guaranteed but might need to be applied for. What was not in doubt was that if an independent Scotland was not allowed automatic entry into the EU, it would be accepted if it applied to join. It would be unthinkable that a country like Scotland with it's long history of links with continental Europe would not be willingly accepted into the EU. Remember too, that the referendum took place against a backdrop of growing expectations of a UK referendum on EU membership where it was clear that the outcome was far from certain. For anybody voting in the Independence referendum whose main priority was for Scotland's future to be in the EU, it was absolutely clear that a YES vote was the best way of achieving that. For me, the tragedy in terms of democratic process in all this is that the two referendums were the wrong way round. Had we voted on the UK's membership of the EU first, then things would have been clearer for the independence referendum and there could be no excuses for a re-run. Such major constitutional questions really should be addressed just once in a generation at most and we should accept the democratic will of the people.

I was late to the polling station today and the clerks there were commenting how low the turnout was. My fear is that with the bookies confident of a remain vote and share prices and sterling being boosted this week in the expectation of a Remain vote, many people who are in favour of staying in the EU will not bother to turn out and there will be a narrow majority for "Leave". I agree that the "Don't knows" are more likely to vote "Remain" if they actually vote but I also think Leave voters will be more motivated to vote. I think it will be very close. I'll say 51.5% Remain to 48.5% leave.

Very good. I set myself up for that one!