DoofersDad

I believe that France, Germany, Italy, Spain and England are now all in the same half of the draw. There is no team in the other half of the draw that has ever won a major tournament so there is a real chance of a surprise team going all the way. It's turning into a great tournament - just a great shame that Scotland aren't part of it as well.

And well done to the Replublic as well. I know it was a weakened Italian side but it was still a superb performance which deserved more than a one goal margin of victory. And we now have the mouthwatering prospect of Wales v Northern Ireland in the last 16 for which the Welsh should be favourites. What odds OFW in a penalty shoot out in the final!

The tilting pier reminds me a bit of a medieval witches ducking stool. Perhaps therein lies the solution of what to do with those Councillors who are ignoring the views of the public on this matter. I am actually very much in favour of public art but it does need to be a little more thought through that most of what Inverness has to offer. And Charles is right: the City centre is a complete disgrace these days and money needs to be spent on tidying it up rather than on ill thought through "art" projects which simply add to the shabbiness once their freshness and novelty is gone.

It's sounding a bit like the central belt based media on here with attention focussed on matches involving the two big Glasgow clubs. Whatever happened to our entirely justified outrage that The Rangers should be in the Premiership at all following the failure of the authorities to deal appropriately with matters following the liquidation of Rangers? And whilst we have to realistic and accept that we can't change things and games with The Rangers will actually be in our financial interests, that does not mean we should forget what happened. We will not be playing Rangers this coming season - we will be playing "The Rangers".

He's obviously been brushing up on his opponents and filling in his squad on how to approach things. They may be undefeated but if they are to get through they will need to give Austria a good pasting.

Presumably Mair is entitled to vote given that he has not yet been convicted. He may already have voted by post if his actions were pre-meditated. This is in stark contrast to Jo Cox whose right to vote he took away when he so brutally murdered her On the other hand, his actions may well push floating voters toward the remain camp.

OK. So which way are you going to vote?

Just over a week to go now and nationally things are heating up. It looks from the polls as though the momentum is with the leave campaign but whether they will win on the day is not something I want to predict. As usual, the political debate is generally of pretty poor quality and it is difficult to find any decent objective analysis which might help in deciding how to vote. I want to see the European project work and so my gut feeling is to vote to stay. On the other hand, in general I have found the arguments of the brexiteers rather more convincing although it cuts both ways. Here's a few thoughts on one or two of the issues. On the economy, Remain state that there will be serious economic consequences. The impression is given that millions of jobs will be at risk if we leave but I'm not clear why that would be. As Leave argue, EU States are not suddenly going to put jobs at risk in their own countries by stopping trading with us. We will also have more flexibility in trading elsewhere in the world. They state that farmers will suffer by not getting the EU subsidies, but why can a UK Government not pay them at least as much out of the money it will not now be paying into the EU. We can also make the rules to suit our distinctly different farming environment. In terms of workers rights, environmental standards etc, Remain states these will all be at risk if we leave. But again, no good reason is given. Why would a UK (or Scottish) Government wish to get rid of these things if they are seen as beneficial, particularly when a future Government will know that applying the same standards as the EU in these areas will help in encouraging investment in the UK? Then today we have the absurd charge from Sturgeon that Brexit will result in the nation being exposed to the most right wing Tory Government in living memory! If we vote to leave the EU next week we will still have the same MPs in Westminster. But what we will also have is an utterly divided Tory party which will be at serious risk of tearing itself apart. Even if Cameron resigns and a right wing Brexit Tory cabinet takes over, there is no way they will be able to get enough support to push through policies to the right of Cameron / Osborne. Longer term, the schism in the Tory ranks is much more likely to result in a centre / centre left Government next time round - if only Corbyn doesn't drag Labour too far to the left. As for the leave camp, I have two big concerns about their campaign. Firstly on EU contributions they claim that all the money spent on membership of the EU will be able to be spent on the NHS etc as well as covering the costs of all the farmers subsidies etc which are currently EU funded. They can't spend it on everything. Then the big issue - immigation. Immigration from the EU is seen as the main reason why many people are supporting Leave, But what we don't hear much about is the fact that more of the immigrants to this country currently come from outside of the EU. They come in because there are jobs here and their coming here is a reflection of market forces more than anything. Today we have also heard of a further fall in the unemployment rate so it is not a question of foreigners taking our jobs. If our economy were to benefit from leaving the EU then we might need to increase immigration even further in order to fill the vacancies! In short, we are being fed hysterical nonsense from both sides and it is difficult to know what to believe and even more difficult to understand the implications. But despite what some would have us believe, employment and immigration levels demonstrate that we have a pretty vibrant economy compared to most places in the world today. We have a vibrant economy whilst we are in the EU. We may or not have a vibrant economy because we are in the EU, but it does seem a bit of a risk to leave and therefore I think on balance I will vote to stay. Are there particular issues which have made others decide one way or the other? Or if you are undecided, what is it that is stopping you from deciding one way or the other?

I was interested to read Duncan Shearer being quoted in "The Inverness Courier" yesterday as saying "I think in the past couple of years, the development side has been lost somewhere along the way." The sale of Christie and the contribution Polworth made to the side last season clearly demonstrates how integral youth development needs to be in the management of the club. I sense with Foran's appointment, appropriate prioritisation will be given to developing the youngsters.

That's a shame. He was the one Hughes signing who looked as if he could be a real find. There was clearly some real quality about him although he spent most of his time with us injured. He might have been a bit too much of a risk. It would be interesting to know if he was offered a new contract.

Whilst he didn't impress whilst here, to be fair to the lad, I don't think he was ever given the opportunity to impress. He was badged as a midfielder but was usually pushed up front as a sub because of his height, then, when he did get on the park he didn't see a lot of the ball because he was playing under a manager who was far more concerned about playing to a system rather than adapting systems to play to the players' strengths. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he does a decent job for Barrow.

Well done Wales and well done the Welsh fans. As an Englishman, I am yet again hugely embarrassed by the behaviour of a significant number of imbeciles who claim to be English "fans". They are not fans but mindless idiots who shame their country and shame their team. I really feel for the players who can't but be affected by what is going on off the field. Such behaviour is a disgrace at any time, but this year, the French police are fully occupied in trying to keep everyone safe from the terrorist threats following earlier ISIS outrages. They should not have to be dealing with the scum of one of their closest neighbours and allies. If these idiots want to fight then perhaps the authorities should round them all up, drop them off somewhere in Syria and take back some deserving refugees in their place. Hopefully the young English team will restore a little bit of English pride later tonight, but to be honest, the sight of those odious thugs has largely drained me of the anticipation I had for watching England in this tournament.

Regardless of what your opinion of our politicians is, the fact remains that they are the people who make our laws and we, as the electorate get the politicians we vote for. There's an element of chicken and egg here but the reason why so many top politicians these days appear to be so focussed on their own self advancement is that the public want their politicians to be personalities. This, of course, is largely spearheaded by the media which is dominated by interviewers and journalists who are even more concerned with their own self publicity than the politicians are. The popular media is not interested in conveying the issues, it is interested in getting a story. Interviews are structured not to extract the views of the interviewee but to catch them out. And then if the politician's do make a faux pas it gets picked up in the print media and the focus is on that and not on all the other sound stuff the person may have said. But the media only do this because it boosts viewing figures and sales of copy. In other words, as long as we, the electorate, want our politicians to be performers and want to revel in their embarrassment when they get caught out in one way or another, then we will get politicians who reflect those warped priorities. And as long as we have a large proportion of the electorate who get swayed by nonsensical sound bite promises rather than reasoned argument, these politicians will be keep on making the promises. If we took politics and politicians more seriously we would have better politicians.

It is certainly an interesting concept and I am sure it will be interesting to see how the U20s fare against lower level senior teams and also how the top Welsh and Irish clubs fare against the likes of Hibs, Dundee Utd and Falkirk. But whilst it is an interesting concept, I have my reservations about whether it will work in practice. Most of the Div 1 and 2 clubs have very tight budgets and are unlikely to be too enthusiastic about having to go to Wales or Northern Ireland for a match. Nor will they be too chuffed at the prospect of being embarrassed by one of the U20 outfits. I think it is worth giving it a go but the real test will be what the impact of this is on the budget of the clubs taking part. I rather fear that the impact will mean this format will be a one-off.

He sounds like just the sort of player that should suit us. He has scored a good few in a poor team but sounds like the sort of player who will do better with better players around him by benefiting from the more accurate passing of players who can spot his movement. He could be a bit like Billy Mckay, but we would do well to remember that it took Billy a good while before he scored with any regularity.

This is an illustration of what I was talking about with people putting different interpretations on what may or may not be facts. Confusion results, not least amongst those who bandy these statements about. In the example above, the only feasible option is A - a spade. B is clearly wrong because a spade and a shovel are two distinctly different tools. A spade is used primarily to cut into and loosen earth etc whereas a shovel is used to scoop up and move stuff- hence the upturned edges to hold the soil in place. If Charles has been using a shovel for the purpose for which a spade is more appropriate, it is little wonder he feels calling it a f*****g shovel is a valid option. C is also not an appropriate option because whilst a spade can be used to transport soil, that is not it's primary function and if used for that function, the user will find that not much soil can be transported on a spade and that much of what was placed on the spade initially is likely not to be still on the spade when you reach the intended transportation destination. My message to Charles is that you are in a hole, so put your spade down and stop digging. Pick your shovel up and move the soil to build a ramp to help you get out of the hole. Then when you are out of the hole, get back on topic and engage in some sensible and constructive debate on what is a very important subject.

I saw a clip yesterday of the young David Dimbleby chairing a discussion prior to the referendum which took us into the EU. The politicians from the opposite side of the argument were Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins. Now those were two principled politicians who would argue their case passionately but yet would listen to their opponents respectfully before picking up on a point or two to argue. It seems those days are gone. These days it is sound bite statements rather than rational arguments and politicians and interviewers alike do not posses the common courtesy to allow people say what they have to say if they don't like what is being said. In addition, there is now so much data available from a wide variety of sources that it is almost impossible to be sure of what the real facts are and even harder to extrapolate relevant conclusions from them. This allows politicians to selectively quote statistics only to be shouted down by someone else quoting statistics which lead to a quite different conclusion. It seems the politicians are too dim to understand that nothing puts the voters off more than a shouting match. It all makes for desperately poor debate which means that at the end of the day, voters really only have their gut feelings on which to base their decisions. I'm looking forward to Thursday's debate which pits Boris Johnston against Nicola Sturgeon. The other 4 panelists are all women so it will be interesting to see whether a woman dominated debate results in a more respectful discussion. The polls are very close and there really is a need for a notable upping of the level of debate. P.S. Note - no NAT bashing!

Just because Wigan have said he's returning for pre-season doesn't mean they won't be open to offers for Billy. They might also be happy for him to be out on loan again - although not to a Scottish Championship side I would imagine.

You mean you want him to be manager of Norwich? Hands off!

We may think, and with some justification, that Hibs would be mad to appoint Hughes as their manager again, but he has been installed as the bookies' favourite. He simply cannot be the bookies favourite based on his managerial record. Were he to get the post then I for one would be smelling a rat.

The statement of 24th May specifically referred to his "departure". You can be assured that Hughes has tippy-tappy-toed his way out of the door.

Hibs would be mad to look at Hughes. They will now be desperate to get back into the top flight and need a manager who adapts the tactics to the strengths of his players. They also need a manager with a proven track record of using available cash wisely. What they do not need is a manager who wants to completely reshape the way the team plays in order to satisfy some romantic image of the way the game is played.

I think the appointment and the Chairman's excellent statement sum up what this club is all about. Richie 's lack of experience is a concern but he will have learnt an awful lot over the last few years from both Butcher and Hughes and will now have the full support from the players, the Board and others at the club. I am sure this will be a popular choice with the fans as well but I only hope people don't set their expectations too high. He'll be on a steep learning curve and will be working on a tight budget. If we can stay in the top flight whilst playing rather more entertaining football than last year. I'll be happy.

If I am perceived as Nat bashing then that is perhaps a reflection of my frustration at the way they are constantly distancing themselves from the UK in an attempt to manipulate things to deliver the one thing they really care about - independence. Regardless of the arguments for and against independence, one thing that we must surely agree on is that it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland within the EU to have their closest neighbours and biggest trading partner also in the EU. The Priority for pro-Europeans in Scotland at this moment therefore must surely be to work to ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the SNP could set aside their hatred of all things Westminster for a while and share a common platform for a common goal? That would surely strengthen the case for the remain campaign and demonstrate a bit of positive leadership for a change. Putting aside bitter differences about independence to campaign together for remaining in Europe would maybe bring home to some people just how fundamentally important political leaders throughout the country think the EU is. It would be a powerful message. But instead, we have the SNP sniping at the UK remain campaign as part of this appalling unwritten tactic of hoping for an excuse to hold a 2nd independence referendum on the back of the UK voting to leave Europe and Scotland voting to remain. It is further evidence of the "independence"at any cost mentality and not what is in Scotland's best interests. As for arguments for staying in the EU, it's basically the same as the case for remaining in the UK - we're better together.

It is difficult to take too seriously a document which starts off with such a spectacularly incorrect and divisive statement as "On 23rd June Scotland and the UK go to the polls..." Scotland is not a separate entity to the UK. Whether the SNP like it or not, the people of Scotland recently agreed that Scotland should remain part of the UK. It is the UK which goes to the polls, or even Scotland and the rest of the UK, if you like. This constant undermining of the democratic decision of the Scottish people really is rather tiresome. Having said that, there is some useful background information in the document, although the overall impression simply serves to undermine the fundamental inconsistency of the SNP's position in relation to the UK and the EU. Substitute "UK" for "EU" in much of the text and you get a good case for Scotland remaining in the UK. For instance, having condemned the so called "project fear" of the "No" camp in the independence referendum with regard to some of the uncertainties of Scotland leaving the UK, they argue the case for remaining in the EU by citing the uncertainties of the UK leaving the EU. But putting those contradictions to one side, it is actually not very helpful for people deciding which way to vote because it only gives one side of the argument. For instance, they quote figures for trade of farmed salmon with the clear inference is that if we left the EU, that market would disappear. Of course it wouldn't - just like trade with England wouldn't stop if Scotland left the UK. In addition, they point to the subsidies Scottish farmers get from the EU, but given that the UK currently pays in more to the EU than it gets out, who's to say that farmers wouldn't actually be supported better by the UK Government outside of the EU? And talking of subsidies, it is unlikely that the EU would have stepped in to support the oil industry in the way the British Government has. On a slightly different note, it was interesting watching Salmond's antics on the TV debate this week. Being assured of a vote to remain from Scottish voters, he adopted the tactic of undermining the remain campaign in the UK as a whole. This, of course, is so that they can get a UK vote to leave and justify another independence referendum. Salmond went on to say that in that scenario there would need to be a referendum within 2 years. It seems he and his party need constant reminders that they lost the Independence referendum. We voted to remain part of the UK. The whole of the UK is now going to vote on whether it wants to remain in or leave the UK. If the vote is to leave then the whole of the UK leaves. We voted to remain as part of the UK and therefore we abide by the choice of the UK electorate. If the SNP want to help people make up their minds about the EU, the most helpful thing would be to simply accept the choice of the Scottish people in the independence referendum and to honour their agreement of that being a once in a generation event. We could then focus on the real issues and people would find it a bit easier to make up their minds on the UK's place in Europe.