Laurence

Are you talking to me? How old are you? One of the reason I stopped posting on here was because of Idiotic comments from people wearing yellow and gold glasses. this is not pub talk but a serious debate,

I think the Prime Minister has enough on his plate with Syria and Iraqi insurgence at the moment. To use up valuable time on this issue. He Has said he does not have a vote. There are others on the No side capable of debating issues of this nature. From my observations all you get in these debates are cheap manifesto points that have no relevance to long term separation. Seperation from the Union geos much deeper than SNP promises in the short term. In any event who knows who in the event of a yes vote will control Scotland or even the Uk in the future. So any particular party cannot give long term commitment's of any kind , debates between politicians are just entertainment and used in a media eating frenzy. Nothing more than boo ray episodes. We clap and boo according to who makes the next futile point. The Ironic point is most BBC staff will move south in the event of a Yes vote.

This referendum is not about personalities It is not about the present political situation It is not a general election It is not about manifesto issues or policies It is about Scotland leaving a Union is has been an important member of for over 300 years A Union that was set up by a Scottish king who became a king of all the British Isles and beyond Scotland has over those 300 years enjoyed great wealth generated by industries mainly operating from the Northern counties of England and the great ship building yards throughout Great Britain The United Kingdom is still a power in the world and its influence is seen over all parts of the globe The wealth created in the City Of London, in banking and Finance has brought prosperity to these Islands that sustained the country in two massive wealth draining wars during the 20th century The Civil Service in Whitehall is generally regarded as the most efficient organisation of its type throughout the world. What we have is a policy from the Nationalists which is riddled with uncertainties' maybe not now, but in 5 10 20 or even 100 years time. It is gambling with the future. there are very few Income tax payers in Scotland as a percentage of the population at a guess less than 2 million of that 2 million not many will pay more than £2000 a year , making an estimate of somewhere in the region of 2 billion pounds , the NHS alone costs 5 or 6 times that amount. You can add VAT income to that amount and revenue from oil. Also subtract the very favourable Barnet formula which is the money Scotland gets now each year. Most of Scotland's Income will go in paying for Imports. ( the reason why the Chancellor does not want pounds sterling to be used by Scotland is that the pound will be weakened if it has the burden of paying for a a foreign countries imports. ( Scotland) It wont do that. The Chancellor said," leave the Union leave the pound". I don't feel that the Nationalists boast that the Chancellors words where a bluff is valid. I think from his point of view a very sound comment. On my last trip to England I counted 200 HGV,s heading up the motorway an hour carry goods into Scotland. All those goods have to be paid for , not by pounds sterling if the Chancellor, does not back down. When a country becomes autonomous it needs a foreign policy i.e representatives in each capital City throughout the world , I am told without the cost of buildings, that Ambassadors, secretaries and staff cost well over £2 million pounds each. Not to mention the cost of setting up passport services etc. Foreign policy will need lots of good quality civil servants, To attract them from London will cost a financially back breaking premium. I recommend that if the "Yes" vote prevails people in Scotland should keep hold of their UK passport, no point going abroad without the back up of the UK for problems. Also cheque with your car insurance , sometimes you need extra insurance crossing International borders. Also remember your mail to England will cross an International border and will quite probably require an international cost. As the Nats are threatening to Nationalise the Royal Mail , this will cause a break up of the mail service with England when mail passes over the border it will pass to a separate company causing potential extra costs. I personally will leave all my savings and banking in England. I may even buy a house in England to save guard my Interests , I lived in France for a while and I found that was the best policy. I am considering all my options, should the Yes prevail. I do not relish, living in a foreign land. I suspect the Scots living in England feel the same way.

A Quote From J K Rowling I pass on I came to the question of independence with an open mind and an awareness of the seriousness of what we are being asked to decide. This is not a general election, after which we can curse the result, bide our time and hope to get a better result in four years. Whatever Scotland decides, we will probably find ourselves justifying our choice to our grandchildren. I wanted to write this because I always prefer to explain in my own words why I am supporting a cause and it will be made public shortly that I’ve made a substantial donation to the Better Together Campaign, which advocates keeping Scotland part of the United Kingdom. As everyone living in Scotland will know, we are currently being bombarded with contradictory figures and forecasts/warnings of catastrophe/promises of Utopia as the referendum approaches and I expect we will shortly be enjoying (for want of a better word) wall-to-wall coverage. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am friendly with individuals involved with both the Better Together Campaign and the Yes Campaign, so I know that there are intelligent, thoughtful people on both sides of this question. Indeed, I believe that intelligent, thoughtful people predominate. However, I also know that there is a fringe of nationalists who like to demonise anyone who is not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence and I suspect, notwithstanding the fact that I’ve lived in Scotland for twenty-one years and plan to remain here for the rest of my life, that they might judge me ‘insufficiently Scottish’ to have a valid view. It is true that I was born in the West Country and grew up on the Welsh border and while I have Scottish blood on my mother’s side, I also have English, French and Flemish ancestry. However, when people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste. By residence, marriage, and out of gratitude for what this country has given me, my allegiance is wholly to Scotland and it is in that spirit that I have been listening to the months of arguments and counter-arguments. On the one hand, the Yes campaign promises a fairer, greener, richer and more equal society if Scotland leaves the UK, and that sounds highly appealing. I’m no fan of the current Westminster government and I couldn’t be happier that devolution has protected us from what is being done to health and education south of the border. I’m also frequently irritated by a London-centric media that can be careless and dismissive in its treatment of Scotland. On the other hand, I’m mindful of the fact that when RBS needed to be bailed out, membership of the union saved us from economic catastrophe and I worry about whether North Sea oil can, as we are told by the ‘Yes’ campaign, sustain and even improve Scotland’s standard of living. Some of the most pro-independence people I know think that Scotland need not be afraid of going it alone, because it will excel no matter what. This romantic outlook strikes a chord with me, because I happen to think that this country is exceptional, too. Scotland has punched above its weight in just about every field of endeavour you care to mention, pouring out world-class scientists, statesmen, economists, philanthropists, sportsmen, writers, musicians and indeed Westminster Prime Ministers in quantities you would expect from a far larger country. My hesitance at embracing independence has nothing to do with lack of belief in Scotland’s remarkable people or its achievements. The simple truth is that Scotland is subject to the same twenty-first century pressures as the rest of the world. It must compete in the same global markets, defend itself from the same threats and navigate what still feels like a fragile economic recovery. The more I listen to the Yes campaign, the more I worry about its minimisation and even denial of risks. Whenever the big issues are raised – our heavy reliance on oil revenue if we become independent, what currency we’ll use, whether we’ll get back into the EU - reasonable questions are drowned out by accusations of ‘scaremongering.’ Meanwhile, dramatically differing figures and predictions are being slapped in front of us by both campaigns, so that it becomes difficult to know what to believe. I doubt I’m alone in trying to find as much impartial and non-partisan information as I can, especially regarding the economy. Of course, some will say that worrying about our economic prospects is poor-spirited, because those people take the view ‘I’ll be skint if I want to and Westminster can’t tell me otherwise’. I’m afraid that’s a form of ‘patriotism’ that I will never understand. It places higher importance on ‘sticking it’ to David Cameron, who will be long gone before the full consequences of independence are felt, than to looking after your own. It prefers the grand ‘up yours’ gesture to considering what you might be doing to the prospects of future generations. The more I have read from a variety of independent and unbiased sources, the more I have come to the conclusion that while independence might give us opportunities – any change brings opportunities – it also carries serious risks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes that Alex Salmond has underestimated the long-term impact of our ageing population and the fact that oil and gas reserves are being depleted. This view is also taken by the independent study ‘Scotland’s Choices: The Referendum and What Happens Afterwards’ by Iain McLean, Jim Gallagher and Guy Lodge, which says that ‘it would be a foolish Scottish government that planned future public expenditure on the basis of current tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas’. My fears about the economy extend into an area in which I have a very personal interest: Scottish medical research. Having put a large amount of money into Multiple Sclerosis research here, I was worried to see an open letter from all five of Scotland's medical schools expressing ‘grave concerns’ that independence could jeopardise what is currently Scotland’s world-class performance in this area. Fourteen professors put their names to this letter, which says that Alex Salmond’s plans for a common research funding area are ‘fraught with difficulty’ and ‘unlikely to come to fruition’. According to the professors who signed the letter, ‘it is highly unlikely that the remaining UK would tolerate a situation in which an independent “competitor” country won more money than it contributed.’ In this area, as in many others, I worry that Alex Salmond’s ambition is outstripping his reach. I’ve heard it said that ‘we’ve got to leave, because they’ll punish us if we don’t’, but my guess is that if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. All the major political parties are currently wooing us with offers of extra powers, keen to keep Scotland happy so that it does not hold an independence referendum every ten years and cause uncertainty and turmoil all over again. I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay. If we leave, though, there will be no going back. This separation will not be quick and clean: it will take microsurgery to disentangle three centuries of close interdependence, after which we will have to deal with three bitter neighbours. I doubt that an independent Scotland will be able to bank on its ex-partners’ fond memories of the old relationship once we’ve left. The rest of the UK will have had no say in the biggest change to the Union in centuries, but will suffer the economic consequences. When Alex Salmond tells us that we can keep whatever we’re particularly attached to – be it EU membership, the pound or the Queen, or insists that his preferred arrangements for monetary union or defence will be rubber-stamped by our ex-partners - he is talking about issues that Scotland will need, in every case, to negotiate. In the words of ‘Scotland’s Choices’ ‘Scotland will be very much the smaller partner seeking arrangements from the UK to meet its own needs, and may not be in a very powerful negotiating position.’ If the majority of people in Scotland want independence I truly hope that it is a resounding success. While a few of our fiercer nationalists might like to drive me forcibly over the border after reading this, I’d prefer to stay and contribute to a country that has given me more than I can easily express. It is because I love this country that I want it to thrive. Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 18th September, it will be a historic moment for Scotland. I just hope with all my heart that we never have cause to look back and feel that we made a historically bad mistake."

Now for the other mob from the 2nd city of the empire 2nd round of the league cup I mean ( not Patick who ICT visit shortly)

Absolutely Brill

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome Basically No is around 8-1 ON to win Yes is 5 or 6 to 1 against to win

so dont !!! any more politics - from either perspective - on this thread will be deleted Sorry mate , but delete away if you want

Won't be a BBC if there is a Yes vote. Licence fees are decided at Westminster. Don't want to derail this topic onto politics, speaking from a footballing perspective only/

Well thankfully I have to eat humble pie. I have not been John Hughes greatest fan, but I have to take my hat off to him Not having conceded a goal and 7 points in the bag and 5 away goals. As IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER touched on earlier it is to be hoped that our away form is not going to dominate the season. The negative outlook is that teams may park the bus at our gaff, but not on their own grounds. I didn't go to the game so I can only comment 3rd hand , but I raise my glass to JH well done.

Regarding booing I took it not to be aimed at the players or the ref other than the instance mentioned above, I agree that the Ref should have played the advantage. ( It would be nice if the law was in line with Rugby Union ) . I think the booing I certainly heard was discontent with the tactics , not the players. The players where just following orders. As I was half asleep with boredom at the time maybe I got a totally wrong impression. I have seen great teams in the past , for example I was at Old Trafford when Cantona was playing I saw short passing employed. The difference was a through ball to Giggs and a run down the wing a centre to Canona and the ball in th back of the net all in a flash. Short passing has to be connected to a lightning break or there is no point in doing it Another time on the box this time Italy playing England , Italy passing short , but then Costacurta the Italian Centre Half suddenly hit the ball the length of the pitch and Zola rammed it into the net When I was in France I watch immaculate short passing from Lens ( In their championship season) but the Lens defensive back four could hit long balls to the winger and set up great attacks. Even our own ICT towards the end of last season, I forget the match when our left fullback sent the ball right across the ground to our right wing the centre came over and Christie scored again in a flash. The credit for the goal went to the scorer but it was made by the back disobeying orders. ZOLA goal for Italian speakers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcDEOYWu80E Cantona scores https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j8S7S4xoH0

Well I am not so sure but if you say so, of course I BOW TO YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE, MY PERCEPTION WAS THE REF HAD A VERY GOOD GAME.

It is early season so don't judge too soon, or should we? I am sure the players realise they have to work on the final ball. We seem to be working on a wing back principle without the 3rd centre back If a fullback is in attacking mode he has to get in a more challenging position and get goal side of his marker To make myself clear not much point in passing to an unmarked fullback who is on the wrong side of the defence. Surely the inside forward ( showing my age)_ has to draw the marker then pass inside to the winger or wing back. There was booing last night from sections of the home crowd , I didn't hear a single song not even the mandatory cat calling of the referee ;something I don't like but it shows we were all but going to sleep. I thought after the Hamilton game Hughes had got his message across , he may have, but I now think the players are afraid to express themselves, I feel they feel hidebound to follow instructions to the letter. Professional footballers should be given licence to adjust to the situation and do what they feel good at, without fear of a rollicking from the head coach. This is most apparent with the goalkeeper, who seems to be under duress to feed a short ball out every time. Surely an element of surprise would be an occasional thump up the field. Often opposition centre backs miss head the ball and .attackers can latch on to it. I have been watching football matches since 1949 and I can't believe what I am seeing, it is neither fish nor fowl as they say. No wonder Hartlepool were relegated under Hughes's tenure. We have played two promoted sides - what will good sides in the division make of our style ? I am sure the coaches of Motherwell and Celtic will see the videos of the game and will work on a pressing game to cut down the room for short passing . .

My perception of the game was a typical early season match. Nobody really wanted to dominate the proceedings. Caley seemed content to rely on a slow build up, which allowed Dundee time to fall back and park the bus. Hughes is obviously trying to make his mark on the way ICT play, but somehow a mix in the passes was lacking i.e a reluctance to get forward was very apparent.. We seem to be playing a half way house, short passing that is but without the killer through balls that is normally linked with that approach. Dundee played well, content to fall back, tackle hard, but when given the chance got forward on the counter, Dundee had chances to win the game and could with a bit of good fortune done so. Caley's finishing was not good, the few chances they had were squandered by rushing the shot. Why try to blast the ball? when it would be simpler to pass the ball into the net. I thought a rush of blood was in evidence when shooting. Hughes has certainly changed the style of plat, time will tell if for the better.

Oh dear !

My first home in 1969 as a married man was in Edgbaston Birmingham way back in 1969 My birthday today 71

Check the Olympic table Time will tell

I like Flower of Scotland I do not like Land of Dope and Tory I would like Abide with me ( albeit I am not religious ) The way England is getting medals I think "Teddy bears picnic * might be in order To read the Scottish press You would think Scotland was way out in front with the medals It looks like Yorkshire will get as many

I will sign off as I'm accused of being infantile - To say one last and final point About attendances at football matches They have dropped throughout all leagues eg. In 1971 or so Bury played Bolton at Gigg Lane and 35,000 souls turned up Rochdale entertained Bury in a 3rd Div North match and had about 19'000 there so to compare historical attendances with modern day crowds is pointless

You've made a pig's ear of that reference. Boer - boar - bore. Simply off topic and infantile. Infantile - Brilliant I so wish, 71 I am two weeks Friday. Oh to be Infantile !! Bombs dropping on London on my birthday - now that is another topic and definitely off but not simple - oh for quiet times and the infantile references that fill our days.

I am worried we will go to Hamilton unprepared for the barrage that newly promoted teams always start the season with, besides Accies are a bit of a bogey team I think we will not be ready? Chelsea could play their own reserves and get a better try out than most teams Most of Chelsea players have been to the World cup and are as fit as butchers dogs

Raith Rovers Fleetwood Birmingham Seem to me the only friendlies that will give the team a proper work out The rest against part timers and non - League teams with the possible exception of Elgin are nothing more than mild training sessions are ICT having enough pre-season pressures ? Unless I have missed something

Give the bloke a chance he is by far the most knowledgeable of all the posters on this aspect It is getting very boring ( someone mentioned the boar war earlier) to keep taking the Michael out of Charles

Why the ek dust keep babblin on with a mock Lanky accent. Its all bunk da nose nobut just a mock fake, stick tu scotch lad. before da mecks a reight clown o' thi sen yoof would in my lanky days be yung uns or nobbut lads bowton probably better written as boughton as bowton sounds like a womens hat band attiwemi lad or agin mi Hey Lanky Lanky Lanky - Lanky Lanky Lanky - Lancishere