renton

(1) yeah and there is plenty of examples on the other side, ranging from death threats against Alex Salmond to the nastier side of twitter. (2) If running a nation were like running a business, the UK would've been in recievership a long time ago. it absolutely is not the case that 'balancing the books' is an essential part of running a country. Even at it's most wildly successful, imperial peak Britain ran a massive debt. Further, the white paper is a framework that shows how the SNP would like to run things, it's a placeholder, aspirational and with an attmept to provide figures where possible. In cases where the UK refuses to pre-negotiate, how could it be detailed? And as I've said previously, the whole thing can be easily overtaken by events. For all we know, the Common Weal's book might end up being the blue print for an iScotland. The idea that an iScotland is a huge risk to living standards is pure hyperbole. Scotland's economy ticks over at 99% of UK average GDP without the geographical share of oil. We aren't going to be significantly richer or poorer in the short term via independence. That's not fundamentally the reason for doing it, but rather for organising a more flexible and responsive democracy. (3) The fact that Scots are over represented and still only account for 59 out of 650 MPs shows how unfit for purpose the Union is. While it may be correct for the English to have the massive majority of representation, it does not mean that the Scots are not ill served by it. (4) No, I'm not championing federalism. I recognise that the SNP have been guilty of centrlasiing functions at Holyrood to create that place as an alternative and credible seat of government to Westminster. I'm also aware that Labour never had much truck with local democracy either. For the record I'm all for devolving much more to local democracies and massively reforming away from the current council structures. What independence offers is legislators much closer to the populace they serve, a government that is automatically dependent on the votes of the Scots people in a way that Westminster barely ever has been. real competition in elections and a strong like between legislator and electorate. We will need to be careful not to over represent the central belt with repsect to the rural communities, of course. That's an issue of detail, thoguh, not of intent. Scotland is a self contained polity, held together by shared experience of history and the land we share. It's only logical that this polity should be in charge of it's own destiny, to choose it's interdependencies with others, not have them imposed on us rigidly. (5) Actually, no government has to provide anything, ever - beyond the absolute basic function of central government: the organsiation of taxation to provide defence of property. Anything beyond that is based on the perogative of the government and the culture it serves to provide additional social preotection for it's citizens. In this case, the SNP has organised policies it feels shows it's social priorities towards more vulnerable parts of society. Disagree with that all you want, but 'frivolous spending policies' accoutn for 99% of all policies in all governments,everywhere - by your definition. (6) the power to raise income tax alone is pretty worthless without having the other levers of fiscal policy. It's like asking for a car, and being given a wheel and a piston head. You have more of a car today than yesterday, but you still can't drive anywhere. Fact is, when it comes ot education, that is the silver bullet. A healthy and educated electorate performs better collectively and individually, and helps drive the economey and individual self sufficiency.# (7) Since the bloc grant is derived partially from Westminster spending, it'd be naive to think that as the Westmisnter government hands over more of the English and Welsh NHS to private consortiums and reduces it's health spending accordingly, that this will not transmit into cuts in the block grant, putting the Scottish NHS under increased pressure. ( IN the year I was born (1984) There were 25,000 shipbuilding jobs in Scotland, now there are 6,000 - Union dividend? Fact is that long standing Westminster policies are not conducive to maintaining the shipbuilding industry, wholly dependent as it is on defence contracts. This proud and famous industry is circling the drain even if you vote no, for a few simple reasons: successive generations of warships are bought in smaller quantities and last longer before needing replaced. Once the T-26 contract is fulfilled there is a huge, gaping hole in the order books that won't be filled. Then what? As for Faslane, for a start, most of the defence contractors stay down south, so any decimation of local communities is unlikely to have a huge effect. secondly, it won't close as it'll be used as the HQ for the Scottish defence forces. as for technology maturing, yes, it does. I work in the Silicon industries and am acutely aware of that. Which goes back to education and university funding. The only way western nations compete is by constantly driving new technology, bringing it to maturity and then moving to the next tehcnology. You need a flexible, well educated and healthy workforce to do that.

The No side is equally, if not more so blighted and plagued by moronic behaviour, the thing is you're the one getting upset about stereotypes and categorisation, when you've already said right there that 'let's not get upset about being stereotyped'. No paper so built on future prediction could ever be accurate, it's a framework, yes - but an achievable one. Beyond that, it could quite easily be overtaken by events (a yes vote in 2014, followed by a Labour victory in 2016 - for example). Ultimately we are not voting on the contents of the white paper, but rather on a more basic concept: Should all decisions apertaining to Scotland be made by the folk who live in Scotland. Beyond that, everything is dependent on who is chosen by the people of Scotland to govern. As to your 'flip' question, well you try to constrain it by eliminating 'give everything away for free' policies, which tries to paint certain things in a perjorative light, while being factually incorrect - Scotland has no choice but to balance it's budget, it can't run deficits independent of westminster so that every penny ScotGov spends from the bloc grant we are given is accounted for. Beyond that, I am a firm believer in maintaining the public ownership character of the NHS, and of maintaining as wide an access to tertiary education as possible. Devolution has further allowed a central Scottish body to promote investment and a long term strategy in things like renewable energies, striving to actually have an industrial strategy being entirely novel amongst the elected bodies in these islands since 1979. In the end, I believe that government at such a remove is simply bad for us. Culture is shaped by history, by geography. There are opportunities and challenges that face Scotland and the people living here that do not fit into Westminster's London centric viewpoint. Locality counts, as you can see from the 80s deindustrialisation (for example) - covered by an oil and financial boom, but still hurting a lot of people. You can further see it in the ignorance and absence of genuine poltiical competition at westminster level in Scotland. We can do better than that. This isn't about individual policies or parties, it's about systems and the cultures of those systems, and I can clearly see how having a seperate Scottish body since 1999 has given us a flexiblity that has helped us massively. I now want to extend that principle to all other domestic and foreign policy spheres.

And this happens, does it? Look, your thre one steaming in here with the original accusations, attempting to stereotype a movement based on one exchange between two folk on the internet - both of whom have been at it for weeks if not months. Maybe check your own biases on this. Can i ask though, and bare in mind that the white paper is nothing more than a rough framework, which bits do you think are bad for the country and why you think Westmisnter does a better job?

yeah, he's also got a whole load of infinitely darker stuff as well, like the "Spoilsbury toast boy" or "A B&W cartoon about..." series. Fantastic imagination and brilliant animation.

So this month's email from headquarters has told you to push the 'it's a distraction' line. For what it's worth, it hasn't lowered these things on the agenda - as if people could only concentrate on one thing at a time. In actual fact I think it's got more people talking about social issues on a much broader and deeper scale than at any point since the destruction of the left 30 odd years ago. It's actually got a lot of people from different backgrounds talking alternative solutions to longstanding social issues - it's got them researching, looking at how others deal with similar problems. Granted it's a wee bit different from the standard Labour approach, which is to take a focus group from the English home counties, ask them what they think and then do what the daily Mail tells them, but in my opinion - this debate has been by far a healthier approach to asking questions about how the coutnry is run and for who's benefit, than waiting for 'Ed' to finish his triangulating.

Weeeellllll......

Loan move for Graham seems pointless from both his point of view as he's on his last year at Dundee United. Even doing well might make it hard for him to get another offer from United. Surely better to stick it out and try and get a run of games at United.

28 goals in a season in the first division isn't the standard of player you should be looking to sign? Whether or not he is able to make the step up to SPL is neither here, nor there, but you are saying a guy who scored an absolute shed load of goals in the first division, isn't the type of player you should be signing?

Don't think there are any new polls, and the only poll that shows that kind of No lead recently was the last YouGov poll.

We weren't particularly prolific last year either: 3 goals over the 4 games, same as this year. At least, going into the league last year, we socred enough and were tight enough to actually do well over the first few months,

f**k knows where the goals are gonna come from on Saturday if Glen doesn't start.

For the little we've seen of him, I thought Conroy has been fairly diligent with his defensive duties. One thing maybe worth mentioning is that Conroy doesn't cut in nearly so much. he doesn't go for the byeline that much iether but seems to want to put balls across the box from quite deep (which is fine becuase he certainly can whip a decent ball in) that must limit the space for McKeown to attack down that side. part of the reason Booth was so proficient at attacking the left side byline is surely because Cardle was so intent on making space for him to do so on the overlap by cutting inside on his right. Conroy is left footed and won't give up that axis of attack so often as he has to keep it on that side to get a decent delivery.

Difficult to judge, given the standard of full back he was up against. Played wide and looked ok. Left his full back exposed a bit but then it's not really his preferred position I guess. Would like to have seen him get another game up top for us.

Released from his contract? Bet you Baird would be on the phone sharpish to get him to QoS....

Your a moisturiser?

Shortens the crock, but not the list of crocks. Still, got to applaud any progress I guess.

Any indication as to when our list of crocks is going to shorten?

That's a blessing at least.

Anything of interest in the FFP today?

I drank a bottle of M&S "Florida" orange juice on my way to last Saturday's game. #involved.

Usually I step out in the middle of the day to watch the Rovers get humped before I get back into it.

dear god, I'll be in the pub for hours that day.....

BBC alba job?

World war 3 wouldn't last long enough for anyone to pick sides, but that's ok because we'd all lose anyway.

I think there are two things to remember about that, firstly is that the GK behind the back 4 doe smake a big difference to how the defence in front of them plays, and while Laidlaw has the potential, he's maybe not there yet in commanding his defenders in front of him. Secondly, that while on paper we were only one player away from a first choice back four, Watson is only just back fit (kinda reminds me of last pre seaosn when he was thrown in against Hearts at two hours notice and didn't cover himself in glory) and his partner last night, Ellis, is barely credible as a defender at senior level anymore - let alone the championship. The big worry is getting players back and fit through the cup games. If it had been anyone but a Fife team, I'd have been less worried about crashing out of the challenge cup, but a derby's a derby.