Guy Incognito

Yesterday was my first time sampling the famous Killie pie and I wasn't disappointed.

According to the Herald they do. Or did. http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/one-year-on-will-better-together-change-their-tactics.21402294 Unionist politicians have, grudgingly, admitted that Scotland could survive as an independent nation, but only fairly recently. After the SNP started winning elections the penny finally dropped Scottish people don't particularly like being told they are shite and it isn't what they believe anyway Lord Robertson's comments certainly were bizarre (that's putting it mildly) as were Phillip Hammond's remarks the other day about alien invasions. There have also been comments made about speed limits, time zones, civil unrest, ethnic cleansing, mobile phone roaming charges, border posts and not being allowed to watch certain TV programmes. It is even happening on here. Eight or nine months ago Norgethistle used to make quite reasonable posts on this subject. Now he is gibbering about £12 pints and making up stories about SNP MSPs racially abusing English people!

And what is your opinion of the increasingly demented and hysterical outpourings emanating from the pro-union camp? Incidentally, 'Project Fear' is a name they gave themselves. Even in their more lucid moments the unionists demand answers to questions that often cannot be answered - by anyone. At least not at this point in time. And so we, the public, get the tried and trusted 'uncertainty' line shoved down our throats. I don't think anyone from the Yes campaign has pretended that Scotland will become, or even could become, some kind of utopia, simply that things could be better than they are now. The overriding message of their campaign is that Scotland should run its own affairs. For the life of me I cannot see what is objectionable about that concept. If someone could point out the fundamental flaw in that idea then I will possibly reconsider my position. Until then I expect I will remain very much convinced that the way forward for Scotland is for it to take control of its own affairs. What statements and tweets?

Ozzy hobbled past me in the JHS before the Hibs game on crutches and with a stookie on his foot the size of his head. I am no medic, but based on that alone I would say it is unlikely!

Soopoib.

I have just heard that Lord Robertson's limo broke down on the way home today. Apparently its cataclysmic converter packed in.

My face would be King Crimson if I had come out with that one!

I hope this isn't the Genesis of yet another terrible pun thread.

It might be worth getting in touch with this chap: https://twitter.com/CStephenssnp Apparently he was selling them outside the JHS before the Celtic game.

There is a completely dearth of Margo Macdonalds in modern politics and that is very much to its detriment. A principled woman who spoke her mind and who clearly had little time for the bullsh*t and posturing which often defines party politics nowadays. Regardless of your political persuasion, it would take a hard heart not to have respected her. Undoubtedly, Scotland's political scene is a place without her.

Agree with both of the above. For the first 20 - 25 minutes we looked like we would win comfortably but then Hearts began to dominate in midfield and deservedly got a goal back. The single most disappointing thing for me yesterday was that the team took to the field in the second half and continued in the same insipid manner as they finished the first. Paul Gallacher in particular looked furious as he went in at half-time and I fully expected there to be some strong words exchanged in the dressing room. If there were, then they didn't have the desired effect because the team just looked disorganised and toothless. Hearts' team spirit was palpable and only to be expected for a team that has spent the season fighting for its life I am loathe to lay too much blame at the management's door, and it is easy to be wise in hindsight, but I think Archie got the set-up of the team wrong yesterday. Starting with four attackers meant that he had nowhere to go if we found ourselves chasing the game - as we ended up doing. It also meant that we got overrun in central midfield, arguably Hearts' strongest area. By the time Bauben was on, presumably to shore up the midfield, we were playing catch-up. The mass exit from the north stand when Hearts' fourth went in was embarrassing too. If you have the nerve to stand there, chest puffed out, singing "we're Partick Thistle, we score when we want" then at least have the baws to front it out when things aren't going our way. I don't imagine the sight of a significant portion of the crowd streaming out and the away support taking the piss makes our players play any better either.

They actually are just like them! An obnoxious couple who everyone else hates and who spend their lives thinking of ways to f*ck each other over.

Kilmarnock - A Short History of Tractors in Ukranian.

The SPFA - A Confederacy of Dunces.

Ach, they are just stealing Andy Burnham's patter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10648238/Labour-oppose-Scottish-independence-because-they-fear-losing-power-in-Westminster.html

With the squad they have there is no way they should be adrift at the bottom of that league. For that reason alone my sympathy for Morton is limited. If there is someone I do have some sympathy for it is Douglas Rae. Seemingly he has come in for criticism from a section of their support, which I find quite amazing. Now, you could argue that instead of spending hand over fist to bring in established pros he should have played the long game and invested his money in a proper youth system and done something - anything! - about their midden of a ground. Leave a legacy, in other words. But the auld boy is 85 years-old. When he is away, who are they going to get their money from then?

It got pretty heated in the city end of the JHS, where a sizable gaggle of Celtic fans (I am sure there is more apt collective noun for them, but it is late) decided it would be fun to taunt the home support, and a number of our lot responded in kind. Plod couldn't haven't been less interested. From what I have been reading on Twitter the atmosphere in the Main Stand was even more poisonous. In fairness to the club there isn't much they can do, save restricting access to the JHS to season ticket holders only. But, of course, doing that means losing out on a sizable chunk of income.

If they had been more radical then it might have made it harder for the unionists to pick holes in their plans, which would have been a good thing in my view. It is hard to pick holes in something you don't understand. I think they decided to play it safe because a lot of people still quite like the royal family and the BBC (although f*ck knows why). Like with your sons, it is good that it has got people talking though. Whatever the result it will hopefully keep people's eyes open to things. Independence is for life, not just for a few years. Incidentally, the retirement age is set to be raised to 68 in the UK - in spite of the, admittedly tragic, fact that people in Scotland die earlier than elsewhere in the UK, on average. At least with independence we could tailor this to suit our own demographics; and if life expectancy increases then that will be fantastic. To counter this, we could also tailor our immigration policy to suit and look at stimulating the birth rate by making things more 'family friendly'. I have to disagree with the highlighted part of your first sentence, Jaggernaut. The truth is, we don't know what the status quo will look like if we vote No. It is, though, looking increasingly likely, if not inevitable, that Barnett will be scrapped, meaning that regardless of how much money is generated in Scotland we will only get back what Westminster grants us on a per capita basis.

The fact that that is Scotland's fourth clean sheet in row is impressive. What is even more impressive is that last night's clean sheet came courtesy of a back four consisting of two right-backs (one of whom doesn't play club football), a midfielder, and a 32-year-old centre-half who plays for Brighton and Hove Albion. Last night's performance reminded me of the Craig Brown days: Scotland played an essentially defensive game but retained possession well and used quick attackers to hit on the break. I think that is what Craig Levein was trying to achieve, but unfortunately wasn't competent enough to convey that to his players.

To me, it sounds like you are saying you don't feel it is worth the bother. I actually understand that, although I disagree. Anything worth doing takes time. For instance, a republican Scotland isn't on offer - at the moment - but that doesn't mean that will remain the case for ever. The currency union, if we take the unionist parties at their word, is currently dead in the water. By extension so is the Euro, given that a requirement to join is that a country must have had its own floated currency for a certain period (two years, I think). A federal UK could work and I could be persuaded to give that a shot, but that is most definitely not on anyone's agenda at present. My vision of an inde Scotland is a bit to the left of most people's, and certainly the SNP, but that is a debate to have - and one I would relish having - post-independence. I have now reached the point where I feel independence is a necessity if we truly want Scotland to improve. Unfortunately, the debate keeps getting bogged down with issues connected with things like currency. Now, that isn't insignificant, far from it, but it isn't the be all and end all.

I am struggling to follow your logic a bit here. You say you would be in favour of change but what the SNP propose isn't radical enough, so instead you favour no change at all? To be honest, I don't subscribe entirely to the SNP brand of independence either. Essentially, it is just Devo Max with some sprinkles on top. But even that is preferable to maintaining the status quo. In fairness to them, building things from the ground up appears to be exactly what they are trying to do, rather than making too many radical changes all at once. Slowly, slowly catchy monkey. For a long time I have felt that the negotiation period post-Yes will present the biggest challenge to the SNP; it is almost inconceivable that it will go as smoothly as Salmond often suggests. However, as corny as this may sound, I firmly believe that a Scotland run fully by the people who live there and genuinely care about it is vastly preferable to the state of affairs we have at present. The last thing I want to see, post-independence, is for Scotland to end up in a 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' situation. Things have to be different, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless. Maybe I have bought into the concept a little too profoundly, but in the event of leaving the UK and its post-imperialist pretentions behind I honestly think Scotland would start from a ground zero of tying to do things differently. The thought of decades more edacious, right-wing, 'I'll scratch your back', Westminster rule depresses me deeply. Anyone who thinks that 'socialist utopias' have low income taxes probably doesn't understand how socialist - or social democratic - societies work. Many European nations have income tax rates of around 30%. That said, it is more important to increase the overall tax take than to simply tax people more. Increase earnings and the government's tax take will rise in turn. I accept that increased taxation is probably a hard sell, especially in our society where the neo-American 'me-me' mindset has become ingrained. But if the benefits of paying a bit more in to get a bit more out are explained properly, then it could fly.

It would be a reversal of the political union which began in 1707. The union of the crowns would, as I understand it, remain in place. Speaking as someone who favours a republic, however, I would be quite happy to see both dissolved. One step at a time though, eh. As for your last question, it is an interesting one but it is one I don't know the answer to. Maybe one of our unionist brethren can enlighten us though.

Standard Life have form for this kind of thing though. Here is a newspaper article highlighting what they said in 1992 ahead of the general election of that year: They are actually being a wee bit more circumspect this time. This is their official statement: http://www.standardlife.com/utility/customer_statement.html Their approach is just one of due diligence, on face value at least. From the way it was reported, though, you would have thought they had already begun dismantling their headquarters brick by brick. The misreporting of this fairly minor story was outrageous. Nowhere, for instance, do they say they will move to England, as was widely suggested in the media.

Full time. I am reasonably happy with that.

Ditto.