Leaderboard

I think the question you raise is valid, I'm not sure the conclusion is though. Let's be clear, if there was votes in it every politician would say they were Rangers supporters. They would feign an interest in all things Govan, lie about attending famous old matches and have their photograph taken with players every opportunity they could. But they don't, and the reason they don't is because there are no votes in it. Maybe the opposite. That's not just the SNP though, that's pretty much every party. There's been the odd Tory, Labour and indeed Scottish Socialist politician who has spoken about being a Rangers supporter, but none in the way say Brain Wilson spoke about being a Celtic fan, George Foulkes did about Hearts or Gordon Brown did about being a Raith Rovers fan. Why is that? It cuts across political belief FS, it's not just an SNP thing. The truth is you've seen plenty of MPs and MSPs of all parties publicly declare allegiance to Celtic, and countless other sides, without concern it'll effect their chance of election. I mean John Reid was a Celtic director whilst being MP for bloody Airdrie! For me there are two things to consider. Firstly is that Rangers supporters don't hold set political views. Thousands of Rangers supporters must have voted Labour for decades, thousands now must vote SNP. In truth a Rangers supporter from Bearsden is likely to vote differently from a Rangers supporter from Drumchapel. Social class, upbringing and family influence have a far, far bigger influence than where they go on a Saturday afternoon. Like wise I suspect a Rangers supporter based in the Aberdeenshire coastal towns might hold quite different political views and have quite different political priorities to one raised in inner-city Glasgow or a post-industrial rust belt Lanarkshire town. Indeed supporting Rangers might be the only thing they have in common. Second thing is Rangers are simply not fashionable for the chattering classes to support. The BBC can maintain a faux boycott of our ground and players and there is barely a murmur of complaint. Rightly or wrongly we're seen as out-of-touch with mainstream popular opinion. Despite most people in Scotland being 'unionists' flag waving about it makes people uncomfortable, it's not what most 'unionists' do. Subjects like Orange Walks and Northern Ireland don't engage mainstream unionists in Scotland, indeed I'd venture they actually repel them. As the country becomes increasingly secular all public expressions of religion are less and less popular and expressions of what many perceive, rightly or wrongly, as bigotry are quite unpopular. As a support and as a club I don't know how we address this. We've no political influence, very little media influence and are increasingly being pushed into the margins culturally.

I'm not trying to take anything from you, why would I? I'm merely pointing out the SNP see us as one of the last pillars of Unionism in Scotland which in itself should be pretty clear to anyone.

I'd welcome anyone to Ibrox to support The Rangers, whatever their political persuasion, creed, colour, class, sexuality, religion or anything else, we're a broad church that does not have to fit with anyone's identikit vision of a Bear. And to be quite honest, my decision on the ballot paper is very rarely, if ever, influenced by my sporting allegiance. Each to their own.

Anybody ever seen an SNP MP or MSP out themselves as a Rangers fan? They view us as one of the last remaining pillars of Unionism in Scotland and as is their raison d'etre want to knock us down.

Linesman who did his job... gets another job, shocker! This is embarrassing.

We laugh at the obsession and paranoia of the Tim’s. Yet we have posters on here who think you cannot be a real Rangers fan or not as good a fan as them because you vote SNP and/or support Independence. Those with that bigoted and stupid belief are a small minority in the Rangers suppprt. I don’t know of one Bear who would come out with that nonsense, my Rangers pals support various parties.

Every political party or movement creates a "profile" of beliefs, standards, language and other identifiers that serve to both define and control how it communicates internally and externally. The SNP took this to an extreme a few years ago when they issued a dictat forbidding any member to publicly disagree with Party policy. Many parties are so focussed on their mantras and so afraid of deviation that the dogma starts to dictate policy, instead of the other way round, and all sorts of contradictions start to appear. We see the left marching to protest white discrimination against blacks in Africa but never discrimination against (for example) whites in South Africa or Asians in Uganda, or even black on black atrocities such as Rwanda. Clearly, racism or discrimination (as such) can't be the real issue and other unspoken (unspeakable?) drivers have to be in play. The levels of hypocrisy can be quite perverse and overwhelming. In the context of this topic, the SNP is a treasure trove of dichotomy and contradiction. We see from this thread alone that people who support a club with a long Unionist tradition are perfectly happy to also argue fervently in favour of a political party dedicated to breaking that Union. To carry the burden of this contradiction, many try to build a wall between the two issues, as if contrived compartmentalisation is somehow an acceptable substitute for honest principle and consistency. This fragmentation of issues into ever more eclectic positions is seldom helpful and often just reflects a poor grasp on anything ... hence the current obsession with the importance of "feelings" rather than facts. Those leading the SNP may well be anti-Rangers on a personal level but I believe they are also anti-Rangers on a party political basis. It's absolutely no secret the SNP has long courted votes of the Irish community in Scotland, a community that clearly identifies with certain institutions such as the Catholic Church and Celtic FC. This is undeniable. With the collapse of Labour in Scotland, I would say the SNP has been spectacularly successful in this regard and is now, in fact as well as aspiration, one of the core institutions of the Irish community. And hats off to the SNP in terms of identifying, pursuing and delivering a political strategy that brought them to power despite a threadbare economic or social agenda. Is the SNP anti-Rangers? I believe it is but more in terms of political strategy and convenience than deeply entrenched bigotry. At least that's how it started off. The bigotry certainly exists for a number of prominent nationalists, including MSPs and MPs, but I believe it is the convenient political position that has attracted, encouraged and made a platform for the public utterances we find so despicable. It is the engagement between nationalism and the Irish community, bolstered by that community's long socialist profile, that has also served to discourage politicians of all parties from declaring any support for our own club, associated as it is with Unionism. The big problem for the SNP is the tail is now wagging the dog and a transference of influence has taken place that is encouraging the older, more tribal bigotries to ferment and grow within clearly anti-British (anti-Rangers) parts of Scottish society. This is particularly evident across the broad swathe of Scottish media. The SNP is both a driver and a focus for anti-Rangers sentiment. Whether it is still in control of the demons it set loose is another question altogether and it may well pay a heavy price for a few years of political advantage, much of which it has squandered dreadfully.

Deliberately, I eased off on matters PQ; knowing that it would run interference on the previews and reactions to the old firm match. As stated earlier, BBC Radio Scotland promised live commentary coverage of the then upcoming Falkirk and ra Sellik games at Ibrox. The Scottish Cup tie against the Bairns saw Rob McLean commentate from a studio inside PQ, whilst viewing Sky's broadcast. I thought it an interesting stat, that Hartley has brought three different clubs to Ibrox on Scottish Cup duty in the last five years and lost 7-0(Alloa), 4-0(Dundee), and 4-1(Falkirk). The type of thing Big Dick might offer up on the post match phone call to the opposition manager? Paul did not come to the phone. The week leading to the Yahoo's match was utilised to inform all of the impending live football commentary awaiting on Sunday. The Glasgow Derby has replaced the phrase, 'old firm' at the PQ gang hut. Sunday arrived, and live commentary was replaced during Big Dick's introduction, "we will be reporting events". He explained they were situated around a table inside a PQ studio, the dynamics being Big Dick, Wullie Miller, Pat Bonner, and Steven Thompson. The far end of the table had Liam McLeod as the commentator, watching Sky; accompanied by Chick Young on dug-out duty, notionally standing at the end of the tunnel. In reality, Chick was sitting next to Liam watching the same monitor. The broadcast itself highlighted a number of folks around the PQ table cheering ra Sellik scoring. In contrast, Liam's voice lowered when Rangers notched. St Mirren fan, Thommo dragging his EBT was slow to defend the Rangers corner, his fellow St Boo fan, Chiko was thrown under a bus on several occasions by Big Dick, reminding him of his real favourite's plight. The high pitched scream amid the studio cacophony at ra Sellik'd third goal belong's to the show's Producer, Clare. Big Dick informed us, she was just joining in on the excitement. Talking of which, Brendan(no surname) was happy to come to the phone and bat away Big Dick's dollies. Apparently, in PQ gang hut mentality, Rangers had made all the pre-match noise, are they still cheering? The describing of events concluded with Bid Dick telling us that Aberdeen's draw at Firhill had seen them go another point closer to Rangers.

I don't think criticism need always be delivered face to face. I doubt many people would turn up at an SNP conference or the office of James Dornan to raise issues either. With regard to the thread title, I'm not so sure the SNP - as a party - are anti-Rangers per se. However, many of their higher profile members certainly are or, at the very least, are incapable of balance in football related debates. I'm not convinced as Yousaf or a Dornan would be fair in a sectarianism debate for example. And I remain dubious over the involvement of the Scottish government in the Rangers and Hearts administrations. As such, as a Rangers fan that worries me and it does cross my mind when elections come around. However, it's perhaps not a priority when other parties also have loud mouths that should know better when it comes to football.

I never mentioned members I said MP's or MSP's so don't twist what I said. I've seen plenty SNP MP's and MSP's declare their allegiance to Celtic publicly so why none for Rangers? I'm not as shallow as to think someone is my enemy just because they hold different political views to myself, is it a SNP thing?

I was referring to FS's post and clarifying it for Walterbear. As for bringing politics into it, are we meant to just sit back and accept the captain of our great football club being abused by a politician? Why can't we criticise him and his party who will take no action against him? I'll defend our club against politicians of any party where it's warranted. I've corresponded with the leader of my party of choice where there was unfair criticism. It just so happens that there have been numerous attacks on us over the recent past from one party in particular. Publicly criticising that party or their MSPs or councillors doesn't make that party's supporters any less nationalistic. I'd have thought that they'd want to improve their party. I just don't get the attitude of "let's ignore unfair criticism because it's political" or "it's my party that are making unfair criticism so I'll defend them rather than my club".

You can't be Scottish and not British. Sorry but the SNP are just masters of manipulation. Lift the lid on any of their doings and you find hollow lies. Reduced rates for small businesses was just the privatisation of our water with increases in small business rates as two bills replaced the one. Free education is great I benefitted from it myself but the truth is universities now acting as commercial interests prioritise foreign students over our own for the extra income. Instead of our students benefiting from foreign investment we are being marganalised and excluded all with the silent backing of the SNP. Scottish lectureers even in subjects like engineering our core expertise are becoming rare and unwanted. Programs are being eradicated because they would only be available for Saas students and being replaced with foreign incentive based programs unsuitable to saas funding. The NHS Scotland well that speaks for itself. Shorten waiting times by cancelling appointments before deadline and reissuing appointments resetting issue date is typical SNP brinkmanship. The covering of Glasgow sepa and it's falsified toxicology reports leaving people unbeknown of what lurks beneath their homes all with the full knowledge of the first minister. The absolute shambles of the flagship SNP funded viridor plant at aikenhead Rd with a £200m black hole and basically a plant that so far doesn't work. Even though similar plants have been in existence for decades. The Italian equivalent costing just £11m. Ours is at plus £250m and still growing. And still not seeing much decommissioning of redundant oil fields. What's the bill for that and who is paying it? Will give them the recent marine renewables and climate change 2009 bill. Which looks to be doing well and out performing other European nations efforts. My own personal opinion is the independence movement is out of the parties control and being led by anti British movements at zero thought to what is best for the people of Scotland.

As you get older and perhaps (or not) wiser you start to realise what politics is all about. Essentially people will do and say almost anything to further their cause and ultimately score points. In the world of social media virtue signalling is something of a recent twist on old tricks and serves to highlight that no link is too tenuous when there are points to be scored. Of course we in Scotland get our dose of signalling through our media, often from politicians, and usually related to bigotry (or what we’re told is bigotry) and with clock-work guarantee after Old Firm games. A lazy way to define bigotry would be someone using bigoted language. Of course, that is a bit simplistic because context is also important in that equation. It also misses out the wider issue, where it’s the everyday actions and intent which make up the bulk of any real problem and these serve to carry enmity forward. Now here’s a point: football rivalry is binary. You want your team to win, you want the rival to lose. That’s how it works. During the game there is no squaring that circle and there’s no need to either. It’s entertainment. It’s a release for the general population; effectively, it’s a civilised tribal proxy for battle. In an ideal world the game finishes, there’s a bit of banter and its back to normal life until the next time. Now here’s the problem: certain characters are taking the binary essence of the battle and transposing their politics onto it. That way a rivalry can be made to take any form and cover any topic. It can be made to look bad, or intolerant, or race and religion-based. It’s a pretty simple and effective technique but it’s ultimately a distortion of sport. In the wake of the Old Firm game we saw some politicians signalling their sides’ virtues against the fabricated bogeymen. Groups of young lads vocally supporting their team whilst denouncing the opposition in the immediate environs of the stadium whilst surrounded by police is hardly against the spirit of the rivalry or pushing social acceptability to any extreme. Yet the politicians saw fit to project other aspects of culture onto this canvas. These actions benefit the politicians in question from both sides of the same coin; namely, to gain political mileage for their cause (into which they’re very keen to add the polarized world of football rivalry) and equally to demonise the opposition support (i.e. Rangers). For reference purposes the MSPs actively involved this time were (but not limited to) the SNP's Julie McKenzie and Peter Grant and the SNP's Green party stooge Patrick Harvie. Additionally we have reporters (Martin Hannan of the National, the political newspaper) using platforms like BBC Scotland and a discussion on Jamie Carragher's abhorrent behaviour to crowbar Rangers into the narrative. It’s nauseating. Social media will provide us with ample evidence that similar actions were carried out by both Rangers and Celtic fans over the weekend, as they are at every match. If it's out of order then condemn it, absolutely. Yet these elected and well-paid politicians choose to highlight one and ignore the other. This is sowing further divisions into a world they claim is already toxic and divided, a world they’ll claim they want to heal, whilst in reality the opposite is true. It won’t be a surprise to know that the most vocal politicians are no friends of Rangers and have a history denouncing the club and attempting to drag it into their divisive politics - as above, bigoted actions are often further-reaching and longer lasting than ill-chosen words. And so much for winning people over. The media are reverting to a similar template as well. The clear message is that Rangers are bad, where stories are selected and given exposure, where the converse is ignored and sectarian or unacceptable behaviour by Celtic fans (abuse aimed at Rangers players) is knowingly ignored. The unacceptable abuse of Celtic player Scott Sinclair (1) was rushed to the front page of the Daily Record, whilst it took considerable time for video footage of Russell Martin being subjected to overt sectarian abuse and intimidation (2) to be added to the same paper's website, and only then after apparently been widely highlighted to them by Rangers fans on social media. The Scotsman had managed to interview and report on an ex-Celtic player's view about the Sinclair incident but at time of writing they were obviously not too bothered about certifiable abuse going the other way. On top of a trend of similar episodes this suggests to me bias and agendas are being played out in the general press as well i.e. something other than the news is driving the news. This isn’t to say the odd story doesn’t get exposed, some incidents are too bad to be ignored even if carried out by Celtic fans; however, in sheer numbers there is simply a lack of balance which doesn’t reflect reality. It can be argued what the cause of this is (agenda, politics, what sells papers or Rangers simply being an easy target with a club that often doesn't fight its corner) but it seems fairly obvious to me its happening. Of course, the media also love politicians weighing as it gives the story some gravitas and a sheen of respectability (where, as mentioned above, we know in most cases that not remotely deserved). The other common hook used is to quote Nil By Mouth - a well-funded government charity. I don’t always agree with NBM nor think that all of their work is pragmatic or realistic but credit where it’s due, they have a fairly sound message and apply it consistently. Their recent initiative (3) was a welcome break from pompous journalists pushing for jail-terms and closed stands under the banner of doing society a favour whilst their tribal peers fight and riot in between running a recruitment drive for proscribed terrorist organisations. Maybe if a similar approach had been adopted 20 years ago then we’d all be in a better place? Now here is my issue, if the media are using NBM's comments and applying them unevenly, or maliciously, then isn’t that an issue in itself? I would consider this to be a point for NBM to recognise and definitely something to comment on and discourage. I have asked NBM to comment on media and political responsibilities several times and while they have many well-formed and well-meaning views they stop short of conceding an imbalance or acknowledging the game is too often being used for political mileage. I have an admittedly polarised view on football matters, I do get a lot of my news through a blue coloured filter, but I don’t consider myself too entrenched to recognise a bigger picture. Maybe if press and politicians held themselves to better standards then the average man in the street would have a better example to follow. Or alternatively, despite knowing what’s right and wrong, if people who should know better can’t act without prejudice then why should your average football fan? Unfortunately, like most of episodes it boils down to basic fairness and hypocrisy. The Old Firm rivalry can be a fantastic spectacle, it's loud, raucous and usually politically incorrect but should be enjoyed as that. I don’t think it’s either possible or necessary to completely sanitise it. Better to be open and honest about things and just reinforce the message that outside the cauldron then people have a duty to behave with respect. In my opinion, walls of division exist across Scotland outwith the fixture and these are what should be worked on. Some of these involve the physical separation of communities and some of them are virtual walls thrown up by politicians, leaders and the media to serve their agenda. The division inherit in a football rivalry cannot be removed during the contest but it should be recognised as trivial in the larger scheme of things. But one thing is for certain, it should not be used as a truck for some to throw their political baggage on. References (1) Celtic star Scott Sinclair's airport abusers off hook as no police action taken (2) Rangers player Russell Martin suffers vile sectarian abuse in supermarket (3) Old Firm fans urged to ‘sing something else’ by anti-sectarian charity

Perhaps you could ask them why Brendan O'Hara and Julie McKenzie have retained their positions despite using sectarian language to describe Rangers supporters, particularly given they are the party who introduced OBFA and instructed and encouraged the Police service to adopt a zero tolerance approach to such conduct.

This is no longer about Rangers, It's now just the usual political mud slinging match. Needs to be moved to non-football section. BTW - How anyone can tick that box knowing what we know and what they think of Rangers as a collective group/family/fans/club/institution is mind boggling - go figure! They think I'm s**t on their shoe!

This story is just another example of the Scottish press making it very clear that if you make a decision in Rangers’ favour, whether it is correct or not, you will have your name dragged through the mud. it really is sinister.

Can you please point out some specific examples where the SNP, as a party, have commented negatively about Rangers??? There are examples of individuals commenting via their official MSP/MP accounts, which shouldn't be allowed & I will be contacting the party to raise this. Throughout this thread, I have only see 3 (I think) names mentioned from the SNP - how does that reflect that Party as a whole?? The most vocal, and often mentioned is Dornan, who has made it quite clear where his support lies. Other than that, there have been very few - out of a total of 62 MSP's & 35 MP's.....so we're actually talking about a VERY small minority of folk here, that is hardly representative of the entire party...

Murty has Jimmy Nicholl beside him, he knows Rangers & Scottish football

Another reason we don't need them. They're a financial drain. Ban them, fill all the stands with our own and the policing plus stewarding costs will plummet. It's all win.

I'm inclined to vote No as I think that Wallace's place as a first choice player and, thus, as captain needs to be re-earned. That's not a reflection of the reasonable contribution he's made in his time here - just a realistic appraisal of his regular unavailability over the last 12-24months.

I looked for but could not find any complaints about the UB march from Rangers FC, Club1872, PoliceScotland or anyone else connected to the club. Does that mean that said organizations are satisfied that the club's reputation has not been sullied in any way by this UB march? Good. I was getting worried that anyone wearing a face covering on the way to the match would cause the club's image to be tarnished. I mean, what will be next to be criticised, the niqab? Oh, the worry! What about this behaviour? Anyone heard of the SNP types criticising this? ...

Celtc brought religion and politics into Scottish sport. How many SNP members have criticised them publicly? The SNP, like their friends Sinn Fein, want to break up the UK. Which is why they don't like Rangers FC. Because our club is a focal point for Unionism in Scotland (like it or not).

That’s exactly why the SNP can never be in the same bracket as other political parties for Rangers fans. Any Rangers fan defending the SNP’s aggression towards Rangers is less of a Rangers fan because of it. They can squeal all they want but there’s no other interpretation possible.

My report on todays 17's and development squad games https://rfcyouths.wordpress.com/17s-turn-tables-on-celtic/

I might be biased here, but I like to think that Rangers supporting politicians (of which there are many) are smart enough to know that football and politics don't mix and therefore don't talk about it on twitter, etc. There are idiots in all parties. There are Rangers supporters in all parties. There are Celtic supporters in all parties. There are Unionists that have voted SNP (that's why we don't have independence). If we looked at who our support voted for you'd find that it was very representative of the overall votes for parties. Why? Because our support comprises people from many walks of life in this country and beyond. As I've said before, we've got enough problems trying to agree on what our best 11 should be on the park, or who our manager should be. The last thing we need is further divisions by introducing politics into it. Furthermore, politics can be so bloody boring compared to football. Let's get back to the fun and important stuff shall we?!?

People seem to confuse Scottish nationalism with normal party politics. I have no real issue with people voting for any party. I do have an issue with people wanting to break up the UK though. And Rangers FC has always been a focal point for Scots who feel British, like it or not.

I know plenty of Rangers fans who are on both sides of the Indy debate. I for one won’t be lectured on which football team I should support or who I should vote for. Rangers is first and foremost a football club and embraces all colours and creeds. If people don’t like that philosophy then they are the ones with the problem and they don’t understand the sporting origins of our club. I support the club set up by the founding fathers and I don’t recall any great political statements they made. It’s Rangers, it’s blue and it’s Ibrox. Nothing more needs to be said.

Never mind what they say about us always remember this ,we are the people

At the end of the day, it was a red card. Regardless if the linesman was a Communist, a fascist, a Zionist or an Islamic fundamentalist - HE WAS RIGHT.

The individuals make up the party. If the party aren’t willing to speak up and distance themselves from their MPs making very public statements, then they are happy to stand by those statements.

You are missing the sub text behind all this stewarty - title stripping is still on the table. The moonhowlers are determined to succeed. Given the chair shuffling currently going on at the SFA and SPFL it wouldn't surprise me if that's what happens. Liewell is playing the long game without having his own name in the frame.

I said to the woman next to me" I wish that idiot would go and sit down before he gets huckled" He kept coming back until he seemed to finally get the message.

It's not difficult to understand at all and I personally have no issues understanding your definition. But lets be frank here this is simply your definition. The statement I made does not reflect my ignorance but rather your unwillingness to accept that there are other possibilities. Obviously and without question Scotland itself is part of the island of Britain. Anyone born upon this island is by default a Briton everyone else is not. However there is the possibility through the derivative claim via the hereditary line which is precisely what Gough did through his father. Many athletes have used this and similar hereditary method in order to compete in competitive sports, World Champion ship, Olympics etc etc etc a level they may not have been able to compete at via the country of their birth perhaps because they just weren't good enough to compete with the top picks in their home country. It hasn't stopped them competing as team GB. From memory the most recent was an American female GB competitor in the Winter Olympics (The three female Nigerian bob team are all Americans yet competed for Nigeria at the Winter Olympics). There is also the possibility to compete for the home countries via commonwealth which can also lead to inclusion in team GB. One can also compete if a person has lived and worked in GB for 5 years with or without immigration. A classic example is the Somalia born Mo Farah highly regarded as he's been extremely successful in his field but no matter how we shake it the man was not born in Britain. He chose to become English and is widely regarded as a British role model because he competed on behalf of team GB. The problem I have with your statement is that its an extremely narrow set definition and without trying to be insulting its one that I have read the argument for many times in the likes of the Daily Mail. The key for ALL here is choice. A person can chose to compete for Scotland, England, NI and Wales and not be British.

At least they dispatched another club from Engerland

Great news for him, and well deserved. What is also very positive is for other players to see that playing for us is a good way for them to break into their national teams and that the SPL isn't seen as a barrier.

That would be the police leaving Rangers no alternative than to deny any allocation at all. Which would be the first favour we’ve ever received from Police Scotland

No one has said that you can’t want independence. All I can see is people questioning how you can support a party that openly demonises our club.

I think the China Cup games are on Welsh TV, which some of us can get via our providers (S4C, I think the channel is called).

Are Rangers being billed for the extra policing of the UB march? Surely this comes under maintaining public order and as such should be paid for from the public purse, no?

Your posts on here suggest you are quite worked up about the march. No one I've met who attended the match has even mentioned it. You seem to base a lot of your outlook from things you read online. That's unwise, in my opinion (I've done it myself and then learned that it's usually a lot of empty bluster).

The Rangers Observer articles are always entertaining to read, but very often a little erratic in their assessments or conclusions. I sometimes wonder if they write them to attract attention (in a similar fashion to the mainstream media). This one is again interesting to read but full of holes. It ciriticises those who think he should get the job if he has a semi final win because it's short term thinking. It then goes on to say that he dithered to make changes in the old firm game so we need a more experienced manager. Make of that what you will. It suggests that we should take the money we're spending on wages for Hodson, Pena, MOH, Herrera, Nico and Alves and spend it on a manager? Really?!? Wouldn't we be better spending it on better players? It also suggests that Murty has no first team managerial experience. He does of course, but let's assume the writer means "much first team managerial experience". There are hundreds of managers out there with plenty of managerial experience but I wouldn't want many (or any I can think of) of them near our club. Experience doesn't equal success. Learning from experience can be a help though. I'm not suggesting Murty is the man for the job. I've already said he has a lot to prove, but so would any manager coming in to the role. He has made mistakes, as has every other manager. He has however created an exciting style of play, galvanised a dressing room, and put together some good results. Not many managers can do that, and if they do they're snapped up by richer clubs. Unless someone can point me in the direction of a better and less risky option, I'd stick with Murty. He's grown into the role. And as for this article from TRO, if Rangers had beat them at the weekend it wouldn't have been written, so if you are looking for an example of short term thinking, that is it.

I agree with you. "Us" should be Rangers so let's not divide us by bringing politics into it. I think this is the most mental thread I've read since I joined Gersnet and I've realised I'm making it worse by continuing so I'll just sto ....

I have always thought too much emphasis is put on who the captain is! I always think every player should be able to do the same as any captain regards playing, organising, leading and communicating, however Wallace is the club captain so why should he not get the arm band when he returns?.

I completely agree. But what I find incredible is that a lot of Rangers fans don’t see the even bigger shocking story which is the incredible media bias which is becoming stronger every single week.

the point is if some members of a political party make derogatory comments about Rangers, it should not exclude other members of that party from our support It is not mutually exclusive as has been suggested on this thread

Is that not a conflict of interest?

We allow them the whole of the Broomie, they do what they like. Our club is to blame.