Bluedell

The vote won't be split. The powers that be seem to have decided it's McGregor and I saw Michael Grant in The Times leading the charge this morning.

Traditionally there has been a link in who we support and who we vote for. I certainly know that my supporters bus, which is no longer running, was 100% anti-independence. The pro-independence members on here certainly appear to take the side of the politicians rather than the club in +90% of cases where there are issues. It is only natural for this to cause comments. John refers back to the issues when Labour were the majority. The big difference was that Rangers supporting Labour voters (guys like Bearwood Bear on FF spring to mind, there are loads more) actively attempted to do something about it. They would call out the politicians who caused problems and try and work to get things changed. They didn't sit back and defend them like we see with the nationalists on here. They tried to cultivate the Rangers fans within the Labour party. I'm personally not trying to say who can or can't be a Rangers fan, but if there are those who do, perhaps those who it's aimed at should think about putting the club first before biased politicians once in a while.

Nobody is saying it hasn't, but it seems to be getting worse and it's the SNP who are doing it at the moment. It may not address or solve the issue but it at least identifies it and who the current problems are, rather than ignoring it. It's then up to people's own conscience as to who they vote for. There's also a difference between ambivalence and actively working against us.

That's fine in theory, but they don't manage them independently. One is managed and one is ignored. They vote for Rangers haters and do nothing to change the views of the party that they support. They come on here and consistently take the side of the Rangers-hating politicians and try and justify the attitude of those who look to damage our club. If Rangers isn't important enough to you to take into account when deciding who to vote for then fair enough, and I doubt it's the be-all and end-all to anyone but it's certainly a factor and not an issue to ignore. We're talking about politicians who prevent Rangers getting a fanzone, who actively support our biggest rivals in a number of ways and yet Bill is a bigger threat than them because he prioritises Rangers? I really don't get that.

It's just all part of the demonisation of Rangers. Would the same "joke" have been made about a Rangers fan attending Parkhead? Absolutely not, because the SNP don't see anything wrong with that. They are encouraging the view that attending Ibrox has negative connotations. It's more to do with having any positive involvement with Rangers as being something bad, than a Celtic fan watching a game with their rivals. You can say that you refuse to join in, which just gives the anti-Rangers SNP further free reign to refuse us a fanzone, build ugly housing around the environs etc, but to dismiss it as a joke is giving encouragement to the enemies of our club.

The original information wasn't from the Sun so I'm not sure the relevance of the tabloid who later reported it. ...other than as a deflection tactic.

It's a joke when a political party who have proven to be anti-Rangers tries to use attending a Rangers game in a negative context? Sorry, but I don't find any humour in it and it's just another attempt by the SNP to paint Rangers as bad. Edit - it may have been funny if they said something like "Look at McAveety. Thought he was a Celtic fan. Haha." However they are talking of using it against him which is at best sinister and indicative of a larger agenda at play. I honestly fail to see anything humorous in this.

Sounds good. It would need a slight change in attitude from a number of the parties involved (on both sides), but there should be more of an attempt to get rid of the negative connotations.

While agreeing with the point you're making to an extent (a section of the followers annoy me too), how do the OO do that? They generally provide stewards but they can only have limited powers and can't stop someone half cut from causing a bit of hassle.

Yeah, we get that you think that the statement was badly worded. Rather than be pedantic,why not address the main issue of their complaint? Not everyone is as clever as you.

For the same reason as the priest?

When clicking on a thread, it opens at the first post, whereas on other forums it opens at the first unread (by me) post, which I find is useful when revisiting a thread. Is it possible to get this changed and if so, is it something members would like?

There's been other marches and demos in the city where people have been assaulted and the Council don't seem to care. If there were some level of consistency then that would go somewhat to reducing the conspiracy theories. I wonder if I stand with a UJ and Rangers top on in the middle of George Square during the next pro-independence rally and I get assaulted, will the council ban all future pro-independence rallies? I think that we all know the answer to that.

Lennoxtown is nothing to do with GCC. The route of the Walk may be trivial to you but presumably it's not to the members of the OO, who seem to feel that they're having targeted for bigoted reasons.

You didn't ask for evidence of these claims. You were given what you asked.

The fanzone. The work done around Parkhead for the fabled one pound. The under valuing of Westthorn land The redevelopment of the area around Celtic Park, while trying to hide Ibrox behind hideous social housing The development of transport links around Parkhead while refusing a train link to Ibrox

You've a record of asking for lists and then ignoring them when you're given them. You're already dismissing answers. I'm shocked that as a Rangers fan you even need to ask.

Bigotry has been rife in GCC for the last 50 years.

According to the thread on FF: CD1 £492 CD2 £708 CD3 £503 - £708 CD4 £597 - £708 CD5 £503 - £708 CD6 CD7 £372 - £492

I searched for it earlier on my Pod app, but I've just realised it's come through in Gersnet subscription. Good stuff.

I don't get the bad feeling against Man City. Yes, they have had funding from the Middle East but we've received funding from South Africa, Bahamas, England etc.

I don't see why we would have discussed Celtic's allocation with them, so don't see why Killie would discuss with us. It's up to them to decide what they give us, as long as it's not less than the specified minimum.

Another fabulous performance by Ajax. Well deserved win.

That's the bottom line, plus it wasn't signed up to by any of Ashley's placemen. It was done under King. The agreement that was entered into obviously had loopholes that are being exploited by Ashley. However it may be difficult to criticise the Rangers board too much if it was a take it or leave it to the wording.

To be fair, I had to look up the meaning of "inculcate"