The Real PapaBear

I'm not in a position to judge the thesis one way or the other other than to say that it provided all the evidence I needed to disprove a suprious claim from D'artagnan. As to your main point, we have to recognise that the Rangers support is not monolithic; it may be predominantly unionist, monarchist and non-catholic, but it's not entirely so by any means. If personal experience and internet fora are anything to go by, I'd suggest that our support largely reflects the national position at any time - not entirely accurately, but not that far away either. There are those among us whose first allegiance is to Scotland rather than the UK, whose politics are left of centre, who have no time for the disneyland farce of the monarchy and who feel embarrassed at the infantile jingoistic 10-german-bomber-great-escape-imperialist-anti-irsh-anti-catholic drivel that comes from some of our fellow bears. We are not few, and we are growing in number. D'art actually makes a fair point - yes, I know - when he says that internet fora allow those of us who would not otherwise make our voices hears to, well, make our voices heard. Maybe a new name for us could be the Red Brigade... oh, wait..

yes, the floor is indeed mine, having wiped it with your baseless argument. And, indeed, let's leave others to read your claims without foundation, your continued refusal to provide evidence in support of those claims, your decent into name calling and your refusal to admit defeat when evidence was provided to discredit your claims. Let's leave others to read your breathtaking hypocrisy when comparing the SNP to nazis and screaming in the next breath that a journalist who compared Rangers fans in the same way was as good as guilty of genocide. I'm sure that conclusions have been drawn.

And so it begins. The attempts to deny what you claimed and pretend I said something I didn't - despite proof in black and white to the contrary. At no point did I ever say that there was no protestant/unionist link with Rangers. I said that the arrival of the HW workers was the event that saw us inextricably bound' date=' or as I phrased it "fundamentally associated " with that political/religious movement. The exact same thing Walker says. My original comments: "It was[b'] the arrival of the Belfast shipbuilders [/b]in the early part of the century which saw the British/Protestant/Unionist ethos being fundamentally associated with the club....Add to that the conflict they had left behind and you get teh anti-Irish anti-Catholic thing which scarred our club for the best part of the century." Walker's comments: “The Harland and Wolff factor may well be seen as decisive if considered in conjunction with the issue of Irish Home Rule.” You claimed Walker disagreed - (despite failing to ever provide evidence in support of this claim, despite repeated requests to do so) - but as we see from the evidence I provided, he agrees entirely with what I said. Perhaps, now that your argument has been blown out of the water, you'd care to apologise for your accusation of hated and intolerance, which you claimed was based on my making statements with no "substance". Not that I'll be holding my breath, mind you. "Some would argue, that comparing a group of football supporters, to one of the most vilest regimes ever to have inhabited this earth, is a feat of such dehumanisation that it ranks right up there with genocide." Recognise the quote? That's you screaming blue murder about Keevins comparing Rangers fans to nazis. "But give the current political administration their due – they did promise “Model government” at the start of their term of office and they have duly delivered. The only problem is that it is a model which has striking similarities to another nationalist government which swept to power in Germany in the 1930's. " Recognise the quote? That's you comparing the SNP to nazis a few weeks earlier. As I said, if Carling did hypocrisy.

It"s a doctoral work, amms; if you google "orange alba, loyalism" you'll find it. I would urge you to read from page 110 onwards with particular attention to the section which spans p122 to p123. This is the part where Professor Graham Walker echos exactly what I said - well, I suppose I echo him since he said it first, but you get my drift, Oh, and yes that'll be the same Prof Graham Walker who Dartagnan claimed disagreed with me. I think we can see now why there was no evidence provided in support of his claim. "The composition of the leadership structure at Rangers was mainly comprised of members of Glasgow’s Unionist political and business elite. Primrose was a well-respected community activist, Tory politician and member of Masonic Lodge Plantation 581.34 He was also a staunch Unionist politician who campaigned tirelessly against Irish Home Rule. When he became chairman of Rangers in 1912, he quickly began to reshape its public face. Prior to assuming the chairmanship Primrose publicly referred to Rangers as “the sporting arm of Scottish Orangeism.”35 Once in office he actively marketed the club as a branch of the loyalist family. He used the club as a vehicle for fundraising for the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland and opened the doors of Ibrox to the brotherhood for Orange Order events like the annual Divine Service.36 During the anti-Home Rule crusade, Primrose regularly joined Sir Edward Carson, the father of the UVF, on the speaking platform at anti-Home Rule rallies in Glasgow and Belfast, thus symbolizing Rangers’ commitment and support for Ulster’s Protestant loyalist population. Although Rangers was already generally associated with Protestantism, it was Primrose who was the architect of the club’s enduring loyalist policy. His fostering of Rangers’ ongoing connections with Govan’s Protestant-dominated shipyards in Govan was reinforced in 1912 by the arrival of Belfast-based shipbuilding firm, Harland and Wolff, which was notoriously Orange and sectarian. The opening of their shipyard dramatically increased the flow of Protestant workers from Belfast to Govan. Thousands of these Orange Irish workers settled in the Govan area permanently. For Protestant Irish shipyard workers with an appetite for competitive football, Rangers was the obvious choice. Most scholars agree that the arrival of Harland and Wolff shipbuilding works influenced both the boardroom and terrace culture at Rangers, though they differ on its extent. For Murray, the arrival of Harland and Wolff and their predominantly Orange workforce did not necessarily introduce a new sectarian element at Rangers, but probably reinforced a trend that was already well underway.37 Walker disagrees arguing, “The Harland and Wolff factor may well be seen as decisive if considered in conjunction with the issue of Irish Home Rule.”38 38 Walker, “There’s Not a Team Like the Glasgow Rangers: Football and Religious Identity in Scotland,” 140.

You're clearly struggling with the normal mode of discourse. *You* claimed my assertion was one which historians disagreed with. It is up to *you* to back up those claims before asking me to do anything of the sort. Now' date=' back that claim up or pack your tents and move on. [b'][/b] I can; because they both shared the same Unionist, British supremacist political viewpoint. Although what that has to do with anything is beyond me. And moreover Primrose was the original sinner a virulent anti-Irish, anti-Catholic bigot and the biggest disgrace of a man ever to hold office at Ibrox, a man whose bigotry and malevolence disfigured our club for decades after he departed: "Under the leadership of Rangers chairman John Ure Primrose (1912-1923), the club imposed a rigid “unofficial” sectarian hiring policy in an effort to create and maintain a “Protestant club for a Protestant people” and to safeguard it from what they deemed “the Irish Catholic menace.” 1912-1923? hmm; some may recognise those years as being the time when Harland and Wolff moved to Glasgow. Ach, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Very true. And it comes as no surprise, given the location of the stadium, that Rangers had a large following among the shipworkers. The very same shipworkers, by the way, whose militancy resulted in what became known as 'Red Clydeside'.

5 years is based on the minimum time it would take to see the first benefits of a properly constructed and properly coached development path from kids through youths to first team, where each level is taught the skills and that part of the philosophy appropriate to their age. Realistically, If we got it right first time round, we'd be looking at the first stream of talent arriving at about a decade after the programme started. Advocaat showed us that you can put a cracking team on the park, which plays exciting and attractive football within a season or less; but to have the players capable of producing that football costs lots and lots of money. If you want a long term philosophy, that takes time and hard work and patience, because you're dealing with the development of youngsters.

more, how can I put this?... struggles with veracity, not to mention reality You did *not*; of course, highlight the relative part several times; we all know that. What you finally did (after being asked to do so 6 times) was to come up with what this "definitive conclusion" was supposed to be - and *still* after 8 (count 'em, eight) attempts you *still* haven't said how theses Rangers historians disagree.

I honestly don' t know where the laugh or hang my shaking head in disbelief. *You* come barging into this thread decrying my "definitive conclusion" and announcing that Rangers historians disagree with my "definitive conclusion". I then, politely ask you to define what you take this definitive conclusion to be and to clarify how these historians disagree with it. We then have a multi-post exchange with you refusing to answer (6 times) those requests - refusing to answer uncomfortable questions being your forté, as it transpires - with you becoming increasingly hysterical and offensive and now, despite denying me the opportunity to engage with this alleged diasgreement, you have decided that my posts have the hallmarks of "hatred and intolerance". If Carling did hypocrisy ....

In the 5 years before Calderwood took over aberdeen and in the five years since he left aberdeen, they manged one (1) top 4 finish. In the 5 years he was manager, they finished in the top 4 on four occasions. No better than Ally?

Calderwood comes across as a dinosaur, but if you listen to him, he's anything but.

Jimmy Calderwood or Stuart McCall for me. By the way; a new and exciting philosophy would take about 5 years to fully implement - ain't gonna happen overnight with the arrival of a new manager

if the line below said ' McCall replaces 9-in-a-row buddy', my tears would take less time to dry

I think, because it's Ally, we give him until the turn of the year, once he's had the chance to play his new players. But, I also think that's my heart speaking, not my head.

I agree with Ally, but the first piece shouldn't have been put up. Rangers shouldn't wash their dirty linen in public.

and I will now ask you for the fifth - and final - time: what is this "definitive conclusion" I have reached and how do the historians disagree with it? Let me remind you, *you* are the one who entered the thread making the claim that Rangers historians disagreed with my "definitive conclusion" - and, despite being asked four times, you have refused to say what this conclusion is supposed to be and how they disagree with it. And, still you expect me to enter into a discussion about it? If you are unable or, for whatever reason, unwilling to back up these claims then this exchange is over; if you're not going to answer after five requests to do so, then it's unlikely you ever will.

We're at the risk of going round in circles here, so let's try to clarify things before it starts. You said that I had made a definitive statement, and that this definitive statement was one with which two Rangers historians disagreed. I actually make three separate statements and one hypothesis, so If you can tell me which of those statements amounts to a "definitive conclusion" and show me how and where the two gentlemen disagree with that conclusion, I'd be delighted to discuss it further. Perhaps you can also clarify why you're asking for sources? It's just that I haven't ever seen you ask for sources before, so I'm curious as to why you're starting now.

You see, this is why I'm asking you to be more precise and define your terms. Is your issue with "a definitive conclusion" or with all of the points I make. It would help me answer if you could define where you have an issue and then show me how and where messers Walker and Murray disagree. Once you've done that, we can take it further.

You may be right. I've never kippled

Paul Murray is Walter's preferred candidate. That in itself would be good enough for me even if it weren't for the fact that since Green's mob took over the club, we've had nothing but turmoil, in-fighting and uncertainty. Murray is as likely to be in this for the good of the club as any other candidate - and certainly more than Chuck the Spiv, who is only in it for the Green. My gut instinct is that we are nearing the end game of this fight and Murray is in the blue corner.