JohnMc

I require musical accompaniment wherever I go. If I'm ever invited back I'll invest in a better mic!

I loved Naismith when he played for us. He's a clever player, he sees angles and runs many other players don't, he's hard working and he's got a nasty streak too, he doesn't get taken advantage of on the park. At the same time he comes across as a decent human being off it too. His press conference when he left was a monumental mistake. I've more sympathy for him than most, we forget that none of us knew what Green was planning, none of knew what team we might or might not have, it was a difficult and emotional time. All that being said he'd have been better saying nothing. It hurt and angered more coming from a bluenose, from a player a lot of us could relate to. However, if we can accept Kevin Kyle, Ian Black and Michael O'Halleron, if we can take back Kenny Miller, twice, if we can take back McGregor and Lafferty we can surely take back Naismith. However, I'd like to see another 6 months at Hearts, injury free and in good form before then. My only reservation on Naismith is around his ability now, can he still play to the same level.

He was a youth coach at Morton for a while. He'd a good playing career, has his 'badges' and lives locally, plus no compensation to pay to another club, that's what Morton are looking for in a manager. Hope it goes well for him.

Rangers were on the go for 40 years before we started to be associated with Protestantism and Unionism. There's a big argument to be made that if Queen's Park had decided to embrace professionalism they'd have become the 'Protestant' team in Glasgow. But it wasn't until the 1910s that Rangers started to be clearly identified that way, and that was largely down to be us being the only side strong enough to regularly best Celtic. Thistle moving away from Partick helped with that too. The creation of Celtic, and Hibs to a lesser extent, meant almost every other side was by default 'Protestant', but it was decades before it became something clearly associated with us.

I know opinion polls need read with a bit of caution but as a snapshot it's fascinating. It suggests what many believe, namely that our support is far more representative of the general public than some of us believe or we are popularly portrayed. 14% of SNP voters don't support independence! It also suggests the majority of 'Unionists' are Brexit voters. That's ironic. As an aside, whilst there have been some bad tempered posts (guilty), some offensive posts and some clear trolling on this thread, there have also been some very good posts. Stewarty's post 471 being particularly good.

That's really interesting. My father's from an Ayrshire mining village and my Granny used to tell me her mother put red ribbons on her on May Day just to annoy her mother-in-law who was a Tory. But that was the 1930s, I thought by the 1970s that Tory/Unionist vote in mining communities had largely disappeared. Happy to be corrected.

I found this post interesting, mainly because you described yourself as being in the minority. Yet even a cursory glance at voting in West Central Scotland from the late 60s onwards clearly showed that the majority were at least left leaning, and voting, if not out right socialists. Despite this you clearly felt you were in a minority when mixing with Rangers supporters. Even though we pulled our support from inner-city, post industrial Glasgow, mining villages across Lothian, Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, the steel and mill towns of Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire and the docks and yards of Clydeside. So did none of the people who voted Labour throughout the 70s and 80s support Rangers? Of course they did, in their tens of thousands. I don't think you were in a minority. There have always been some people for whom supporting Rangers is an expression of their belief system. They see supporting Rangers as a box to tick along with being Orange, Unionist and right of centre politically, sometimes very right of centre. They feel all these things are interconnected, and they can be quite vocal about it. You can see it on this thread too. The thought that someone could passionately and loyally support Rangers whilst rejecting all the other aspects they feel are connected to it puzzles and angers them. You can see it in some of the posts on this thread. Comments like 'never hear SNP supporters near me at Ibrox' and 'only know a couple and they're fair weather supporters' all help fill this narrative. Only 'real' Rangers supporters need apply. I actually think it's that mindset that's in the minority now. I think @pete nailed it; 60% don't care. They only care about who is playing upfront this weekend and who we might sign in January. They care about football, and only football. Whether people like it or not the Scottish society I was born into has changed out of all recognition. The SNP are the most popular party currently. Scottish independence is a distinct probability now, one that grows daily as Labour and the Tories veer further to the extremes and the UK heads towards huge, unclear social and economic change. There is a real possibility that a united Ireland and an independent Scotland could happen in my lifetime. Neither of those events will make me support Rangers any less.

I'm not a member, or even a supporter, of the SNP so I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer this. I do know SNP members, and SNP politicians, who are Rangers supporters. I noticed the SNP MP for Glasgow South, Stewart McDonald said publicly he was a Rangers supporter as a boy but took very little interest in football these days. But overall I think many politicians, particularly those in power (as opposed to ones trying to get elected) aren't in a rush to shout about their love of the 'Gers. I think this was as big a 'problem' with the Labour party when they controlled Scotland as it is with the SNP now. I do think the blood and soil 'cybernat' probably does see support for Rangers as incompatible, but most SNP supporters I know aren't like that. Rangers supporters are under-represented among elected politicians in this country full stop. We have been for decades now. Whatever the issue it's not new. In my opinion.

I have, it's around 1% of the population of Scotland. But it's the people who don't attend matches that we're having problems with, isn't it? I mean I don't think Ms Aitken and messers McDonald and Dornan are regulars in the Derry choir, and as long as a sneaky 'No Pope Of Rome' get's a regular airing it makes it harder for people who weren't born and raised to hate us to defend us. I'm surprised you think there's any doubt over who lost that 'debate'.

Yes, there seems to be double standards on this. (Edit in reply to Gaffer and Onevision, Frankie's post above appeared whilst typing). For me it comes down to this. People who come from a background perceived as being traditionally Celtic-leaning are more comfortable with Irish nationalism and republicanism as legitimate and justifiable to some extent. Criticise the act but support the cause if you like. People who come from a background perceived as being traditionally Rangers-leaning are much more uncomfortable with Northern Irish Unionism and Loyalism as they see it as too closely aligned with sectarianism. I'm not saying it's the case, I'm saying it's the perception. The 'Protestant' middle-classes in this country aren't comfortable with outward signs of sectarianism, whatever they might believe behind closed doors. Religious denomination as an cultural identifier is something that's gradually losing ground. Your average Central Scotland adult is today far less likely to identify themselves by religious affiliation than their grandparents were for example. They are far more likely to identify themselves by political persuasion, or moral standpoint or some other cultural reference.

It's a non-story for me, a last hurrah. I felt at the time, and I still feel now, that the club handled it badly. Miller's contract was up in a matter of weeks, fining him that heavily was always a risky strategy and one with very little upside for the club. Wallace stuck by us when most others didn't, yes he was handsomely paid and he probably had personal reasons for staying, but stay he did. We should have handled this better. It's done now, whether Wallace's recent rehabilitation will continue or he'll be banished until his contract runs down I don't know.

Whatever works for you, but you're being shown up for what you are on this thread.

No Gonzo, I'm not suggesting that. Read it again. Bill used pretty emotive language earlier in this post to describe SNP supporters. I'd be touchy if someone called me a collaborator.

I apologise Bill, I hadn't realised English wasn't your first language. You keep avoiding the question Bill.

The bigotry thing is at the heart of the problem in my opinion. I don't think being large and successful is a reason for politicians and thought leaders to desert us, Man Utd and Barcelona have no shortage of prominent influential supporters. I don't think the issue is with the club but rather with elements of the support. Organisations like Orange Order have lost support and popularity, the singing of songs about the Pope and Northern Ireland is seen as bigoted by some and anachronistic by many. That we seem unable to drop these songs has alienated many people who might otherwise have been sympathetic to Rangers. Society has changed yet, for some, our support hasn't. The fight over those types of songs has been fought and those who think they're freedom of speech related have lost to those who think they've no place in society. As long as people can beat us with the 'bigots' stick we're not going to find many politicians or media people willing to stick their heads above the parapet and help us. I think we've been slow to adapt to changes in Scottish society. Much slower than Celtic, who are much savvier politically and socially than us.

Read the thread Bill, read your own words, the ones you actually typed. I'll help you. You said "have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP". Yes Bill, both Ireland and Roman Catholics, have, at times "been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans". But you know this Bill, you're being obtuse because you'd rather not answer the question I think. So what's it to be Bill, shall we call RCs and non-Brits who support Rangers collaborators too? Are they living "a contradiction" too Bill? Thing is Bill it's entirely possible to want Rangers to beat every other side in the world and at the same time not give a flying fuck about the Act Of Union. These are two entirely compatible points of view, held by many, many people.

Well, mainly because that's literally what you asked me.

I had lunch with one yesterday, but you're right that he doesn't shout about it. Now, this isn't something that's peculiar to SNP politicians though. As Stewarty asks in the post above you, figuring out why that is might be a worthwhile discussion.

This, this, this! This is the debate we should be having, this is the question we should be trying to answer.

Are you asking me if any Roman Catholics or Irish have been guilty of antagonism towards Rangers, Bill?

Ok, I'll bite. So can you be a Rangers supporter and a Roman Catholic, or a Muslim? Are those things a "contradiction that's difficult to resolve"? Does that require "reinventing Rangers"? We're all Proddies Bill, a bit of July marching, some sneaky FTP when no one's listening, eh? What about if you're not British, say you're Irish or Turkish or German? Or are those things not aligned either. Are they a big contradiction too? Do they require some more reinvention? Is dB living his contradiction then? I mean c'mon, we're the quintessentially British club after all, are we not? One thing any organisation that's 146 years old has had to do is reinvent itself and move with the times. If it doesn't it'll die Bill, nothing surer.

I'd an enlightening if simultaneously depressing conversation with someone involved in local politics recently. He himself is a Scottish nationalist and there are a number of councillors in his area who are Tory. He tells me they're all socially liberal and centralist politically. Apparently though they'll freely admit that when canvassing no one asks them about decentralisation of government, incentives for the free market or lower taxation rates, policies normally associated with Tories, instead they're being voted for as 'Unionists'. I've lived in Northern Ireland, 3 years full-time, several more part-time. Much as I love the place the thought we might be heading in the same direction as them politically I find profoundly depressing. Voting for local councillors along constitutional lines instead of who is most likely to balance the budget or enhance local schools and services is madness to me. Clearly it's already happening though, on both sides. I worry Rangers have a difficult path to walk. Traditionally supported by 'Protestants' we also used to provide the bulk of the Scotland match going support. That stopped a couple or decades or so ago. At the same time like most European countries church going has fallen dramatically. Only 37% of the population describe themselves as 'Protestant' now, a number that will most probably fall even lower come the next census. That's the same percentage of people who describe themselves as having 'no religion'. Old allegiances, particularly among the working classes, have changed. I clearly recall going to Ibrox on a Saturday and belting out GSTQ then going to Hampden mid-week and booing the same song as it was played prior to a Scotland international match. It's not played at Scotland games now. Clearly a lot of people still conflate being a Rangers supporter with being a 'unionist' and being a 'Protestant'. Also a good number of our support see these three things as being intrinsically linked too. Indeed for some their support of Rangers is clearly a way for them to proclaim this political and religious identity, as there seems to be a lack of other outlets for it available. Yet just as clearly many, many Rangers supporters make no connection between they team they support and where they go on a Sunday morning or vote for in elections. Gersnet's own poll during the Independence referendum showed an intention to vote along very similar lines to the general population. What I do hope is more of 'us', whatever our political affiliation, will become more involved politically in the country.

It's completely changing the 'business' model for football. All the big English sides now view their academies as an income stream rather than a place to get players. So few of their young players will become first team regulars there is no argument to having them. However, with vast numbers scooped up very young, from all over the world, then loaned out all they need to do is sell a few of them for a few million each season to make the whole exercise profitable. Chelsea sold Jeremie Boga and Johnathan Panzo (no, I've never heard of them either) for over £5 million this summer. We bought almost an entire new starting 11 for that. Al the big clubs are doing this now, instead of smaller clubs developing players to sell to big ones, big ones are developing players to sell to smaller ones. It's not right.

Bill, go look in the mirror, you're white, deal with it. Now your version only further underlines the point I was making. So far no black Muslims have come on and mentioned slavery but when they do I'll be sure to call them out for it too. Happy? No councillor is going to vote against their own community council's wishes without a very good reason. It's electoral suicide. Local council elections have low turnouts, majorities are measured in tens or hundreds. The local councillor, whatever their personal views, isn't going to risk alienating politically engaged residents over a topic like this. Dornan was elected on second preferences, he's not sitting on a comfortable majority. Rangers, and Rangers supporters, need to deal with this type of thing in a clear headed and pragmatic way. As well as questioning why the community council were against a fanzone for reasons that seem spurious at best we should also be asking what more the club could do to behind the scenes with the community council to change their mind. The current situation where we're descending into trench warfare helps no one but opposition politicians. It certainly won't get us a fanzone any faster. Lastly I read somewhere that Alasdair Morrison, a former Labour MSP, is advising the club. Anyone know if that's true? Morrison is very friendly with Frank McAveety, and McAveety's statements on this has always struck me as surprising. All politicians are opportunistic I suppose. If we are being advised by Morrison I'd love to know what the strategy is. The only thing I know for sure won't help Rangers on this issue, or the many more that'll come up in the future, is supporters describing fellow supporters as the enemy. It would be good if people could see why that's both insulting and inaccurate.

That's what you took from that post? Brilliant.