JohnMc

So does that mean if you were born on the island of Ireland you must be Irish?

I've known Scottish RCs of Irish ancestry who had a deep hatred for the IRA and I've known some who were broadly supportive. I've known more of the former than the latter. Most people with an Irish lineage I've met, whether Scottish, English, American or Australian were broadly supportive of Irish nationalism and the concept of a 'united Ireland'. Most were unhappy about car bombs and the like though. At the same time I've known, and still know, a few Celtic fans who'll freely admit to belting out Provo ditties at the football but wouldn't dream of publicly supporting the IRA, indeed I even knew a serving soldier who did that, and he spent 3 bloody years serving in Northern Ireland. I think you need to be careful not to equate nationalism, whether it is Irish, Scottish, Catalan or wherever with violent republicanism. Trying to achieve constitutional change through democracy is very different from shooting farmers sons in border villages. I'm not sure if that answers your question?

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 find these threads depressing. When Gersnet did an unscientific poll of members voting intentions around the referendum I seem to recall is showed around 40% planned to vote 'Yes', so pretty close to how the vote actually went. That should come as a surprise to no one. Rangers supporters are a broad church, from all walks of life, backgrounds and beliefs. The only thing we have in common is wanting the team in blue to win, that's it. If anyone doesn't know many Rangers supporters who also currently support the SNP I'm very surprised. I know lots and they seem perfectly capable of holding both views without any problem. One reason it's depressing is we used to have the same debate when Labour ruled in Scotland. Posters on various forums moaned about how Scottish Labour was anti-Rangers, how all councillors were Tims and all MSPs out to get us. I'll be frank I personally feel I've more in common with the SNP than with Vanguard Bears, and I didn't even vote SNP at the last couple of elections. That's just me, others will feel very different. That's fine too. Rangers takes up a disproportionate amount of my time and interest. I'm interested in the culture around Rangers and our support, it's been interesting watching how Scottish society has changed in the last 40 years. But other Rangers supporters don't define who I am, what I believe in, hope for or expect from my politicians. Rangers, and our support, have an image problem with some in our society. That section who work in the media and many who enter politics, who often hold 'popular liberal' views, who subscribe to much of what we currently see as 'opinion' in the media are not attracted by Union flags, 90 minute bigotry, and apparently (often wrongly ascribed) right wing views. That's how some see us. Whether we like it or not they control communication and shape popular culture. That's a problem for the club going forward.

As a guy at the wrong end of my forties I'm aware that criticising the behaviour of younger guys at the football is in danger of making me sound like a letter writer to the Daily Mail. Truth is I'm not sure I fully 'get' Ultra culture. I 'get' singing at the matches, all match long if possible, I think all of us go through that phase in our teens. When I was younger if you wanted a sing-song you went to the East Enclosure or the Copland Road, and if you didn't you went to the Govan or the Main Stand, it was easier to choose 'what kind' of supporter you wanted to be back then. Back then, the 80s, there was violence at matches, some of it organised and some of it spontaneous, and for some guys that was as important a part of the match experience for them as buying a programme or having a pint after the game is to others. I was at school with guys who were 'ICF' and a few who were Thistle casuals too. You know those guys went to every match, home and away, and from time to time I bump into them again and some still do, but they don't meet in train stations and get into fights anymore. They grew up, they got married, they had kids, they used up all the extra testosterone that flowed through us when we were 17. Thing is other supporters would get angry with them. Often with justification. They looked for trouble and sometimes people minding their own business got caught up in it, they got us a bad press, the club helped the police try and single the ring leaders out. So are these guys the current day equivalent? Young guys with too much time, energy and testosterone? Before the casuals in the 80s there were gangs of skinheads, before that guys with Union Jacks draped over their backs, long hair and flairs, I'm sure their were Mods or Rockers or whatever before that. Bloody hell, The Billy boys were a razor gang who sang at the football to let everyone know they'd crossed the city from Bridgeton to Govan. So I don't want to get too pious when I criticise these 'Ultras'. The flyer was stupid, the banner is asking for trouble and the balaclavas invite people to misconstrue who they are and what they're about. Young men do stupid things when they are young. I suspect a number of these guys might be a bit embarrassed in 15 years time when they look back at this. In the end the club can't be seen to condone the flyer or the banner. I don't condone it, it's a stupid use of language and a disturbing use of imagery. But it's not aimed at me, I'm old, and responsible and have zero interest in trouble or, frankly, even singing these days. I think these guys are fans, real fans, I think they are misguided in some of what they do and deserve criticised for it, but I think we also need to be careful we don't give this more significance than it deserves. It's the 'young team' at the football, same as it always was, indeed considerably smaller than it was in my day.

I was too annoyed to post yesterday, in some ways that defeat hurt more than the real doings we got last season. Having slept on it I'm a bit more rational about it now. For me experience won the day. They'd lots of it and we only had it in patches. Three Glasgow derby debutants, a very inexperienced central midfield, and a defence that showed a lot of uncertainty when put under pressure. A more experienced side would have taken control when we went 2-1 up. A more experienced side would have disrupted play with little fouls, slowed it down and kept possession, instead we allowed them to step up and dictate the match. Might it have been different if Jack, Dorrans, Russell and Wallace had been fit, maybe. Certainly I felt we were naive at times, particularly when they ran at us. Their first and third goals were poor to lose. They were well taken but neither player should have been given that time and space in the first place. They gifted us the first and deservedly went down to 10 men, we should have been good enough to take something from the match. The real test of Murty and this side now is how they react to this. They must be gutted, they'll know what a great chance they just passed up. If they can lift themselves for the next couple of games, and put this behind them quickly then they've got a chance to become the team they need to be, if this starts a slump then I'm afraid changes are needed. I hope Murty can regroup and lift them because we're not that far behind.

Don't get excited, I don't have a spare either I'm afraid. However, a few years ago I gave my ticket to a Bosnian acquaintance. He lives in Glasgow and is a Red Star fan but hadn't attended any matches locally. He went to the match with my Dad, Rangers won, the place was bouncing, everyone was happy (well everyone near him) and he still talks about it as the social highlight of his stay in Glasgow. I think because we live with this match, and always have, we sort of take the atmosphere and energy of the game for granted. For outsiders it remains an amazing experience and you sometimes need to see it through their eyes to be reminded of how special it can be. Hope you find a ticket for your friend, there are cities I think Rangers have a connection with and Moscow is one of them.

Thanks Frankie, I seem to have attached the piece too, I don't know how I did that or how to remove it, perhaps someone else can?

The plan for Glasgow was very different to what we have today, the city was going to be unrecognisable in many, many ways. Some plans just don’t work out. Emerging from the horror and brutality of the Second World War Glasgow was surprisingly unscathed compared to many other European cities. Yes, it had suffered bombing in the early part of the war and, of course, nearby Clydebank had experienced extensive devastation but the centre of Glasgow, the heart of Scotland’s largest city, the industrial powerhouse of the empire, the beating heart of the heavy industry that powered much of the world, was largely intact. That was the problem. In 1945 Glasgow’s Master Of Works and the city’s Chief Engineer, Robert Bruce, produced plans that would have transformed the city centre. Not only would the majority of warehouses and markets that today make up the Merchant City have been demolished but so would Central Station, the Mackintosh designed School of Art and, arguably the city’s finest building, the City Chambers. These awe-inspiring architectural masterpieces would have been pulled down and a new ‘Modernist’ inspired city centre built in their place. Try and imagine a new city chambers built on the north bank of the Clyde, with new law courts beside them. The city would have two new train stations, one roughly where Queen Street Station stands today and new huge ‘South Station’ built on the south side of the Clyde close to the river. Literally thousands of new buildings would need constructed, business and people would be decanted, streets disappear, familiar landmarks reduced to rubble and replaced with grandiose civic centres and new arterial roads. Its scale and ambition was breath taking and it was actually given initial planning approval by the city corporation. An exhibition at the Kelvin Hall was planned for 1947 where the plans for the new city would be shown to the public. Thankfully a mixture of public concern, political influence and simple economics led to the Bruce Plan being shelved before the exhibition could take place. Whilst you could admire the ambition of Bruce, he lacked the understanding of what makes a city great; namely it’s people, and you underestimate the people at your peril. This weekend might just see another plan for Glasgow begin to unravel. Rangers weren’t meant to challenge again. The club had been dealt if not a fatal blow certainly enough hits to put it down and keep it down for a long time. Or so some people hoped. With unfettered access to the Champion’s League and all the money, profile and prestige that goes with it Celtic, this weekend’s visitors, were ideally placed to capitalise on whatever Machiavellian plans European football’s elite have next. They could hoover up all the sponsorship, corporate hospitality and public identity the city has to offer too, after all who was going to stop them? Rangers, a seeming basket case a matter of months ago, were a club unable to attract the Rangers supporting, Renfrewshire based Aberdeen manager, a club unable to win three games in a row, a club unable to defend a lead at home. Yet, here we are. Where are we exactly? Well, we’re second in the league, unbeaten in the last six matches and have only lost once this year. So we’re not where we want to be but we’re a lot closer to it than we have been for a while. It’s not just the victories that have excited the support, it’s their manner too. We’re fluid, fast and well balanced. Goals are being scored across the team, chances are being created regularly, players are linking up well, there seems to be an understanding now particularly middle to front. More pleasingly we seem to have some fight about us again. We win the 50/50s now, we’re competing all across the pitch, we’re not being bullied and put off our game. It’s remarkable to write this, as this team is really only two months old. The signings of Murphy, Docherty, Martin, Goss and Cummings have galvanised, strengthened and improved a squad that stuttered from week to week prior to their arrival. Added to that we’ve seen Tavernier and Windass emerge as important players, Bates now looks like a Rangers defender and Morelos gets the kind of service and support his superb forward play deserves. This has all been achieved under the guidance of a rookie youth team manager forced into the hardest job in Scottish football whilst the club very publically courted someone else. It’s funny how some plans don’t work out. Before I get too carried away a word of caution. This Celtic side are still capable of scoring goals and winning matches. Their form hasn’t been as good as last season but it’s still better than anyone else in the league and we’d do well to remember that. They have some injuries and some players seem to be out of form, but they’ve still only lost 2 matches all domestic season and have the experience and confidence to harm us if we’re not careful. Whatever our current feelings of renewed confidence we’ve not beaten Celtic since that glorious day at Hampden 2 years ago and a lot has changed at both clubs since. Sunday will be a stern test and one we’re not favourites to win. I’d be surprised if our starting XI is very different from the side that’s largely picked itself in recent weeks. If fit I expect Murphy to return to the side at the expense of Cummings. Foderingham should also return for league duty. Tav, Bates and Martin should start alongside the only real quandary in the side. A fit Wallace should be our first choice left-back but I’m not sure he’s as fit as he needs to be yet. A run out in a friendly against a Championship side is no preparation for a top of the table challenge. If fit John will start, if not I expect Halliday to play at left back. I expect a midfield of Candieas, Goss, Docherty and Murphy with Windass and Morelos up front. That side has four players making their ‘Old Firm’ debut, a match where experience counts and our central midfield is young and has only played a handful of matches together. Amid my expectation and optimism the realist in me is a little nervous. Despite that we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it wasn’t meant to be this close. We were meant to be languishing somewhere between Aberdeen and Hibs, turning baliffs away from Edmiston Drive, watching our best players leave for sweetie money and our signings struggle to meet expectations. We’re supposed to be bystanders watching Celtic’s procession to another league title and potential Champion’s League spotlight. That was the plan. Sometimes even the most ambitious plans, whether well intentioned or nefarious, don’t come to fruition. Glasgow doesn’t belong to Celtic, never let them forget that, this is our city too and they don’t get to redesign it without our permission. It’s pleasing we’re not giving it again.

I agree. I've a friend in the steel business who met with Murray about a year to 18 months. My friend's a bluenose and talk inevitably turned to us and back then SDM told him he wasn't finished with Rangers yet. Murray is an egoist and a gambler. The last few years have stung Murray, his reputation in tatters, his influence greatly reduced and his profile diminished. It wouldn't surprise me if SDM fancied another crack at it. the thought of getting one over King probably holds some appeal too.

They're under-pressure, I agree about that. I also agree it's the first time they've been put under any pressure since Rodgers took over so it'll be interesting to see how they deal with it. However, I still think we've got more pressure on us. If we lose the league is pretty much done and the good work of recent weeks will start to be questioned again, Murty's job will be scrutinised as will his suitability to take us forward. That's the reality of being the Rangers manager. We need the win more than they do. There is also the growing sense of optimism in our support. We're actually looking forward to this match, there's a belief we can win it, that's not been present for a year or so, that also brings pressure. When we last played them at New Year we expected very little and were all pleasantly surprised by the performance. This time it's different, we expect at least the performance of last time.

Add me to the 'Morelos must start' chorus, he's better than Cummings and will cause any defence problems. I'd be amazed if Celtic don't come and play it tight and sit back trying to hit us on the break. In the end a draw is fine for them, we need the win so we'll be the more expansive side. That will suit them. The pressure remains on us, we need the result more than them, but they've got the experienced players. I like Docherty and Goss but Celtic's central midfield is considerably more experienced and that counts for a lot in these games. I expect a lot of niggles, verbals and confrontations, Brown will want to make this a battle, that's his type of game. He'll want Docherty and Goss forgetting about their game plan and trying to do him instead, a trick he learned from Lennon a long time ago. Discipline is the key for us this weekend.

Tony Cascarino, a somewhat surprising contender for best football biography ever written, tells a story in his book about being accosted and subjected to a foul-mouth rant whilst perusing the shops on Buchanan Street one day. He tried to appeal to his assailant that although he was obviously a Rangers fan and Tony a Celtic player he was just minding his own business on his day off and would he mind leaving him alone. The 'fan' got even angrier shouting at a dumb-founded Cascarino that he was in fact a Celtic supporter. Tony's not particularly complimentary about his time at Celtic.

Is this just a change of ownership for Dundee Utd? I'm assuming the guy Martin is a fan and selling the training ground to him is basically a way for him to inject money into the club. I hate to see any club get into difficulty, it's not something to be enjoyed. But, in the case of Dundee Utd I'm prepared to make an exception.

Surely it's directors that make a decision like this? I mean coaching staff and even the manager might make the suggestion but the directors 'own' the club and they decide what we wear. Today, UEFA and domestic leagues have a say in strips too.

Okay, put me down for it.

Anyone taken the Celtic game in a couple weeks?

As long as we keep winning there's a chance, and that's something that nobody expected even two months ago. The pressure's all on Celtic if we keep winning and I'm not sure how Rodgers copes with pressure, he's not had too since he joined them. To be clear, they are still favourites and rightly so. But, they've got injuries and their form has been patchy of late. All we can do is win the next match, and then the next one and then the next one... If we keep doing that anything can happen, we've seen that before. Even if it doesn't the turnaround since the start of the season is remarkable.

Booing players you don't like is one of the great things about football. Hurling vitriol at fit, talented, rich, gifted young men is one of the many pleasures football offers. In every other walk of life these people are feted and adored, so I find it therapeutic to denigrate their morals, personality and ability whenever I feel like it. The gradual sanitising of football attendance thankfully hasn't yet reached booing opposition players, and that's a good thing. As an overweight, balding, middle-aged talentless nobody I take solace in sometimes being able to shout abuse at my clear opposites. That being said I still have a soft spot for Naismith. I loved him when he played for us and have long forgiven him for what he said when he left. I hope he plays well for Hearts in the coming months, proves his fitness and form and we resign him in the summer actually. However.... he's an annoying wee bastard on the pitch. He noises up defenders, commits sneaky fouls, chats away to the referee and is a general pain in the arse to the opposition and for that reason and for that reason alone he may well experience some abuse and 90 minute hatred.

Sportsound was a fun listen last night. After the match Pat Bonnar, who remains someone it's impossible to hate, said something along the lines of 'Celtic enjoyed good possession' and was metaphorically set upon by Thomson, Gordon and McDonald. It was really funny. Stevie Thomson actually laughed out loud at the comment and Richard Gordon told him Celtic didn't touch the ball for the first 25 minutes other than to pick it out of the net. Even Scott McDonald was very critical of the performance and the tactics. To be fair it's not like they could say anything else after a 3-0 trouncing by a side who apparently didn't play all that well. It simply underlined what some have been feeling for a while, this season Celtic are beatable. There's a lethargy and an arrogance to them and if we can only stay injury free and avoid the stupid defeats there's a championship to be won.

We should play them in a friendly as a gesture of goodwill as no doubt they'll be stung on this. When we were going through our difficulties in recent years some of the Highland League and ex-Highland League sides showed us friendship and welcomed us, we should never forget that. None of our neighbours showed us that.

Yes, I'm getting that too but only on my phone when I'm not logged in. From my laptop when I'm automatically logged in I don't see it. I can't get out of it and can't use my phone to access the site now.

I'm staggered that anyone wouldn't want Steven Davis to sign. Not only should we sign him we should make him captain and offer him a coaching role with the youths. Davis captained a country of 1.8 million people (40% of who won't play for them) to the second round of the Euros, he's got 100 caps and has played his entire career in the Scottish or English top flight. He's 33, not 103, he's easily got another 3 years at our level in him. I read people saying we've got too many 'old' players! Miller, Kranjcar and Alves are veterans, but I suspect at least two of them will leave in the summer, Wallace and Dorrans are 30, Martin is 32 but only on loan. Everyone else in our squad is in their teens or 20s, we've got a need to add some experience. Davis is one of these players fans rarely appreciate. He's the quiet, thoughtful, worker building moves, offering angles, making space and covering others, he's essential to every good side. It's telling that the only manager who didn't want Davis was Martin O'Neill, a manager for who a midfield was something to kick the ball over and to take set-pieces. Davis would be a wonderful signing, a guy who knows what it takes to win leagues and cups and pull on the light blue jersey.

Someone has to 'pay' for it. Whether you pay for it through a licence fee, at point of consumption, point of purchase or by watching advertising all the 'news' content you consume has to be paid for somehow, it's not 'free'. I suspect you'll see a 'Spotify' type system emerge where you pay a monthly or annual amount and then get access to 'news' from a wide variety of sources. For what it's worth the demise of an independent press is a bad thing in my opinion.

Didn't they all go to private schools? Kheredine Idessane went to Stewart Mellives in Edinburgh and Richard Gordon to Aberdeen Grammer. I mean the sense of entitlement oozes from every broadcast so should we be surprised. Anyway, I don't mind English that much. I think he's sometimes just plain wrong and his ignorance of aspects of Scottish football is very clear at times. But he's one of the few willing to criticise Celtic publicly too. I also don't think he's wrong on this subject. I agree the bams in the tartan army don't want Smith because he left Scotland for us. But for different reasons I think he's the wrong choice too. I think a younger man, one more in touch with the current crop of players is a more appropriate appointment. It's worked well for Wales, Northern Ireland and Iceland.