calscot

I'm going to answer this even though he's banned. I've got to say here that looking objectively and using general knowledge, I would say the Catholic church has definitely been on of the worst and they were pretty much responsible dark ages and although I'm not a fan of Protestantism either, they conversely, were responsible for the enlightenment, democracy, equality and free thinking - the opposite of the Catholic Church. The past deeds for the CC are in the past so are pretty irrelevant today and to me and I donââ?¬â?¢t hold it against them - except when people try to try to falsely portray the CC as more benign than other religious groups and strangely suggesting it is ok to discriminate and hate a religious group for past deeds ââ?¬â?? except in the case of the CC. I think itââ?¬â?¢s obvious that the reason for that is that there is a Catholic promoted political and terrorist movement to annex a legitimate part of the UK to another country; a part of the UK where many OO live. Eire have no more present day claim on NI than England have on Normandy or Argentina have on the Falklands or Germany and Alsace and large parts of Poland. In all these cases, their main claim seems to be proximity and history - in which case the UK have a legitimate counter claim on Eire. However the Irish thing seems to be also mainly about religion ââ?¬â?? with all the Catholics in NI backing it. Thatââ?¬â?¢s where the religious tension comes from, the same reason there is religious tension from Islam ââ?¬â?? it happens when people are putting a common religion before the welfare of themselves and their neighbours and community. I find it very strange that Muslims are upset at the West getting rid of a leader who killed many Muslims as it was a Muslim country, yet they are fine when another Muslim country like Iran kills more Iraqiââ?¬â?¢s than anyone. And the Muslims blame the West for Muslims killing Muslims in a sectarian power struggle. There is a similar thing going on with Catholics in Ireland. It seems people want to shift their land to belong to another country merely because of which religion they were brought up with. Itââ?¬â?¢s just madness. Iââ?¬â?¢m sure if British terrorists started bombing Paris to get back Normandy which used to be part of England, and make it a protestant enclave, then there would be no sympathy from anyone but universal condemnation instead. It could be argued that the Catholic church are still intolerant of the OO and as the OO are only usually threatened by the CC then itââ?¬â?¢s not surprising they are against it. As a religious order they also donââ?¬â?¢t let in Jews, Muslims or many flavours of Protestants but itââ?¬â?¢s only Catholics who threaten them. However the Catholic church has still shown to be anti-other religions in the modern day as well as discriminating against women and homosexuals. Their protection of children form their own priests seems very poor too. I remember recently reading about someone who won a discrimination case as they were refused promotion in a Catholic school due to not being a Catholic. The Catholic church is not exactly innocent today and they are also complicit in things like the spread of AIDS and other diseases with their dogma on contraception. The CC was intolerant of everyone that disagreed with them, well before the OO came along. They discriminated against Protestants in Ireland from the birth of the reformation. There is no question that if you want to answer who started it all, itââ?¬â?¢s got to be the CC. The incredible thing is that I am not religious and have no fondness at all for the OO and think they should become a more tolerant order ââ?¬â?? but having seen a programme about them, itââ?¬â?¢s obvious that they are trying. But the defence of the CC and attack of the OO in the face of the evidence is baffling. All Iââ?¬â?¢m saying is that the CC are in a glass house with no right to condemn others and yet here is a non-Catholic doing just that on their behalf. It just shows you that the Cetlic ââ?¬â?? Catholic agenda is so strong it affects even their non-Catholic supporters. Basically, Iââ?¬â?¢m saying the OO should not harm or irrelevantly protest against the CC and vice versa. BC is saying that it should only be one way. I would rather people were actually specific when attempting to slight my character. I would then have the chance to defend myself. But what about the rest of the Scottish teams? Surely they are not all bigoted? Surely they would provide competition? But the answer is that these players, being Catholics, would choose Celtic not just over Rangers, but any other team. But if that was the case, unless Catholics are innately better than Protestants at football, with your assertion that Protestants were preferentially picked, logic follows that the Celtic team would have less Catholics in it than the population: ie 1 or less. The facts are in total opposition to your hyposthesis ââ?¬â?? unless someone can prove that Catholics are better than everyone at football ââ?¬â?? and no rubbish about Maradonna and Pele being Catholic. Weââ?¬â?¢re talking Scotland. Rangers didnââ?¬â?¢t NEED to try too hard to sign Catholics, they had all the other denominations that make up 82% of the population. They obviously could put a competitive team out without Catholics. As has been mentioned, there are stories now of Catholic players who turned Rangers down for fear of reprisals ââ?¬â?? from Catholics. Rangers were not founded as an anti-Catholic team ââ?¬â?? what happened is that another club started up for Catholics. When you create something like that, the world tends to react and produce and opposite.

You choose or reject a team to support - it does not choose or reject you. Don't you understand that? Celtic acknowledge 0%, is that not far, far worse according to you? Especially as Rangers seem to be acknowledging 100%. The biggest trouble here is that Celtic fans think everything they do is justified and fine and dandy, while they will twist just about anything that Rangers fans do. Examples are accusations of sectarianism for: The Union Flag, the bouncy, Rule Britannia, GSTQ, the Dambuster Theme, the Great Escape Theme, the tartan pattern of the pitch, the tangerine strip, the Sash, Derry's Walls, the Red Hand of Ulster Flag. Add to that much other twisting of facts, like Mo Johnson being the first Catholic, Rangers founding as an anti-Catholic club and even current things like trying to maliciously convince people that the red hand salute is a Nazi-salute when it's obvious that any self-respecting Nazi would be proud to tell everyone he was doing a Nazi salute. They are even trying to maliciously convince people that Rangers are being done for financial fraud. And again, after all that, paint themselves whiter than white and also as perpetual victims - cue conspiracy theories. You are not going to stop Rangers bigoted minority with this kind of treatment are you? The trouble with Celtic is that while they also have a bigoted minority, it is 100% condoned by the rest. That's a huge problem. Rangers are making inroads because the majority are condemning the minority. The majority of Rangers fans dislike all bigotry. Celtic fans condone some bigotry, condemn other bigotry and then twist things to make up some bigotry to be offended by for good measure. Anyway, the only way to massively reduce it at football matches is for both sides to recognise their wrong-doings and do something about it and for the authorities to be even handed. Why are so many Celtic fans against even-handedness anyway - unless they are in the wrong?

John Spencer was signed in 1984 - how come you don't mention him? You rather spoil your own point there. The 30 years was a typo but 23 years is probably the accurate number. Maurice Johnstone was a hero at Rangers and universally reviled by Celtic fans who gave him death threats which meant he had to have a bodyguard assigned to him. Many Catholic Rangers players have been abused by Celtic fans as well as our first Catholic manager. Why is that? The interpretation of the word is ambiguous. To me it means a meember of a group of Irish people who rebelled against their government to try to gain independence. Some were Catholic, some were Protestant and some were neither. It's now sometimes used to describe supporters of the Unification of Ireland by force including suport of the IRA, and is also used to describe those that are vehemently anti-Unionist. Some other people interprate it as meaning, "Catholic". It stems from the very complex political situation in Ireland - see above. Maybe you need to read more about them. Which came first? And I don't recall any song which contains words which mean, "kill Catholics". Are you saying Catholics inate hatred of homosexuals prevented them from supporting Rangers? F... the Pope could feasably be more likely to mean, "We don't care for the Pope". Like someone could say, "F... the rules, I'm doing it anyway." Celtic fans have used FTQ as well so do you have to hate the Royal family support them?

My case is so feeble that you can't be bothered countering it? Come on! lol! Having 0 instead of 2 out of 11 is far easier than increasing 2 to 8 out of 11. Damning the number 0 is just a cop out. Is a drop of 20% worse than an incease of 400%? Discrimination is discrimination and doesn't have to exclusion. Are you saying Rangers would have been fine if they had the odd token Catholic in the squad? You can avoid 18% of the population and still be successful, it's far more difficult to be successful by only choosing from 18%. And the only reason that Celtic could be as successful as they were is that they could automatically choose the best of the 18% whereas Rangers had to compete with many other clubs for the best of the 82% balance. Anyway you are falling into the trap of thinking that there is such a thing as "possitive" discrimination. Every positive discrimination for one group is negative for another. And talking of exclusivity, where are all the Celtic Jewish players? Or members of the board? Rangers have had both.

You can't know much about the CC. In its creed has been disliking of Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Protestanst, Women, Scentists, Homosexuals and pretty much anyone who disagrees with them. They cry "Heathen" or "Heritic" and then burn you at the stake. The witch hunts have more in common with the KKK than anything the OO have done - ie hunting people and then burning, drowning or hanging them. Oh yeah, and torturing a confession out of them first.

No, despite being non-religious and proclaiming to be an aetheist, he still sees himself as a Catholic and still has that "us and them" attitude. There is not the same innate "protestantness" to abandon for a Protestant who turns aetheist. The point was to show that someone I get on really well with, who is a nice guy and very intelligent, turns into the same party line rhetoric spouting person who is unable to even listen to a point which disagrees with his dogma, that you find from pretty much most Celtic fans I read on the net. When it comes to the CC he is not able to think objectively or even just think for himself even though he can for everything else. That is a big difference between Celtic and Rangers fans. Perhaps it's because most Rangers haven't had the same religious schooling - especially from a religion that has in its creed discouragement for thinking for yourself ie the CC. I'm not an advocate of protestantism, but one of it's greatest differences to that of the CC is that it demands people think for themselves. Which is also probably its biggest downfall - ie people think for themselves and no longer need the religion.

Can you explain how? Their is a lot of common knowledge of history where Catholic have tortured, burned, and otherwise killed people who disagreed with them including wiping out a whole civilisation in Mexico and others just for believing the Earth went round the sun. Most religions have members perpertrate crimes but it seems to me that when it comes to crimes against humanity the Catholic church are the equivalent of Maradonna, but I have no common knowledge that makes the OO look more than the equivalent of Darren Jackson. I'm not going to hate the Catholic church (CC) today for their past crimes so why should I hate the OO? Seems to me if you hate the OO for any crimes, you should hate the CC even more especially if you are Pagan, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, Female, Homosexual, have a knowledge of science or medicine or a belief in equality and democracy. The CC have attacked all of these. What makes you think the CC is better than the OO? Really? To me it's like comparing a mass murderer to a petty thief. The KKK have FAR more in common with the CC as when you consider the witch hunts and burnings. I'm not going to hate the CC for the horrific stuff they've done nor hate every Muslim for the current terrorists so what could the OO have possibly done to deserve your's and other's hate? Some C's boil it down to the fact they believe the OO hates C's. However, can't the OO use the same logic? The CC hate the OO, so that means the OO can hate the CC... I have no fondness for the OO or any other religious group but I do not condone bigotry or hypocrisy. Being irrationally anti-OO is pretty much a good example of the definition of sectarianism.

I must admit to being seduced by the scenario of France drawing with Lithuania and Scotland winning to qualify before the Italian game. I don't want to have to worry about glorious failure.

Two wins would be glorious!

PS Don't think they'll finish it till they are getting bigger crowds but that won't happen much unless they get to the championship. Supposed to hold 30k when complete. They might start releasing some money for the team now...

Should really go to a match but find it hard to get interested in League 2... Maybe get there in the next few months. I drive past it a lot as it's next to a huge Asda and Ikea and you can see it from quite a few roads. Looks pretty good on the outside but not very weather proof...

PS Although I mentioned the Catholic churches past crimes, I don't hold that against any Catholics and don't hate people because they are Catholic, just like I don't hate all Muslims for the recent terrible terrorism acts in Islam's name. I don't "love catholics" either, as firstly there is only one person I could say I actually love and she is CofE and not really that any more. Secondly, I don't love, hate or like any people because of their religion. I treat them as individuals regardless of race, religion, country of origin etc or even team they support. I could quite easily dislike a large proportion of Rangers fans if I met them just as I could with any other fans. There are arseholes everywhere... - in my opinion of course.

The debate over who is worse is made very difficult by the fact that there are not equal amounts of Catholics and Protestants in Scotland. It skews all calculations and that is amusingly pointed out in the comments after the story. Catholics always think they are better as they don't see anything they do as bigoted as they are the minority. It's like many people who don't believe that you can be racist towards a white majority; and even where there are equal numbers there can be discrepancies in interpretation and recognition - for example discrimination against men is rarely treated seriously. However, due to this, I honestly think the Catholic Celtic side is far worse. Many Rangers fans will sing the songs etc but that's about it while most Celtic fans I've met or debated with on the net are at least rabidly sectarian against the Orange Order. However, the strange thing is they argue that "that's different". The guy who is pretty much my best mate at the moment is a Catholic Aetheist [sic] Celtic fan. He is an easy going an intelligent guy, until it comes to the religious divide, when he changes and spouts rhetoric without reasoned argument and refuses to listen to any counter arguments. I watch Celtic with him in the European games and vice versa, and while I don't even listen to the songs, he complains about Rule Britannia, the Sash, Derry's walls and the flying of the Union Flag. When challenged about this and suggested that they are not bigoted and that being against them can be construed as bigoted, he says that's rubbish and then, "doesn't want to talk about it." He even told me that he would be offended if I brought a Union Flag to his house despite him being a Scotsman living in England. (Not that I would but it's a bit extreme, to say the least and offended my English girlfriend). He, like many Celtic fans, compares the OO to the KKK, despite the Catholic church having the worst history by far of the three, by torturing and killing anyone that disagreed with them and being guilty of genocide. And when you mention any of the heinous crimes of the Catholic church as evidence you get called anti-Catholic! Or sometimes accused of, "revisionism." Another thing my mate doesn't want to discuss is that their is obvious evidence that Celtic MUST have had a sectarian signing policy as they had about 80% Catholics from a population which contained about 18%. That's not equal opportunities in anyone's book. Rangers were short about 2 Catholics in their teams, Celtic were short about 6 Protestants. Not many Catholics or Celtic fans will acknowledge that one, yet they bang on, inaccurately about alleged Rangers signing policies despite their being no evidence of it in the last 30 years. It's akin to lambasting the present SA government and people for apartheid. That behaviour is a type of bigotry in itself. I argue with Rangers fans all the time against much of the singing and chants but what real sectarianism there is only boils down to a few things - F.T.P., No Pope of Rome and the more contentious use of the Fen1an word which is probably in effect more political. Apart from that, the only real argument I have against the rest is that it is irrelevant to football and that with two sides doing it, it stirs up hatred. However, the main reason that it seems to rumble on, in my mind is that Catholics choose their football team due to their religion which reseeds the whole circular problem. All other religions tend to have free choice of the 41 other teams. If Rangers had nothing to do with Protestantism there would still be about 75% "Protestants" in the crowd. The fact that there is more is not because they reject Catholics (how could they?), it is the fact that there are very few non-Celtic supporting Catholics left; and most of them will refuse to support Rangers. Catholics and Celtic fans then perpetually attack Rangers and their fans and so it's no wonder that many of them adopt an opposite stance. The extreme ones then adopt all the opposite rubbish and hatred in return. You get the two tribes thing going and all that goes with it. The question that comes back is that without a Catholic team, what would happen to the Rangers bigots? They would hate the fans of the biggest rival team and find a different excuse for it. If Rangers and an Edinburgh team were the biggest two then their would be trouble between people from Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, it would probably have less hatred as the nearby sectarian killings in NI have really het up the whole situation for the OF into something far worse than it would have been. The reason there is far more trouble with religion in Scottish football is that it is the one place where it seems almost all of a religious minority support the one team and there is a neighbouring, related country with a history of pretty much a sectarian civil war. I really all boils down to "us" and "them" and it can happen anywhere, just look at Yugoslavia with its war which event went as far as ethnic cleansing. You cannot change what you don't acknowledge and there is definitely one side that is far better at acknowledging than the other.

Once Cousin and Darcheville are both fully fit we will probably see them together. Walter is still experimenting with personnel and although we're complaining about it, it's not surprising when he's only been here since January and brought in about 15 players in that time. We still have to finish our transitional period and it's really next season before we can expect a settle side. However, if we keep playing like we can and have a settling in the second half of this season to have a strong finish, then I can see Walter rejoining the club of OF managers who win the league in their first full season, just like he did before. However, I really can't see a place for Buffel on the right as we need someone there who can track back and defend. Even Novo seems a far better proposition there. Gow will be fighting for a left berth with McCulloch, Beasley and Adam, so I doublt we'll see him much there. I think both are more likely to appear in a 4-4-1-1 formation with Cousin or Darcheville up front and either player behind.

You're nothing if not consistent!

The lack of appeal against a yellow card seems more reasonable when it takes you about 6 or 7 to get a ban, but when it only takes two, it's not far away from a red. I think the reason is so that not every yellow card is appealed against which could be an administrative nightmare in a domestic league, but in a league where every game is so crucial as in the CL, justice needs to be served. The same goes for the dive, it�s to stop every free-kick being contested. However a free-kick not far outside the box can bring many goals and almost did in this case. There is also the intent, what if the player tripped and fell over without touching an opposing player? He hasn�t dived but he�s not going to argue about the free kick. In this case, I think the referee should ask the player if he was fouled and take his word for it as a gentleman. However, if it is proved he was lying then he gets a big fine and at least a 2 match ban for deception and ungentlemanly conduct. This punishment would come in even if the player genuinely thought he had been fouled. It may persuade players to be a bit more honest and so could start to admit to not being fouled during the game which would prevent some of these travesties from happening in the first place.

Seems to me that Walter is departing from the strategy that steadied the ship and what made us so optimistic. We have castigated Eck and Le Guen for choosing baffling team choices and tactics and then doing badly, now Walter is starting to do the same. I've said it before, if you do something that departs from the obvious and it works, you look like a genius, if it doesn't work, you look like a fool. When Walter came back, he seemed to be doing all the obvious stuff like shoring up the defence and picking the best players we had available and using the most appropriate tactics. Few could really disagree with his team and formation - and it worked. He still seems to be doing that for Europe but is blotting his copy book by some strange team selections at home. I actually agree with the formation against Hibs as it's the same as we use to such effect in Europe against the form team in the SPL. However I agree that a few personnel choices were not the best. Hemdani deserved to retain his place, but then so did McCulloch, and if you're going to replace him it should be with a more attack minded player than Adam, with Beasley as the glaringly obvious choice. Others have mentioned Gow which could be a good choice if Beasley needed rested, and it's a shame he seems the only player not to get a look in at the moment. Boyd is well known not to be good at the lone striker role, which is why he's not used in Europe as such. Cousin should definitely been on from the beginning, especially as he's dying for a game. On the right, the obvious again is that Whittaker needs a rest and the pressure taken off him. Novo has played excellently this season and can do a great job on the right and would make our formation far more attacking against a lesser side than Stuggart or Lyon. He injects energy into the game which seems to be lacking when in the SPL this month. Walter needs to get back to doing the more obvious as it's what he seemed to be good at.

I'm a Scot first, maybe more so as I live in England, so I'm revelling in three great results for Scottish football. I think polite Tim posters like BC2 should be welcomed or at least treated with a bit of respect and dignity, as that is supposed to be the Rangers way. There are plenty of raving lunatics on both sides so a more civilised exchange should be encouraged and maybe we can get back to a bit of proper banter with football rivalry, rather than a rage of venom and bitterness that usually goes on.

I think the trouble in Europe is that he switched from the successful 4-4-2 system to a badly thought out 5-3-2. At the time it worked in Scotland as we relied on the likes of Laudrup and Gazza to "do something" but that's not a tactic you can use in Europe. Laudrup and Gazza really needed top class ball winners around them and the likes of Alex Clelland and Bolan just weren't up to it. Imagine what it could have been like with even Hutton and Smith as wing backs with Hemdani in the middle. Even better with Reyna and Gio with Ferguson in the middle when at his best. I think we struggled to find strikers too and when we eventually got one who could regularly put the ball in the net, he went a bit potty. The central defence was a bit rocky too, compared to now with even Amo prone to big mistakes. But it's a formation which never worked whereas this new 4-1-4-1 formation has worked a treat in Europe for Rangers, Scotland and now even Celtic. I think Aberdeen only played one up front too. It won't work in the SPL against the wee teams but then that's what Boyd, Naismith and Novo are for. However I do think we should use it in away games against the likes of Hearts, Hibs and Celtic - although I'm not sure what will happen if they use the exact same tactics... We could cancel each other out.

I think it depends on how long Walter stays. He already looks like he could eclipse his first stint at manager and if he can continue like this and keep building the squad to compete in the league and Europe I can see him becoming a modern dynastic manager of the type we started out with. He could do a Sir Alex Ferguson and just keep on going. I think we need a period of stability after three relatively short managerial tenures and Smith is the man to provide that. Not everyone will I agree, but I think he epitomizes most of the characteristics that we look for in a Rangers manager; while coincidentally, Strachan seems to be acting out the Celtic stereotype. If he can sustain the type of results we're getting and win at least every second title then I'd like him to stay for a decade or more. Then we can look at how McCoist has developed as a coach. I'm sure he has one of the best mentors around.

I can't help myself, I'll be willing Celtic on to win. It's the Scottish aspect that takes over for me.

I think we should definitely play the same team and formation against Hibs away and Celtic too. It certainly seems to work against champions - 4 of them now.

For me, part of the problem is that a high quality team can always be beaten by a lower quality team if the latter are playing well and really up for it while the better team are not matching that motivation. The clich�© for the OF playing away is that the opposition treat it as a cup final and I think that seems to be true in the case of Hearts and Motherwell. Both those teams had one of their best games of the season but also fought for every ball and seemed really determined to get a result. Also in both those games, Rangers seemed a bit lackluster and lacking in fight and determination. To make the superior quality of player count, you first have to match the lesser teams work-rate and motivation. Otherwise the gap can be closed or reversed. Both games were before a CL match so you have to wonder if some of our players are too busy thinking about the glamorous midweek game. However, in the end, to win the league you probably need around 95 points, which means you can afford to drop about 19. That's a point every two games. We've played 8 games and have dropped 5 instead of 4, so while that is not quite good enough, if we win the next couple of games we're back on track. Besides, Celtic have dropped as many points as us, also to fired up teams in away games. Celtic certainly seemed to get Hearts at home when they had a few problems while we got them away when they dramatically sorted themselves out.

How can anyone claim that we're reaping what Bertie sowed when only Weir from the present team was in the 2002 team?

PS That would have been great in one of the rag tops... Send it to the Sun, they'd love it.