Bill

You keep asking it and somehow it's hard not to just enjoy the indignation. Cheers ?

There you are. You mention, not me.

Cheers Gaffer. It will be interesting to see if anyone else, particularly those who asked the question, is willing to try to answer it.

I admit I've only gone back to April but I can see nowhere that I even mentioned Roman Catholics. Only you did. You're trying to be smart ... and failing. Try it somewhere that's more receptive ?

Great stuff. What 's your view on it?

No, why would you think I was?

Here's what I think. I think you should think whatever you want and hold whatever position suits you. How fair minded and liberal is that?

I think the truth is his career as a football manager was kaput a long time ago. How he survived so long is anyone's guess. Horrible bloke.

Nothing sweeping about that of course ?

Oh do you really think so?

Oh please let it happen.

The old evidence ploy again. Why? Am I your Wikipedia service? If you think I'm wrong then say so and feel free to provide your own evidence - if you don't then the jot I don't care is yours to keep.

Like many ScotNats, Darther demonstrates a need to be victimised. In a last ditch effort to avoid Darther's myth becoming part of accepted truth, let me reiterate ... no one, at all, has , ever, said that Darther cannot be a Rangers supporter and a SNP voter/member. There is clearly nothing to stop him and no one, at all, has, ever, said otherwise, however much Darther wants to believe they have. What has been said is that there is a contradiction between having the interests of Rangers at heart while also promulgating the cause of a political party that has long shown a loathing of the Rangers community. It's a contradiction I couldn't own and one that (it seems to me) can only be accommodated by pretence on one side or the other. Further, having taken this view, I hardly think it's a massive leap to conclude the reason for the SNP attitude is the unionist tradition of the Rangers community. That's my view, I'm happy to repeat it. If people don't agree with it, please don't stoop to reinvention to show it.

Thanks for biting. Before I answer your question, can you help me out ... have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP. I'm not aware they have and have no issue with any of them but since you choose to name them here, in the context of this topic, I suspect you have some knowledge I don't. Once again thanks for biting.

You're clearly desperate to be a victim here but it won't flush and no descent into pedantry will help your case. No one has ever said you cannot be a Rangers supporter and vote SNP. What has been said is that it represents a contradiction that's difficult to resolve and the only way you can accommodate these two things is by reinventing Rangers traditions. I don't ever see separatists reinventing the SNP as a pro-Ranger party. Try to calm down a little. I have no problem if you go on living your contradiction. I'll go on calling it a contradiction, which I believe it is.

That's simply untrue. The point I've seem made is that there is an obvious contradiction between the generally and traditionally unionist profile of rangers and a political party that opposes unionism and has a track record of confronting Rangers and its support. For me, and it's an opinion only, that contradiction is, on the whole, undeniable. As far as I'm aware, no one has said you are not, or should not be, allowed to support Rangers and the SNP.

Try to retain some composure, angry outbursts only suggest an inner lack of confidence and an ugly disposition. I think the basis of your obvious and frankly amusing frustration is your constant reduction of opinion into pedantry. This isn't a court of law or a PhD thesis. Neither are you, or anyone else, sitting as judge in these matters or entitled to demand and set standards of "evidence". Many things are substantially true without the need for evidential backing. One of them is that Rangers has long been a focus for unionism in Scotland. You don't like this being true but it's no less so for your dismissal. Here's a thought. Why don't you now assert moral superiority by claiming failure to provide your "evidence" is categoric vindication of your position? I'm sure that would make you feel less frustrated.

You can only support both Rangers and Scottish independence by re-inventing Rangers as something other than the unionist club it long has been. To do this you have to ignore decades of evidence and pretend that "your" Rangers is somehow different. In this dreamworld of fiction and invention that you can align your support for Rangers with all kinds of other shit rattling round inside your head. Luckily it doesn't affect anything in the real world.

BBC Scotland seems to have a place for every other Rangers hater, why not "Stubbsy".

But they ARE ours for the term of their contract. We have it in black and white to prove it. At the end of their contract term they revert to their previous contract with another club.

They’re not sacking a manager. They’re sacking an obnoxious, ugly, black-hearted, Celtic-minded bastard. Where’s the shame in that? ?

I have absolutely no interest in what they do. But you're right.

There's an increasing tendency to mislead this issue. Rangers reduced Celtic's allocation at Ibrox for the benefit and convenience of Rangers supporters, not to deny Celtic or to reduce "atmosphere". This had been called for over many year by Rangers fans and became a no-brainer when demand for season tickets passed a certain level.. As for diminishing the fixture in the eyes of the football world by reducing the number of away fans, this is complete tosh. The world watches this fixture on TV, where the "atmosphere" is controlled by a bloke in a studio, with volume turned up or down to suit. The average neutral punter watching an old firm game has never attended one and is enticed primarily by the hype from SkyTV or other outlets. It's about selling the OF brand, not about focusing on how many Celtic fans are in Ibrox. It's an utter irrelevance to the reputation of the fixture. The vast majority of football viewers across the world knows diddly about the Scottish game and couldn't give a stuff how many away fans are in the stadium on match days. To see an increasing number of people now calling for fewer seats to be made available to Rangers supporters is almost beyond belief and it's difficult to understand what motivates this bizarre behaviour.

This is what Club1872 should be for. Direct action on behalf of its members. Good to see. I wonder how much pressure could be brought to bear on GCC for a million quid?

What you're saying is you'd prefer to see several thousand Rangers fans excluded and their places taken by Celtic fans, just so you can listen to their din. That's nice.