The Liberal Conscience Takes a Holiday

[andy steel 0]

Andy,

Your not wrong. Here's tomorrow's Scotsman with the inimitable Tom English. The idiot who threw the flare has allowed English to use the first five paragraphs of his article to minimise the damage done by the GB and put it on an equal footing with the behaviour yesterday of part of our support. It just hands Lunny what he needs to escape doing his job properly. Either way Rangers will pay for that nonsense.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/falkirk-0-2-rangers-scottish-cup-win-for-gers-1-3215167

 

Incredible that anyone could try to equate the two. Funny how 'whataboutery' is verboten when it's us raising the issue, but fine when some writers are doing it!

[andy steel 0]

Regarding the UVF and No surrender and all that. Mabye I am wrong, but while we sure have our hardliners all along, I got the impression that most of our supporters "shed" the actual meaning and real support of anything "loyalist" in the mid-90s. It became football songs, part of the "banter" and really good for a sing-along. Somesuch never happened at the Scumhut though, and during their barren years, it actually became worse with them. The (as in: our's, not their's) songs were taken out of the football context, were criminalised and politicised. Agenda driven. I for one would reckon that many an "Ultra" belting out Father's Advice or The Sash hardly has a clue about or any real-life support for the Orange Order, YCV or UVF.

 

I don't know. I didn't put anything in the OP about 'Father's Advice' because I couldn't remember what it was called - now, I've been toddling along Edmiston Drive since the early 80's so it's not as if I don't know the songbook! Seems to me like there's been a real rearguard action amongst the Loyalist fans to ensure they are not left behind, at least vocally. This finds support here (Scotland) amongst the youthful who want to appear hardcore, and their elders who don't care to move on from the 80's, and has a ready outlet in the online community with their 'Rangers fan my arse' mantra and wanker emoticon. The horror! the horror!

 

But even if you're right, lifting the songbook of Northern Ireland because 'it's really good for a sing-song' must be one of the most culturally crass moves in the history of fandom. Terrorism is not only always wrong, it's hardly a fit subject for a singsong! Loyalism is not terrorism, would be the reply to that. Well, stop singing about the YCV or the UVF, then!

 

I've no issue with 'loyalist' music like The Sash or No surrender - although I don't sing the former since I've no time for Orangeism. When Tom English berated Malcolm Murray for saying 'no surrender' he failed to understand that, while to him it may mean Irish history, to me it means 'don't give up, Rangers!' and nothing more. Culturally insensitive? Maybe, but if your skin is so thin that something from 300 years ago bothers you I suggest you don't leave the house...I bet you there are plenty of Scotland fans who sing Flower of Scotland, then will vote 'no' in the referendum. Singing a song is not a binding legal contract to enact all the words contained therein, you know. But some are certainly less tasteful than others, & the more recent the issue, the less tasteful the ditty.

 

And anyway, few pressmen were likewise upset by the content of the banners at Parkheid last week, only the effect on celtc and the timing. Can't have it both ways!

[andy steel 0]

" 'Super Rangers' for a start. It is going to have to go "

 

This must be the most rubbish song of all time. Written and composed by Millwall fans. Millwall! English League Division 3 South. Who wants to copy that?

 

I quite like it, forbidden word removed so as not to get the club into bother, of course. I dunno if we can still sing 'we don't care', though, after the last few years, and mean it...

[Bluedell 5,329]

That's not what he did though.

 

When someone writes something as comprehensive and thoughtful as Andy's post it always makes me laugh when a poster will find the one small part of it they don't agree with and post about that. I've done it before too, we're a difficult bunch.

 

Not sure what's wrong with picking on one bit and discussing it. Surely better than a generic "agree" or just ignoring it.

 

Perhaps it wasn't Andy's intention but I don't think it was clear from the article.

[crucible 0]

Today's terrorist tomorrow's statesman, look no further than Adams and McGuinness, the way it has been since time immemorial.

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

Today's terrorist tomorrow's statesman, look no further than Adams and McGuinness, the way it has been since time immemorial.

There is certainly some truth in that statement. From the cowardly death squads to all smiles receptions at the Whitehouse. I wonder what they talk about over dinner - "Hey there Mardy what was your murder weapon of choice?" Does my friggin' head in.

[crucible 0]

Yes, some people have no idea of the real world when giving is all one sided and the proverbial inch is in reality a mile.

[andy steel 0]

Today's terrorist tomorrow's statesman, look no further than Adams and McGuinness, the way it has been since time immemorial.

 

That's true, but it still doesn't excuse their banner. 'Poor taste' just doesn't even come close.

[amms 0]

Not sure what's wrong with picking on one bit and discussing it. Surely better than a generic "agree" or just ignoring it.

 

Perhaps it wasn't Andy's intention but I don't think it was clear from the article.

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, just that it's a thing 'we' do. I'm guilty of it too. It's just curious, that's all.

[crucible 0]

That's true, but it still doesn't excuse their banner. 'Poor taste' just doesn't even come close.

 

The British establishment excused it, they are in the Palace of Westminster, acquiescence and appeasement have their own prices ones I would rather not pay, but the powers that be have me pissin in the wind a second class inhabitant in my own land.