Plan 'S' For Scots Football: More Irish History

[andy steel 0]

What a difference a year makes.

 

About 12-18 months ago, new legislation was introduced in Scotland which sought to finally, once and for all, get Rangers fans in particular to shut up about Ireland and the Pope both at and going to or from football matches. Don't believe any nonsense about other club's fans, it was aimed at Bluenoses because Bluenoses were and are seen as the primary offenders.

 

I had and have no problem with this: I was sick of such songs and chants at Ibrox and, since my fellow fans didn't show much sign of packing it in themselves, I agreed that they needed the threat of the law to encourage them to stagger into the 20th century, let alone the 21st. The law proved very controversial, but until this week I remained behind it, because Rangers could only benefit from it, even if some individual fans suffered. I am pleased to say that such songs are down to the absolute bare minimum and will, with the right approach, wither and die within a generation.

 

So, the law is a success? Alas, things have become rather muddied.

 

The spotlight has shifted from us to Celtic's fans, due to their repeated singing and flag waving about IRA people, disrupting Glasgow city with marches, singing about Orange Bastard managers from Ajax and generally being obnoxious. Curiously, this focus has been greeted not with societal opprobrium and condemnation, and certainly not legislation, but a willingness to engage with the reasoning behind such displays, deep thinking articles and much intelligentsia driven discussion. Legitimate displays of heritage are suddenly to include singing about terrorists, which unless I am mistaken is specifically illegal under the laws brought in after 7/7 and 9/11. You can dress it up as political activism all you like, terrorism is always wrong. But we have people celebrating it.

 

This is frankly disgusting.

 

As a long serving hand wringer and hater of all Orange ties to Rangers, this willingness to engage with Celtic's terrorist celebrating wing dismays me. Not just because newspaper articles which stroke their metaphorical chin and hmm, hmm, about the rights and wrongs of glorifying murder turns any sane person's stomach, but because it whips the ground out from beneath the feet of those Bluenoses who have argued for the club's fans to drop its baggage.

 

How can I argue that Rangers should drop loyalist links when the rest of the country is falling over itself to analyse Celtic's Irish links? Whether I like it or not, and I don't, I cannot deny that such loyalist links existed.

 

How can I argue that UVF songs are disgusting when the rest of the country has re-classified the IRA as merely a misunderstood political movement, who seem to have let off a few firecrackers by mistake? I am not subtle enough to distinguish between one murder gang and another; if one is allowed, it seems all must be.

 

How can I urge Bluenoses to look to the future when the media in this country are hell bent on grovelling before Celtic's past? If fan A's heritage is so bloody important, surely so is fan B's?

 

The case against sectarianism has taken a huge leap backwards in this country in the last few weeks, and all because some attention has been shone on Celtic's bigots. They are not politically active, they are not the cultural heirs of Finn MacCool, they are a parasitic leech on Scottish football which will do nothing for it but plenty to hold it back. But hey, we want some atmosphere at Celtic park, so that's OK. I imagine thousands of fans will be queuing up to enjoy said atmosphere. Mr Graham Spiers, on BBC Radio Scotland last night, calmly discussed the alleged terrorism-informed Irish heritage of Celtic as displayed by the Green Brigade group of fans - what an insult to both Ireland and Celtic, incidentally - then sounded like he was foaming at the mouth when discussing Mr Paul Murray, the wannabe Rangers director.

 

This man's moral compass is not just broken, it is absolutely shattered.

 

What a dispiriting and dismaying vista. An arch critic of Rangers' sectarian links, Mr Spiers has been at the forefront of pushing for engagement with these deeply misunderstood and intelligent, earnest young men and women, the better to understand why pictures of a 14th century Scottish killer, a 20th century Irish killer, and the suggestion that either are appropriate for the future of 21st century Scotland (or even Ireland), have become visible.

 

The fairly obvious answer - that neither will do, and rather than banging on about centuries past both countries would be better served by looking to the future - is discarded, in favour of agonised intellectual examinations of political disengagement. Anyone who thinks we will revive the electorate by adding some more Irish history to football - this is the serious premise being put forward, by the way - ought to be debarred from even commenting on it on grounds of incipient cretinism. The avalanche of people who have attempted to legitimise utterly inappropriate behaviour by football fans as political has been staggering, but that doesn't make them right!

 

As a paid up online intellectual chin stroker myself, it kind of pains me to say that people who actually have to live with this sort of crap are the ones who have given the best response to it. Mr Tom English and Mr Keith Jackson have given these people short shrift: self-obsessed and self-indulgent has been their judgement, and I would agree. Mr English is Irish, and presumably has an educated understanding of Irish history; Mr Jackson, to judge from his accent, grew up in the environment in which the realities of Old Firm sectarianism are well understood - i.e., broadly meaningless insults between people who go to different schools. Mr Spiers, we know from his insistence on providing us with details of his youth, did not.

 

I won't be dragged into sectarianism just because I am a Rangers fanatic - sectarianism is such a waste of time and energy which embarrasses my club. Granted, any time you have a religion you will have people who oppose it; but it's got nothing to do with football. I'll argue against any Bluenose who wants a debate about our baggage, and have done for a decade. But it just got harder to justify that position (which I will not abandon) thanks to the pussy-footing around in the media, and it's mighty hard to persuade your fellow Bluenose that he out of order when his opposite number in green is molly-coddled to this degree.

 

People like Mr Spiers do the game and the country no favours by indulging one side of this coin while castigating the other. Let's get this absolutely clear - terrorism is always wrong; sectarianism is always wrong; bleating about it at the football is always wrong. It really is that simple. Pandering to bigots will not cleanse Scotland of bigotry, and re-branding bigotry as political activism is about as cowardly and gutless as it gets, allowing those who have spent decades berating one class of bigots to avoid confronting another lot on the grounds of freedom of speech.

 

Mr Spiers recently contacted Gersnet to complain about nine inaccuracies in one of our articles. I would be delighted to hear from him if he could point out the inaccuracies in this one...I won't hold my breath.

Edited December 15, 2013 by andy steel

[Doc 280]

Powerful, forensic arguments Andy. An excellent piece that should be read by anyone who seriously cares about fairness and decency in modern Scotland.

 

Thank you.

[andy steel 0]

Man, the list could go on and on!

 

Peter O'Toole, the My Left Foot guy whose names escapes my aging memory, G.B. Shaw, thingy Doyle, even, if you like that sort of thing, Somerville & Ross. Flann O'Brien, Jim Farrell (I know he was English really but anyway), and so on.

 

They don't call the 20th century 'The Irish Century' in literature for nothing, but in this cultural backwater we apparently require spotty adolescents breaking chairs to bring home to us the true meaning of Irishness.

 

It's just totally demoralizing.

[barca72 440]

What a difference a year makes.

 

The spotlight has shifted from us to Celtic's fans, due to their repeated singing and flag waving about IRA people, disrupting Glasgow city with marches, singing about Orange Bastard managers from Ajax and generally being obnoxious. Curiously, this focus has been greeted not with societal opprobrium and condemnation, and certainly not legislation, but a willingness to engage with the reasoning behind such displays, deep thinking articles and much intelligentsia driven discussion. Legitimate displays of heritage are suddenly to include singing about terrorists, which unless I am mistaken is specifically illegal under the laws brought in after 7/7 and 9/11. You can dress it up as political activism all you like, terrorism is always wrong. But we have people celebrating it.

 

This is frankly disgusting.

 

As a long serving hand wringer and hater of all Orange ties to Rangers, this willingness to engage with Celtic's terrorist celebrating wing dismays me. Not just because newspaper articles which stroke their metaphorical chin and hmm, hmm, about the rights and wrongs of glorifying murder turns any sane person's stomach, but because it whips the ground out from beneath the feet of those Bluenoses who have argued for the club's fans to drop its baggage.

 

How can I argue that Rangers should drop loyalist links when the rest of the country is falling over itself to analyse Celtic's Irish links? Whether I like it or not, and I don't, I cannot deny that such loyalist links existed.

 

How can I argue that UVF songs are disgusting when the rest of the country has re-classified the IRA as merely a misunderstood political movement, who seem to have let off a few firecrackers by mistake? I am not subtle enough to distinguish between one murder gang and another; if one is allowed, it seems all must be.

 

How can I urge Bluenoses to look to the future when the media in this country are hell bent on grovelling before Celtic's past? If fan A's heritage is so bloody important, surely so is fan B's?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann

 

http://newryrepublican.blogspot.ca/2010/11/interview-with-oglaigh-na-heireann.html

 

 

 

 

Andy, I am not advocating anything or trying to defend anyone, just giving you some information which if you don't know about it will disgust you further. These are the guys claiming responsibility for last Friday's bomb blast in Belfast. I believe these are the guys that the GB are now supporting as well as the Provos. These are the guys that the GB would like Scotland to support.

I guess these guys, nor the GB, want the Good Friday agreement to work. When you ask the question - "How can I urge Bluenoses to look to the future ... " - maybe they already know the answer.

Do you think that Haggerty and Findlay don't know about these guys and have factored them in to their diatribes about Irish culture? When you see the amount of organization and cooperation that has come out of the east end it makes you wonder. The hooligan element of the GB may have forced Lawwell's hand for now because UEFA stepped in, but can Bluenoses believe that the GB will just go away, that ONH will just go away? Do you remember who tried to kill Rangers? Was that a football decision, or was it more complicated than that? What could the possible agenda behind it be?

Maybe you're right and that football is just a game, perhaps that's all a Bluenose should be concerned about. There again supicions may still linger, I wonder why.

Anyway, what has any of it got to do with Rangers they just want to play football?

[barca72 440]

Sorry, I don't follow.

 

I was thinking, rather wistfully, of times in the 50's/60's when all you had to worry about was a pie and bovril at half-time, a victory at full time and back to the pub for a pint or two. None of these boardroom shenanigans or politics etc.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Andy, you're on fire tonight, sir. Excellent writing as usual. However, whilst the journey was enjoyable, I think the destination leaves room for improvement.

 

I'd make two observations about your article:

 

the first is that you ask

 

How can I argue that Rangers should drop loyalist links when the rest of the country is falling over itself to analyse Celtic's Irish links? ....

 

How can I argue that UVF songs are disgusting when the rest of the country has re-classified the IRA as merely a misunderstood political movement, .....

 

How can I urge Bluenoses to look to the future when the media in this country are hell bent on grovelling before Celtic's past? ......

 

and I presume the questions are rhetorical - because you know the answer.

 

You can, indeed must, argue all of the above, because it is the right, and thus only, thing to do.

 

It really doesn't matter what Celtic FC, the plastic paddy guevarras of the 'green brigade' or Paddy Mcginty's goat say, think or sing. The only thing that need concern us is that *we* do the right thing and get our own house in order.

 

The second thing I'd note is that every word written about the vacuous nonentity that is Graham Spiers is wasted time, effort and bandwidth.

I implore you not to waste any more of your time or ours writing about someone whose pretentiousness is matched only by his affectation and hypocricy and who has nothing of value to say about Scottish football - or indeed anything else come to that.

[Hildy 0]

I touched on this recently.

 

Those Celtic fans who have taken to flying banners with political messages on them - they are not doing anything that a mature society should object to. They hold a particular point of view and want to flaunt it, as they have done for decades.

 

Driving them underground is an exercise in madness. Keep them in the light. Let everyone see what they stand for. Let them be judged for their views.

 

Oppressing and criminalising them is a foolish tactic because it will fuel their anger and aid the growth of their more extremist wing.

 

Yes, they would stand back and see Rangers fans targeted, and applaud authority for doing it, but that's because there is a lopsided moral standard in their midst which should hardly come as a surprise to us.

 

Alex Salmond's shallow administration is needlessly provoking a deeply sinister element here, and it was bounced into it by people who basically wanted a law to single out and arrest Rangers fans.

 

If the Scottish government has any sense at all, it will walk away from criminalising football fans and abandon its bad law.

 

If the law interferes with a heavy hand, it will create the circumstances for a poisonous weed to take root and grow.

 

Football can accommodate the political aspect of the Old Firm. It might be distasteful at its worst but it has never become an intolerable situation for our society.

 

By disallowing it at the football, the possibility exists that it could express itself by other means. This is a risk that we do not need to run - that we should not run.

 

Our Edinburgh parliament has made an ass of itself. Oppressive laws are a greater obscenity than songs and chants with political

content.

[andy steel 0]

Andy, you're on fire tonight, sir. Excellent writing as usual. However, whilst the journey was enjoyable, I think the destination leaves room for improvement.

 

I'd make two observations about your article:

 

the first is that you ask

 

 

 

and I presume the questions are rhetorical - because you know the answer.

 

You can, indeed must, argue all of the above, because it is the right, and thus only, thing to do.

 

It really doesn't matter what Celtic FC, the plastic paddy guevarras of the 'green brigade' or Paddy Mcginty's goat say, think or sing. The only thing that need concern us is that *we* do the right thing and get our own house in order.

 

The second thing I'd note is that every word written about the vacuous nonentity that is Graham Spiers is wasted time, effort and bandwidth.

I implore you not to waste any more of your time or ours writing about someone whose pretentiousness is matched only by his affectation and hypocrisy and who has nothing of value to say about Scottish football - or indeed anything else come to that.

 

Point 1 - Completely agree. I'm not going to stop banging the drum for the Progressive fan against the LUMP Tendency, but my point is that coverage of the GB which oohs and aahs over their intellectual prowess while ignoring their playing at terrorism from the safety of Scotland makes it that much harder to persuade said LUMPs to move on.

 

Point 2 - I would normally agree but I am so frustrated with the effect this will have on our fans that if I didn't post something about it I would never have got to sleep!

[Frankie 8,127]

I think this is one of your very best articles mate.

 

Captures my feelings almost perfectly and nails the hypocrites in the media.

[andy steel 0]

If the law interferes with a heavy hand, it will create the circumstances for a poisonous weed to take root and grow.

 

Oppressive laws are a greater obscenity than songs and chants with political content.

 

Where I would disagree, Hildy, is that the law is especially oppressive. It is certainly heavy handed, I have never disputed that, but my belief is that when we are dealing with the sort of people being targeted only a heavy hand will do. Asking the GB (Old Firm fans, really) nicely to shut up about their politics at the football won't work!

 

Far from dropping the law and continuing to use football as the means by which these outdated, irrelevant and, bluntly, foreign agenda (agendum?) are kept on their life support machines, we need the commentating class to insist on their removal from the sports field completely, and their introduction into the Scottish body politic.

 

Apparently, Mr Spiers tell us, the GB are astute political activists with a solid intellectual core. Fine, let them organise into a party and stand for election. Then they can do all the politicking they like. Mr Spiers has, to be fair, said that: but by God he has crawled on his belly to avoid actually standing up and pointing out what any decent minded person would do, that their whole ethos stinks to high heaven. He's more religious than me, he ought not need to have this pointed out.