Rangers, Identity and Nationalism

[alexscottislegend 2,084]

The late Scottish poet, nationalist and socialist Hugh MacDiarmid referred to what he called the Scottish antisyzygy – that is, the ability to be able to hold apparently opposite views in the same psyche. I’m reminded of this while thinking about the possible future status of our great club, and this time of the year seems the appropriate time to do so.

Given fairly recent polling evidence it is not without the bounds of possibility that in the not-too-distant, Scotland could be an independent state within the European Union while the rest of the UK could conceivably have voted to leave that same EU. Should that happen, then there seems to be strong evidence that the majority of Scots would vote to remain in Europe and therefore some separation would be inevitable. Given that possibility where would that leave the identity of our club? Would supporters still fly Union Jacks? Would we become the establishment club in Scotland, much like Real Madrid is perceived in Spain?

Cards on table time here. I spent my formative years in the pebble-dashed environs of Penilee, thus I could reasonably claim my allegiance to Rangers on the basis simply that it was my local club. At the age of 7, I desperately wanted my Dad to take me to Ibrox but the old man wasn’t remotely interested in football and my grandpa would only take me to Firhill, citing the fact that he thought the big crowds would be too intimidating for me. Thus it fell to my uncle, a Labour-supporting Rangers enthusiast, and a freemason, to introduce me to the delights of that forward line whose names roll so easily off the tongue: Scott, McMillan, Millar, Brand and Wilson. I recall trundling home from school in the pea-soup winter fogs, wary of walking past the catholic primary in case I was ambushed due to my being a ‘Proddy dog.’ Yet I never became bigoted; my cousins from the maternal side of the family supported Keltic (that is the correct pronunciation btw) as a result of my uncle’s mixed marriage.

I digress only slightly. From some comments I’ve seen on Gersnet, a stranger might derive the impression that to be a bona fide Rangers supporter you must be a Protestant, a Unionist, a gung-ho militarist and probably not a Labour supporter. Never did I feel McDiarmid’s dilemma more than on one dark night in an English pub in the middle of nowhere following a particularly humiliating defeat in the Texaco Cup by Chesterfield; to an audience of bemused onlookers we belted out ‘God Save the Queen’ in defiant mode as if to bury our disappointment. On another occasion in that same Chesterfield I found myself campaigning for the late Tony Benn, my uncle’s Labour roots remaining firmly entrenched in me while my old man, to his brother’s horror, voted Tory for the first time in his life. In my mature years I’ve got into researching family history. I have a photo of my great-grandfather, one-time resident of Carmichael Street Govan, proudly bedecked in his Masonic uniform. In fact I have two branches of my tree with Northern Ireland roots, but no English bloodline at all which gives me no reason to ally myself to Queen Elizabeth 11 (who was the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland?).

And so to my current hypothetical dilemma. The question must be asked: can one be a Scottish Nationalist (not the same as being an SNP supporter) and a Rangers supporter at the same time? Or are the two mutually exclusive? Can one be a Socialist and Rangers supporter without being labelled as being in the ‘Yahoos’ camp? I’ve spent my whole adult life in deepest England so I think I can take an objective, dispassionate view. What gives me most unease is to see the facile way in which SNP support and Irish Nationalism are portrayed by some as both sides of the same coin. This is to deny the fact that the histories of Scotland and Ireland are not analogous: Ireland was a colonised nation; Scotland was never conquered by anyone. To deny that there is a Scottish nation is to somehow suggest that there is a tangible concept of a British nation, rather like the ‘North Britons’ of the Hanoverian period. To anyone holding such a perception I need only refer them to the comments of numerous Tory MPs on Scotland since the referendum, when they all loved us and wanted Scotland so badly to remain. The UK comprises four distinct nations and here is another conundrum – can one be a Rangers supporter and enthusiastically support the Scotland team? My uncle never saw any false dichotomy here – he supported both with enthusiasm long after he emigrated to Australia. I find it alarming that so many see support for the national team as a mirror image of the Keltic supporter who cheers for the Scottish club and for the Ireland side. Does that imply that the Rangers supporter should only support England? Both we and they are firmly Scottish clubs, albeit with divergent heritages. Those heritages need not and should not be forgotten, but what would be the scenario should an independent Scotland be created, whether by the will of the Scottish people, or by default because the rest of the UK decide to (erroneously in my view) leave the EU?

During the Souness era when we were de facto the biggest club in Britain I was among those who fervently hoped for a British league, a dream which has now been firmly quashed by our English cousins to whom so many pay lip service. In fact, to my considerable distaste, the non-English teams of Cardiff and Swansea have become richer than we are. So the dyed-in-the-wool Unionist has to chew on the fact that our beloved club is just not wanted down south.

In the event of an independent nation to whom should we show our allegiance? To a UK who show us consistent contempt or to the new Scotland? And whither the genuine Labour supporter who rejects nationalism? I have also this to say to those who yearn for an SNP in an independent Scotland: anti-austerity they may be but they are assuredly not Socialist. Rangers supporters may have more to gain from supporting the new Corbyn Labour than any anti-union party but we may find ourselves out-voted by the electoral power of the United Kingdom so many of us aspire to. A sobering thought and one which my late Uncle Rob, maybe fortunately, never had to wrestle with.

[colinstein 294]

We're making this banner. It'll say "Socialists for Rangers 1917"

We've got Lenin on a white tank pointing forward and crossing a river. You'd be mistaken for thinking it might be the Boyne, but on the far bank we've painted 7 hills.

might be the Rubicon !

[alexscottislegend 2,084]

We're making this banner. It'll say "Socialists for Rangers 1917"

We've got Lenin on a white tank pointing forward and crossing a river. You'd be mistaken for thinking it might be the Boyne, but on the far bank we've painted 7 hills.

might be the Rubicon !

 

Think we've got a few Rubicons to cross. Sometimes I think I've got 2 heads looking in different directions!

[Rousseau 9,400]

If we take your premise that Scotland achieves independence -- which I very much doubt and hope we don't! -- surely it would just be the same as "Keltic" now? The UK would still exist so you'd just have fans waving the flag of another country. Like you say, "those heritages need not and should not be forgotten".

 

I do take exception, if I read it correctly, that there is no such thing as a British nation. A Nation is defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory." We do have a common history, culture and language. There are 'rivalries' throughout the UK: Lowland vs Highland, North vs South in England, Glasgow vs Edinburgh, Liverpudlians vs Mancs. Just because there are rivalries between two sub-cultures, doesn't mean we don't have a shared culture too; and it certainly doesn't mean we should therefore cut all ties.

 

When you say your uncle voted Labour and father voted Tory suggests that one can belong to the same sub-culture but hold entirely different values. You are socialist-leaning, I'm conservative-leaning, yet we share a support of Rangers.

 

I would like to know how one can be a nationalist -- advocating the break-up of a union -- whilst also desiring a membership of another (EU)? Moreover, doesn't socialism advocate an internationalist position, the complete antithesis of nationalism? Life is full of contradictions. It's what makes it interesting. Oh, and wasn't MacDiarmid a communist? Again, somewhat incompatible with Nationalism. I've rambled a bit, but I think I've made a point somewhere? It was a thought-provoking post though. I thank you for it.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Rousseau

[alexscottislegend 2,084]

If we take your premise that Scotland achieves independence -- which I very much doubt and hope we don't! -- surely it would just be the same as "Keltic" now? The UK would still exist so you'd just have fans waving the flag of another country. Like you say, "those heritages need not and should not be forgotten".

 

I do take exception, if I read it correctly, that there is no such thing as a British nation. A Nation is defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory." We do have a common history, culture and language. There are 'rivalries' throughout the UK: Lowland vs Highland, North vs South in England, Glasgow vs Edinburgh, Liverpudlians vs Mancs. Just because there are rivalries between two sub-cultures, doesn't mean we don't have a shared culture too; and it certainly doesn't mean we should therefore cut all ties.

 

When you say your uncle voted Labour and father voted Tory suggests that one can belong to the same sub-culture but hold entirely different values. You are socialist-leaning, I'm conservative-leaning, yet we share a support of Rangers.

 

I would like to know how one can be a nationalist -- advocating the break-up of a union -- whilst also desiring a membership of another (EU)? Moreover, doesn't socialism advocate an internationalist position, the complete antithesis of nationalism? Life is full of contradictions. It's what makes it interesting. I've rambled a bit, but I think I've made a point somewhere? It was a thought-provoking post though. I thank you for it.

 

You may just have saved me from a visit to my psychiatrist. Life is indeed full of contradictions. Take your username, Rousseau; I always thought he was certainly anti-conservative but I hope you don't show any of his gloomy later-life symptoms!Just to clarify my own position, I feel there is little point in an independent Scotland in or out of the EU if it is to be presided over by an SNP espousing free market capitalism; might just as well remain in the UK as a federal nation. Sturgeon et al have so far shown little inclination to renationalise for example Scotrail.

Edited January 2, 2016 by alexscottislegend
sp

[Rousseau 9,400]

You may just have saved me from a visit to my psychiatrist. Life is indeed full of contradictions. Take your username, Rousseau; I always thought he was certainly anti-conservative but I hope you don't show any of his gloomy later-life symptoms!Just to clarify my own position, I feel there is little point in an independent Scotland in or out of the EU if it is to be presided over by an SNP espousing free market capitalism; might just as well remain in the UK as a federal nation. Sturgeon et al have so far shown little inclination to renationalise for example Scotrail.

 

Ha! Indeed. I wouldn't say Rousseau was anti-conservatism, more liberal but with conservative leanings; which is not incompatible with conservatism IMO as it emphasises self-reliance and individualism. And, I'm sure if he lived a little longer he would have liked the work of Adam Smith, who published Wealth Of Nations a year or two after Rousseau's death. Rousseau himself was contradictory, changing beliefs several times within his lifetime. I like the basics of his ideas, perhaps not all his conclusions. I am about to embark on reading a biography of Edmund Burke, who is regarded as a liberal conservative -- I must be that way inclined!

 

I feel there is little point in an independent Scotland full-stop. I like the idea of federalism, and think it's the way forward. I understand your point-of-view, of fostering the unions (UK and EU) as I see it as socialist, even though I'm not that way inclined; It's understandable. I don't understand nationalist's seeking the break-up of one while wishing to be part of another.

[Scott7 5,199]

One of our most devout followers was a communist internationalist atheist.

 

Didn't stop him wearing the colours.

[alexscottislegend 2,084]

One of our most devout followers was a communist internationalist atheist.

 

Didn't stop him wearing the colours.

 

I should know this but I'm scratching my head..?

[Scott7 5,199]

Follower, not player.

[andy steel 0]

Any Rangers fan can be anything they want so long as they support Rangers. Anything else is unhealthy vanity - insisting others agree with you on this, that or the other is narcissism on a worrying level.

 

I reckon this debate will be booted into the Lounge but fwiw in reply to some questions:

 

Rousseau:

I would like to know how one can be a nationalist -- advocating the break-up of a union -- whilst also desiring a membership of another (EU)?

 

On balance, the SNP believe Scotland benefits from membership of the EU and so wishes to remain; on balance, it believes Scotland does not benefit from membership of the UK and so wishes to leave. Given the nature of sovereignty (increasingly supranational since WW2) this is hardly a contradictory stance, merely a weighing up of options. I don't doubt that, were the administration of the UK to be altered, many SNP voters would be happy enough to remain within the UK, like those voters who wish to leave the EU but who might be persuaded by reform. It's straightforward enough as far as I can see.

 

Alex:

I have also this to say to those who yearn for an SNP in an independent Scotland: anti-austerity they may be but they are assuredly not Socialist.

 

They don't claim to be, they claim to be mildly social democratic. Anyone can see in their policies that they are friendly to business far beyond what any socialist party could be. That may be good or bad depending on your politics, but they can hardly be blamed for not being what others say they are.

 

Rousseau:

I do take exception, if I read it correctly, that there is no such thing as a British nation. A Nation is defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory."

 

That's maybe a textbook definition of a nation but the UK has been just about the complete opposite of that in it's lifetime, a polyglot, multi-cultural, pan-racial hotpot which defies and denies almost all the norms listed above, other than the particular area of land bit. It's been a strength of the UK that the doors have usually been open and more often than not accepting of cultural cross fertilisation but it is a sad and disappointing aspect of the current politics that the doors to people and ideas are very grudgingly open only a crack.

Edited January 2, 2016 by andy steel