The Anti Rangers SNP

[StuGers 477]

8 hours ago, Walterbear said:

Don’t know. Ask the SNP. I don’t support them. 

 

You are saying the SNP are anti Rangers.    You are doing that to promote a poltical view.  Many of us wish to keep politics out of Rangers. 

It is fairly obvious the

SNP are anti-Rangers - there have been numerous examples over the years. That’s why this conversation was started!

 

People are forgetting that this conversation arose because of a number of SNP councillors / MPs etc. we’re commenting on Rangers fans, not the other way round!

[Frankie 8,149]

I don't think criticism need always be delivered face to face.  I doubt many people would turn up at an SNP conference or the office of James Dornan to raise issues either.

 

With regard to the thread title, I'm not so sure the SNP - as a party - are anti-Rangers per se.  However, many of their higher profile members certainly are or, at the very least, are incapable of balance in football related debates.  I'm not convinced as Yousaf or a Dornan would be fair in a sectarianism debate for example.  And I remain dubious over the involvement of the Scottish government in the Rangers and Hearts administrations. 

 

As such, as a Rangers fan that worries me and it does cross my mind when elections come around.  However, it's perhaps not a priority when other parties also have loud mouths that should know better when it comes to football.

[Walterbear 557]

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

I don't think criticism need always be delivered face to face.  I doubt many people would turn up at an SNP conference or the office of James Dornan to raise issues either.

 

With regard to the thread title, I'm not so sure the SNP - as a party - are anti-Rangers per se.  However, many of their higher profile members certainly are or, at the very least, are incapable of balance in football related debates.  I'm not convinced as Yousaf or a Dornan would be fair in a sectarianism debate for example.  And I remain dubious over the involvement of the Scottish government in the Rangers and Hearts administrations. 

 

As such, as a Rangers fan that worries me and it does cross my mind when elections come around.  However, it's perhaps not a priority when other parties also have loud mouths that should know better when it comes to football.

Fair assessment Frankie. 

[Bill 13,717]

Every political party or movement creates a "profile" of beliefs, standards, language and other identifiers that serve to both define and control how it communicates internally and externally. The SNP took this to an extreme a few years ago when they issued a dictat forbidding any member to publicly disagree with Party policy. Many parties are so focussed on their mantras and so afraid of deviation that the dogma starts to dictate policy, instead of the other way round, and all sorts of contradictions start to appear. We see the left marching to protest white discrimination against blacks in Africa but never discrimination against (for example) whites in South Africa or Asians in Uganda, or even black on black atrocities such as Rwanda. Clearly, racism or discrimination (as such) can't be the real issue and other unspoken (unspeakable?) drivers have to be in play. The levels of hypocrisy can be quite perverse and overwhelming.

 

In the context of this topic, the SNP is a treasure trove of dichotomy and contradiction. We see from this thread alone that people who support a club with a long Unionist tradition are perfectly happy to also argue fervently in favour of a political party dedicated to breaking that Union. To carry the burden of this contradiction, many try to build a wall between the two issues, as if contrived compartmentalisation is somehow an acceptable substitute for honest principle and consistency. This fragmentation of issues into ever more eclectic positions is seldom helpful and often just reflects a poor grasp on anything ... hence the current obsession with the importance of "feelings" rather than facts.

 

Those leading the SNP may well be anti-Rangers on a personal level but I believe they are also anti-Rangers on a party political basis. It's absolutely no secret the SNP has long courted votes of the Irish community in Scotland, a community that clearly identifies with certain institutions such as the Catholic Church and Celtic FC. This is undeniable. With the collapse of Labour in Scotland, I would say the SNP has been spectacularly successful in this regard and is now, in fact as well as aspiration, one of the core institutions of the Irish community. And hats off to the SNP in terms of identifying, pursuing and delivering a political strategy that brought them to power despite a threadbare economic or social agenda.

 

Is the SNP anti-Rangers? I believe it is but more in terms of political strategy and convenience than deeply entrenched bigotry. At least that's how it started off. The bigotry certainly exists for a number of prominent nationalists, including MSPs and MPs, but I believe it is the convenient political position that has attracted, encouraged and made a platform for the public utterances we find so despicable. It is the engagement between nationalism and the Irish community, bolstered by that community's long socialist profile, that has also served to discourage politicians of all parties from declaring any support for our own club, associated as it is with Unionism. The big problem for the SNP is the tail is now wagging the dog and a transference of influence has taken place that is encouraging the older, more tribal bigotries to ferment and grow within clearly anti-British (anti-Rangers) parts of Scottish society. This is particularly evident across the broad swathe of Scottish media.

 

The SNP is both a driver and a focus for anti-Rangers sentiment. Whether it is still in control of the demons it set loose is another question altogether and it may well pay a heavy price for a few years of political advantage, much of which it has squandered dreadfully.

[BEARGER 1,829]

We laugh at the obsession and paranoia of the Tim’s. Yet we have posters on here who think you cannot be a real Rangers fan or not as good a fan as them because you vote SNP and/or support Independence. Those with that bigoted and stupid belief are a small minority in the Rangers suppprt. I don’t know of one Bear who would come out with that nonsense, my Rangers pals support various parties.

[MacK1950 2,231]

Like Bearger I have supported Rangers for over fifty years,have seen many highs & lows,shuddered at the thought that if it were not for circumstance I would have been caught up in the disaster of stairway 13,have attended hundreds of matches with friends and family.

The reason I have done this and continue to do so is my love of the club and its traditions which I would not like to see eroded.

Unfortunately this seems to be in some way happening with the actions of the Union/Vanguard Bears at the weekend.If they wish to go on with this why don't they do it officially and apply and pay for authority to do so and also get rid of face masking which is not seen in the likes of Orange Parades etc.

As to the foregoing arguments on politics it is obvious that no one is going to change any others views on this and has been quite boring to read.

 

[StuGers 477]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Every political party or movement creates a "profile" of beliefs, standards, language and other identifiers that serve to both define and control how it communicates internally and externally. The SNP took this to an extreme a few years ago when they issued a dictat forbidding any member to publicly disagree with Party policy. Many parties are so focussed on their mantras and so afraid of deviation that the dogma starts to dictate policy, instead of the other way round, and all sorts of contradictions start to appear. We see the left marching to protest white discrimination against blacks in Africa but never discrimination against (for example) whites in South Africa or Asians in Uganda, or even black on black atrocities such as Rwanda. Clearly, racism or discrimination (as such) can't be the real issue and other unspoken (unspeakable?) drivers have to be in play. The levels of hypocrisy can be quite perverse and overwhelming.

 

In the context of this topic, the SNP is a treasure trove of dichotomy and contradiction. We see from this thread alone that people who support a club with a long Unionist tradition are perfectly happy to also argue fervently in favour of a political party dedicated to breaking that Union. To carry the burden of this contradiction, many try to build a wall between the two issues, as if contrived compartmentalisation is somehow an acceptable substitute for honest principle and consistency. This fragmentation of issues into ever more eclectic positions is seldom helpful and often just reflects a poor grasp on anything ... hence the current obsession with the importance of "feelings" rather than facts.

 

Those leading the SNP may well be anti-Rangers on a personal level but I believe they are also anti-Rangers on a party political basis. It's absolutely no secret the SNP has long courted votes of the Irish community in Scotland, a community that clearly identifies with certain institutions such as the Catholic Church and Celtic FC. This is undeniable. With the collapse of Labour in Scotland, I would say the SNP has been spectacularly successful in this regard and is now, in fact as well as aspiration, one of the core institutions of the Irish community. And hats off to the SNP in terms of identifying, pursuing and delivering a political strategy that brought them to power despite a threadbare economic or social agenda.

 

Is the SNP anti-Rangers? I believe it is but more in terms of political strategy and convenience than deeply entrenched bigotry. At least that's how it started off. The bigotry certainly exists for a number of prominent nationalists, including MSPs and MPs, but I believe it is the convenient political position that has attracted, encouraged and made a platform for the public utterances we find so despicable. It is the engagement between nationalism and the Irish community, bolstered by that community's long socialist profile, that has also served to discourage politicians of all parties from declaring any support for our own club, associated as it is with Unionism. The big problem for the SNP is the tail is now wagging the dog and a transference of influence has taken place that is encouraging the older, more tribal bigotries to ferment and grow within clearly anti-British (anti-Rangers) parts of Scottish society. This is particularly evident across the broad swathe of Scottish media.

 

The SNP is both a driver and a focus for anti-Rangers sentiment. Whether it is still in control of the demons it set loose is another question altogether and it may well pay a heavy price for a few years of political advantage, much of which it has squandered dreadfully.

Fantastically put.

[StuGers 477]

1 hour ago, BEARGER said:

We laugh at the obsession and paranoia of the Tim’s. Yet we have posters on here who think you cannot be a real Rangers fan or not as good a fan as them because you vote SNP and/or support Independence. Those with that bigoted and stupid belief are a small minority in the Rangers suppprt. I don’t know of one Bear who would come out with that nonsense, my Rangers pals support various parties.

No one has said that you can’t want independence. All I can see is people questioning how you can support a party that openly demonises our club.

[StuGers 477]

1 hour ago, BEARGER said:

We laugh at the obsession and paranoia of the Tim’s. Yet we have posters on here who think you cannot be a real Rangers fan or not as good a fan as them because you vote SNP and/or support Independence. Those with that bigoted and stupid belief are a small minority in the Rangers suppprt. I don’t know of one Bear who would come out with that nonsense, my Rangers pals support various parties.

Also, the Celtic fans’ paranoia is based on here say and unfounded lies. 

For the SNP saying things about Rangers fans, you just have to look at Twitter and the newspapers - it’s there in black and white.

[Gaffer 1,665]

45 minutes ago, StuGers said:

No one has said that you can’t want independence. All I can see is people questioning how you can support a party that openly demonises our club.

I'm so pleased our support is allowed to want different things, including independence.  I would like you to note that some parties promote the need to spend billions on nuclear weapons.  Other parties want us to take major steps to reduce carbon outputs, and thereby hurting many poorer countries.  Some parties want us to continue to be ruled by unelected people in Brussels.  Some parties want to increase taxes, while others want to reduce them.  There are many political policies that will cause our support to vote in different ways, depending on what's importantly to them.

 

I'm not defending the SNP here, but can you tell me a party that does not have members who criticise our club, or any others who display sectarian behaviour?  I follow quite a number of politicians on twitter and I think I've seen comments from members of all parties.  I've also been known to unfollow one or two that I believe are morons and not worth reading about.  I do however tend not to regard everything they say as a party line, rather a personal view.

 

My point is that I don't see any party as good, or party as bad.  I'll vote, but sometimes I'm voting for the least worst option rather than one that gives me all the policies I'd like (it doesn't exist).  I've voted for most of the parties at one stage or another.  However, when it comes to Rangers I'm fully committed no matter what happens.  It's further proof that politics and my football club do not mix.  One is irrelevant to the other.