Rangers staff risk stoking sectarianism hints Glasgow council boss Susan Aitken

[Darthter 542]

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

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.

Is that the rules then???  What a crock of shit!!!

 

I have asked for this before & never had an answer:

Can you please provide specific examples, given the "decades of evidence", that proves beyond any doubt, that Rangers Football Club (not the fans) are officially a Unionist club.

Obviously you will take into account the difference between a Unionist & a Royalist (where there is lot of evidence of the club being).

 

I await with baited breath your examples from the "decades of evidence".....shouldn't take you long.

[Darthter 542]

13 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

So who does that?

You REALLY need to ask???

 

I have been told on many occasions on here that my political views are not compatible with the team that I support....

[JohnMc 2,473]

I'd an enlightening if simultaneously depressing conversation with someone involved in local politics recently. He himself is a Scottish nationalist and there are a number of councillors in his area who are Tory. He tells me they're all socially liberal and centralist politically. Apparently though they'll freely admit that when canvassing no one asks them about decentralisation of government, incentives for the free market or lower taxation rates, policies normally associated with Tories, instead they're being voted for as 'Unionists'. 

 

I've lived in Northern Ireland, 3 years full-time, several more part-time. Much as I love the place the thought we might be heading in the same direction as them politically I find profoundly depressing. Voting for local councillors along constitutional lines instead of who is most likely to balance the budget or enhance local schools and services is madness to me. Clearly it's already happening though, on both sides. 

 

I worry Rangers have a difficult path to walk. Traditionally supported by 'Protestants' we also used to provide the bulk of the Scotland match going support. That stopped a couple or decades or so ago. At the same time like most European countries church going has fallen dramatically. Only 37% of the population describe themselves as 'Protestant' now, a number that will most probably fall even lower come the next census. That's the same percentage of people who describe themselves as having 'no religion'. Old allegiances, particularly among the working classes, have changed. I clearly recall going to Ibrox on a Saturday and belting out GSTQ then going to Hampden mid-week and booing the same song as it was played prior to a Scotland international match. It's not played at Scotland games now. 

 

Clearly a lot of people still conflate being a Rangers supporter with being a 'unionist' and being a 'Protestant'. Also a good number of our support see these three things as being intrinsically linked too. Indeed for some their support of Rangers is clearly a way for them to proclaim this political and religious identity, as there seems to be a lack of other outlets for it available. Yet just as clearly many, many Rangers supporters make no connection between they team they support and where they go on a Sunday morning or vote for in elections. Gersnet's own poll during the Independence referendum showed an intention to vote along very similar lines to the general population. 

 

What I do hope is more of 'us', whatever our political affiliation, will become more involved politically in the country. 

 

 

[Bluedell 5,342]

19 minutes ago, Darthter said:

If correct procedure is followed....how do you prove that personal bias was involved...

It would depend on the circumstances of the case. Agreed that it may be difficult (although not necessarily impossible) to prove, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist [edit] and they may not have to do more than show they followed procedure. 

 

For example, the various land sales to one specific club by various parties over the years...

[Gonzo79 13,660]

28 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Good luck to them as they are more than entitled to their view. Just don't label fellow fans with divisive and loaded monikers for taking different view. 

No.  

[Bluedell 5,342]

8 minutes ago, Darthter said:

You REALLY need to ask???

 

I have been told on many occasions on here that my political views are not compatible with the team that I support....

Yes. I couldn't name anyone on here whose political views dictate which football team they want to support.

[Darthter 542]

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

Yes. I couldn't name anyone on here whose political views dictate which football team they want to support.

plenty of folk have told me that I can't be a Rangers fan if I support the SNP...

[Gonzo79 13,660]

The ScotNats on here seem to confuse dictating with in alignment.  

 

It's rather condescending.

[Bill 13,717]

3 minutes ago, Darthter said:

Is that the rules then???  What a crock of shit!!!

 

I have asked for this before & never had an answer:

Can you please provide specific examples, given the "decades of evidence", that proves beyond any doubt, that Rangers Football Club (not the fans) are officially a Unionist club.

Obviously you will take into account the difference between a Unionist & a Royalist (where there is lot of evidence of the club being).

 

I await with baited breath your examples from the "decades of evidence".....shouldn't take you long.

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.

[Bill 13,717]

4 minutes ago, Darthter said:

plenty of folk have told me that I can't be a Rangers fan if I support the SNP...

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.