Rangers staff risk stoking sectarianism hints Glasgow council boss Susan Aitken

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Whatever works for you, but you're being shown up for what you are on this thread. 

What ... bored?

[Gaffer 1,665]

I must admit that I don't spend much (if any) time considering politics in relation to supporting my football club.  Some aspects of this thread though did get me thinking about it.  I accept that there would be a reluctance to be seen to be supporting a club which has fans who sing apparent or perceived bigoted songs (for fear of branded as one yourself).  That makes sense.  However what surprises me is that some politicians seem comfortable in displaying their allegiance to a club which  has fans who sing about support for the IRA.  I don't know about you guys but I could hear it clearly on TV during the game on Sunday.  So what I've been thinking is how (and when) did it become acceptable to associate with a terrorist group?  I do accept that Celtic (the club) has taken steps to disassociate itself with that, but so has Rangers in its statements about singing certain songs.  What's the difference?

[onevision 1,454]

8 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I must admit that I don't spend much (if any) time considering politics in relation to supporting my football club.  Some aspects of this thread though did get me thinking about it.  I accept that there would be a reluctance to be seen to be supporting a club which has fans who sing apparent or perceived bigoted songs (for fear of branded as one yourself).  That makes sense.  However what surprises me is that some politicians seem comfortable in displaying their allegiance to a club which  has fans who sing about support for the IRA.  I don't know about you guys but I could hear it clearly on TV during the game on Sunday.  So what I've been thinking is how (and when) did it become acceptable to associate with a terrorist group?  I do accept that Celtic (the club) has taken steps to disassociate itself with that, but so has Rangers in its statements about singing certain songs.  What's the difference?

This is pretty much my thinking also.

Like it or not but there is a stigma associated with being a politician and supporter of our club ( and i mean sectarian ) that doesn't seem to stick across the city where love for a terrorist group appears to be embraced openly.

[Frankie 8,186]

The last ten pages of this thread have been a lot more interesting,  Kudos to those asking and answering the questions in good faith.

 

As a moderation note though, if you think person A or B isn't taking part in such a manner, then I suggest ignoring them.  No-one wins out of stand-offs and it just becomes tiresome for others.

 

ironically, some would say that's what happened with Rangers and their relationship with aspects of the SNP, GCC and the BBC.  That also suggests we're imperfect as a club.  Food for thought!

[JohnMc 2,488]

Yes, there seems to be double standards on this. (Edit in reply to Gaffer and Onevision, Frankie's post above appeared whilst typing).

 

For me it comes down to this. People who come from a background perceived as being traditionally Celtic-leaning are more comfortable with Irish nationalism and republicanism as legitimate and justifiable to some extent. Criticise the act but support the cause if you like. 

People who come from a background perceived as being traditionally Rangers-leaning are much more uncomfortable with Northern Irish Unionism and Loyalism as they see it as too closely aligned with sectarianism. I'm not saying it's the case, I'm saying it's the perception. The 'Protestant' middle-classes in this country aren't comfortable with outward signs of sectarianism, whatever they might believe behind closed doors. Religious denomination as an cultural identifier is something that's gradually losing ground. Your average Central Scotland adult is today far less likely to identify themselves by religious affiliation than their grandparents were for example. They are far more likely to identify themselves by political persuasion, or moral standpoint or some other cultural reference. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by JohnMc

[JohnMc 2,488]

10 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Have you seen our attendance figures recently?

I have, it's around 1% of the population of Scotland. But it's the people who don't attend matches that we're having problems with, isn't it? I mean I don't think Ms Aitken and messers McDonald and Dornan are regulars in the Derry choir, and as long as a sneaky 'No Pope Of Rome' get's a regular airing it makes it harder for people who weren't born and raised to hate us to defend us. 

 

I'm surprised you think there's any doubt over who lost that 'debate'. 

[Bluedell 5,356]

14 hours ago, Big Jaws said:

You cant in one breath say that The SNP are totalitarian, i.e. an autocratic diktat and then in the next say that the SNP's decisions are taken by individuals on an ad hoc basis. Thats absolute nonsense one is an existential the other is a universal.

When did I say that the SNP are totalitarian?

[Bluedell 5,356]

16 hours ago, JohnMc said:

I had lunch with one yesterday, but you're right that he doesn't shout about it. Now, this isn't something that's peculiar to SNP politicians though.

As Stewarty asks in the post above you, figuring out why that is might be a worthwhile discussion. 

I know officials/representatives in other parties that are happy to say they're Rangers supporters but there don't appear to be any SNP. The Westminster Supporters Club had members from 4 separate parties IIRC but none from the SNP. Again I'll ask why it that?

 

Perhaps it's the intolerance of the SNP towards Rangers fans that prevents them rather than the wider societal issue that you're suggesting (not that I'm denying that doesn't exist to an extent).

[Bluedell 5,356]

44 minutes ago, Frankie said:

ironically, some would say that's what happened with Rangers and their relationship with aspects of the SNP, GCC and the BBC.  That also suggests we're imperfect as a club.  Food for thought!

Sorry, but are you trying to say that some of the issue with the BBC is Rangers fault?

[Gaffer 1,665]

10 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Yes, there seems to be double standards on this. (Edit in reply to Gaffer and Onevision, Frankie's post above appeared whilst typing).

 

For me it comes down to this. People who come from a background perceived as being traditionally Celtic-leaning are more comfortable with Irish nationalism and republicanism as legitimate and justifiable to some extent. Criticise the act but support the cause if you like. 

People who come from a background perceived as being traditionally Rangers-leaning are much more uncomfortable with Northern Irish Unionism and Loyalism as they see it as too closely aligned with sectarianism. I'm not saying it's the case, I'm saying it's the perception. The 'Protestant' middle-classes in this country aren't comfortable with outward signs of sectarianism, whatever they might believe behind closed doors. Religious denomination as an cultural identifier is something that's gradually losing ground. Your average Central Scotland adult is today far less likely to identify themselves by religious affiliation than their grandparents were for example. They are far more likely to identify themselves by political persuasion, or moral standpoint or some other cultural reference. 

I seem to remember reviewing the output of a survey which showed that only 18% of Scots now expressed a religious affiliation.  Initially I found that surprising, given that the 2011 (I think) census had 60% of people in the U.K. opt for "Christianity" as their "religion".  However, on reflection it made sense to me.  I know that when I was at school, it was common to be asked "are you a proddy or a cafflic" (that's how I heard it anyway), whereas now I'd be surprised if the younger generation (now in their teens or early twenties) would even contemplate asking that, or even knowing what it meant.  Is that a clear enough sign that religious affiliations are dead as you say?  Could be.  I no longer live in the west of Scotland so I don't know if it's still like that there.

 

If it's then true that people affiliate with political, cultural, or moral issues, how can we have one for our supporters?  I can't imagine what it is.  What we may think is important these days is also likely to change.  When many on her talk of unionism they think of the Union in the GB or U.K. context.  If you ask the younger generations, they think unionism is about the European Union.

 

To some extent I think our entire support is currently united around this feeling of injustice over the past few years and want to give a massive GIRUY to everyone when we win 55.  But what then?  What unites us after that, and do we really need something to fill that political/cultural vacuum?  I don't see the younger generations being at all interested in many of the things that we seem be heated about on here, so what next?  When I listen to those in their late teens and early twenties now, they use different language from us.  They don't talk about affiliations with political parties, or being right or left wing, or being pro union, or pro nationalism.  They talk about specific moral issues (like you suggested John).  When deciding who to vote for in the last elections regarding independence, BrExit, etc, their talking points were "it isn't fair that we should we be governed by unelected people", or "we should all stick together and splitting up is not the right thing to do".  At no stage were they taking of "isms".  It was individual moral points they discussed and their voting reflected their feelings on that specific issue.

 

I am very mindful of ensuring that we have a long term stability at the club, assured because we have new generations of bears coming through.  I want that because I love my football team, not because I feel it has a moral purpose to fulfill.  However I do accept that having a more uniting objective can be powerful.  I just don't know what that is.  Maybe that's something we (as the current group of supporters) need to think hard about.  Maybe it's something the club needs to think hard about.  I really don't know.  What I do know however is that many of the biggest clubs (excluding Barcelona of course who openly support independence for Catalonia) in the world don't appear to need such a moral/political/cultural issue to unite around.  For them, beating their rivals is good enough.  Maybe that should be enough for us too?!?