Discriminatory Singing Sanctions ââ?¬â?? Still no Clarity

[craig 5,199]

Exactly - that is that reason why this will be unmanageable or will lead to every ground in Scotland being closed and every team deducted points.

 

As Frankie said in the original article, is it any less offensive to sing 'up to our kness in /Ayr/Killie/Hibee etc blood' than ****** blood?

 

Singing 'In Your Glasgow Slums' and 'You Are A Weedgie' are also offensive. Where will the madness end?

 

Cammy F

 

I don't think points will be deducted though will they ? I thought Lex Gold said that they didn't have the power to deduct points ?

 

As for the rest, I agree !

[Super_Ally 0]

It is only my opinion that FOS is a 'dirge' - there are so many better songs that celebrate our history, culture etc more positively than a FOS. Not liking FOS isn't anti-Scottish, Anti-Jacobean nor is it some henious crime - I don't like the song, I believe it to be anti-English and not the song I'd chose to promote my 'Scottishness'.

 

Cammy F

 

GSTQ - dirge, anti Scottish.

 

As I say what confuses me is so many Gers get offended by an "anti-English" song but not an anti Scottish one. Baffles me. The parallels are obvious to be seen, yet I would expect an anti-Scottish song to be more offensive to a Scot.

[CammyF 6,892]

GSTQ - dirge, anti Scottish.

 

As I say what confuses me is so many Gers get offended by an "anti-English" song but not an anti Scottish one. Baffles me. The parallels are obvious to be seen, yet I would expect an anti-Scottish song to be more offensive to a Scot.

 

Without wanting to get into a political and historical debate, but the 'anti-scottish' line from GSTQ has been dropped (it was in the 100th verse or something - and it was 'rebelious scots to crush' - not anti-scottish per-sa).

 

I reitterate, there must be a better representative song that we (Scotland) can have as a 'national anthem' - Scotland The Brave, A Scottish Soldier, Scots WhaHae (sp), Highland Cathedral etc, etc, etc....

 

Anyway, back to the topic, it is rule that can never be managed - its as simply as that.

 

Cammy F

[Super_Ally 0]

Without wanting to get into a political and historical debate, but the 'anti-scottish' line from GSTQ has been dropped (it was in the 100th verse or something - and it was 'rebelious scots to crush' - not anti-scottish per-sa).

 

I reitterate, there must be a better representative song that we (Scotland) can have as a 'national anthem' - Scotland The Brave, A Scottish Soldier, Scots WhaHae (sp), Highland Cathedral etc, etc, etc....

 

Anyway, back to the topic, it is rule that can never be managed - its as simply as that.

 

Cammy F

 

And yet the "anti-English" line of FOS was about repelling an invading army, even less offensive the the GSTQ line? Its not anti-all English just about defending your country from an invading force.

 

I understand the arguement about the rebellious Scots stuff, however not everyone will know this. And I fail to see how it is any less offensive than the FOS line. If anything it is more so.

[CammyF 6,892]

And yet the "anti-English" line of FOS was about repelling an invading army, even less offensive the the GSTQ line? Its not anti-all English just about defending your country from an invading force.

 

I understand the arguement about the rebellious Scots stuff, however not everyone will know this. And I fail to see how it is any less offensive than the FOS line. If anything it is more so.

 

I have never said it was 'less offensive' - you could find an offensive lyric in the majority if not all songs sung at football grounds and in most national anthems - I only mentioned FOS to show how fooking stupid this 'ruling' from the Scottish Exec is.

 

Cammy F

[Whosthedado 1,521]

Don't want to get into the whole saga od what songs right or wrong, but just thought I would add that I agree that SOF is a dirge and I find it embarrassing listening to the fans singing that before the Scotland games, tbh I turn it off

[Super_Ally 0]

I have never said it was 'less offensive' - you could find an offensive lyric in the majority if not all songs sung at football grounds and in most national anthems - I only mentioned FOS to show how fooking stupid this 'ruling' from the Scottish Exec is.

 

Cammy F

 

:cheers:

 

Fair do's. Got into a tireless arguement that's a pet hate of my own anyway and shouldn't take away from the main point of the thread.

[Gribz 743]

Singing 'In Your Glasgow Slums' and 'You Are A Weedgie' are also offensive. Where will the madness end?

 

And then there is the irony that many many of the the support dont even live in slums and arent even Weegies. How many travel up from England and over from N Ireland never mind the rest of Scotland.

 

And then some parts of Glasgow are nicer than any part of Dundee etc

[Gribz 743]

Anyway, The FOS and GSTQ are the most depressing national anthems to listen to.

 

Scotland the Brave should be brought back for Scotland and the UK should have RB or one of the other many UK songs.

[bmck 117]

The discussion then probably breaks down to the philosophical question, "Why be moral?"

 

well, yes. but perhaps the question is more "is it sometimes moral to do what the weighty majority think immoral?". the idea that rules should be commited to Because They Are Rules / Because The Majority Thinks So is in and of itself more disruptive to society in the long term than rule-breaking. generally.

 

You can't make people moral by punishing them (although it often seems to help for some reason),

 

the threat of punishment has never, ever, helped pre-empt a crime. and it makes very few moral - sometimes scared, very rarely more moral.

 

but you also can't just let everyone do what they like without anarchy.

 

the conundrum of secularism. and might isn't right. its just might. subjects should only be as loyal as the rules are fair. anything less is a dictatorship. your argument seems to be that because the sfa want it, and the sfa decide these things, then its fine for the sfa to do it. its flowered with all sorts of references to "the majority" and "pushing the majority too far", but the truth is that there is no majority - there's media attention. i'm willing to wager if you ask your average person, or average football supporter who funds the sfa, whether its alright to call a referee a pie munching barsteward, or the aberdeen fans sheep shaggers and they'll say there's no harm. its a mixture of irrational press reporting and jobsworth administrators at the sfa making political points with their power. so its not right irregardless of who they are.

 

PS If you think I'm paranoid or right wing Tory, then you're either fishing or in my opinion, have poor judgement of character...

 

i dont think so, to be honest. your posts are littered with new labour speak, and they are the middle-right. fallacy after fallacy about how "the rights of the moral majority" superseed "the rights of the trouble-making minority". there is no-one harmed by football banter, the faulty rhetoric doesn't apply here. being a member of society is about more than blindly submitting to stupid rules, and calling everyone else who doesn't 'immoral'. with that kind of attitude there wouldn't have been anti-slave activists, or sufragettes. i've not seen one iota of compassion from you for the trouble-makers: whether this is the correct attitude or not, it is the conservative attitude. people do bad things Because They Are Bad. Badness Must Be Suitably Punished. right or wrong - these are burgeous right wing ideals.

 

when rules are stupid, and deny legitmate freedoms they should be argued against.

 

as for the metasemantic side of the argument. the reason why we shouldn't have to change the word ****** to 'terrorist supporter' is because thats what it means. the worst sort of oppression is the irrational stifling of language.

 

just because certain sections of the media think the 'bouncy' represents the jumping on some catholic's head - should be just submit that this is indeed what it means and stop doing it, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary? its ridiculous. ridiculous things should be called ridiculous and treated as such.

 

if you want to reply further i'll gladly read but its probably taking the topic too far off topic.