Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
parkhead_rfb

murray sticks his nose into independence debate

from bbc website (heading my own)

Murray condemns independence plan

David Murray (left) said independence could harm Scotland
Rangers FC chairman Sir David Murray has accused Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond of "intimidating" Scotland's business community.
Mr Murray said the Nationalist leader had tried to force business into staying silent on independence.

The tycoon said "time was running out" for captains of industry to stand up for the Union before May's election.

But Mr Salmond said many high profile businessmen were positive about a move towards independence.

According to Mr Murray, in an interview with The Sunday Times newspaper, independence would lead to greater taxes.

He said: "Salmond seems to be trying to intimidate business. I hope individual businesses do come out.

What you cannot have is the business community waking up in May saying they did not realise

Sir David Murray

"Business people opposed to independence need to be vocal."

He added: "The Union has served us well. Whether you like it or not, we have benefited from it.

"Why should we jeopardise it? There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of my staff would be taxed more in a separate Scotland.

"What you cannot have is the business community waking up in May saying they did not realise. That would be too late."

Mr Murray warned that independence could even lead to anti-Scottish sentiment among business chiefs in the City of London.

The businessman also said that he had argued with his friend Sir Sean Connery, a staunch SNP supporter, about the issue of independence.

Growing numbers

But Mr Salmond said he was "very relaxed" about the remarks and pointed to the support of business leaders such as Crawford Beveridge, vice president of American computer firm Sun Microsystems, Kwik-Fit founder Sir Tom Farmer, Ben Thomson, the chief executive of investment bank Noble, and Bill Samuel, former RBS economist.

He added: "The growing numbers in the business community who are positive about the SNP and independence shows support is gathering ground significantly.

"And poll information indicating an SNP lead among AB voters, as well as every other category, points to very substantial business support."

"I'm pleased that David recognises the arguments for lower corporate tax to stimulate economic growth in Scotland. We have no plans to increase personal tax."
Aventinian

Re: murray sticks his nose into independence debate

parkhead_rfb wrote:
"I'm pleased that David recognises the arguments for lower corporate tax to stimulate economic growth in Scotland. We have no plans to increase personal tax."


Yeah, neither do they have any plans to make their books balance.
Economist

Re: murray sticks his nose into independence debate

Aventinian wrote:
Yeah, neither do they have any plans to make their books balance.


That's a bit unfair Aventinian, considering Labour and the Tories never balanced their books when they were in government. If they did, the UK wouldn't have the huge national debt it currently has on its hands. I don't expect the SNP to have to balance the books of this country any more than any other government has.

The intervention from Murray is not exactly that surprising, but it will be interesting to see whether proper businessmen and captains of industry back his point of view.

Like I've said before, as for independence, Murray and other Unionists had better start getting used to the idea. I'm not sure it is entirely in the hands of the SNP any more - more the natural evolution of the constitution - which at the moment resembles a pigs breakfast.
azzuri

I wondered how long it would take this guy to give his view his opinions on Independence.

Of course, I doubt he could have said anything else, being the chairman of rangers fc. He's either a staunch british nationalist or he's just scared of upsetting the majority of the 50,000 who turn up at ibrox every other weekend who are.
SLG

If it wan't for his association with Rangers, few would have heard of David Murray.
darkside

SLG wrote:
If it wan't for his association with Rangers, few would have heard of David Murray.


exactly, and anyway how did his celebration of the union go in the uefa cup game last week, a few lads at work said they refused to lift the BA and lifted the saltire instead in protest at the chairman, also they sent of a few letters of complaint
Claymore

I think the last thing we need is RFC getting involved in Scottish politics, i would hate to see this debate turning into a NI style celtic v rangers thing, independance is for everyone in Scotland
SouthernJock

Quote from BBC regarding a possible takeover of Rangers
'David Burnside, the former MP for South Antrim, said he and friends from the City of London were in the "preliminary stages" of preparing an offer.
"It would be up to David Murray to declare himself ready to sell and as yet I have not spoken to him," he told Scotland on Sunday.
David Murray told BBC Scotland he was not interesting in selling his stake. '
David Murray may say one thing, but may think otherwise, so he may be a bit busy in coming weeks to bother furher with the Scottish elections and keep his nose out of it
Aventinian

Re: murray sticks his nose into independence debate

Economist wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Yeah, neither do they have any plans to make their books balance.


That's a bit unfair Aventinian, considering Labour and the Tories never balanced their books when they were in government. If they did, the UK wouldn't have the huge national debt it currently has on its hands. I don't expect the SNP to have to balance the books of this country any more than any other government has.


So now we can't criticise a party for having a complete disregard for the economy because 'everybody's doing it'. I disagree. The SNP are making further promises, and are the only party talking about making the situation substantially worse.

It's ridiculous the levels of national debt we're in. Political parties should talk about resolving this, rather than making it worse. The SNP tout themselves as some sort of party of change, but yet when examined - as you say - they're just the Tartan Labour Party.

Quote:
Like I've said before, as for independence, Murray and other Unionists had better start getting used to the idea. I'm not sure it is entirely in the hands of the SNP any more - more the natural evolution of the constitution - which at the moment resembles a pigs breakfast.


Time will tell. At the moment, you have no route to Scottish independence within the realms of possibility and the latest polls even identify support as falling.

As I've said before, you Nats always think yourselves on the verge of a revolution that never comes. I suppose it gives you something to live for. I wonder if you'll still expect to see it in your lifetime when you're 85, incontinent and barely able to remember what country you're living in anyway.
Jimbo

Has David Murray had dinner with Gordon Brown lately? It's amazing how a lunch date with Brown gives people (who think they carry some influence) all of a sudden have an appetite to talk to the press about Scottish Politics.
Aventinian

Jimbo wrote:
Has David Murray had dinner with Gordon Brown lately? It's amazing how a lunch date with Brown gives people (who think they carry some influence) all of a sudden have an appetite to talk to the press about Scottish Politics.


Right, I usually try to reserve the 'my god, the hypocrisy here is outstanding' rants for extreme cases, but the limits on this policy of mine are being pushed.

Now, let's get this straight: influence - it comes from status. I'll admit Tom Farmer has some due to his philanthropic works.

Meanwhile "Ben Thomson, the chief executive of investment bank Noble, and Bill Samuel, former RBS economist." who are being hailed from the Nationalist rooftops are nobodies. David Murray, like Tom Farmer, has a distinguished business career and both own a football club. One's a Hun, the other's a Tim. It's simple tribalism, and yet the members here will happily ignore that so long as they find someone who might agree with them.

I emphasise 'might' here - may I remind everyone of a point regarding Tom Farmer:
'The multimillionaire businessman and philanthropist repeated his stance that the cash did not indicate his support for the SNP but underlined his belief the party should have the resources to join "the debate about the future of Scotland".'

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1491622006

I've also seen him virtually arm-in-arm with Jack McConnell on some occasions too.

azzuri wrote:
I wondered how long it would take this guy to give his view his opinions on Independence.

Of course, I doubt he could have said anything else, being the chairman of rangers fc. He's either a staunch british nationalist or he's just scared of upsetting the majority of the 50,000 who turn up at ibrox every other weekend who are.


Equally I doubt Tom Farmer would fare too well back at Easter Road if he came out parading an overt British national identity and commitment to the Union.
Corby Boy

How unsurprising these comments are.

When his former cronies are no better than bigoted morons singing about fenian blood etc...

Personally, I think these guys are died in the wool loyalists no different to those who walk the marches, dressed up as businessmen with some air of respectablity (as in the case of Murray).
Rinty

g

Aventinian, I dont think Farmer is a Tim, he is a catholic but I am not sure of his Irishness, which is what a "tim" is. Tim was the precursor for "paddy". At one time Timothy was the most popular Irish boys name is this country and a nickname for Irish was tim, or the Irish version tadh (taig).

I agree with Claymore, the idea of this becoming a celtic/rangers things is a nightmare. I think Murray is trying to do that, especially following the clubs decision to support and financially sponsor a match at Ibrox to celebrate the union jack.
Economist

Re: murray sticks his nose into independence debate

Aventinian wrote:
So now we can't criticise a party for having a complete disregard for the economy because 'everybody's doing it'. I disagree. The SNP are making further promises, and are the only party talking about making the situation substantially worse.

It's ridiculous the levels of national debt we're in. Political parties should talk about resolving this, rather than making it worse. The SNP tout themselves as some sort of party of change, but yet when examined - as you say - they're just the Tartan Labour Party.


The SNP are making no further promises, than the Labour Party or the Tories, who if their own figures are to be believed, are living on £11bn of other people's money. What the SNP do promise is that Scotland should take responsibility for itself, be self-reliant and not a dependent appendige to the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that is far more progressive than the Labour Party or the Tories who wish to sustain the dependency culture we have in Scotland - the only reason being of course, is that it fits in nicely with their unionist credentials.

Aventinian wrote:
Time will tell. At the moment, you have no route to Scottish independence within the realms of possibility and the latest polls even identify support as falling.

As I've said before, you Nats always think yourselves on the verge of a revolution that never comes. I suppose it gives you something to live for. I wonder if you'll still expect to see it in your lifetime when you're 85, incontinent and barely able to remember what country you're living in anyway.


I'm very happy that we are on the winning side of the debate. As I've said before, Unionists may prolong the Union for a little longer - but that it will be on the back of habit, complacency and through the lies and fear they've spread about Scotland's position within the Union. Support for independence is the most popular constitutional option in the polls that we've seen, but, in reality since 1998, that really is nothing new. Sure, the actual level of support has ebbed and flowed from as high as nearly 60% to just over 40%, but it has held firm in the onslaught of ridiculous and desparate Unionist propaganda.

I don't believe when independence comes, it will be a revolution, and increasingly I don't even think it will come about by and SNP-engineered referendum, although I think that is perfectly possible - much more so when Brown and company are out of Downing Street. I think independence will come, whether Scotland wants it to happen or not.

We didn't have a Scottish Parliament back in the 1970s/80s, we didn't have a dog-eared constitution, then either, there was probably much more of a sense of Britishness and cohesion, which doesn't exist any more. Things have changed. It always amazes me how the most hardened Unionists such as John Major, Margaret Thatcher and Tam Dalyell all predicted that devolution would eventually lead to the break up of Britain - but somehow that's all changed now, and they were somehow wrong? I don't think so.
Corby Boy

Most people will see through the comments from the like of Murray and will refuse to let the Scottish independence/constitutional debate descend into some kind of bitter sectarian fight along NI lines.

One thing that does give pause for thought, is when Scotland does become independent through legitimate democratic means, what will the ultra-unionist section of the population do?

I.e. the UJ waving Rangers support/OO walkers. Will they resort to violence to get their way? As their identity will be in reality made defucnct.
Cymro

Was wondering how long it would take for someone like Murray to make some comment on this issue - it was only going to be a matter of time before some Unionist group tried to take advantage of one of Scotlands largest football clubs to try and saw the vote.

However, this could also be a blessing in disguise. It was shocked me recently how many Rangers fans have told me that they are or could support Scottish Independence. At the moment people just take for granted that Rangers because of the links it has with Northern Irish Unionism, the Union Jack, Rule Brittania etc is Completely Unionist. If this can encourage voices within the Rangers support to turn round and say "actually I don't think Independence is a bad thing....." then this can create a discussion within the support. A discussion which the pro independence movement can win.

I watched the Motherwell St Johnstone match last week on the BBC and enjoyed seeing the SNP billboard on the side of the Fir Park pitch. Maybe one day these (or ones saying SSP, Solidarity, Scottish Greens,) will also be seen at Ibrox and Celtic Park?

Out of curiosity I wonder what would be the opinion of Brian Quinn on this issue?
Corby Boy

One would hope Brian Quinn would reflect what Pakhead has highlighted in the past - the Celtic supporters huddle board poll that showed that those who responded, over whelmingly support independence. Hopefully, this may be representative now of the Celtic support.
Cymro

Just because Celtic fans on a site said they'd support it (which is a good thing) doesn't mean that Quinn would need to do it - this is his opinion we're talking about not the stance of Celtic FC PLC.

Regarding the possible takeover of Rangers. That is certainly something I would not welcome. It would merely sememnt the whole Northern Irish Politcal and Religious divide within the Old Firm.

Sean Connery should buy the club !
Corby Boy

I have never understood Sean C support for Rangers, but I guess he is like the few independence supporting Rangers fans, admire them for that. Must be hard staring at the UJ's and hearing the Rule Britannia guff week in week out. They should start a campaign to re-claim Rangers for , Scotland and bin anti-catholicism and the UJ!

Can't see it though somehow.
George

Re: murray sticks his nose into independence debate

Aventinian wrote:

So now we can't criticise a party for having a complete disregard for the economy


Of course you can......however you can't dress up your own twisted inventions and present them as fact, which is what you've done.
George

Corby Boy wrote:

One thing that does give pause for thought, is when Scotland does become independent through legitimate democratic means, what will the ultra-unionist section of the population do?


Yes, for some time that very question has concerned me. That is why this intervention by Murray is ill considered and demonstrates a recklessness that doesn't bode well.

The use of the 'Hun' and 'Tim' word from the usual suspect on this forum demonstrates how Scottish politics can be subtley hijacked.

As far as intimidating anyone into silence is concerned then Nicola Sturgeon was on the mark when she said that the only person that it applied to was Jack McConnell.
Cymro

Cymro wrote:
Just because Celtic fans on a site said they'd support it (which is a good thing) doesn't mean that Quinn would need to do it - this is his opinion we're talking about not the stance of Celtic FC PLC.

Regarding the possible takeover of Rangers. That is certainly something I would not welcome. It would merely sememnt the whole Northern Irish Politcal and Religious divide within the Old Firm.

Sean Connery should buy the club !


Does Sean Connery support Rangers then? I just used hism because he's one of the few Scottish Nats who could proably afford to buy the club!

I will happily admit to likeing Rangers myself despite being a Welsh Nash (and subsequently a supporter of Scottish Independence too.I have liked Rangers since I became a passionate asupporter of football in the early 90's. I liked McCoist, Goram, Hatley etc and as a result had a soft spot for Rangers. Since getting married to a Scots girl who's family as a whole support Rangers I've become reinterested in the club.

I like Rangers as a football club, not as a symbol of Protestanism in Scotland, not as solidarity with Unionism in Northern Ireland or as a team pround to be British etc.

I believe Rangers can break away from it's links with Secterianism and with Unionism given the right hard work by groups. From what I know with the small number of Rangers fans I mix with a fair share have a positive attitude towards Indepemdemce. I'm not saying most believe in this, and I don't believe that most in Scotland believe in it yet either. While Murray is making comments like this he is infact raising the issues amongst fans who may not bother with politics usually and keep away from stories with the names of Political Parites in them. I'm certain many Rangers fans like fans of any other club given the right surroundings would develop a positive attitude to politics. Being a Rangers fan shouldn't necessarily mean you are an Unionist.

The only problem would be if a political issue like independence is divided along team lines which has saddly been the case with the future of Northern Ireland becapse of the attitufdes and behaviour of fans from both sets.
Aventinian

Re: g

Rinty wrote:
Aventinian, I dont think Farmer is a Tim, he is a catholic but I am not sure of his Irishness, which is what a "tim" is. Tim was the precursor for "paddy". At one time Timothy was the most popular Irish boys name is this country and a nickname for Irish was tim, or the Irish version tadh (taig).

I agree with Claymore, the idea of this becoming a celtic/rangers things is a nightmare. I think Murray is trying to do that, especially following the clubs decision to support and financially sponsor a match at Ibrox to celebrate the union jack.


I've never actually known where 'Tim' comes from. Interesting to get a bit of background, I remember the Herald diary ran an amusing attempt to find its origins. But Tom Farmer does own Hibernian does he not?

Corby Boy wrote:
Most people will see through the comments from the like of Murray and will refuse to let the Scottish independence/constitutional debate descend into some kind of bitter sectarian fight along NI lines.

One thing that does give pause for thought, is when Scotland does become independent through legitimate democratic means, what will the ultra-unionist section of the population do?

I.e. the UJ waving Rangers support/OO walkers. Will they resort to violence to get their way? As their identity will be in reality made defucnct.


Well, your identity is defunct and has been for three hundred years. Your extreme wings don't do all that much about it - apart from Adam thingy and the SNLA, but they're hardly hardcore terrorists.

Corby Boy wrote:
I have never understood Sean C support for Rangers


To quote from Wikipedia: "Supports Scottish football team Glasgow Celtic, though he attends the occasional Rangers game due to his close personal friendship with David Murray, the Rangers owner."

Which is roughly what I thought was the case. As I recall, he has a season ticket for Celtic, Rangers and Partick Thistle.

George wrote:
Aventinian wrote:

So now we can't criticise a party for having a complete disregard for the economy


Of course you can......however you can't dress up your own twisted inventions and present them as fact, which is what you've done.


I'm very proud to have that said by you George, since you have clearly demonstrated fact as an alien concept to you.

Economist wrote:
The SNP are making no further promises, than the Labour Party or the Tories, who if their own figures are to be believed, are living on £11bn of other people's money. What the SNP do promise is that Scotland should take responsibility for itself, be self-reliant and not a dependent appendige to the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that is far more progressive than the Labour Party or the Tories who wish to sustain the dependency culture we have in Scotland - the only reason being of course, is that it fits in nicely with their unionist credentials.


Yes they are making more promises, far more - promises that they will find it possible to deliver even if they do throw this country into a huge amount of debt. You can only push it so far.

What new expenditure are Labour and the Tories promising to add to the budget? Not a lot.

Quote:

We didn't have a Scottish Parliament back in the 1970s/80s, we didn't have a dog-eared constitution, then either


Aside from the West Lothian question, which I don't believe harms the constitution at all, but is an affront to a firmly political idea of equality, what has changed in the constitution?

Quote:
there was probably much more of a sense of Britishness and cohesion, which doesn't exist any more.


I think you'd have a hard time coming up with anything to back up that point.

Quote:
Things have changed. It always amazes me how the most hardened Unionists such as John Major, Margaret Thatcher and Tam Dalyell all predicted that devolution would eventually lead to the break up of Britain - but somehow that's all changed now, and they were somehow wrong? I don't think so.


Nope, people just tend to say a lot of crap about things that they don't want to happen. It seems you can acknowledge that in the present, so why not the past?
Economist

Re: g

Aventinian wrote:
What new expenditure are Labour and the Tories promising to add to the budget? Not a lot.


Renewal of Trident being one, of which Scotland's contribution will be in the billions.

The point is, Aventinian, and you don't seem to accept it, or understand it, is that Governments make promises and pledge spending commitments that they cannot intrinsically afford, evidenced by the accumulations of National Debt in most countries around the world. Britain's national debt is about to rocket. I'd imagine when Scotland gets independence it will grapple with its own debts, like anywhere else - and so it should. It will certainly focus the mind of whatever Government leads and independent Scotland - whether it be SNP, Labour or Tory to encourage wealth creation, rather than frittering away public money (which the last two parties have done, when they governed Scotland.) And you know, maybe in an independent Scotland - the electorate will look badly on a government that gets us into debt, unlike this fucked up notion we have now, that being in debt is somehow a good thing, a positive for the Union, a positive for the Unionist parties (Tory and Labour) and a concrete (but economically illiterate) argument against independence.

If the SNP do get in, and get this country into huge levels of debt (and with the spending proposals they've committed to, I can't really see it, myself) let the voters judge them on that.

All this and we haven't seen their costed manifesto yet?!

Aventinian wrote:
Aside from the West Lothian question, which I don't believe harms the constitution at all, but is an affront to a firmly political idea of equality, what has changed in the constitution?


The Constitution is a mess, everyone except the Labour Party and yourself don't seem to recognise that. However, I agree the WLQ is a big straw man argument, used by some, however the growing perception in England is that it is an indignity, and has to be solved. The two main ways of solving the WLQ will create more constitutional tension than they will resolve.

You cannot equitably devolve powers to component parts of a unitary state, it is a contradiction in terms. Forming a federation out of unitary state - with a fair balance of powers is impossible enough. Forming a federation out of a bunch of countries nowhere near equal in size will be the end.

And there is also growing consensus that the Scottish Parliament will accumulate more powers. Only Labour seem to want to block this - because they know probably how much damage it would do to the UK.

Aventinian wrote:
I think you'd have a hard time coming up with anything to back up that point.


Would I now? When asked what their nationality is, how do the majority of Scots and English now respond?

Aventinian wrote:
Nope, people just tend to say a lot of crap about things that they don't want to happen. It seems you can acknowledge that in the present, so why not the past?


Rubbish Aventinian, and you are intelligent enough to see that. It doesn't take PhD in Particle Acceleration to see how devolution would put pressures on the constitution, which it has. The two former Prime Ministers' weren't talking crap. They were against devolution because they could see how it unalterably changed the rules of the game, forever. Take a look back at the Hansard debates (especially in the House of Lords) over the Scotland Bill, back in 1998 - some of the predictions of what would happen are as stunningly clear now, as they were then - nearly a decade ago.
Jimbo

[quote="Aventinian"]
Jimbo wrote:
Has David Murray had dinner with Gordon Brown lately? It's amazing how a lunch date with Brown gives people (who think they carry some influence) all of a sudden have an appetite to talk to the press about Scottish Politics.


Right, I usually try to reserve the 'my god, the hypocrisy here is outstanding' rants for extreme cases, but the limits on this policy of mine are being pushed.

Now, let's get this straight: influence - it comes from status. I'll admit Tom Farmer has some due to his philanthropic works.

Meanwhile "Ben Thomson, the chief executive of investment bank Noble, and Bill Samuel, former RBS economist." who are being hailed from the Nationalist rooftops are nobodies. David Murray, like Tom Farmer, has a distinguished business career and both own a football club. One's a Hun, the other's a Tim. It's simple tribalism, and yet the members here will happily ignore that so long as they find someone who might agree with them.

I emphasise 'might' here - may I remind everyone of a point regarding Tom Farmer:
'The multimillionaire businessman and philanthropist repeated his stance that the cash did not indicate his support for the SNP but underlined his belief the party should have the resources to join "the debate about the future of Scotland".'

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1491622006

Take it easy Aventinian. It was meant tongue in cheek.
parkhead_rfb

I noticed a poster thinks the snp bill board at fir park is a good thing. the majority of people dont seem to think celtic fans should openly support irish independence though......
IF Convenor

Guess what Parky? Fir Park's in Scotland and so's Parkheid. Can you spot the subtle difference between a Scottish club supporting Scottish independence and a Scottish club supporting Irish reunification?
Corby Boy

Aventinian - A question, whose identity has been defunct for 300 years?

I can only assume you are referring to Scotland, as the British state of course is the only thing that is recognised and we are all British and don't have any other kind of identity (right!). You are on somewhat ludicrous ground here my friend.

The OO - apart from their staunch protestantism, their identity is intrisically wrapped up in the union. Scotland has never gone away since union you only have to look around you. But the British state as a political treaty will dissappear or be totally different in the scenario of Scotland becoming totally independent of it.

By definition then, a huge part of the OO/hard core unionist Rangers fan identity is therefore defunct/redundant/ill fitting in that situation. In effect by marching and waving UJ's in an independent Scotland means they are in effect waving an antiquated historical flag with no relevance what so ever.

I didn't realise Sean Connery was a Celtic supporter so I feel enlightened! As for extremist crackpot terrorism (SNLA et al). What has that got to do with this particular subject? I don't see the relevance in that comment.
Cymro

Agree with IF Convenor, that there is a massive differnce between a Scottish Club competing in Scotland having an SNP billboard on the pitch side and a Scottish team playing in Scotland supporting the political situation in another country.

Especially given the fact that the Irish/British thing involved with the Old Firlm has many tensions. Motherwell, appart from some mindless racist morons during the match vs St Johnstone isn't exactly a hotbed of tensions spanning football, relgion and politics.

Now if Celtic where to proclaim their support for Scottish Independence that would be a different thing. Don't see it though from the Labour Supporters! (mishchief making emoticon)
skip

i think Murray holds limited influence among the rangers support and scots in general. His views on independence have been known for some time. But I think he should be challenged on who he actually votes for and why.... he gets away with knocking independence without being pressed on the rest of his politics. There could be nothing more humiliating for him than having to admit he votes Tory.

I don't think he is as influential as he once was though because his Murray's own popularity among rangers fans probably hit rock bottom last year. Quite a lot of fans don't like the way his many businesses are running parts of he ibrox operation.

incidentally, the SNP advertising board at Fir Park is quite good. I believe I've seen them at Ayr United, Falkirk in the past and at present there is one at Clydebank FC. In the case of Motherwell FC I was surprised they allowed a political message - I'm sure their chairman is John Boyle (labour donor) with whom i once saw popping into a labour conference in glasgow (with former chief exec/player Pat Nevin) during the 'Cool Britiania' era. Isn't Swinburn the Pensioners Party guy a director of Motherwell?

The football connections don't stop there - Dominic keane former livingston fc owner was also there at the labour conference. Brian Dempsey (who had paved the way for fergus mccann's 11th hour take over of celtic) is another new labour man. The Kellys before then were Labour. I remember wallace mercer (ex-hearts chairman) appearing on questiontime on behalf of the tories. I've got a feeling one of the major inverness caley shareholders is the staunch unionist chap who owns a construction firm and likes nothing better than to give the 'local businessman's view' on radio scotland everytime the SNP conference goes to inverness.

Al Fayed (Fulham) is pro independence and thank goodness Tom Farmer (hibs) has added some balance.
parkhead_rfb

IF Convenor wrote:
Guess what Parky? Fir Park's in Scotland and so's Parkheid. Can you spot the subtle difference between a Scottish club supporting Scottish independence and a Scottish club supporting Irish reunification?


so its ok for fans to support a political group as long as you agree with it?

politics is politics and if one group are allowed to display a support for a party or ideal then so should everyone.
parkhead_rfb

Cymro wrote:
Agree with IF Convenor, that there is a massive differnce between a Scottish Club competing in Scotland having an SNP billboard on the pitch side and a Scottish team playing in Scotland supporting the political situation in another country.

Especially given the fact that the Irish/British thing involved with the Old Firlm has many tensions. Motherwell, appart from some mindless racist morons during the match vs St Johnstone isn't exactly a hotbed of tensions spanning football, relgion and politics.

Now if Celtic where to proclaim their support for Scottish Independence that would be a different thing. Don't see it though from the Labour Supporters! (mishchief making emoticon)


so you want to decide what type of politics people can openly support then? it may also have escaped your attention but its the uk's presence which republicans see as the problem in ireland, scotland is part of the uk.

but then thats a side issue in the fact that everyone has the right to free speech and the celtic fans want to express theirs to show support for republicanism. Saying you cant support that "cos thats another country" is political fascism.
Corby Boy

Essentially agree with what your saying Parkhead, all parties/political org's have the right to advertise in this way. But I would suggest it's a question of relevance.

Election coming up and so SNP advert ... relevant.

How relevant are Sinn Fein or SDLP or DUP adverts or Irish republican, Ulster Unionist org's at Fir Park, Tannadice, Rugby park, Pittodrie etc...?

When none of these org's stand in Scottish elections. May be relevant to a section of the population in Scotland but certainly not to the whole.

You can argue that the Irish organisations listed are relevant to Parkhead and Ibrox for display - but this would be a minefield for these clubs as far as the media is concerned.

Which club's do you think the tories will advertise at or the Greens?
Mctosh45

parkhead_rfb,

I take it you support Scottish independence??
Aventinian

Corby Boy wrote:
Aventinian - A question, whose identity has been defunct for 300 years?

I can only assume you are referring to Scotland, as the British state of course is the only thing that is recognised and we are all British and don't have any other kind of identity (right!). You are on somewhat ludicrous ground here my friend.


I was mocking you're opinion by simply changing the subject. I thought that much was obvious, and by labelling my statement ludicrous you have inadvertently destroyed your own position.

Quote:
The OO - apart from their staunch protestantism, their identity is intrisically wrapped up in the union. Scotland has never gone away since union you only have to look around you. But the British state as a political treaty will dissappear or be totally different in the scenario of Scotland becoming totally independent of it.


You can't legislate away the British nation, nor thousands of years of shared history. The Orange Order still exists in the former empire and the Republic of Ireland, for example.

Quote:
I didn't realise Sean Connery was a Celtic supporter so I feel enlightened! As for extremist crackpot terrorism (SNLA et al). What has that got to do with this particular subject? I don't see the relevance in that comment.


That's what you were discussing in relation to loyalists, was it not?
Cymro

parkhead_rfb wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Agree with IF Convenor, that there is a massive differnce between a Scottish Club competing in Scotland having an SNP billboard on the pitch side and a Scottish team playing in Scotland supporting the political situation in another country.

Especially given the fact that the Irish/British thing involved with the Old Firlm has many tensions. Motherwell, appart from some mindless racist morons during the match vs St Johnstone isn't exactly a hotbed of tensions spanning football, relgion and politics.

Now if Celtic where to proclaim their support for Scottish Independence that would be a different thing. Don't see it though from the Labour Supporters! (mishchief making emoticon)


so you want to decide what type of politics people can openly support then? it may also have escaped your attention but its the uk's presence which republicans see as the problem in ireland, scotland is part of the uk.

but then thats a side issue in the fact that everyone has the right to free speech and the celtic fans want to express theirs to show support for republicanism. Saying you cant support that "cos thats another country" is political fascism.


Political Fascism? As opposed to what other form of fascism Parkie? My problems with Celtic do not go as far as songs like Fields of Athenray for instance which I feel is a brilliant song. Soliders Song, well as an Anthem of Ireland, I can't for the life of me think why a proud Scottish team would want to sing the anthem of another state. Eire is after all not part of the UK. For me this is symbolic (and you are one of them) a group of people in Scotland born in Scotland who regard Ireland as being their 'nation' while ignoring the country they are from - colonisation some people would call it, or is it only the Brits capable of Colonising?

For me if you support an United Ireland you support the end of the UK and therefore independence for Scotland. However, most Celtic fans are Labour supporters apparently (though I hope this is changing). The sheer hyporcicy involved in wanting an end to the British state in Ireland while supporting an Unionist Party for me is beyond contempt. Celtic try and make out they are the rebels, the speakers of the truth etc. Sorry but this is rollocks. Celtic like most other teams in the UK is made up of a wide variety of fans with differing opinions. The difference is, most Rangers fans are Unionists and state that. Most Celtic fans are Unionists yet claim otherwise.

And I am just odd - a passionate Welsh Nash, a supporter of an United Ireland, yet support Rangers.

Laughing

If it's about Freedom of Speech, then I take it you have no problem with those Rangers fans who waive the flag of NI, Sing Rule Brittania, f**k the RA, and raise their hands to celebrate the Red Hand of Ulster. Personally I am against all that. But, it is just the same principle of what the Celtic fans do themselves.


Maybe Rangers fans could start singing the national anthem of Germany in order to celebrate it's links to Protestantism
Corby Boy

Aventinian - You consider the Orange Order and Rangers fans terrorists then? That certainly wasn't what I was implying. I merely asked the question would these people who hold the union most dearest resort to some sort of militant action?

They are clearly a bigger section of the population than some eejit's who prance around in the guise of SNLA.

So, you consider the OO in Scotland to take on a similar mantle to that in the commonwealth and ROI? Do they go around parading UJ's there? Genuine question, no mocking?

You can legislate away the union in a democracy, if the people vote to reject it, it will be rejected. More likely to be the case these days, as when Ireland wrestled away from the union.

Shared history is shared history - that doesn't change. The Nordic countries have shared history as does Benelux - are they joined in incoporating union?

I know we have had this battle before but the Scottish nation has been in existence far longer than the treaty of union - whether you like it or not British state as it is, is a peice of paper holding a group of nations together which all have individual identities. Can be dismantled far quicker than anyone of the individual identities of the constituent parts. Try telling otherwise to an Englishman, or a Welshman. So, I consider my position undestroyed on the subject of identities.
parkhead_rfb

Mctosh45 wrote:
parkhead_rfb,

I take it you support Scottish independence??


yes.
parkhead_rfb

Cymro wrote:
parkhead_rfb wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Agree with IF Convenor, that there is a massive differnce between a Scottish Club competing in Scotland having an SNP billboard on the pitch side and a Scottish team playing in Scotland supporting the political situation in another country.

Especially given the fact that the Irish/British thing involved with the Old Firlm has many tensions. Motherwell, appart from some mindless racist morons during the match vs St Johnstone isn't exactly a hotbed of tensions spanning football, relgion and politics.

Now if Celtic where to proclaim their support for Scottish Independence that would be a different thing. Don't see it though from the Labour Supporters! (mishchief making emoticon)


so you want to decide what type of politics people can openly support then? it may also have escaped your attention but its the uk's presence which republicans see as the problem in ireland, scotland is part of the uk.

but then thats a side issue in the fact that everyone has the right to free speech and the celtic fans want to express theirs to show support for republicanism. Saying you cant support that "cos thats another country" is political fascism.


Political Fascism? As opposed to what other form of fascism Parkie? My problems with Celtic do not go as far as songs like Fields of Athenray for instance which I feel is a brilliant song. Soliders Song, well as an Anthem of Ireland, I can't for the life of me think why a proud Scottish team would want to sing the anthem of another state. Eire is after all not part of the UK. For me this is symbolic (and you are one of them) a group of people in Scotland born in Scotland who regard Ireland as being their 'nation' while ignoring the country they are from - colonisation some people would call it, or is it only the Brits capable of Colonising?

For me if you support an United Ireland you support the end of the UK and therefore independence for Scotland. However, most Celtic fans are Labour supporters apparently (though I hope this is changing). The sheer hyporcicy involved in wanting an end to the British state in Ireland while supporting an Unionist Party for me is beyond contempt. Celtic try and make out they are the rebels, the speakers of the truth etc. Sorry but this is rollocks. Celtic like most other teams in the UK is made up of a wide variety of fans with differing opinions. The difference is, most Rangers fans are Unionists and state that. Most Celtic fans are Unionists yet claim otherwise.

And I am just odd - a passionate Welsh Nash, a supporter of an United Ireland, yet support Rangers.

Laughing

If it's about Freedom of Speech, then I take it you have no problem with those Rangers fans who waive the flag of NI, Sing Rule Brittania, f**k the RA, and raise their hands to celebrate the Red Hand of Ulster. Personally I am against all that. But, it is just the same principle of what the Celtic fans do themselves.


Maybe Rangers fans could start singing the national anthem of Germany in order to celebrate it's links to Protestantism


celtic were founded for the irish communty in scotland, the singing of the irish national anthem is totally appropriate.

and while i totally disagree with the nature of songs like rule brittania I dont think it should be an offence to sing them.
Lothian Sky

I always thought Celtic were founded to promote harmony between the immigrant Irish community and the Scottish community. They are a great club, but they are not Irish. I dont see how totally ignoring their Scottish identity does Celtic fans any favours. Fine, a lot of Celtic fans have roots in Ireland, but dont you think they should get over it and accept that they belong here now Parkhead? It annoys me that so many Celtic fans associate with Ireland RATHER than Scotland, even though they have never been there in their puff. And Irish "freedom" is worth dying for apparently, but they are quite happy to vote Labour and keep her Brittanic majesty's protestant union in one piece! Duh!
azzuri

Indeed.

Hibs were founded as the real 'Irish' club in Scotland, whatever that means. Celtic were set up as a club primarily to unite the catholic community in Glasgow, whether they were Scottish or of Irish descent. It's ironic how Hibs are now seen as more of a 'Scottish' club than Celtic...
Corby Boy

Lothian Sky and Azzuri have fair points here.

Celtic fans would be less vilified if there was more of an acknowledgement of Celtic's Scottish roots as much as it's Irish roots.

I believe this is starting to happen, saltires were evident in Seville in 03.

The majority of Scots who don't entertain the old firm baggage, or have some stake in the community of either Celtic or Rangers, don't have a problem with Ireland or the Irish.

Indeed, on the contrary, Ireland is always cited as a good example when dicussing independence... by Scots.

Not to mention the 'celtic' connections which many Irish folk (hard core republcians excepted who seem to despise Scotland) also acknowledge and see the Scots as their cousins so to speak. I am not referring to Ulster Loyalists (although it applies to them to for differing reasons) her I am talking about Irish folk in general.

No one is denying the sectarian past of Scotland (or Ireland) and that it still occurs in part in some quarters, but I think the message has got through that the modern Scots who are forward thinking are consigning these things to the dustbin of history - these people are the majority.

Celtic is Scottish Club as much as it is Irish like Hibs, Like Dundee United (Harp). Whether the hardcore like it or not.

Would hard core fans want to ban Scottish players and managers at the club and stick to Irish and foreign players/managers? I don't think so.

I just can't understand what makes Irish culture so superior to Scots in these people's eyes with their willingness to deny Scotland? They must thinks so surely.. Both nations have as rich cultures as each other, I can see that as a non-Irish person.
Cymro

I agree with most of what Corby Boy says, it isn't an issue with Ireland at all for me. As I've said, been a supporter of Welsh Independence for me means that I also support an United Ireland, and Scottish Independence. It goes without saying for me.

However, it's not a matter of denying the secterian PAST of Scotland, because seemingly it is alive and well now unfortunalty.

Celtic may well be 'accepting' their Scottishnness far more than they have done - though I despise those hideous Green Saltires. Wonder if they'd appreciate it if they changed the colours of the tricolour? (Though the Red, White and Blue Tricolour would merely be French Very Happy ). However as has been mentioned, it is still largely ignored by many. This I feel in the very least is sad, though I am tempted to say pathetic. I realise this is only a small section but watching Sky Sports News lastnight they showed the "fantastic fans of Celtic" and I saw 2 flags of the Vatican and a load of Tricolours and 1 Lion Rampant. Not claiming that this is symbolic of the fans that where in Madrid, but speaks volumes I feel.

I don't buy that Celtic is an Irish Club as much as it is Scottish. Everton where established by Irish Catholics I gather too. They are an English club though. So in response to Parkie, no I don't think singing Solider Song is justifiable, in the same way I don't try and justify Rangers fans singing Rule Brittania. It may well have been established by an Irish Catholic Priest but as Lothian Sky mentioned, was aimed at bringing Catholics together and celebrating Ireland AND Scotland. I feel it quite odd that 1 of the two main teams in Scotland, based in Scotlands largest city celebrate Irishness before Scottishness.

If it was a Polish Football Club etc I'd be saying the same - yes you are Polish, good on you enjoy it. But also appreciate you are in Scotland and a part of Scottish Society.
azzuri

lets face it though - the fact that this thread has descended into this speaks volumes about the problems we still have to face in primarily the SW of Scotland. It's sad stuff and I feel like vomiting all over the keyboard because something else totally unrelated turns into a Celtic/Rangers, Protestant/Catholic, Scottish/Irish/British thing.
Cymro

Thats a very good point azzuri. I suppose it proves as was mentioed at the beginning - as soon as someone with such obvious links to the Old Firm and all they stand for makes comments on the issue of independence or not then it quickly will decend into Proddie vs Catholic, Gers vs Tic debate. They are so linked it's very difficult to get away from it.

Maybe, a positive that can come out of what he has said those from the side of those of us who do support Scottish independence is that people within Rangers can start debating "independence or not". At the moment, I feel that many Rangers fans haven't really thought about independence so when someone like Murray says "Independence will be bad" they will agree accordingly.

By taking on Murrays argument (and he is entitled to his opinipn) it could sawy some people who may not have considered it in the past - not because they opposed it, but because it didn't seem it would be right. After all, many I see talking against Independence argue it would ruin a way of life. This is simply not true, but while people don't argue otherwise this belief will go on.
Aventinian

Lothian Sky wrote:
I always thought Celtic were founded to promote harmony between the immigrant Irish community and the Scottish community.


Really? Seems they've done quite the opposite.

Quote:
They are a great club, but they are not Irish. I dont see how totally ignoring their Scottish identity does Celtic fans any favours. Fine, a lot of Celtic fans have roots in Ireland, but dont you think they should get over it and accept that they belong here now Parkhead? It annoys me that so many Celtic fans associate with Ireland RATHER than Scotland, even though they have never been there in their puff. And Irish "freedom" is worth dying for apparently, but they are quite happy to vote Labour and keep her Brittanic majesty's protestant union in one piece! Duh!


Do you remember my last rant about Scottish nationalists not being able to tolerate other identities within their land? You're rather playing into it here.

It's down to individual people whether they want to consider themselves Irish or not. Fair enough, I'd say.
Cymro

Aventinian wrote:
Lothian Sky wrote:
I always thought Celtic were founded to promote harmony between the immigrant Irish community and the Scottish community.


Really? Seems they've done quite the opposite.



To be fair Aventinan I beleive that the intention was correct. It's the importation of the Irish/Northern Irish Political situation that has made this more difficult now. The Catholicsim/Protestanism while being a reason of hatred in the past is more of an excuse for a large band of people these days.

Still changing though. the fact that Mo Johnstone had so much flack when he signed for Rangers yet the reletive lack of interest when Kenny Miller, Paul Hartley and Steven Pressley signed for Celtic despite being former Rangers players goes a little way towards showing this. Also, I gather the Head of the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Convenor of the Church of Scotland have been invited by Celtic to the Old Firm match this weekend.

The response of both fans to the Sectertain Singing by both fans shows that things are moving on.
parkhead_rfb

Cymro wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Lothian Sky wrote:
I always thought Celtic were founded to promote harmony between the immigrant Irish community and the Scottish community.


Really? Seems they've done quite the opposite.



To be fair Aventinan I beleive that the intention was correct. It's the importation of the Irish/Northern Irish Political situation that has made this more difficult now. The Catholicsim/Protestanism while being a reason of hatred in the past is more of an excuse for a large band of people these days.

Still changing though. the fact that Mo Johnstone had so much flack when he signed for Rangers yet the reletive lack of interest when Kenny Miller, Paul Hartley and Steven Pressley signed for Celtic despite being former Rangers players goes a little way towards showing this. Also, I gather the Head of the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Convenor of the Church of Scotland have been invited by Celtic to the Old Firm match this weekend.

The response of both fans to the Sectertain Singing by both fans shows that things are moving on.


celtic never had a sectarian signing policy so to compare us to rangers in that respect is a totally wrong comparison.

celtic have always accepted players from all communties who were good enough to wear the hoops.
parkhead_rfb

Lothian Sky wrote:
I always thought Celtic were founded to promote harmony between the immigrant Irish community and the Scottish community. They are a great club, but they are not Irish. I dont see how totally ignoring their Scottish identity does Celtic fans any favours. Fine, a lot of Celtic fans have roots in Ireland, but dont you think they should get over it and accept that they belong here now Parkhead? It annoys me that so many Celtic fans associate with Ireland RATHER than Scotland, even though they have never been there in their puff. And Irish "freedom" is worth dying for apparently, but they are quite happy to vote Labour and keep her Brittanic majesty's protestant union in one piece! Duh!


people can feel an attatchment to whatever country they want. wither or not it annoys you really is an irrelevance.

this is the one thing i dont get about nationalism that people should feel a certain way and think certain things automatically because of where they were born. its a personal decision.

if the feelings of one person towards a country his family has links with annoys you i suggest that says more about you than the person your annoyed at.
Lothian Sky

Aventinian wrote:
Do you remember my last rant about Scottish nationalists not being able to tolerate other identities within their land? You're rather playing into it here.


Absolute garbage!! Rolling Eyes
I dont accept that for a minute! What makes you say that?
We're pretty much all mongrels. Including me. I'm not ashamed of my heritage, but I do consider myself Scottish. I was born here. I live here. We're all part of Scotland's history and we are all equal, as far as I'm concerned. I dont think "Scottish nationalists" treat incomers any differently than anyone else. Actually. Shocked
Aventinian

parkhead_rfb wrote:
people can feel an attatchment to whatever country they want. wither or not it annoys you really is an irrelevance.

this is the one thing i dont get about nationalism that people should feel a certain way and think certain things automatically because of where they were born. its a personal decision.

if the feelings of one person towards a country his family has links with annoys you i suggest that says more about you than the person your annoyed at.


Bloody hell, we've found something to agree upon.
Aventinian

Lothian Sky wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Do you remember my last rant about Scottish nationalists not being able to tolerate other identities within their land? You're rather playing into it here.


Absolute garbage!! Rolling Eyes
I dont accept that for a minute! What makes you say that?
We're pretty much all mongrels. Including me. I'm not ashamed of my heritage, but I do consider myself Scottish. I was born here. I live here. We're all part of Scotland's history and we are all equal, as far as I'm concerned. I dont think "Scottish nationalists" treat incomers any differently than anyone else. Actually. Shocked


When ever one of your allies is saying broadly the same thing, you have to wonder.

"We're all part of Scotland's history" - what about the ones who choose not to be primarily Scottish and don't want to consider themselves part of that?

As I've said before, the reason Nationalism in Scotland has never become particularly xenophobic is because there's barely any immigrants up here. Unlike in England, we don't have whole communities of people who just don't consider themselves part of the native culture or have any sort of native identity. We're models for integration - but I don't think that has any sort of value as it is effectively forced socially upon people whether they like it or not.

If the numbers of outsiders increase, I believe many may reconsider their position.
Cymro

parkhead_rfb wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Lothian Sky wrote:
I always thought Celtic were founded to promote harmony between the immigrant Irish community and the Scottish community.


Really? Seems they've done quite the opposite.



To be fair Aventinan I beleive that the intention was correct. It's the importation of the Irish/Northern Irish Political situation that has made this more difficult now. The Catholicsim/Protestanism while being a reason of hatred in the past is more of an excuse for a large band of people these days.

Still changing though. the fact that Mo Johnstone had so much flack when he signed for Rangers yet the reletive lack of interest when Kenny Miller, Paul Hartley and Steven Pressley signed for Celtic despite being former Rangers players goes a little way towards showing this. Also, I gather the Head of the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Convenor of the Church of Scotland have been invited by Celtic to the Old Firm match this weekend.

The response of both fans to the Sectertain Singing by both fans shows that things are moving on.


celtic never had a sectarian signing policy so to compare us to rangers in that respect is a totally wrong comparison.

celtic have always accepted players from all communties who were good enough to wear the hoops.


Oh get real Parkie. Rangers have a very negative element, no one is denying that - even the most ardent of Bluenoses I come across appecialte that singing about being up to their knees in feenian blood is secterian - it's just that many of those unforunatly don't care that it is wrong. Your team are equally bad - maybe not in regards of singing songs agaisnt Protestanism (though I have heard things being shouted by Celtic supporters in pubs I have attended in the past) but for me and most civilised people singing Anti Catholic Songs and making comments celebrating Republican Terror organisations are equally bad.

Rangers are finally doing something about it. You though are an appoligist for the negativities of elements of the Celtic support. And while people like you do this the situation will remain.
Corby Boy

This thread really has degenerated.

It is sad that passions on something that is a hangover from a previous age still run so high.

Time to move on.
Cymro

Ypur quite possibly right Corby. Funny what effect Miller by the bucket full has on a person the next day.
parkhead_rfb

Cymro wrote:
parkhead_rfb wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Lothian Sky wrote:
I always thought Celtic were founded to promote harmony between the immigrant Irish community and the Scottish community.


Really? Seems they've done quite the opposite.



To be fair Aventinan I beleive that the intention was correct. It's the importation of the Irish/Northern Irish Political situation that has made this more difficult now. The Catholicsim/Protestanism while being a reason of hatred in the past is more of an excuse for a large band of people these days.

Still changing though. the fact that Mo Johnstone had so much flack when he signed for Rangers yet the reletive lack of interest when Kenny Miller, Paul Hartley and Steven Pressley signed for Celtic despite being former Rangers players goes a little way towards showing this. Also, I gather the Head of the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Convenor of the Church of Scotland have been invited by Celtic to the Old Firm match this weekend.

The response of both fans to the Sectertain Singing by both fans shows that things are moving on.


celtic never had a sectarian signing policy so to compare us to rangers in that respect is a totally wrong comparison.

celtic have always accepted players from all communties who were good enough to wear the hoops.


Oh get real Parkie. Rangers have a very negative element, no one is denying that - even the most ardent of Bluenoses I come across appecialte that singing about being up to their knees in feenian blood is secterian - it's just that many of those unforunatly don't care that it is wrong. Your team are equally bad - maybe not in regards of singing songs agaisnt Protestanism (though I have heard things being shouted by Celtic supporters in pubs I have attended in the past) but for me and most civilised people singing Anti Catholic Songs and making comments celebrating Republican Terror organisations are equally bad.

Rangers are finally doing something about it. You though are an appoligist for the negativities of elements of the Celtic support. And while people like you do this the situation will remain.


I support irish republicanism and see nothing wrong with supporting it openly i am not apologising for anything i state openly what i believe.

everything i stated was correct rangers had a sectarian signing policy up until a short time ago. celtic never did. thats just a fact.
Cymro

In the same respect people who hate Cahtolicism see nothing wrong in hating Catholicism Parkie. I agree with you regarding the need for an end to British Interference in Ireland, but I'm sorry the way you portray Ireland and thr Irish as forever the victims is iresome and as far from the truth as possible. The differnce being that Irish people I know through my work, why live and work IN Ireland have learnt to move on while holding on to important memories. On the other hand Irish 'decendents' outside of Ireland choose to allow History to run them.

I believe it's important to respect history but also live for today.

And as if to prove it you post this little gem to try and prove your ittle stance:

Quote:
everything i stated was correct rangers had a sectarian signing policy up until a short time ago. celtic never did. thats just a fact.


A very small but important word. If you changed the 'd' to and 's' I'd be withyou all the way. However, I never said "Rangers are whiter thatn white". the difference being Rangers and most it's fans have responded to valid criticism and dealt with it. However, you choose to ignore the failings of tyour ownside because your too busy throwing mud at others.
FreedomNow

The difference between the divide with Rangers and Celtic is you can be a Protestant and support Celtic but you can't and probably never will be able to be a Catholic Rangers fan. No matter what the Rangers board or anyone else does. IMO opinion religious hatred is worse than political songs.
Aventinian

FreedomNow wrote:
The difference between the divide with Rangers and Celtic is you can be a Protestant and support Celtic but you can't and probably never will be able to be a Catholic Rangers fan. No matter what the Rangers board or anyone else does. IMO opinion religious hatred is worse than political songs.


Here we go "they're worse than us" - how very constructive.
Cymro

FreedomNow wrote:
The difference between the divide with Rangers and Celtic is you can be a Protestant and support Celtic but you can't and probably never will be able to be a Catholic Rangers fan. No matter what the Rangers board or anyone else does. IMO opinion religious hatred is worse than political songs.


I don't deny that the likelyhood of a Catholic supporting Rangers is remote. And no one can be blaimed appart from Rangers and how they 'marketed' themselves for years.

However, Rangers have at long last taken steps to remove this stigma. It's quiote possible (though however unlikely) that in time people who follow the Catholic faith can find themselves supporting Rangers.

Personally though, I give very little thought to a persons religion, or religious denomination. I don't judge a person on whether they follow Protestanism, Catholicsm or anyother 'ism' or no religion at all. It isn't importnat what a person chooses to believe and what church or chapel a person chooses to attend. Maybe this is the first step to securing relative normality?
FreedomNow

The thing is if Rangers try to erradicate sectariansim and predjudice against Catholics. In 30 years time people will still remember what the club used to be like and that will probably still put Catholics of supporting them.
azzuri

...so they just shouldn't bother? Confused
Rinty

g

I think celtic HAVE been succesful at being both scottish and irish. We are all happy to call them scottish when they are succesful.

The large amount of non-irish, non-catholic fans shows that any perceived pro-irish or pro-catholic identity isnt a barrier, if it exists at all.

The dominance of non-irish and non-catholics as players, managers and heroes of the club is also testament to their achievement.

Celtic are similar to many St Andrews sports clubs I know of across the world. They are not criticised for not having enough canadian or australian flags among their members.

I think aventinian is correct to suggest that how we react to celtic tells as much about our society as how celtic conduct their business.
Cymro

Quote:
I think celtic HAVE been succesful at being both scottish and irish. We are all happy to call them scottish when they are succesful.


Well I Celtic a Scottish team because erm, they are in Glasgow. Not because they are successfulll. No one here is claiming "Celtic is Irish", we're arguing the exact opposit. Celtic is a Scottish team founded by Irish people. End of. Everton was also established as a Catholic team bringing Irish immigrants together. Do they regard themselves as some Irish team? Nope.

I would suggest that compared to the likes of Hibs, Celtic have been quite unsuccessfull.

Quote:
I think aventinian is correct to suggest that how we react to celtic tells as much about our society as how celtic conduct their business.


That's a pretty easy throw away comment to make Rinty. So we react negatively to Celtic because of some deep underlining dislike of Irish people and Catholicism in Scotland? Not at all. Luckily here in Wales we've long grown out of the belief that being a Catholic or Protestant is the making or breaking of a person.

My problem is the sheer arrogance and "we're victims, never do wrong" coming from elements of the Celtic team. Celtic like most other teams have a group of fans who are bigotted and will use any issue to get one up on anotherside. People like 'Parkhead-rfb' merely saying "yeh, but Rangers had secterian policies for 30 years blah blah blah" is nothing but a classic example of 'headinsandism'. And this I can not stand.
Rinty

r

Quote:
Do they regard themselves as some Irish team? Nope.

I would suggest that compared to the likes of Hibs, Celtic have been quite unsuccessfull.


If succes is to be judged on how little of your original identity you retain? Celtic, like everton and others, dont regard theselves as some Irish team either.

Quote:
My problem is the sheer arrogance and "we're victims, never do wrong" coming from elements of the Celtic team.


I dont think that is true, and that perception is very much part of what I am talking about. If someone complains about bigotry the easiest response is to claim they are paranoid and have a victim complex.
Cymro

Watching Everton and others you do not hear Irish Rebel Songs, you don't see a sea of tricolours etc. Don't get me wrong, you see some and I like it. During my visits to Anfield I've spotted several tricolours flying (more so when Ronnie Whelan and Ray Houghton played for the Reds), I've also seen the Flag of Northern Ireland being flown along with flags of Wales, England, Scotland, the UK and other countries when I've stood and sat on the Kop. I appreciate that when fans travel the often like to fly their own countries flag from time to time. Celtic though do take this to another level.

And in response for your second post. I'm not claiming they are being paranoid etc at all. You misunderstand what I'm saying. Whenever anyone dares criticise Celtic, Parkhead-rfb will leap up saying something like "yes yes yes, but Rangers had a secterian policy for 30 years.....". Now no one here is denying what Rangers have done, and how dusgusting that was. No one is denying the existance of bigotted remarks by Rangers fans. What I am saying is that there is some "Hollier than thou" attitude that does come from elements of the Celtic support of which Parkhead is a classic example.

In order to rid the secterian bile that associates itself with the Old Firm and as has been mentioned, society in Western Scotland both these sides, as the largest representation of 'culture' in Scotland have a responsibilty to take. Rangers ARE taking their responsibilties seriously. Ally McCoist last week warned the travelling Rangers fans not to let the side down by participating in Hate Songs. Now, obviously there is far more the club can do and should be doing.

Parkhead, does picture Celtic, and the Irish people as being a group of nice people who are forever suffering an injustice by the Brits etc. Sorry, but this is as far removed from real poltics as possible. Most of the Irish people I come across working in Ireland are as passionate about Ireland and Irish culture, politics and history as Parkhead seems to be. However, the truth being they don't see Ireland as some longstanding victim because of the nasty Brits.
Rinty

I think you miss the point. What I am saying is that it is a problem with our society when we think that flying tricolors or displaying an alien national or ethnic identity is somehow a bigotted thing to do.

Our discomfort with the celtic support demands that we use rangers as some sort of counterweight when the two are different. The identity that goes with celtic is one of irishness in scotland, with the irish diaspora comes the stories of injustice and struggle (this will involve to a large extent the role of britain in that struggle). This applies whether it is in Boston, Glasgow or Sydney. There has never been a policy of exlusion at celtic.

Rangers identity is one of britishness and being against the other side as much as being pro their own. They did operate a policy of exlusion of catholics which polarised their city rivals by the fact that most irish in glasgow were catholic.

To me it is a bit like a group of people of chinese descent celebrating new year by parading a dragon around glasgow, they might even get drunk after it and sing old songs about struggles for freedom in their homeland. If another group booed them and sang "rule britannia" we would clearly identify them as the problem of any subsequent trouble. We wouldnt say "they are as bad as each other" and say that the chinese should curtail their obvious displays of non-scottishness would we?
parkhead_rfb

Rinty wrote:


Our discomfort with the celtic support demands that we use rangers as some sort of counterweight when the two are different. The identity that goes with celtic is one of irishness in scotland, with the irish diaspora comes the stories of injustice and struggle (this will involve to a large extent the role of britain in that struggle). This applies whether it is in Boston, Glasgow or Sydney. There has never been a policy of exlusion at celtic.

To me it is a bit like a group of people of chinese descent celebrating new year by parading a dragon around glasgow, they might even get drunk after it and sing old songs about struggles for freedom in their homeland. If another group booed them and sang "rule britannia" we would clearly identify them as the problem of any subsequent trouble. We wouldnt say "they are as bad as each other" and say that the chinese should curtail their obvious displays of non-scottishness would we?


both comments are totally correct un my opinion. Its also amusing he accuses you of a throw away comment and yet uses the most famous one in this whole issue. the your both as bad each other old chest nut.

Funnily enough i will be in new york for a large scale st patricks day march, sectarianism, tension or "there should be more usa flags here" wont even be mentioned. its very strange.
azzuri

not really surprising though, given it's a St. Patrick's Day march and not a July 4th march.
Cymro

Rinty wrote:
I think you miss the point. What I am saying is that it is a problem with our society when we think that flying tricolors or displaying an alien national or ethnic identity is somehow a bigotted thing to do.

Our discomfort with the celtic support demands that we use rangers as some sort of counterweight when the two are different. The identity that goes with celtic is one of irishness in scotland, with the irish diaspora comes the stories of injustice and struggle (this will involve to a large extent the role of britain in that struggle). This applies whether it is in Boston, Glasgow or Sydney. There has never been a policy of exlusion at celtic.

Rangers identity is one of britishness and being against the other side as much as being pro their own. They did operate a policy of exlusion of catholics which polarised their city rivals by the fact that most irish in glasgow were catholic.

To me it is a bit like a group of people of chinese descent celebrating new year by parading a dragon around glasgow, they might even get drunk after it and sing old songs about struggles for freedom in their homeland. If another group booed them and sang "rule britannia" we would clearly identify them as the problem of any subsequent trouble. We wouldnt say "they are as bad as each other" and say that the chinese should curtail their obvious displays of non-scottishness would we?


I'm afraid Rinty it's you that's missing my point. Don't get me wrong, you'd never get me booing any Irish Rebel Songs, not at all - I'd be more likely to disrespect the GTSQ, Rule Brittania etc that comes from the Rangers end. My problem lies with the fact that Scottishness does come secondary for many Celtic fans - even those living and from Scotland. The links with the motherland is too stong. The problem being judging from the little Irish people I do know that live and work in Ireland compared to the likes of 'Parkhead-rfb' is that they live for today while respecting what has happened in the past and feeling passionate about it, while Parkhead, sees Ireland and the Irish as forever the victim.

Sorry, but I'd rather trust an Irishperson living and working in Ireland than a Scotsman living in a world of Irish Romanticism and Victimhood. Nothing wrong with respecting your history etc but claiming that Irish have always been the victims is frankly pathetic. His stance on some Celtic fans not being wrong in the slightest is proof of this. The Irish in Ireland have largely moved on, talking to Parkhead is like watching and episode of 'Life On Mars'.

You use a comparision with the Chinese, now this is just blurring issues. My previous work involved working with various groups from all cultures in North Wales. I visited several festivals including Chinese New Year, Filipino Festivals, Ramadan celebrations etc and was allways struck my the passion towards their own 'homeland' but also the acknowledgment of their 'new' homes - Welsh and English on posters and banners, Welsh and Union Jack flags etc. So in essence, these groups have largely been better at recognising their presence in Wales.

The Irish are no special case and neither should they be. It's the same mentality that leads to many Welsh speakers who say "English people living in Wales should learn Welsh", but don't put anywhere near as much pressure on the Irish - and there is a substancial Irish population on Anglsey because well, "The Irish and cool aren't they".

And Parkie, Celtic does have a responsibility. Ignoring it, won't change that.

And Parkie, I think you'll find that my arguments
'Se Alba tir mo ghraidh.

Hello. I think we might have strayed off the beaten track here, what happend to scottish indepenence debate. I mean you can learn alot from Irish politics/history dont get me wrong, i just think it is slighty a minor subject when we could be on our rightful way back to being an indepenent country in less than two months. just thought i would leave a wee comment, im a virgin at this sort of thing.lol Smile
Cymro

'Se Alba tir mo ghraidh. wrote:
Hello. I think we might have strayed off the beaten track here, what happend to scottish indepenence debate. I mean you can learn alot from Irish politics/history dont get me wrong, i just think it is slighty a minor subject when we could be on our rightful way back to being an indepenent country in less than two months. just thought i would leave a wee comment, im a virgin at this sort of thing.lol Smile


That's a fair enough post.

I agree that the issue has been lost in this latest debate.

To desperatly try and drag it back (and take my responsibility for taking it off on a tangent).

Murray was claiming to be talking on behalf of the Business Community in Scotland, not as the Chairman of Rangers FC, but the small fact that Tom Hunter, one of Scotland's most successfull businessmen has given money to the SNP kind of ruins the image he is trying to create that the business community are against the possibility of independence.

I don't for one second doubt a substancial amount will be against it - I can imagine businessmen don't like large changes in the way things are done because of the possibility that it can change the way things are done. However, with time and the right sort of campaign by the SNP and the other pro Independence parties to bring these on side could be a major coup for Scottish Independence as a whole. By bringing these people on side you could raise more substancial funds to fight further elections (I think it will take more than this May's elections to bring about a clear SNP and independence for Scotland) and it would ruin the idea the Unionists are trying to create that independence will be bad for Scotland.

Murray has raised the issue, and due to his position as Rangers Chairman has got rather a lot of publicity (more than he would have if he wasn't famous for his Rangers links), now it's up to the SNP and other parties to raise to that challenge.
'Se Alba tir mo ghraidh.

I know with it being who it is of course the old hun/tim thing was bound to come into it somewhere unfortunatly. But i do think that we are all be big enough and ugly enough not to turn this very intersting and meaningful debate about scottish indepenence into some sort of religous quagmire(dont know if thats how it's spelt). Someone with his stature within a certain community should(I think) maybe keep his political ideas to himself and the same goes to the other half as well. Im just sick to the back teeth with old firm bigotry that seems to come into everything. sorry, just the way i feel.
Cymro

That's fair enough - though I would argue that your "Hun/Tim" comment is in itself an example of bigottry I'm afraid.

The second the story was released of Murray it was going to become an issue of Old Firm rivalry too.

However it also offers good opportunities to use the Independence argument as a means of removing some of the issues that show themselves in an Old Firm context. An Independent Scotland will mean some fundamental changes for Scottish society. Scotland will no longer be part of an essentially Protestant State, but I hope will become a secular state where the state sponsored partition of people on religious grounds in the education sector will become a thing of the past.

Also, by leaving the UK, the Unionist element which links itself with Rangers will become diluted (though won't disappear entirely until the constitutional issue of NI is solved). The issue of Celtic will continue to be an issue, becaue Irel