SFA Announces Celtic Cup

Reluctant Hero · SFA Announces Celtic Cup

Tourney between Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland could start in 2011.

Check out the different slants on the issue.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...r_Nations_football_tournament.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7342771.stm

RadgeJougal

"Four Nations tournament" - something wrong with this phrase.

Corby Boy

Northern Ireland is not a 'nation' it is a province! Technically, got to be incorrect.

Celtic Cup or something along those lines, is more appropriate. However, how 'Celtic' would the average Northern Ireland supporter feel? Wink

RadgeJougal

Nor is the Republic of Ireland a proper nation.

Blackleaf

Another wildly innacurate posting.

The Republic of Ireland IS a proper nation and I'm sure most people of that little nation would agree with me. It is a normal member of the UN and the EU and, as such, is just an ordinary nation.

There is nothing that distinguishes the Republic of Ireland as being a non-normal nation from nations such as France or Germany or Luxembourg.

Saying that it isn't a proper nation is just strange and not a good advertisement for the once-great Scottish education system.

Blackleaf

Anyway, back to the football.

Why is everyone getting so excited about a Celtic League?

All the English have to do is set up a Germanic League, and we'd be competing with our fellow Germanic peoples - Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and maybe Austria.

Much better than a Celtic League.

Why watch Northern Ireland VS Scotland when you can watch England VS Holland or Germany VS Denmark?

William_Cleland

Red Justice

Rinty

Northern Ireland IS a nation whether some people want it to be or not. It is part of the United Kingdom but is a nation in the same way that Scotland and Wales are.

Red Justice

Unfortuantly it gets political when they call it a four nations cup. I would prefer the term was not used Rinty, but a term that would see both communities of N Ireland satisfied.

I have always supported a one All Ireland team in all sports.

I am sure the non-sectarian George Best supported an all Ireland soccer team in the world.

William_Cleland

You are a bit out of date, Red Justice. The RoI gave up its constitutional claim to NI in 1998 after a 94.4% Yes vote to constitutional changes required to implement the Good Friday Agreement. Doesn't mean they wouldn't like a UI at some future point but they now accept the right of NI to exist as one of the Home Nations of the UK based on the wishes of the people who live there. You may wish to ponder some of the latest polling data if you think a UI is likely any time soon:-

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

Red Justice

I have always accepted any vote or referendum on the constitutional position of the island of Ireland should consider Ireland voting as a unit rather than one or two separate entities but we are getting into politics here.

My other point appicable to sport is I cannot see any reason (with our friendly relations on these islands) why Ireland cannot play even in a UK competition as an All Ireland soccer team.

William_Cleland

Maybe best to ask the FAofI that. They are the ones that broke away after all. The IFA kept trying to field All Ireland teams in the Home Internationals up until about 1948 but were eventually told to stop by FIFA and players from the IFS/RoI eventually stopped participating due in part to threats from militant Republicans.

Cymro

Like it or not there isn't going to be an United Irish Football team for a hell of a long time, certainly not at a professional level, maybe an invitational side may take to the field sooner but the willingness isn't there yet.

However a tournament brining the RoI and Northern Ireland up against eachother can only be a good thing in terms of normalising relaitons further (even if it is a head ache for Policing).

Regarding the trolls comments, well as a Welshman I'd be far more likely to sit down and watch Wales playing Northern Ireland than England against their Germanic cousins anyday. If I'm going to watch football teams that mean nothing to me playing Id rather sit down and watch the Copa America - and see how football should be played not how our pre-madonna neighbours think it should be played.

Regarding the use of Nations within Football - well the easy answer is not to call it a 4 Nations Cup. Rugby uses Nations and Ireland competes as 1 thus removing that 'issue'. The Celtic Cup does the job as good as any.

kevin04

This might take the conversation in a different direction and I apologise in advance but one thing I have always struggled to understand is why the Protestants of Northern Ireland cannot accept the Tri-Colour as a flag for them or for Ireland in general?
The Green for Ireland, White for peace and Orange for the Protestants. There is no catholic colours on that flag!

As for the Celtic Cup, I am against the idea on the basis that it eats up a medium sized bulk of our International fixtures to play teams that have a similar approach, tactical outlook and style to ourselves. I much rather we played teams from all over Europe, ones that may be beneficial to the current qualifying group which we may be in at the time.

William_Cleland

The orange bit often gets replaced by gold with the symbolism becoming green and white for Ireland and white and gold for Roman Catholicism based on the colours of the Vatican flag. It's that sort of often only thinly camouflaged sectarianism that leaves Protestants in Northern Ireland feeling alienated from Irishness. It was a different story in 1798 when the move for an Irish republic was a secular one with a strong anti-clerical component like the French revolution.

Cymro

Oh come now William, that poor excuse in terms of Orange being Gold has been discussed on here before. I'm yet to come across one person from the RoI who says the Orange in the flag is in fact Gold. Where as I don't doubt you get 1 or 2 that may be that stupid as to say that, I don't think you can possibly take these people seriously. It could be possible though that many of the Unionist persuasion in the North like to claim it's gold in order to almost prohibit Protestants from thinking an United Ireland may not be that bad a thing after all.....

As I said though, most people realise the true meaning of the tricolour, regardless of their own persuasions. There is little point of giving idiots that give it a different definition credibility.

William_Cleland

Could post lots of pictures but can't be bothered. Fact is that there is an alternative symbolism with gold that is often adopted. It's even mentioned on the wikipedia page about the tricolour:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ireland

It is claimed that often differing shades of yellow, instead of orange, are seen at civilian functions. However the Department of the Taoiseach state that this is a misrepresentation which "should be actively discouraged" .[3] In songs and poems, the colours are often enumerated as "green, white and gold".[15] Using "gold" in place of "orange" may variously be interpreted as simple poetic license, a throwback to the green and gold flag of nineteenth century nationalism, an identification with the papal colours of white and gold, or a desire to downplay the symbolism of "green" Ireland being in harmony with Orangeism.[16]

Irish nationalism when you scratch the surface a bit doesn't always match the official propaganda version.

Cymro

Oh William, come now. I could probably post evidence off the web on here that the Moon is made of cheese (Caerfilli, or maybe Galway). Means jack to normal people though does it. Anyone with any sense (I hope you have some) knows that the orange in the tricolour is indeed orange not gold as you want to try and make out.

William_Cleland

Not wasting my time on you, cymro. At no point did I suggest that orange was always replaced by gold. That's nothing more than a strawman argument on your part and I suspect you are well aware of that.

Cymro

William, that's not what I'm trying to say (sorry for being unclear - blame the Guinness). You've come on here before with your "some regard the Orange as being Gold" as some sort of definitive proof of the secterian links within the Republican Movment. Now, I honestly think you are giving way way way too much 'weight' (for want of a better word) for the very very very few people that have made these claims.

Blackleaf

The green in the Rep of Ireland flag represents the older Gaelic tradition while the orange represents the supporters of William of Orange. The white in the centre signifies a lasting truce between the 'Orange' and the 'Green'.

William of Orange was good for democracy. He helped to give Britain its modern Constitutional Monarchy. Whereas James II (VII of Scotland) was a strong believer in Absolute Monarchy (and so, I suppose, must have been the Jacobites) with the monarch rather than parliament holding absolute power, just like his father Charles I who lost his head in January 1649 for the same reason.

Rinty

William is right that the 'gold' (often actually yellow) is often used by nationalist and republicans on civil, cultural and, mainly, sporting functions.

However, I dont think he is correct that it has anything to do with the vatican. It is clearly from the old "harp and shamrock/green white and gold" tradition of the previous flag of the republican movement. Those who led that movement and the subsequent independence movement were certainly no friends of the vatican!

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

Rinty

Yes, as I said William.

The guy in the picture has a sash of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AoH) who would definitely have a link to the vatican. They were the opponents of the Irish republican Brotherhood and a rightwing, exclusively Catholic, organisation.

The tricolour is not the flag of the AoH and I dont think that they would have much influence on the design of the national flag.

The Hibernians are a sectarian, catholic, nationalist movement, mainly in America. They largely fizzled out in most of Ireland (outside of ulster) following the rise of progressive political and republican movements and sank into the nationalist and sectarian cultural movements.

Are you saying that a picture an anymous person wearing an AoH scarf, while having republican stuff on his wall (I'm guessing he is a celtic supporter), is evidence. This guy is an obvious trumpet, like most of the dafties in the Celtic support.

The tricolour was adopted as the national flag by people who would been in opposition to the AoH.

I still say that the use of gold instead of orange in songs is simply derived from the fomer flag of nationalism being green and gold, harp and shamrock. In general use it is probably mainly to do with the follow on it's use in republican and nationalist flags and culture, but will also have some influence from a resentment to orange being on the flag, and will be subsituted by some for gold as a symbol of catholicism, but very few I would imagine, if at all. In my experience, catholics dont use vatican flags as sort sort af national or cultural identity, anywhere. there is usually a more local image for the church wherever it is.

Among republican you will hear the Dominic behan song 'take it down from the mast' which expresses the view that those who fly the flag and agree to partition are betraying the ideas of a flag that is for all Ireland. To republicans, the orange part of the flag is essential. To confused celtic supporters who sing contradictory songs and confuse religion, national identity and politics into some mythical 'us', they probably dont care whether it is gold or orange and probably the ones that do have some confused opinion based on the words of a song Smile

The green white and gold use now is mainly in sporting events, this is probably influenced by the sectarian GAA who are the descendents, in my opinion, of the people who would have made up the AoH when it was of significance a century ago. I thionk the GAA probably use the official orange one but the crowds often dont.

In a way, a green, white a gold flag might be more represenetative of the Republic as, separated from NI, the orange section is a bit of a false claim. It is also part of the reason it is offensive to some unionists. The orange bar on the flag suggests that the unionist population will be part of a greater Irish state, something that they dont't want.

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

Rinty

"De Valera's Eire had a lot more to do with Joe Devlin's type of politics than that of James Connolly."

Yes, thats right to an extent, but that is no evidence for the inclusion of vatican colours. the vatican is not part of catholic identity that I know of, certainly not their national flag. Most catholic countries have specific relations to their own local culture as part of their identity. The pope and his office is the centre of it, but not the vatican as a state. I would say that most catholics in ireland or anywhere else would be unaware of the vatican's flag.

"The AOH types didn't just disappear. A lot of them wound up in Fianna Fail."

Many probably did, but many christians from the temperance movement ended up in the Labour Party, that sort of stuff was happening across europe as political organisation among the people grew, the churches and religious groups were less important, the political groups more important.

I did point out that they didn't disappear in Ulster, your examples are flags from the AoH in Ulster and Joe Devlin, an ulster catholic-nationalist MP.

But you still dont offer any evidence for your idea. That some sectarian catholics still mix their politics, ethnicity and religion in a confused way is not evidence for the gold or yellow on some versions of the irish flag being influenced by the vatican flag.

The clear intention of the orange in the flag was 2-fold, to state a choice a non-sectarian future, but also to show a desire for political unity across the whole island.

If anyone chooses to oppose that in the medium of a flag by supplanting it with gold, I would doubt very much that the vatican flag was the reason for this rather than the gold in the republican flag.

One obvious flaw is the difference between the vatican state which has a gold flag, which was initiated in 1929, and the vatican as in the 'Holy see' which is the central govt of the catholic church and doesnt have a flag but it's colours are a dark red.

the vatican city state and the vatican as in the head of the church are two different things, There was no vatican state with a gold flag when the tricolour came into being in 1848 or even when it was adopted as a national flag of the republic during the civil war.

If catholics wanted to place a vatican identity in their flag then they would have been more likely to include the colours of the vatican as in 'the holy see' than the city state.

William_Cleland

http://www.flickr.com/photos/niamheen/498449672/

I suspect the fact that gold is related to the Vatican and Roman Catholicism can't be conceded because Celtic use it as their third colour these days (unlike what happened in the White/Kelly era when it was always just green and white in official merchandise) and that would make Celtic guilty of pandering to sectarianism. We will clearly have to agree to disagree.

William_Cleland

To get this thread back on topic the name appears to be the Four Associations Tournament now. No doubt to fit in with the sensibilities of the hosts given it is going to be held in Dublin:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7623975.stm

Rinty

"I suspect the fact that gold is related to the Vatican and Roman Catholicism can't be conceded because Celtic use it as their third colour these days (unlike what happened in the White/Kelly era when it was always just green and white in official merchandise) and that would make Celtic guilty of pandering to sectarianism. We will clearly have to agree to disagree."

Celtic had gold and yellow in many strips etc across the white and kelly years too, the official colours of Celtic remain green and white. Are you saying that this is a recent development? That the grants, colgans, whites and kellys didnt want links to the vatican but the new plc do? We can see Liverpool adopt yellow and gold at times and the merchandise affects this, then it becomes green for a while. With celtic it's yellow, gold and black that are usually the third colours.

The strips, these days are decided by marketing experts based on fashion trends, design and how many they will sell. When it is a black or a white away strip this is not based on a perceived notion that avoiding links with the vatican could harm sales, and when it is a yellow strip it is not because linking with the vatican will incease sales.

It is far more likely that this is to do with how strips look, many teams who wear green combine it with yellow or gold ive seen man utd, liverpool and arsenal wear yellow and green tops, it is a popular chioce of colours for sports tops. Australia sporting teams wear it, even though their flag is red white and blue. That's not because they are all catholics.

As for its link to celtic fans then it is much more likely that this is to do with a perceived display of 'irishness' rather than a display of allegiance to another state, the vatican. The sectarian block in the celtic support will have many warped and twisted reasons for doing this, most though will just wear it is a badge of being a "tim".

Gold is related to the vatican state, not to roman catholicism. I know of no examples of catholics adopting the vatican state as a homeland or national identity. If you ever see crowds at St Peters you will see them display their own national flags to say where they have come from. The catholic church differs from culture to culture, it doesnt have a single 'catholic' national identity.

I think you would like your idea to be true and you would like me to be someone who is blinded by my allegiance to ireland and celtic and catholicism.

I prefer black personally, in celtic away strips, dont usually like the yellow and gold strips, but it is not a problem, I dont buy football tops or merchandise so it doesnt bother me.

I am not keen on the tricolour as a flag, mainly because of it's implication of a single ireland. I dont mind it at celtic park, as there are many people there who are irish of who fell irish. I'd prefer it being a bit less though and the whole image being a bit more scottish to reflect the clubs origins and the large chunk of the teams support from people, like me, who are not there through a link with ireland or religion.

Corby Boy

William_Cleland

Maybe worth bearing in mind that the Saltire is part of the Union Flag and that a majority of Scotland's population still feel British and still support the Union.

Cymro

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

You should maybe try to keep your prejudices in check.

agentmancuso

Rinty

William reckons that a display of union flags, singing the UK national anthem, 'rule brittannia', and songs from WW2 movies, is a "silent" representation of the fact that most scots dont support outright independence from the UK!

I would guess that this is not a representation of that figure and that, if you surveyed the same people in those polls re independence, you would find very few who think that waving union jacks singing rule britannia sums up their views on independence. Even less would say that Rangers fans support of unionism is silent.

'Far from silent minority' is more accurate.

For most of my friends who are rangers fans, the overt british nationalism is an embarrassment nota silent display of the real views of the scots. I know many people who would vote 'no' to independence and that doesnt automatically place them in the flag waving, jingoist, british patriot category. Just like the silent majority of Rangers fans who dont join in with the british nationalism at the ground.

"In Scottish sporting terms the real silent majority are those who support their local football side, or ignore football altogether in favour of rugby, cycling or shinty or whatever. Unfortunately they get drowned out by the media frenzy that surrounds the part-time bigots and gloryhunters indulging themselves in the disgusting corporate sectarianism of the Old Firm PLC."

I have been a celtic supporter since May 14th 1971, it was glory hunting. My dad took me to Rugby Park for a testimonial for a local hero, Frank Beattie, and I saw Celtic for the first time. It was also the debut of a young player called Kenny Dalglish who scored 6 goals! I was hooked. Young people getting to be fans of a sporting team, pop band or anything else is the same everywhere, it isnt necessarilly sectarian to be a glory hunter who follows a big team.

But, I rarely go to games much now, sometimes for a trip to an away match in europe, which is as much about meeting up with old mates as it is the game, maybe 2 or 3 visits to Celtic Park and when they play in Ayrshire.

I could be considered as a supporter of my local team as I go to far more games involving Cumnock Juniors than I do Celtic, probably about 10-15 times a year. I also go to the occasional other junior game, if there is a big game near me not involving Cumnock and the weather is Ok, I would go to Talbot vs Pollok or something similar.

I also usually make one Crystal Palace game a year and sometimes Liverpool, the only other two teams I have any interest in. The choices you make in supporting your football team(s) are not about corporate greed or sectarianism, not for most people anyway.

I think, mancusco, that you sound very much like William when you try to take the example of the daftie bigots and apply it to all of us.

Surely your idea that we should support 'local' teams is contradictory to your views on nationalism. Doesnt that encourage the same tribal silliness on a smaller geographical scale?

Cymro

William_Cleland

Cymro

Oh come now William, dojn't sulk because you've lost this particular argument. Why is it strawman argument on his behalf? You made claims which are not entirely correct.

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

I haven't lost any arguments here and I am actually more amused by this thread than anything else. I know for a fact that the yellow is connected to the Vatican and Roman Catholicism as far as some people are concerned and that waving a Union Flag is not inherently incompatable with Scottishness for many/most Scots. Extrapolate from what I write and build your strawman arguments if you want. No skin off my nose.

Corby Boy

Aye a few soldiers William, perhaps for sure not entirely incompatible. But for many folk under the age of 45?

I don't know anyone (who is Scottish) who regards themselves equally British or strongly reverent about the union flag. Those Scots I know who continue to support the union are what Agentmancuso identifies with.

I consider myself Scottish at heart and Anglo-Scottish by mix, not British. This will never change irrespective of the political status of Scotland or England for that matter. If Scotland voted to stay in the union forever more, I would be hugely dissappointed, but I wouldn't lose a great deal of sleep over it. (But then I subscribe to the - it will happen inevitably anyway theory).

But at an England v Scotland game, if Scotland loses, it stings. If Scotland wins by god it feels good. Scotland exists as a cultural entity separate in reality, whether staunch unionists like it or not!

William_Cleland

Rinty

looks like my granny's house.

Your argument that was queried was not whether some people can see themsleves as Scottish and British or about whether having a union flag diminishes someones 'scottishness' there was no straw man. I responded to your claim that this made Rangers fans representative of the majority of scots who recognise themselves as British and dont want independence.

My counter argument is simple. Those who feel British and support the union are not necessarily represented 'silently' by rangers fans display of british nationalism. Did you see the match last night and hear the partick Thistle fans reaction to Rangers singing Rule Brittannia and GSTQ?

Also, no-one has argued that there isnt some dafties somewhere that see a gold or yellow in their flag/scarf as about catholicness, in fact I have acknowledged that all along. What I have pointed out is that it will be a wee minority if at all and they are not representative of why yellow or gold ended up being used in sporting tricolours. Gold is not the colour of catholicism, it is the colours of the vatican state. You initially claimed that it claim from the vatican flag, when the irish tricolour is older than the vatican flag and Ireland as a state is older than the vatican state.

"You do realise almost nobody is reading this stuff don't you? This thread is really not worth all the keystrokes you have been making of late."

I appreciate your concerns william, but I assure you that it doesnt amount to much effort. As you know, I often get involved in this sort of debate part of the problem of an ulster scots background, a mixed upbringning and supporting Celtic, I retain an interest in this petty nonsense. I have been actively debating on this forum for years, one of the earliest, and have never considered the amount of people reading it, apart from supporting the efforts of azzurri and others to get more people on to the site.

Away from this site most of my debate on this subject will usually be with ill-informed celtic-supporting dafties, I share this with close friends who hold the same arguments with their fellow rangers supporters.

For the record, I am Scottish and British, have no problem with being either and wouldnt have a problem with being neither. I dont feel any particular pride in either as that would be ridiculous in my opinion, based on accidents of birth and/or career circumstances. I dont wear football colours and dont fly flags. I dont get upset by union jacks or tricolours but often am saddened and roll my eyes at both, more out of embarrassment for those flying them and/or embarrassment for those who get upset by a flag.

When I was very young my dad was offered a job in Somerset and we very nearly went. If that had happened I might not be a celtic suporter and my son might not be Scottish.

If I do have a geographical identity it would be Cumnock and Ayrshire rather than Scotland or Britain. If I was to have an ethnic identity it would be scots with a small hint of Irish and a lot of to-ing and fro-ing from Ulster to scotland and back. If my identity was to be based on religious belief, I am an atheist, brought up as a catholic by two parents who were raised as scots presbyterians and converted for their own religious reasons. If my identity is to be football then I am a Cumnock Juniors supporter, I was brought up supporting them, and a fan of Celtic for glory-hunting reasons, I became a celtic fan in 1971 when they had just been in 2 euro finals in 4 four years, crystal palace, because they were my nearest team when I lived in London, and Liverpool, because of Kenny Dalglish (and glory-hunting).

You can debate with a caricature of me if you want, but that who I am.

Corby Boy

William,

Your Broons post - really emphasises a lot of the point I was trying to make. It features the end of WWII much of Scotland identified with the UK then as the Germans had just been beaten and most able bodied Scots had gone off to war in the UK's name.

Things have moved on somewhat in the last 60 years - and I still maintain the identification with the Union Jack your so stuck on, is far less than your post depicts, in today's day and age.

Corby Boy

Got say also from sitting here in Cheshire - you see far more St George crosses than Union Flags. More and more English people are identifying with England rather than Britain.

Britishness as a concept is diminishing in real terms, whether you, Agent or Av like it or not. The evidence is all around.

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Corby Boy

Agent, I stand corrected!

William_Cleland

Rinty

"The Union Flag is not something that is incompatable with a sense of Scottishness for many/most people in Scotland. In many ways Rangers represent Scotland's version of Richard Nixon's "silent majority"."

Is what you said. It came in the follow up debate to your statement that.

"the Saltire is part of the Union Flag and that a majority of Scotland's population still feel British and still support the Union."

You state that the majority of scots still feel british and still support the union, that is borne out by surveys and polls and through the ballot box. Therefore this opinion is not outside of the political discourse. The view in support of the union is the predomiate view in press and media in Scotland and the UK, the view of most of the politicians of the main parties and the view of the majority of scots, I don't think it qualifies for 'silent majority' status. You do not have, or have not put forward, evidence that that majority are in favour of singing patriotic british songs and displaying british flags in public.

Rangers fans, at least the ones who take part in public displays of british nationalism, are not silent and do not represent a majority.

I would say that thistle fans last night were more representative of the majority of scots. They sang 'flower of scotland' in response to a burst of jingoism from the rangers fans. It is a safe bet that many who sang it were not expressing a view for an independent Scotland but, like the majority of scots, were saying that they are sick with old firm dafties warped views at their stadiums and on their tellies.

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

William_Cleland

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

agentmancuso

Rinty

William, the majority of those who are not SNP voters are not best represented by the rangers support, you have failed to provide any evidence to back up this claim.

It is you who are embarking on setting up straw men to knock down when you claimb that anyone thinks that the SNP or the tartan army represent a majority scottish view on the union, union flag, britishness, independence or any other matter. By setting up this straw man you can offere an alternative to a premise that doesnt exist in the first place.

The majority of people in this country vote for pro-union parties, say they are british in surveys, and the majority of the press amd media reflect this, it is the dominant view in scotland, not the silent one.

"A lot of people may not feel the need to loudly display their pro-British feelings like a lot of Rangers supporters do by singing the National Anthem and Rule Britannia at a football game but that doesn't mean that those sentiments aren't out there."

I can see no reason to link support the constitutional status quo, or not voting SNP to sentiments of rule brittannia and GSTQ. You are reading far too much into people expressing the view that they dont want independence or that they prefer another party to the SNP.

"The propaganda line is always that the anti-English pseudo-Jacobite pantomine routine that the Tartan Army indulges in represents Scotland."

No it isn't. That may be the view of some pro-independence campaigners but most even SNP members recognise they dont represent the majority. The dominant view in Scotland, through politics, and media is that people may like devolution, but dont want independence, people may feel 'scottish' but that doesnt stop them being British.

"The reality is a lot more complicated than that."

Yes, but in that point you are arguing with no-one. It is you who is trying to uncomplicate it by presenting simplified summaries such as Rangers supporters representing a silent majority.

How people vote and what they think of the union/independence is very complicated. For instance, I would happily bet that, apart from one candidate who is a high profile orangeman, that I would have picked up a very strong vote from orangemen and women in Cumnock at my council election last year and for many of that group, I would be second preference, and I dont just mean family. That is despite me representing a pro-independence party.

William_Cleland

Agentmancuso, the stereotyping lies in the fact that you boil down all pro-British sentiment in Scotland to the SUP and the Rangers support when it actually runs a lot deeper and wider than that. Have you ever heard of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party for example? How about the Royal British Legion?

http://www.rblscotland.org/

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

Rinty

I refute the idea of there being a political view or a majority view in the RBLs. I have done some work for the organisation in the past, have family members who are in RBLS and remember one committee member of the former RBL club here in Cumnock standing for the SNP in a council election.

The British Legion dont discriminate against people who are not UK, they have members across the world who fought for the British army and members who were in the British army before Irish independence who dont cease to members after independence.

http://republic-of-ireland.britishlegion.org.uk/

William_Cleland

Rinty

"In being pro-Union Rangers supporters are in tune with the majority whether you like it or not."

That is something they have in common with catholic labour voters and dont share with SNP voting Rangers supporters.

"Richard Nixon was President of the United States when he talked about his "silent majority" as opposed to the vocal minority who were involved in the anti-war protests. You obviously still don't get the analogy I made."

Oh I got the analogy alright William, no need to explain. Your analogy doesnt fit as I pointed out.

William_Cleland

Rinty

"Try testing out what happens if you fail to stand up for the National Anthem in a Legion Hall."

Nothing would happen really, but the legion stand up for the anthem as servicemen, not as supporters of the union, they will stand in the many irish branches of the legion as well. My substantial experience tells me that the scenario you paint is not likely to happen and the national anthem is not something that is played often unless at official functions and then those present would stand as they would know it is part of it.Legionnairres that I know would not use the anthem in such a way, to test loyalties or for a shallow show of some political point. they would be angry at the suggestion.

As I said I have a pretty good knowledge of the legion, I have worked for them, there is no political stance on the union from the lefion, it is an organisation dedicated to ex service personnel, that includes rwandans, indians, burmese, irish, ghurkas.

A legion branch in Cork does not mean that the members want cork to be back in britain!

I am sorry but the legion do not, as an organisation, add anythiong to your point. They are not political not pro one party or political position or another. They are servicemen and are pro- ex srevicemen, and will carry that on whether scotland is independent or not. I fact the RBLS are independent of the RBL in England.

William_Cleland

And all this proves what? My other example was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. Do you have some in depth explanation for why they are not in fact pro-British as well?

Rinty

"Do you have some in depth explanation for why they are not in fact pro-British as well?"

Er no, I pointed out the origanisation that were not pro or anti-union. The point is that you forwarded a=the RBLS as a unionist organisation when they are specifically not and would resnt the implication. Why not the Labour party alongside the tories? You are all over the place now.

you said to mancusco "you boil down all pro-British sentiment in Scotland to the SUP and the Rangers support when it actually runs a lot deeper and wider than that. Have you ever heard of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party for example? How about the Royal British Legion? "

I fact mancusco hadnt bolied anything down to the rangers support, it was you who was trying to 'boil up' the rangers support as the majority view.

The RBLS are not a unionist organisation. If there was independence they would still carry on like the did in Ireland, they represent ex-servicemen and are not pro or against the union. People serve in the british forces from many countries and they can all be legionairres withotu it meaning that we want to annexe burma, nepal or any other country to be part of the UK.

The tories are a pro-union organisation, but this is counter to your argument. The tories, like Labour, represent a more mainstream and more likely to be the majority pro-union position, not a jingoist flag waving, war song argument for the union but a political one. If Annabel Goldie watched that match last night, do you think that when the wee burst of patriotic songs came from the rangers support see was saying "you know, they have captured perfectly just what I was thinking"

William_Cleland

Rinty

"I drew attention to the fact that Rangers supporters being pro-Union in their songs is in line with the way that the Scottish electorate is pro-Union in their voting patterns"

You didnt draw attention to a fact at all. You took the fact that people vote mostly for pro-union parties as being represented by the singing of britush patriotic songs at Ibrox. It is not in line and nowhere near it, the biggest block of the pro-union votes are labour voters, who in other threads you equate with celtic and catholicism, are they represented by the rangers support? Without them you would struggle to find your "majoroty" silent or otherwise.

How difficult is it to grasp that saying you are british on a survey or voting for a pro-union party does not equal a desire to fly flags or sing rule britannia.

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

That is your interpretation of what I wrote, Rinty. My position is that by being pro-Union Rangers in many ways represent Scotland's version of Richard Nixon's "silent majority". I stand by that.

William_Cleland

Rinty

But William dont you also claim that Celtic fans are predomintaely labour voters? As Labour are by far the biggest pro-union group doesnt that present a case for the celtic fans representing the silent majority? Smile

Especially with arch unionists like Lawell and Reid in charge.

You havent presented one single way in which rangers represent a scottish version of nixon's "silent majority" even though you claim that there are many ways in which they are.

William_Cleland

If you wish to make such an argument, Rinty, on you go. I'm not wound up by it if that was supposed to be my reaction. As for the second part did you miss the part about being pro-Union in all my recent messages?

Rinty

But being pro-union is also true of the celtic support and probably most supports of most teams as it is the predominate view in Scotland. Whay you havent done is give one case of why it is specifically the rangers support that represents the average por-union support. Without making the case it looks like you are suggesting that being 'british' or voting a for a party that supports the constitutional status quo is indicative of being pro-british and that your secret desire is to stand alongside the rangers upport singing 'rule britannia'

You made the statement and should be able to back it up. If you dont want to make the argument then thats fine.

As it stands it goes down as one the most ridiculous claims this forum has seen so far, in my opinion. Without any argument to back the claim up it will remain so.

William_Cleland

It's a bit of a stretch to call Celtic supporters pro-Union when they support a united Ireland, Rinty. The Union as reflected by the colours of the Union Flag consists of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

Rinty

"It's a bit of a stretch to call Celtic supporters pro-Union when they support a united Ireland, Rinty."

I don't!

But seriously William, can you be any more obtuse in this debate? We were discussing the union re Scotland and Independence, it was you who set this context by claiming that Rangers fans were a representation of the majority of scots who support the constitutional status quo.

My point an Celtic fans supporting the union was ironic and as ludicrous as your point re rangers fans, that's why I made it and placed a smiley after it!

If you are now claiming that rangers fans represent those who hold a unionist position in the context of northern ireland then I would agree that rangers fans best represent that viewpoint. However, if we are still talking about the union in terms of Scotland's position in it then Celtic fans represent that as much as Rangers and so do most if not all collective group of supporters.

A substantial chunk of those who support the union re scotland dont support it re ireland, which is another reason why your first point re rangers fans is ridiculous.

William_Cleland

Rinty

Unbelievable!

I have no need to google nixon's use of the term, I knew instantly what you meant.

Nixon's use of it isn't a unique use, he used it in the way that is usually used, the the majority view in the country (in his case re vietnam in your case re scotlands majority support for the status quo) isnt the most loudly heard one and those who supported the war in vietnam were outside the political discourse, I addressed your point in those terms straight away.

First you would have to look at whether the pro-union majority are a silent majority, then, if you establish that, you would have to show that this majority view is best represented by the rangers support.

You have failed to show either and your point still remains ludicrous.

My opinion is that, firstly, the pro-union point of view in Scotland is far from being the silent one and is a loud voice expressed by the mainstream parties, the press, and media and people in general.

However that majority, as you pointed out, is a complicated mix of a group. The biggest group of the pro-union majority are labout voters, as substantial portion of whom may also be celtic supporters and/or in opposition to the union when it comes to Ireland but in favour of it re Scotland.

The sort of unionism expressed at Ibrox probably doesnt even represent the majority of rangers supporters never mind the majority of pro-union scots. It is very representative of the far from silent majority view in Northern Ireland but the unionist majority in Scotland would probably be a lot less 'rule brittannia' than that.

We can state our opinions all day, we might move forward if you present your case beyond just the simplified 'the majority of scots vote for the union so therefore they are in tune with the jingosim on display among some of the rangers support.'

You have also failed, as I said, to present any kind of case to show your point that the pro-independence voice in scotland is the more vocal and that the majority are silent in the way that nixon's pro-war majority were.

William_Cleland

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

Scotland's version of Richard Nixon's "silent majority" was my original description and I stand by it. In retrospect I maybe could have saved myself some grief by adding a smilie. Think along the lines of Drumchapel's answer to Sam the Bald Headed Eagle on The Muppets basically. Smile

William_Cleland

Rinty

"Think along the lines of Drumchapel's answer to Sam the Bald Headed Eagle on The Muppets basically."

Yes, but unlike Nixon's middle America, baldy sam fae drumchapel would certainly be in a small minority and not representative of Scotland's majority support for unionism. Still a very bad analogy, still no effort at any kind of evidence to back it up.

William_Cleland

As stated repeatedly if I had meant silent majority literally in terms of numbers in the context of who Rangers represent I would have used it without quotes or qualification.

Rinty

I dont expect an analogy to be literal but your example is of a very small minority and nowhere even close to a majority. Nixons silent majority were also not a majority as such, as it was a leap from seeing them vote for pro-war parties and not take part in the 50's counterculture, to seeing them as flag waving patriots. But at least he was partly right as he was aiming at the underlying sentiment of support the national institutions especially during a war. In america the national institutions ARE represented by a flag, kids pledge allegiance to it at school. In Scotland that is not the case, not to most people.

In Scotland that silent majority would not be represented by a character like Sam. Sam is at one extereme of the constitutional debate in Scotland. The silent majority are those are scottish, mainly labour voting, british, but not jingosit. Some trades unionists are good examples, pro-union, part of UK wide organisations and institutions, but not "rejoicing" during the falklands.

Still, I am looking forward to the 4associations cup.