Troublesome tribalism: does it matter who asks the questions?

That’s the problem with the tribal nature of football at times, and of football and politics in Scotland – folk will act tribally. You’d be wrong to assume anything else. The loyalty to your own group, or identity, conditions you against impartiality; and more so when that impartiality damages your tribe.

So where a situation arises that requires digging, leg-work, probity, disclosure, then only those proven to be wholly professional, non-conflicted or uninhibited would be trusted to deliver to a suitable standard.

Within that there’s another truism. A member of the opposite tribe will typically dig deeper, work harder and longer if it derives damages to an opposing tribe.

Case and point. Rangers tax case. The genesis of this appears to be a leak of certain private documents which then ended up in the hands of Celtic fans. A resolute process then set in motion. Evidence was harvested and then sculpted into a formidable weapon. Other structures were constructed around this and the rest is what it is. The cry to this day is that crimes were committed and justice had to be done.

A rather obvious fact of this entire process is that the key players were not Rangers fans, in fact it was predominately Celtic fans or had links back to Celtic. The press in particular had a large influence throughout the course of events.

All of which throws up another couple of permutations to consider. How would the whole saga have turned out had Rangers fans been in control of the information? How would the saga, coverage and outcomes have looked had Celtic used EBTs to the same extend?

As per the opening statement of this article both would presumably look a lot different. Rangers fans would downplay events or certainly not consider them worthy of the shit-show that subsequently ensued. The truth is we’d probably have sat on any leaked documents and the chain reaction would never have begun. The same applies to a switch in character positions. Celtic fans would not have gathered data against their club, would not have built a case and driven it through – especially if they’d suspected a possible endpoint to be liquidation and newco of the holding company and a demotion to the bottom division. This anticipated level of damage is an important factor, it’s easy to make concessions when there’s no consequences, not so much when your clubs future depends on it.

This anticipated level of damage is an important factor, it’s easy to make concessions when there’s no consequences, not so much when your clubs future depends on it.

Can we actually predict those outcomes with any confidence? Yes, we probably can. The press and BBC Scotland performance on topical football-based debates over the past decade support the theory. As an example, coverage on sectarian singing has been selective. Head-lines proclaimed, discussions arranged across the network and platforms. Celtic-friendly experts have been brought in and feel comfortable and emboldened enough to freely debate the issues, when they relate to Rangers that is. Yet when it occurs elsewhere, against their tribe, the debate is never held. Simple as that.

More importantly, it is relevant to the ongoing coverage (or cover-up) of the Celtic child abuse scandal. The coverage simply doesn’t add up. The story has not grown organically or remotely to scale of the severity. The clamour for results, to unearth information and facts and see it all through to the logical conclusion has been found wanting. If we consider that this is the self-same press that gorged themselves on the Rangers tax case, then it is not that much of a surprise. It can be explained by the same tribal behaviour.

This throws up questions on conflicts of interest. In short, any investigation or coverage cannot be expected to be completed satisfactorily if key personnel are conflicted, or tribally inclined to either suppress evidence or simply not dig for it in the first place.

There’s a point here – which can be extrapolated from the progress of the scandal so far – if the victims want to be unreservedly represented, if they want their story and situation to be investigated and reported, to its exhaustible limits, then that is unlikely if people with a conflict of interest are involved. It’s a tribal certainty in fact. Some detractors certainly appear more concerned with who is asking the question, than the question itself. Crimes have been committed and justice had to be done, remember. They are also over-looking why others aren’t asking the questions, when that too is pretty obvious.

People from the same tribe can absolutely fail such an investigation, knowingly fail, but the opposite isn’t true. A serious investigation cannot be investigated too much, cannot be over-worked, too many facts cannot be unearthed. It’s not point scoring to see serious crimes given an appropriate chance at justice. It is point-scoring to deny that justice for the sake of your tribal compass.

As a disclosure it may come as no shock that Celtic aren’t my tribe. I support the rival tribe of Rangers. I know some good folk who support Celtic and even enjoy supporting them. But I don’t like Celtic, the club. They exist, I’ll concede that much to them. The sanctimonious and quixotic mythologies they peddle are mawkish and tiresome. I find the unrepentant support of republican terror groups offensive and I’ve never seen what part or future it has in Scotland.

Like every man and his dog I’d heard rumours about Celtic for as long as I can remember. The trials in the 90s came and went. Rumours persisted. Social media opened up a world of discussion and information that was unavailable before. Facts came to light. Naturally these would lend themselves to theories and the jigsaw, of perception and probability, would start to take form. The attitude and behaviour of Celtic in response to the scandal did little to endear this onlooker. New facts, new theories. Same old response from Celtic. Then Rangers tax case blew up. The behaviour of the Celtic support was something else and often still is; especially knowing that their own club had this scandal skulking in the background. Then again maybe that’s a reason why they attacked Rangers with such desperate primal vigour?

So yes, hands up, I don’t like Celtic. I don’t want to see them get away with anything. I expect the full force of the law and of any governing bodies to be brought to them where-ever it is merited. Much like they did with Rangers tax issues.

I use several examples above to set out some points but let’s not pretend that these are in anyway equivalent. Under a socially conditioned level of loading the membrane containing tribal allegiances should burst. The laws of a footballing governing body are one thing. The laws of the land and the protection of children is another. In absolute terms one is many orders of magnitude bigger.

Could my conscience cope with knowing that the management of my football club had inserted a line in a remuneration contract of a player to enable it to pursue loophole-based tax efficiency schemes? Probably, yes.

You’re clearly not going to hold the guilty parties to account, so it should be no surprise that rival tribes will.

Would the same be true for the crimes committed, or acts carried out, under-the-guise-of and then in-the-name-of Celtic? I’d like to think not. That’s for the conscience of Celtics spinners and the Scottish press and politicians to ponder – those at Parkhead, Holyrood, Pacific Quay, the Daily Record, the Herald, the Scotsman, Channel 4 etcetera. Sports clubs and religious organisation most definitely should be included in any inquiry. You’re clearly not going to hold the guilty parties to account, so it should be no surprise that rival tribes will. Rangers, like all clubs, should be part of any inquiry. The inquiry must be thorough and must be ruthless and exhaustive. If Rangers and Rangers people have questions to answer, then so be it. That would be disappointing, probably heart-breaking to be honest, but ultimately necessary. Absolutely.