Discriminating against reality…

A couple of statements in a recent opinion piece tribute to Billy McNeill on Sky Sports drew a bit of opprobrium recently. And rightly so in my opinion…

“Irish Catholics suffered widespread discrimination in many workplaces, from shipbuilding and engineering to journalism.

Celtic’s biggest rivals, Rangers, were notorious for refusing to sign Catholic players.”

My understanding is that the mitigation was setting a scene to a rivalry, and across society in general, with a view to providing some context or depth to McNeill’s journey. But for me it reads as just another unnecessary dig against Rangers, which are occurring all too common.

Billy McNeill’s passing has highlighted an achievement that may be unobtainable for future generations; it’s not the footballing success, but the transcending of the footballing divide and receiving immense respect, as a person, from Rangers FC and our support. Ultimately, that is why using his obituary as a place to throw mud at Rangers like a bit of a cheap shot and if anything disrespects McNeill.

A few extra points on this. He played football professionally for Celtic and played his entire career there so any policy outwith that had no effect on his career.

Like most things PR, Rangers FC are behind the curve on setting the narrative on this. Instead of being something that occurs commonly (and everywhere) or something with sound mitigating reasoning or something of its time, it is used exclusively in the partisan press as a stick to beat Rangers FC. And that happens because it’s been allowed to happen, because the club has never been on the front foot with it.

In terms of reasoning it makes sense that any identity-based project is backed and ran by people with that identity in their interests. It’s straight-forward, tried and tested logic. And whilst religion can be wrongly extrapolated onto politics or other identities, it’s also Scotland’s problem that identities can be conflated back to religion, when that could actually be an insignificant or non-existent part of the picture. It’s often too facile an argument. Why wouldn’t Rangers favour the signing of Rangers fans? Celtic favour their own, demographically the numbers prove it. And unlike Rangers, they haven’t changed their tact at all in the past 30 years.

So despite the insinuation this isn’t a Rangers only phenomenon. Celtic understand it and apply it. The Celtic board is known to have ran a discriminatory policy – based on religion. In essence, the club are happy to claim they are “open to all”, happy for Protestants to pay money to support the club and to do the hard graft on the park but Celtic isn’t at all keen on non-Catholics making decisions on the clubs behalf. In that context it sounds worse, more unashamedly exploitative.

The Catholic church in Scotland understand this. By definition, it is religiously exclusionary. And beyond that, even still today in 2019, segregation in Scotland’s denomination schooling systems (de facto Roman Catholic schools) have ceilings and vetoes that actively discriminate against non-Catholics. Again, the Celtic maxim of we won’t integrate with you but you can integrate with us prevails. And yet it is trumpeted as diversity by those setting the narratives (unsurprisingly also those with a vested interest in the system).

If you want further examples of modern day discrimination in Scotland look no further than Glasgow city council and various other councils in the Glasgow area, amongst other public funded institutions. Signing policies? Selectarianism? Endemic cronyism that happens to follow religious fault lines. Rangers fans are only too aware of discrimination and dehumanisation on many fronts these day (see examples of Susan Aitken and Co. for reported cases).

It is not that it happens that is the problem. It is that it may have happened at Rangers at some point and that Celtic fans have decided that they can extracted mileage from it, feign offense over it.

For reference (and from Wikipedia), “since 1912, Athletic Bilbao have employed a “cantera policy”, which has come to be defined in an official (although not legally binding) signing policy whereby they will only recruit players with some link to the Basque Country.”

Now Bilbao get praised for this (or at least do not get berated for it). It is seen as a quirky policy. Something unique, something to add colour and depth to the world of football. Something to be celebrated? Amusingly or not, whilst researching this article the following story popped up

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/athletic-bilbao-postpone-billy-mcneill-one-club-man-presentation-at-celtic%E2%80%99s-request/ar-BBWeEnz

Are celtic and McNeill offended by discriminatory policies and practises or not? Only when it suits them and there exists Public-Relations mileage from it, would my guess.

But let’s not pretend that any policy could not or did not exist during certain epochs. As above, being actively pro-Rangers above others is not that big a deal. And ultimately it would be self-limiting for the club, as Bilbao’s policy could be. Regardless, any policy was dropped, many decades ago. It was whatever it was but that doesn’t mean it was anything to be ashamed of. We own it and we paint it as we want, not as our rivals decide. We now have the most international and diverse club in Scotland by quite some distance.

Rangers have dropped the ball over defining any policy and let others define it. That’s been a mistake, as that article showed. The vacuum of dignified silence has rarely been kind to us. It is also not true to say that Rangers never signed Catholics before Mo Johnston, with dozens having signed and played for Rangers. And Rangers having signed and played Catholics before Celtic were even formed; which, without irony. may have actually been a factor in Celtics very formation.

Now, if you wanted to paint the formation of a football club by a cynical, blood-stained, global religion, in an already divided country, to maintain that divide and play on tribalism, as a bad thing. You could, easily. And probably should. Reality is like that, no-one and nothing is brilliant white.

There’s also the question of what purpose it all serves? Of dredging up old history. In mining grievance from perceived discrimination but knowingly ignoring similar and worse acts by Celtic FC and the Irish Catholic community in far more recent times? Like the story of the stabbing in the Merchant City where it was wrongly initially reported as Rangers fans on Celtic fans, then never correctly reported as Celtic fans on Celtic fans. What is the intention behind that type of reporting? It is only going to have one outcome i.e. continuing the circle in the other direction.

As is his or anyone’s want, the journalist in question had ignored contrary reports and facts provided to him on the far from one sided nature of Scotland’s problem. No one’s denying animosity existed between groups and that manifested itself in discrimination, probably very often. What rankles is painting all pressures on the Catholic community as external, when its patently not. The community leaders had a vested interest in keeping things insular. And did. You can call it a siege mentality and sometimes it was, but then often it was fuelled and encouraged just because it could be. And it could then be of use to the shot-caller at the time.

Historic articles from the time were used to back up the original statements. Now, if you’re not actually there, been immersed in it or experience it then there’s doubts on the accuracy of the account that you’re passing on. There are always two sides to any story, and knowingly picking one sheds balance from the reality. As does knowingly ignoring discriminatory practise from your chosen side. More so if the story has been created to highlight certain aspects, which then compounds and distorts as time elapses. A good example of this is modern day Scotland where there’s a big disconnect between the number of people hearing or believing discrimination exists and those having actually suffered it themselves.

One look at media coverage in recent times and anyone who follows football will know that Celtic are pro-active and very effective at keeping their name out of the papers, when it suits. And (like the original article) are very pro-active and effective at keeping Rangers name in it. Just now, the reporting in the press does not reflect reality in that regard. I think we all feel that. Online we see examples of news-worthy stories that then do not get the exposure or coverage they’d be expected to draw. And yet, decades in the future, if anyone went back to read about it they would find very little mention of that dirt and sleaze going on around Celtic in the mainstream press. What they would find are stories, by Celtic fans, about how terrible Rangers are. Evidence shows that most high-profile acts of discrimination in Scotland today are by Catholics on non-Catholics (if you wanted to distil it down to a religious divide and still consider it relevant). From the Monklands council scandal onwards questions of over conduct and active culture-based discrimination in politics have been valid. Misappropriation of public funds and abuse of position at others expense. No better highlighted than the behaviour of many SNP councillors currently under the spot-light. And that’s just the stuff we hear about.

In the hierarchy of discrimination, I’d say the present day should be of greater weight and interest, if only because it can actually be changed and prevented. And if it doesn’t bother you now, when going for you, then why get upset about things from before you even existed?

Guard of dishonour…

He’s right of course. Colin Hendry. Celtic may well achieve 10 in a row Scottish Premier League titles, but it won’t be 10 in a row against Rangers.

There’s a few factors that add some context to this beyond Rangers simply not being in the same division for a period of time. To say Rangers demotion to the third division was based upon David Murray and his mismanagement would be correct. However, to say it all played out the way it did because of Murray’s mismanagement or because it had to be that way is not correct.

Things happened. Whyte got in – was allowed in/placed in and the however and whoever helped it happen is up for debate. One thing that sits in focus with hindsight is that Whyte was always going for liquidation. That route never brought him any obvious direct personal gains (another debate) but business wise it left only certain roads open to Rangers.

It also left the club in a state of limbo over the close season with news of liquidation for the holding company in June 2012. And with that event Rangers were parted with their membership to the Premier League. But a route existed for Rangers, with a different company set-up, to retain Premier League status. We know this because a vote took place to consider that transfer. A vote for Rangers to remain (be kept in) or be expelled (and with it demoted). The transfer of holding companies, memberships, goodwill etc is possible because it’s an admin task and it happens regularly in football without fuss, whether based in liquidation events or not.

It reads as strange now as it did then but what kind of governing body puts the fate of a member club in the hands of its rivals? Especially amid a deeply toxic atmosphere created as a direct result of a campaign that had been led by a select media few, who were repeating their lines verbatim from RangersTaxCase blog (essentially an anti-Rangers group of Celtic fans). Unsurprisingly, given the scale and volume of the lobbying, the clubs of the SPL voted to not retain Rangers’ Premier League status. In many cases that was against the financial best interests of individual clubs. Amongst this rabble, Celtic chose to vote not to retain Rangers, a vote to remove their main competition. Of course, with this, there was also a forfeit of bragging rights and claims of consequence titles, against Rangers, until our return in any case. Through the whole charade Celtic, the club and their associates, had no qualms at all being judge, jury and executioner on tax efficiency schemes in sport, we’ll get back to that.

What happened next perhaps requires some introspection from Rangers. Rangers were then voted (by the remaining clubs in Scottish football) to be allowed to enter the Scottish Football League and the talk was of allowing entry at Division 1 level. This was to try to minimise any financial damage to the clubs of the Premier League (salvage TV and sponsorship deals) despite some having just voted themselves onto the Christmas menu. Rangers were appalled at this gerrymandering and then opted for an arguably equally short-sighted response although based in good intentions.

A demotion of four divisions to Division 3 was an unnecessarily harsh punishment and unprecedented (Juventus only took a one division punishment for actual match-fixing). The question of resuming in Division 1 or at the bottom in Division 3 is a contentious one. The reasons of clearing our name, clearing our collective conscious and resetting any “wrong-doing” were sound and just, but would also appear to have been honest to a fault. And naïve to a fault, in many ways. The media that stitched the club up so badly in preceding years was never going to be trusted to properly chart the remarkable return through the divisions or sell any absolution narrative. The rival fans that revelled in (and actively drove) the clubs fall from grace were never going admit any slate was cleared upon Rangers return. And whether Rangers remained in the SPL, started in Division 1 or threw-in with the amateur teams the debt would never be enough. So why even pretend they would? And as a fan, then as now, I felt the charges were grossly overstated and the punishment excessive, so the self-flagellation seemed like overkill and reactionary.

If your detractors hate you and are determined to paint you as the bad guy then it doesn’t matter what you do. Honesty and decency is only good for your own piece of mind. In Scottish football and across the real world it often counts for nothing. Less than nothing, if there’s something at stake and someone prepare to take what you submit. Take the example of the disgraced, but still servicing, Glasgow Councillor Susan Aitken. She should’ve resigned long before now and would’ve had she been an honest politician. The truth is the dishonourable objectives of the likes of Aitken can only be completed through ignoring rules and then brazenly carrying on. It helps to understand that mindset.

Back in 2012 and Celtic had what they wanted. Their rivals out the picture for a few seasons. A procession to some cheapened titles. Many free shots at the real prize, the Champions League, and the money and prestige that holds. In 2019, we now witness Celtic full on deflection and denial mode for their past indiscretions. An initial chatter amongst their support that their club should at least say something has been replaced by a wall of silence, an understanding that the club has chosen ignore decency and brazen its way through it. And that their support will keep on message. Admit nothing, concede nothing. The only club in world football with no boys club. It begs the question that should Celtics past actions ever result in Scottish football doing some soul-searching and self-correction do we ever think they would put their hands up and step down a division or four as atonement? Do we think Chris McLaughlin and the BBC would expend the time and energy making those demands, that they did demanding contrition from a bruised and damaged Rangers? I think we know the answer. Like Aitken, Celtics objectives are clear, win at any costs, as they’re not here to do the right thing. But unfortunately, no one is in place to hold them to account either.

What I will say is that with the way Rangers had been carved up and controlled under Charles Green then perhaps our actual location wouldn’t have mattered for those years. Had we remained in the SPL then it would’ve been in body only. It rings true that McCoist and co. realised this when the Division 3 call was made and the then owners didn’t deserve the leverage that Premier League status would afford. The subsequent boards proved that – equal measures of corporate looting and deliberate vandalism with an eye to a game of brinkmanship daring any would-be responsible owners to step up and pay up. At that time, we were so obviously fucked that Celtic could’ve even voted to retain us in the Premier League and maybe even keep a moral claim to 10 in a row. But they never, did they.

Your history is shit.

Your history is shit – we’ve seen a lot of this type of rhetoric from fringe politicians lately. One stand-out example being the SNPs green-division poster-boy Ross Greer and his weary proclamations on the character of Winston Churchill.

Whether he was right or wrong or to what degree, is a different point, the main issue for me is the why? Why the need to say anything on a man who’s not been with us for half a century?

The answer is simple. He wants to set himself and his party opposed to anything related to Scotland’s union with England. An easy way to achieve this is to attack any symbol of the Union, in an attempt to undermine your adversary. It’s negative grubby politics and it certainly cannot be described as progressive, as those dolts like to claim. Churchill being a symbol of British success, and a man of his time character wise, make him one of the more obvious targets. And with him not being around to defend himself make that attack both easier and grubbier.

Of course, this tribal muck-throwing wasn’t ever actually about real debate or learning anything from the exercise. It is solely to get some mud to stick, to make any flaws a talking point, to have them catalogued and redefined again in history, an anthem to rally your own troops whilst hoping the opposition question their origins or faith in idols or heroes and loosen the bonds to their culture.

It’s about cultural proliferation over others. And it’s that primitive energy that the ‘scottish’ independence movement are actively tapping into to fuel their latest charge.

It’s human nature, of course. Human history and human ascendency is a story of a tribes – tribes fighting, learning, honing, expanding and above all enduring. Be it at family level (genetic proliferation), local, national or continental levels. Be it ideas, cultures or religions (memes). Humans have an inherent desire to attach themselves to an identity and then forego rationality in order to protect and disseminate that identity.

And when I say forego rationality I mean anything will be justified in the name of the obtained cause.

A few obvious examples. The Roman empire. The crusades. Genghis khan. The European invasion of the Americas, where various forces drove that human flow; government policies, company policies to exploit new resources and create new markets. People wanted work, pay, land, exploration, discovery etc and a new world provided that. Of course, the people originally on that land had mixed feelings about that stuff. And the leading edge of the European advance wasn’t bothered about that, they took what they wanted and achieved it by any means. The people that rushed in behind didn’t ask too many questions about how the land was cleared for them. They got their reward or acres or new life. And although they’d be aware of how it was obtained they were prepared to turn the other way. Because that’s what people do when it suits them.

This is not unique. It applies everywhere and every time. Countless leaders and armies flying a flag of some random ideologies have (and continue to) eradicate, decimate, and ultimately replace other cultures and tribes and it’s been that way since humans appeared. So why expect to that to change? It won’t. It can’t. Pretending you’re different is just denying human nature, its denying how nature wired you.

Where a natural adversary or opponent doesn’t exist then human nature will eventually create one. Differences will appear, be cultivated, grown and exploited. Something will appear in the vacuum and comfort of peace when somebody gets bored or disenfranchised or wants to take something more from life or something that someone else has.

Where opponents already exist then they (it, the idea, the identity) will adapt and change to continue the cultural arms race. Look at the map of Britain over the years and its history; invasions, uprisings, battlefields, massacres. Unfortunately, but undeniably, most of it boils down to catholic vs protestant to some degree in the past 600 years. We are fortunate in this age to have had all that recent civil blood-letting replaced by democracy – a safer way to play at armies, but it is still conflict at its base level. It sates the human drive to push and dominate in the name of whatever chosen flag.

Democracy allows people to have their fights with words. A benefit it so many ways. But where before a lamentably sorry physical specimen like Ross Greer would’ve had his say ended abruptly in a muddy field, he’s now allowed to take part. And his words are a chest thumping challenge to the opposition. He and his culture feel it is ready to challenge and take over, it wants to take, it wants control. The SNP have aligned with whoever they believe can help them – or perhaps more accurately the catholic side of the long running feud have aligned with the SNP. The Catholic Church brings its significant weight to the battle, its pre-packed voting block and political and media muscle in return for handouts and concessions from the SNP, at the expense of the Scottish tax payer. Like Greer’s digs at Churchill, he and his peers indulge in some unsubtle signalling to Irish Republicans through endorsing the IRA and their acts and basically jumping into bed with anyone that’s an enemy of Britain. More recently, they invited a Palestinian representative to Holyrood and celtic park (sic); for those not in the know, the courting of the Palestinians by some has origins known to begin in the exchange of terrorist tactics in the 70s and 80s. Which is short term thinking to say the least, when your allies have the same goals as you (helpful) but no intention of sharing for too long (awkward) and on some level they see your identity on similar terms to British identity you’re currently knocking down (problematic). But sometimes a win in the present time is enough. And all that matters. If your opponent is damaged does it matter by whom?

The errors of simplifying entire nations into one personality and unconscious self-loathing is perhaps best demonstrated by the Republican of Irelands posturing on the Brexit issue. They are clearly aligning themselves with the EU and against the UK. Reasons provided online include 800 years of British inference in their affairs. That may be true. But nobody is 800 years old. Or even 200 years old for that matter. They have also been independent for 100 years. Not many people are 100 years old. So that excuse comes down to harbouring and nurturing cultural grudges, a lot of which often have nothing to do with the individual or their experiences. The ROI kicks back, as is its right, and people in the UK cheer. An obvious point here is there are more people of Irish extraction in the UK than in RoI. That by cheering on any retaliation they are applauding an attack on themselves (or their chosen identity by default of location). Like it or not, they are now the UK. The people of Britain. They are as much to do with Britain and its foreign policy today as almost any citizen over 800 years. Because to state the obvious, decisions and directions are made by a few, and everyone else has little opinion but to go along and make the best of it they can.

Which highlights the problem of baggage. Or opposing ideologies. Or carry grudges over borders and generations. At some point it will result in hassle, especially when a wrestle begins for power. Over something when viewed from above are merely irrelevances – as all human politics reduce into.

Of course, if everyone else is carrying baggage then why can’t you? It’s a fair point and perhaps it doesn’t really matter. But taking that further, if it is known that certain believes could be a hassle or a source of potential trouble then why wouldn’t a country (or prevailing rulers of that country) want to protect its own identity and discourage unhelpful identities? Or take steps to minimise any risk of rebellion from those sources? Society works best with a strong common thread holding everyone together and enough variety to keep everyone happy. Break or fray that thread or get the recipe wrong and instability awaits, almost always. But that’s a different debate.

So maybe this is just the latest in perpetually shifting forces acting on the human landscape. Greer’s team a predictable blip on the political radar. So his actions are to be expected, and some will support. Likewise, others wont and will work to resist.

The best way to deal with Ross Greer? Fight fire with fire, take his heroes and knock them down – there are characters flaws aplenty to prise open. Take his ideology and expose its flaws – no nationalist can legitimately claim any high ground. Use his disrespect to undermine him and his party. Or equally, go on the front foot, use his words and actions to rediscover or repair common bonds between the quiet and respectful or repair common bonds between the quiet and respectful majority and flush his refurbished, upstart ideologies back down the plughole.

When will the Scottish media talk about the Celtic FC scandal?

“Very strange that none of the reports on football abuse today seem to mention the Celtic Boys Club scandal. 20 years ago”. Jack McConnell, former First Minister of Scotland, 25-Nov-2016.

It’s a tragic subject. The key parts of it certainly are. You can only hope that the legal system works effectively and sees ample justice for the victims of child abuse in football. Sensitivity needs to be applied when considering them and that goes without saying.

But that doesn’t mean the subject should not be discussed nor should the perpetrators automatically get a free pass. Accusations of point-scoring shouldn’t be enough on their own to shut-down discussion, as we’ll see later that exactly what some people hope. And it’s not incorrect to say that the whole sordid mess at Celtic developed through the will of those at the club to shut-down and cover-up what went on.

An often heard component of the don’t mention it mantra is that the feelings of the victims should be respected and by that they’re inferring that the victims wouldn’t want the story aired. Do they want the specifics forensically dredged up and poured over? Of course not. But they do want the story told. We know that a lot of the victims feel that Celtic FC are wholly responsible, in some cases, and need to accept responsibility in for that. That is from the mouths of the victims and it has been emphatically stated by the lawyers representing many of them.

We also know that some family members of the victims are on social media and online and are actively trying to build exposure, promote discussion and ultimately get some closure through the acceptance of responsibility from Celtic FC for the crimes carried out under the banner of Celtic Boys Club.

As an aside to this and in terms of respecting victims, if you open any newspaper you are met with scandal, tragedy, death and disaster. The news has to be dealt with sensibly, mostly, but the press are seldom reserved in covering the big story. Rarely would anything news worthy not get coverage because there are victims involved; in short news is news. The don’t mention it line only seems to come from those looking to keep Celtic out of the news, when the news happen to not show their club in a good light.

And it is a big story. In the past year court cases have been underway and convictions have been handed down. A summary can be found here.

One observation is that this scandal is getting nowhere near the level of coverage you would expect from a major news story. Perhaps as isolated items these cases would get scant mention in the national papers, but these items are not isolated. They are tied together by something bigger, an institution that claims to be world famous, an entity that fills sports pages and news bulletins and perhaps more than that cloaks itself in myth and sanctimony. Therefore, it has to be concluded that it is being suppressed in the media in some form.

There have been rumours of injunctions, the usual contempt of court rules during the trials; but this is what rankles me – that key players in the Scottish media go out of their way to avoid this being the story. Celtic might eventually avoid any formal punishment on the subject but they are also avoiding the due shame that should be attached to it.

There’s the suspicion that key staff from the BBC have had meetings at Celtic park, with Celtic personnel to minimise media exposure and PR damage in Celtic child-abuse scandal. One chief sports correspondent, usually so authoritative and commanding on issues surrounding football has been very withdrawn on this topic. His latest sound-bite merely a reiteration of Celtics latest plea of nothing to do with us. Contrast this with the probability that the same staff had meetings at Celtic park, with Celtic personnel to maximise media exposure and PR damage in Rangers financial collapse saga.

The SuperScoreBoard phone-in on Clyde FM is another notable party that were keen to spend years tracking off piste and into all sorts of new environments, when it suited, but now resolutely determined to stick to football.

Added to the BBC doubling down on Celtics claimed innocence was the implication of victim shaming. One BBC interviewer questioning the motives of the victims. The clear implication that seeking reparations for what is often life-defining abuse is somehow wrong. This was a tact employed by Neil Cameron at the Herald.

In an article that makes some very clumsy calls on the subject, Neil Cameron’s sketch certainly seems to stem from the same brief as the recent BBC work. Again, painting the victims as greedy opportunists was inferred by suggesting real Celtic fans would keep quiet and just get on with things (yes, really). The common threads, appearing at the same time, suggests this is being spun and controlled from one location. I wonder if the media or Celtic are concerned about how the victims would view this rhetoric?

There’s even more well-known faces in high places that have got Celtics back on this.

When brought into a discussion about the biggest scandal in Scottish football history Alex Thomson of Channel 4 news felt the need to state on twitter “Cant get bigger than cheating your way to trophies pal”. I’m not quite sure what moral reference points are required to consider borderline tax efficiency schemes above industrial scale child abuse and an orchestrated cover-up lasting decades, but Thomson clearly has them.

Unsurprisingly a few Celtic bloggers bounded to Thomson’s defence. Apparently, the reference point was that any child abuse didn’t affect how many trophies Celtic would’ve won or not? Which is wrong on many counts, because the protection of the kids should’ve been paramount in any strategy and placed above trophies, always. And if Celtic do not benefit from denying it then why the hell are they persisting with this denial, complicity and the passive-aggressive character assassinations? To answer that would be to acknowledge that they benefit greatly from denying it and that absolutely affects how many trophies they have accrued.

Another backer, this time in the political circuit. When it was put to James Dornan of the SNP that “Cynics would assume it’s a cover-up for your beloved Celtic”. His reply was “Not cynics mate, bigots”. Which is a novel twist on a now familiar theme. Apparently it’s not just point-scorers or opportunist victims that are cynical about Celtic, but a paid member of parliament would have them all derided as a bigots as well. Like I said, anything goes to protect the club, which suggest very strongly that the club needs protected. Out of interest do any other football club in the world feel the need to claim and repeat that their youth team is separate and distinct from the parent club?

There’s obviously a fear of accountability in the Celtic boardroom or more accurately a fear of significant pay outs. Even decades ago this was realised. Perhaps back then it could have even buried the club? Is every trophy since then therefore tarnished? People will do all sorts of things for large amounts of money. And that is what will be due, as a precedent and reference the 33 Sandusky victims have received a combined $93 million in settlement payments from Penn State. So with these figures morals and sensitivity go right out the window. Celtic and their mercenaries go forth and shut things down. That’s the game. Any tactic goes, just get it done. They’ve reached out before – rumours of pay offs in exchange for confidentiality. And if a few folk get upset or take offence, or if some in the media or Holyrood are seen to sell their professional integrity down the river for the club, or that justice doesn’t complete its natural course, then that’s all fair game if the club can hold on to $100m?

A timeline for compliance and corruption (May 2018)

Compliance – the action or fact of complying with a wish or command.

Corruption – dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

Cronyism – the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

First things first. Since its inception the compliance officer and his behaviour has been suspect to say the least. We have a system which is completely lacking in transparency and more importantly consistency. It’s a black box with random outputs. We have a press refusing to review or address failings of the system, which usually means one thing these days. So based on what I’m looking at the CO position and the people in the position who create the rules and drive the system are not fit for purpose.

Beyond that, the formation of the position is more than suspicious. I have put a rough timeline together below form how i remember events and what is available online. Let’s be honest here, it is the brain child of celtic. Either the referee strike was staged to enable it or it was used as a springboard to engineer the CO position. Regan, Reid, McBride, Lunny, McGlennan is not a line up any Rangers fan would have faith in fair hearing with.

So there are some points straight away. Why is this system (who latest act and its timing does appear to be directed to damage Rangers or at least cause hassle and embarrassment, only open to celtic supporters? There arguably cultural discrimination going on here both in recruitment and in professional conduct. Rangers could do worse than point this out and I would hope they drive this point home and ensure balance is enforced.

In the days when Tom English could actually make the occasional fair call he said “Lennon and his contemporaries don’t want consistency from referees, they want decisions, good or bad, in their favour.” He was right, of course. And it’s not limited to referees. They want control of every aspect concerning football. From media, to the rulebook, to deciding what is offensive behaviour. And at the SFA they hold the reigns on how the law is applied.

So again, we are the story with this latest charge (2015 May – Two charges made against Rangers in relation to the license granted to play european football seven years ago). The coup and corrupting of a governing body to hinder a rival club? Sounds like a kind of a big deal to me.

2007 June: Gordon Smith was Chief Executive of SFA. Officially he resigned due to personal reason, however from memory he was given a tough time from the press and it would be more accurate to say he was eventually hounded out of the job.

2010 July 28: Stewart Regan appointed as CE of SFA replacing Gordon Smith. The sourcing and subsequent conduct of Regan is something that Rangers fan are rightfully sceptical about.

2010 October 17: Celtic make complaint on Dougie McDonald over penalty decision in game against Dundee utd.

2010 November: John Reid, then celtic chairman calls for McDonald’s resignation.

2010 November 27/28: Referee strike is forced following celtics behaviour and SFAs lack of support for referees.

2010 November 29: Dallas and McDonald resigned/removed.

Although Celtic made no official comment, Paul McBride, a QC closely linked to the Celtic board of directors, commented that the club felt vindicated by the departures of Dallas and McDonald.

McBride says Celtic believe Regan is “someone with whom they can do business“.

2011 May: Craig Whye takes over Rangers. My thoughts are clear on this one. His behaviour benefitted himself and another party greatly. Legacy issues popping up even now seem a bit too convenient.

2011 October 25: SFA appoint Vincent Lunny as compliance officer. In my opinion, consistency and application of rules is suspect to say the least.

2012 February 12: Whyte takes Rangers into administration.

2013 June 27: SPFL forms as merger between SPL and SFL. This is one where I would like to hear some expert input. What was actually changed with this merger. Why the rush and panic at the time? If anyone cares to look I’m certain something that will a) protect celtic or b) harm Rangers has been implemented.

2014 June: Lunny quits as CO.

2014 August: Anthony McGlennan is instated as CO. As per his predecessor – his consistency and application of rules appear suspect.

A club must own its crimes…

I’m certain that there’s abundant untold story behind Craig Whyte’s entrance to Rangers FC and how he came to own the club. While in place he got the initial backing which a football support will extent to components of their club. Whyte played on this faith and peoples hope and used this misplaced confidence to buy himself time.

Hindsight shows Whyte to be one of the worst things to ever happen to Rangers. I don’t know one Rangers supporter happy with how he went about things, some of the stunts he pulled and how he was ultimately able to cut and ran without a scratch on his metaphorical person. The unfortunate thing is that he was part of our club.

Whyte played his role in what may have been an inevitable implosion but many think he made it a lot worse than it needed to be. I for one consider the 5 years spent walking around the wilderness to be sufficient atonement for our owner’s mismanagement and in a footballing context it can be considered a very, very harsh sentence. No-one wanted it, no one asked for it but Ranger’s fans now own and accept that chapter in our history. It happened. He wasn’t one of us, he put self-interest and interests of others before that of the club, he didn’t act in any way befitting an owner of Rangers but it was allowed to happen and he did what he did.

At the time we were told to accept and be contrite about Whyte’s actions. And many commentators told us the club and support had to pay for his crimes because that’s just how it is.

It was known long before the recent (and ongoing and soon to be ongoing) trials that Celtic FC were not separate and distinct from Celtic Boys Club. The charges against Torbett, Cairney and King and the information and testimony in the public domain relating to events leaves it in no doubt that Celtic FC were very much involved in and also directed and managed what went on at Celtic Boys Club.

In effect, Celtic Boys Club were part of Celtic FC and resources, personnel, buildings and funds were shared between the two.

It is not point-scoring to be appalled by it or to want to see justice served. Or to prefer that any of this stuff never happened or prefer that Celtic FC had acted properly, nipped it in the bud and minimised the unfortunate, life-wrecking effects of this. But it did. It is normal and decent to push for justice and closure – the same cannot be said of those that shut down those fair calls. It happened at Celtic FC and a paedophile ring was allowed to develop and run for a long, long time. It is understandably that it could be an awkward subject to broach for those involved, particularly when there’s a hierarchy involved, with many reputable and formidable characters at the top, and at a place that trades in the hopes and dreams of aspiring footballers. But the duty of care was failed by many, many people. Not the kids, there can be no blame there, but by the adults. And somehow a tribal omerta was set around the whole thing. Partly by the predators to protect their enterprise and partly by Celtic FC and their support to deny their accountability and responsibility, as though somehow pretending it never happened would actually make that so, to somehow dissociated their shame from the club they invest time and hopes in.

And that’s the crux. It shouldn’t have happened. But it did. It should’ve been stopped sooner. And the club set its stall out early to pretend it never happened (possibly an exchange of tactics advised by the then besieged Catholic Church). Today that stance has morphed into a cold, calculating legal separation of corporate entities. Purely business. To deny the crimes, to deny the cover-up and most importantly for Celtic FC to deny their part in it.

But here is what people know and people are angry about. Crimes were committed and crimes were and are still being covered up. Justice must be served against the individuals, first and foremost, but also against the structure which enabled it and it was very much part of. Unfortunately for its fans that means the football club – Celtic FC. The club must own its crimes.

Scoring Political Points – Part 2

Sometimes the divide and conquer tactics are so subtle that the only clue is when you realise who’s doing the chipping.

You then look more closely at them and start to recognise other aspects of their behaviour. Social media has given us an insight to this. Of course, the PR mud-slinging exercise hits reverse for their chosen interests. Positives are magnified and amplified before being spoon-fed to the public. And of course negatives are over-looked, dismissed or ignored.

On social media we have seen the preening imbecile Humza Yousaf respond to tweets about internet connections. We have seen Nicola Sturgeon stand over homeless people in her high heels in city alleyways and pretend she wants to be there. What is noticeable is the absence of any comment or condemnation on the large scale child abuse that occurred at celtic football club (n.b. “separate and distinct” is celtic fcs legal defence at this moment in time and not the ultimate factual status of the matter).

It is fair to weight stories by their content; including significance, severity, scale and public interest. This can then be trended into a media response i.e. how much coverage it should get, how many column inches, headlines, debates etc. And how long it should hold the headlines before dropping off and naturally being replaced by other stories.

In my opinion the Rangers tax case got a ridiculous amount of coverage for the weight of the story. For me, the why and how behind that is fairly straight-forward – point-scoring by rivals with a significant amount of lasting, damaging PR for Rangers FC.

As contrast the celtic fc child abuse scandal is getting well below its merited coverage. Again, the why and how is fairly straight-forward. Scoring points for celtic by limiting its exposure.

I’ll give an example of what the lack of coverage means in real terms. Football has a fair number of online fanatics and most stories and permutations will be known to these guys; but ultimately this represents a minority of the football going and following public. The rest of football has an interest but their awareness is limited to exposure from the media, newspapers, radio and chats based on that content. Like the fanatics these groups are fairly set in their ways although probably, through naivety, more open to suggestion through content.

Then there’s the rest of the population. A far bigger number and ultimately if you can influence this then you gain momentum to drive home your point.

An in-law of mine is a 60 year old women who works in a supermarket. She was aware of the Rangers tax case and knew enough about it to discuss it with me. She got her info from newspaper headlines and local radio reports. Recently I asked her opinion on the celtic child abuse cases and she hadn’t even heard about it. Take a minute to think about this. Now this is a very small sample but it points to a key point here, a big and serious story is being kept from the public. And with that most of the general public are oblivious to the celtic scandal.

It is being covered up. Why? Because it is known that once celtics’ crimes hit the public consciousness then it will be bad PR that will damage them. Fair and just exposure will undermine their support and will turn future generations off following them.

The SNP are currently courting the celtic vote and are therefore dutifully scratching backs over this.

Well, hopefully the same applies to the SNP once its complicity is exposed. Many would consider these actions to be crimes in themselves. Scoring points by keeping it quiet. To protect a football business over justice for victims. I’m sure the general public would be pretty angry if they realised the half of it.

Scoring Political Points – Part 1

Social media certainly gives you an eye-opening look behind the scenes of the media. You can see the story as it unfolds and hear accounts and details from people at or directly involved in the events. You then see how the media portrays it. If this spin suits you then it is all fair game but if you consider (or perceive) the outcome to be against your interests then it can be quite disturbing.

A video was shown on social media recently with a protestant group demanding equal treatment at a rally at Glasgow’s George Square. Being honest, a few years ago I wouldn’t have gave it a second look. but these days I’ve seen enough going in Scotland to be interested and give it a watch and listen.

The reason I wouldn’t have looked previously was that I don’t necessary identify myself with Protestant groups. I don’t attend church and, like most of Scotland these days, I’m wandering aimlessly across an agnostic wasteland. Of course, I realise my roots and the roots of Scotland, I just no longer identify directly or strongly enough to get behind any religious cause.

The reason I looked now is that a group appears to be under a co-ordinated political attack. A chip being chiselled from the bigger block. I might not belong to any Protestant group but I do identify as a member of another group that is under fairly constant political attack, namely, the Rangers support.

And that’s how it works. You gain power by acquiring allies. You also gain power by weakening enemies and adversaries, setting them against each other. The easiest battle is one others fight for you. Scotland is certainly in the midst of a shift and power struggle on many fronts. The SNP is grabbing votes anywhere it can. Part of this plan has been the joining of forces with the Irish/Catholic/republican block vote. A voting block that they inherited recently from the Labour party. Part of the deal appears that the SNP gives its new ally free reign and amble assistance to carry out its tactical plan to increase power (thus strengthening itself and the SNP), coupled with securing its base (schools, councils, press) and undoubtedly attacking and weakening enemies.

It’s fair to say that Sturgeons vacuous signalling in Holyrood on Neil Lennon was part of this. And with it the gratuitous and disingenuous nod to anti-Irish racism and anti-Catholic bigotry. The regular praising of the Catholic schooling system is part of this. Making moves to limit and outlaw Orange walks is part of this. Is denying Rangers FC planning permission and fan-zones part of this? Probably. That was certainly members of that party exploiting the positions they’ve been given and the party being reluctant to reel them in.

Recently divide and conquer has been applied on grander scales and with less subtlety with the Indy and Brexit referendums. And in the background, if you care to look for it, the traditional block of Scottish heritage is being chipped away at. The fragile outlying corners first, of course, and then slowly but surely the better connected and well established blocks. It works because most people do not realise it is happening, or when they do they do not identify sufficiently with the fragment to intervene. So a target is chosen. An aspect of that target is selected and worked upon – through sound-bites in the media, press and parliament. It will be an aspect that most people do not associate with, don’t want associated with or are told they shouldn’t associate with (ever notice how much noise there is about the evils of the Empire and why we should be ashamed of Scotland’s “racist” past)? And then that message is repeated and until it is established as fact or folklore. Divisions are grown. And then attacks can become justified.

The Orange Order is a perfect example of this. They have a pretty strong brand and plenty of unique traditions. They are also fairly insular as a culture (like most are to be fair), in that if you aren’t part of it then you don’t really associated with it. Personally, I don’t know much about the Orange Order. I don’t know their teachings or values. I’ve walked past halls and I’ve seen them occasionally as walks or parades pass. That is the limit of my exposure to them, with almost everything else being provided through bad PR in the press. So when the political attacks begin my sympathy threshold has been lowered. Multiple that across society and the lack of support emboldens the assailants.

It’s only when I step back that I actually realise that it is the same tactics that are being used against my football club, Rangers FC.

Money over morals – celtic fc

Finally Scotland’s journalists have woken up and started writing on the celtic scandal. It took a while and that is welcome and most dealt with it fairly, if a little restrained in their criticism.

Although I had to laugh (in incredulity not humour) at the stance of certain media figures in recent days. It seemed point-scoring between rivals fans (Rangers fans in particular) was deemed worthy enough to be included in those articles.

We are told that this is very serious subject and everyone must be respectful. And it is and we should. So when one of Scotland’s highest profile, least respected press members finally broke water on it he dealt with this seriousness and showed his respect by burying it in an opinion piece about the Scotland manager and a crap referee. He then further drove home his respect for the subject and the victims by using his article to “point-score” over Rangers fans for daring to have a view on proceedings.

Of note in this article he actually admitted that celtic need to do more and called on them to issue a formal apology. That seems fair and isn’t that exactly what everyone has been saying all along?!

Following the conclusion of the first court case (there’s more ongoing) we have had a legal expert come out and tell celtic fc that they have a case to answer. These lawyers represent many of the victims of the scandal and they are suing the club for damages. Their beliefs and wishes are that celtic accept responsibility.

So in the end it is all pretty simple – celtic are taking the stance they are to avoid paying damages. Cold, uncaring, financial reasons – ultimately that is it. Where’s the respect for the victims in that?

For a sports club money equates to sporting advantage. Celtic are denying and deflecting responsibility to maintain their sporting advantage. Again, it is that simple.

And that, Graham Spiers, is why rival fans are right to question their stance.

Point-scoring and putting the boot in during Rangers tax troubles was common place. There was no end of speculation about how much Rangers owed HMRC. Numbers were crunched, fines and interest were added and accrued. Tabloids plastered sensational figures on their front pages. £80m. £100m. I think they got up to £180m at one point!

Ultimately Rangers were poorly advised and opted to use risky tax schemes to improve their financial efficiency. It back-fired spectacularly and then some. Graham Spiers and plenty of his friends revelled in it. Cheating, financial doping, immoral and worse.

Now isn’t to fair to say celtic have been badly advised? Isn’t it fair to say they buried this early on and doubled down on that? Isn’t it fair to say they have benefited from avoiding justice on this and had the full force of law hit land decades ago then they might not have even been able to survive it? Without irony, they have now got themselves into a position where they are financially and politically strong enough to withstand whatever hits them.

It’s a big story. There’s a huge public interest in it and that’s not been reciprocated in the press. There’s genuine interest as to what when on and what could happen next. There is also rumours abound that celtic are quashing and gagging many stories – I guess bad PR isn’t good for business.

A lie rubber-stamped by Holyrood.

The timeline…

Amongst the ocean of groups pushing causes and vying for recognition and funding a new group is created called “Call it Out”. This group focuses exclusively on anti-Irish “racism” and anti-Catholic bigotry.
During a game where the Hearts keeper gets punched by Hibs fans. Lennon then goads the Hearts support as a Hearts goal is disallowed and gets hit by a coin from the stands.
After the match Neil Lennon then goes on a rant about anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry on back of coin throwing incident. Amongst the opinions and polemics Gordon Strachan stood out as the voice of common sense by pointing out that it is morons, not racists who throw coins.
James Kelly MSP (Labour), using the Lennon coin-throwing incident as a lead, asks Nicola Sturgeon to “take urgent action to address concerning instances of anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigotry”
Nicola Sturgeon then replies is her trademark signalling octopus style by praising Neil Lennon’s “dignity” and condemning anti-Irish racism and anti-Catholic bigotry.
This is all then reported on BBC by Chris McLaughlin and the Neil Lennon coin-throwing is catalogued in the database of social consciousness as an incident of anti-Irish racism.

Now I selected these components because there looks to be a pretty clear thread running through them. Of course, there may be other links that I’m not aware of or they could all be a simple coincidence, doubt it.

The one erratic in this flow is the Neil Lennon incident. Call me a cynic but it appears that he was prompted to go on his diatribe when the opportunity arose. He may have valid grievances to air but not in this case. Personally I believe he’s been pushed out front by others a few times to push premeditated statements (false flags). Going one step further than that, does he knowingly play up to get a reaction to then use it as part of whatever is on the burner at that time?

I’m aware that I make it sound like there’s all one big co-ordinated plan when it wont be but what there will be is a general push in a certain direction, through indoctrination follows autonomous action and reactionary reflex. Additionally it’s politics, people have their own interests and agendas and these will often overlap with the interests of others.

Labours James Kelly and his brothers at the SNPs are an example of this. The SNP courted heavily and subsequently won much of the west of Scotland Irish/Catholic block vote from Labour. That didn’t happen by accident. It happened because the SNP gave them what they wanted and said what they wanted to hear (in short – things that would benefit them). Sturgeons’ comments on Lennon are an example of this. She’s not stupid, she must know the guy acts like a chimpanzee. But there it is, for her and the block he’s now a charming and dignified chimp.

And all of this happily presented and dutifully gift-wrapped by the national broadcaster and our friend and familiar face Chris McLaughlin.

And so the SNP get to signal to their recruits in the push for independence. The Irish, Catholic block are happy because they’ve got their soundbite, from the First Minister of all people. Presumably the others on board that train accept this because they recognise the block as important component to their aims.

Now James Kelly is with Labour, of course. He is trying to win some of that vote back. So he’s showing some leg and signalling that he’s willing to do their bidding too. So now you have people from one homogeneous voting block leading the different streams in Scottish politics and both are trying to out-do each other for their own people. A cynic might say that democracy doesn’t win with that, since there’s only a finite supply of money and energy to go around then it follows that if one group are getting a good share of it then everyone else is losing out. Some would say that is just politics, looking after your own, you take what you can get or you’re left behind – others would say that once that gets to a certain level then it is inherently discriminatory – power and corruption and all that, see the Monklands reference below.

As a side note Patrick Harvie at the Green party is another example of this. He’s effectively an SNP member with a different badge on. He collects the Green party vote and then he does his bit for the SNP on their ticket – think Mark McGhee as Aberdeen manager.

As to the Irish, Catholic cause people don’t have to be either identity to be in their corner. Politics and identities evolve, sure, but it also quickly reduces to polar opposites, especially the limited world of Party politics And if you’re not in one camp then you either default to the other or you opt out, which isn’t always much of a choice. So of course, through convenience of options there will be many who are happy throw their truck in with that cause if it aligns with these options. If that cause gives you results that you are content with then you’ll naturally push for it more. The core vote will be happy to swell numbers as it helps their cause and gives them the option of playing the diversity card whilst still claiming bigotry in response – a convenient cultural diode.

Human nature doesn’t change. People will look after themselves and look out for their own. They will grab what the can, if they cannot then they will engineer situations to enable them to reach. And once in that situation they will then protect and defend it. Anything that has happened in history before can and will happen again – that’s not even an argument. Did the people involved and the social forces behind Monklands suddenly disappear? Of course not. It’s like doping in sport in that once the rules catch up with the methods – so the methods evolve again out of reach of the rules.

And so here we are. The race card being played to further some political ends. Politics that some would say are already straying into murky waters.

A few reference notes for the above.

For reference there have been at least 4 other coin-throwing incidents/fan-related assaults in Scottish football in recent weeks; including a punch on the Hearts goalie from Hibs fans and an object striking Alfredo Morelos.
“Call it Out”. This is a new group that focuses exclusively on anti-Irish “racism” and anti-Catholic bigotry. It has received a moderate fan-fair and exposure across most platforms. Many of the drivers behind it are those represented the irish and catholic communities. Social media interaction has shown they aren’t to concerned about other forms of racism or bigotry from the Irish or catholic community to other groups or individuals.
James Kelly MSP (Labour) is currently banging the anti-Irish and anti-Catholic drum as loud as he can. He campaigned to repeal the OBFA (claiming it illiberal). Make no mistake his mandate is to enact a similar law (presumably excluding any offensive behaviour from Irish, Catholics). Amusingly his actions draw ire online predominately from those he’s courting because Labours backing (non-committal) of the Union in 2014.
Nicola Sturgeon in her clamour to please her new voting block regularly defends Scotland’s archaic, segregated schooling system (which many would described as regressive) using buzzwords like diversity in its defence.

Sturgeon is not alone is her unthinking self-interest – this is politics. She probably involves herself in others stuff day to day and her Lennon comments would be scripted and handed to her by her minions. Her constant signalling on every issue does irritate me but of bigger concern are the various ongoing threads that affect Rangers FC. Her silence over the Hibs pitch invasion. Her silence over the GCC and SNP fan-zone discrimination. Her silence over celtics child abuse scandal. Her cloying backing of Lennon.

For me, it is beyond doubt that a game of divide and conquer that is being played with the wider Scottish public, with Rangers being a sizable, easy and convenient block to chip off and turn others against. It’s up the Rangers support to awake up and realise this.

Monklands reference…

“Monklandsgate was the name of a political scandal in the former Scottish local government district of Monklands (now part of North Lanarkshire) which dominated the Monklands East by-election in 1994.

The Monklands scandal consisted of allegations of sectarianism spending discrepancies between Protestant Airdrie and Catholic Coatbridge, fuelled by the fact that all 17 of the ruling Labour group were Roman Catholics.

Accusations included: £21m spent on capital projects in Coatbridge while only £2m was spent in Airdrie; councillors handing out green job application forms while the job centre handed out white ones; and also accusations of nepotism as dozens of council workers were related to Labour councillors. The accusations were of increased interest to the media as the Monklands West MP was Tom Clarke, former Monklands District Provost and one time Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, while the Monklands East MP was the Labour leader, John Smith.