I agree with most of this as should any "right-minded" individual: Over the past decade or so, I have followed the general debate on sectarianism in Scotland and been particularly intrigued with the current discussion of the issue in the Scottish Review. In the interest of full disclosure, I was raised in Glasgow by non-religious English parents whose allegiances lay with Manchester United. However, I became a Rangers supporter, and remain so, despite leaving Scotland to pursue my career in England, Switzerland and the United States. I would like to start by addressing some of the points made by John Kelly (30 August) in his recent contribution to this journal before outlining my views on why the broader debate is languishing in an intellectual cul de sac. My impression of the dialogue surrounding sectarian bigotry is one of increasing incredulity at some of the positions taken, a prime example of which is John Kelly's attempt to draw a parallel between Irish Republican violence and the British Army's presence in Iraq. No matter what John Kelly asserts, I have difficulty comparing an ad hoc group of armed terrorists such as the IRA with the legally constituted and democratically controlled armed forces of a sovereign country. I also find it surprising that Mr Kelly is critical of the reception given to British servicemen and women by Rangers supporters when football clubs across Britain welcomed them as part of the 'Help for Heroes' campaign. The exception to this was, of course, Celtic Football Club, some of whose supporters infamously displayed their disdain for Remembrance Sunday with a banner emblazoned with the slogan 'No Bloodstained Poppies On Our Hoops'. When faced with a conflict one disagrees with, the tradition in Britain is to support the troops while condemning the politicians who send them to war. Given that one of those politicians became chairman of Celtic Football Club, I can appreciate that this outlook elicits a certain degree of discomfort for some. But what is truly absurd in Mr Kelly's argument is the attempt to legitimise the IRA in order to excuse offensive chanting by Celtic supporters. In general terms, I find John Kelly's perspective to be remarkably one-dimensional. He appears to adhere to the theory that Rangers and their supporters are anti-Catholic and anti-Irish; 'ethno-religious bigotry' is the term he coins for this. The problem with theories is that they need facts to support them and this one consequently fails to stand. Rangers have Catholic players, had a Catholic captain and a Catholic manager, all of whom have been met with resounding approval by the vast majority of Rangers supporters There is a conspicuous dearth of discussion within the Scottish media based on indicators such as economic success or social exclusion that one might expect if sectarianism were a genuinely serious problem. Indeed, contrary to popular perception, Rangers signed Catholic players as long ago as the 1890s. Rangers also have a large number of Irish supporters who travel over regularly for games. Surprising though it may seem to some, Rangers supporters really have no interest in the religion of Rangers players whether they be Protestant, Muslim, Orthodox, Jewish or Catholic. What does concern them is their performance on the field of play. Mr Kelly’s demand for an apology from Rangers Football Club is very telling. Firstly it implies that sectarianism is, and always has been, a one-way street. It is about apportioning blame while absolving others from any suggestion of fault and it also involves humiliating the apologiser. As one analyses Mr Kelly's argument, whether it be his excuses for the IRA, his failure to hold Celtic to the same standards he expects from Rangers or his demand for an apology, one could be forgiven for thinking that he is more interested in point scoring within the Old Firm rivalry than in a substantive discussion addressing sectarianism. One striking feature about the wider sectarianism debate is that the core of the 'problem' is commonly portrayed as involving vocal support at football matches. Indeed, in certain cases there appears to be an implicit assumption that this is the cause of religious bigotry, although to my knowledge no evidence has ever been presented to support this theory. I say 'problem' because it is unclear to me that there is a real issue here beyond a few bruised sensibilities. Certainly I accept that songs and chants may be offensive to some but this is true of football songs and chants the world over. However, bearing in mind the multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-religious make-up of Old Firm teams and the lack of any related hostility from their supporters, then it is justifiable to question whether there is a link between the origins of these songs and the intent with which they are sung today. Rather than demonstrating a deep-rooted 'ethno-religious bigotry', I suggest that they are sung simply because they always have been. Tradition and the 'winding-up' of rivals are far more important factors than ethno-religious hatred. There is a conspicuous dearth of discussion within the Scottish media based on indicators such as economic success or social exclusion that one might expect if sectarianism were a genuinely serious problem. Indeed, statistics for 'mixed marriages' point to a high degree of social interaction. Given the prevalence with which sectarianism is portrayed as being synonymous with 'anti-Catholicism', the string of Catholic lord provosts of Glasgow and the relatively large number of Catholic MPs suggest the political world is hardly discriminatory, while the existence of a state-funded Catholic school system is a privilege effectively denied to all other groups. The presence of prominent Catholic academics in the pages of this journal is indicative of equality in terms of educational opportunities. With the exception of the occasional rant from politicians or clerics against the Act of Settlement, sectarianism invariably seems to revolve around football. There are occasions where churches merit criticism and we should not shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices of these churches Post-devolution Scotland's apparent obsession with sectarianism comes at a time when churches in general are quietly dying from disinterest. Church attendance is increasingly a ritual adhered to for christenings, marriages and funerals. Otherwise, most people simply cannot be bothered. In 1984, over 250,000 went to see Pope John Paul II in Bellahouston Park; in 2010, barely 60,000 turned up to see Pope Benedict XVI. Yet, as public interest in religion wanes, sensitivity to perceived sectarianism has taken centre stage. Charities have been created with full-time positions. Newspapers jump on incidents with screaming headlines. Politicians, ever vigilant for the opportunity to attract publicity and votes, make grave pronouncements. The police argue that they need more resources to deal with the problem, while academics, lawyers and journalists promote themselves through various media outlets. All this represents a tremendous mobilisation of resources for a few terrace chants in questionable taste. The suspicion arises that there are some in positions of influence who see sectarianism as an opportunity rather than a threat. Let us be clear. It is neither bigoted nor sectarian to criticise the policies and practices of the Catholic Church nor those of any other church for that matter. It is one thing to discriminate against an individual on the basis of their intimately held belief; it is quite another to disagree with a church's teachings such as those on birth control. There are occasions where churches merit criticism and we should not shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices of these churches. Can Jack McConnell's melodramatic phrase 'Scotland's shame' be justified when it primarily denotes football tribalism? Might it not be more productive if politicians' and academics' energies were devoted to addressing matters such as state of the economy, poverty and the appalling health record in some parts of the country? Or, if we are serious about violence and anti-social behaviour, why not focus on knife-crime, racial abuse and attacks on partners, which are viewed by the public as far more important concerns? It is time this national self-flagellation over a relatively minor and declining social problem came to an end.
See if you just recognized the 'ra as a legitimate army instead of a terrorist group.....you could have them in the Hague on war crimes... Silly Billys
I might be wrong but in order to be recognised as a legitimate army you firstly have to be an actual army.
To be honest, I think it's a load of pish Edge. "I have difficulty comparing an ad hoc group of armed terrorists such as the IRA with the legally constituted and democratically controlled armed forces of a sovereign country." I think that was precisely the point that Kelly was making. Essentially, the writer thinks the actions of the IRA (whatever they happen to be) do not and can never have the legitimacy afforded to the actions of the British Army (whatever they happen to be) - simply because the british army's actions are (in part) determined by a sovereign nation/government. I'm not going to argue one way or the other but it's very dodgy moral standpoint to take.
I agree on that point but agree with the writer of the article on many of his other points. I am amazed at the hoolabaloo around 'sectarianism' in Scotland. I think it is EDGE who calls the whole thing around it an industry? It's a load of bollocks in my opinion. There will be people in every country on earth who hate/dislike a section of people due to their race/religion. It's just a fact of life that there are many many morons knocking about. I rent a flat out to two polish guys on Duncairn Gardens in North Belfast. There tenancy comes to an end in a couple of weeks. I would happily let Spiers or any of the others have the keys for a week and let them see what the could have won. The living room window looks out onto a 20ft 'peace line' but you might have trouble seeing it due to the metal grids welded on the window. Small scale riots a few times a week that don't even make the local news. What's happening in Scotland, in my opinion, is that supporters of football clubs are using the perceived difference in Religion as a stick to beat their rivals with. Of course there are bigots but they are a tiny minority.
It's all right for a bit of banter but this has went way too far. I remember last season some twat 'Mike' running about the Celtic board on 606 posting UEFAs E-Mail address and telling people to get on to them about the Billy Boys and the rest I nearly wept, I really did. What kind of mopey, crying bastard thinks like that? Anyway, that's all your getting you Dirty Orange Bastard
Beautifully put. Well said mate, that's exactly how I see it too. Using religion to point score. In many ways, it's probably a symptom of how far we have fallen, perhaps if we had a product on the park to be proud of, the petty ****e that goes on in the terraces might not be as polarised by the mainstream media.
We have had ****e football before, what we have not had is so many people with a vested interest in highlighting small scale sectarianism as if it's Belfast circa 1985. It's not, believe me. I have been to too many wake houses and funerals to think of this as anything more than a steaming pile of money wasting, attention diverting brown stuff. That's all you're getting too you Dirty Orange Bastard
