Sectarianism and the SFA

Sectarianism has been Scotland’s evil for generations. A country divided by the Sects of Christianity, it’s commonplace for religious chanting at Scottish football grounds, notably at Celtic Park or Ibrox, the home of Rangers. For generations, Rangers fans have sung songs like the Billy Boys (which makes reference to being ‘up to our knees in fenien blood’) or Off To Dublin in the Green (**** the Queen) sung by Celtic fans to name a couple.

Rangers and Celtic boards have occasionally sent out public messages to the fans of the clubs disapproving of these chants and promising action against those caught singing the songs. In reality however, very little is done by the clubs. It would be easy to kick people out of the stadiums for singing the songs and banning them for life, but such is the culture in Scotland, it’s generally accepted that Tims will be Tims and Huns will be Huns, plus it would hit them in the pocket if they took such action. Go to either ground on a Saturday afternoon, and you can buy a Tricolour or Hand of Ulster flag with FTQ or FTP on it with ease. There’s worse, but I’ll leave that to your imagination. These aren’t sold by the club, but their sold outside the ground at stalls.

To give some background into why this is a problem you have to go back a couple of hundred years. Ireland was under British rule, they didn’t want to be and because of English underinvestment (shall we say) in Ireland, when the staple diet of Potatoes became poisoned millions of Irish died or migrated, and Britain was seen to be taking a back seat (its more complex than this, but this is the crux of it).

Along came a group of Volunteers called the Irish Republican Army (IRA) who set about trying to achieve a war of independence from the UK. There was a lot of violence aimed at Britain during this time, and the IRA was estimated to have 100k members. As part of Irelands agreement to side with Britain during WW1, Ireland was given independence. Northern Ireland as it is today, was predominantly ex-Brits, and protestant, so Britain kept Northern Ireland under British Rule. The IRA (variants of) continued to push for full independence for the Irish Island, and carried out a host of bombings in Northern Ireland and the British mainland. The predominantly protestant population retaliated under guises such as the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force) killing Catholics. Peace, as good as we’ve seen in recent years, now exists in Northern Ireland and the previous fighting is referred to as The Troubles.

Why does this matter? Celtic were formed by a Catholic Chapel in 1888 and have always aligned themselves to their Irish heritage. Rangers weren’t formed as a protestant team, as some historians would claim, but given the two clubs were rivals, at some point over the history, Rangers became aligned with Britain and the Loyalist (Protestant Ireland) connection as a 'we're the opposite of you'..kind of thing. Given Glasgow’s close proximity to Ireland, it has become a hub of immigration of both Protestants and Catholics alike, and if you ever find yourself at an Auld Firm game, there will be plenty of people from the Irish Island just over for the day, such is the level of support in the Irish Island, for both teams.

Unfortunately because of these links, Rangers and Celtic are hubs of religious hate for some. People use their allegiances to either club, as an extension of the allegiance to a sect or ‘the cause’. Accordingly, it has been acceptable for generations to consider yourself part of a sect and this continues into everyday life in the west of Scotland. Kids are separated into their sects in schools across the land. Tims, Catholics and Celtic supports goes to Catholic schools, Huns, Protestants and Rangers supporters go to Non-Denominational schools. There’s a few exceptions on either side, but kids are actively encouraged to separate into their sects. This happens across Britain, but unfortunately given the culture in Scotland and it's links to the Irish Island, this is more of an issue in the West of Scotland as it’s essentially encouraging the problem further.

On the football side, Rangers and Celtic clearly have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or as close to it as possible. It's their revenue generating communities after all, and if no-one is going to push them, why would the want to put a penny of that revenue at risk. Recently UEFA have fined Rangers for singing these chants. The latter event was away to PSV Eindhoven. After the UEFA delegate had given Rangers a clean bill of health, FARE complained to UEFA and Rangers were fined. The Rangers fanzine Follow Follow will point to links between the Celtic Supporters Club and FARE, and how it's some sort of conspiracy. In reality it could have been Celtic being fined by UEFA, but the point is it shows you how this problem is ignored domestically. During the 'charged' period, there was a suggestion that Rangers would have to play games behind closed doors. At £30 a head, this could have cost them over a million pounds a game. This would have hit Rangers where it hurt and caused them to take action.

Why then, given this has been going on for years and with neither Rangers or Celtic taking it too seriously have the SFA not considered such actions. As the domestic authority on football, it would have been very easy for the SFA to fine Rangers and Celtic or make them play game behind closed doors. They didn't and you have to question where the line is with the domestic football authority, or indeed do they have the enthusiasm for such a fight.

This season has seen Rangers fined by UEFA, Neil Lennon receiving a bomb through the post (as well as some bullets) and thousands of reported and unreported sectarian-based assaults, just like any other year. The Scottish Government have vowed to 'do something', but in reality it's just for show. To be seen to be doing something.

For me, the SFA are the only people who can start to put this right. The SFA need to hit these clubs in the pocket. They need to dock the teams points if these chants and this behaviour continues. Only then will Rangers and Celtic self-govern. Only then will they have an incentive. Take the Sect out of the section who let the clubs down and the cult out of the culture and you'll go a long way to beating Scotland's evil.

Independence for Scotland

Since the 1970's, the SNP's flagship policy has been a fully independent Scotland. Now they have a majority in the Scottish parliament, their dream is a whisker away from reality.

It's surprising how far they have come, from a staunch-nationalist one-issue party to the leading party in a devolved Scottish parliament. Today, they are a left of centre, libertarian party with around 45% of the public vote.

They won these votes not solely on merit. The LibDems are viewed as being in bed with the Tories - a party hated because they tested policies on Scotland before implementing in the UK under Thatcher, and, well, Labour who wrecked the economy. SNP therefore are the best of the rest. A protest vote for many. This is important for any vote in independence. Not everyone loves the SNP - they just hate the others more.

Some of the recent polls around who would vote for independence, place a figure of 30-35% in favour. If this is true, welcome to an independent Scotland. No budgets, no plans, no vision has been released to suggest what an independent Scotland would mean, so a third of the remaining voters switching to yes would swing it which doesn't sound unreasonable with such a high core vote.

Would an independent Scotland be positive for Scotland? As it is now, too many people work for the state rather than private revenue generating and generally resource efficient companies, oil tax revenues flow to the UK Government, tax rates are too high to attract enterprise over other countries in Europe, the culture resents anyone who stands out and Scotland on a cash basis, gets a good deal under the Barnett formula.

That said, if the SNP, like they are attempting to do, get corporation tax and other taxes devolved, they could attract a lot of business from England and Ireland which would normally have located there, which will increase private jobs and make the country a bit more balanced improving the conditions for an independent country.

Alex Salmond, as ex-Chief Economist of RBS knows this fine well. Change society from a socialist state to a capitalist country and we'll buy into his vision for Scotland. This is why he's pushing for these powers.

From my perspective, Alex is a charming trustworthy politician. It's why the Scots like him. Unfortunately, this charm might just about mask the risks in the direction he is taking Scotland and without any challenge from Labour or LibDems in Scotland, independence could just be a formality. Hopefully my Scottish passport will allow me in to England if it doesn't work out as planned.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Smoking is the major cause of lung cancer, second hand smoke kills many innocent people and meanwhile pollution ain't that bad.

As the agenda pushers have continually pushed the anti-smoking campaign over the past twenty years, it has to make you take a step back and think. Let's agree smoking is bad and is a big contributor to lung cancer. Let's concede that point for the sake of this post. Second hand smoke, so we've been told over the past twenty years is atrocious. There's even been talk of third hand smoke as being a risk to society.

Let's take a step back. What's in cigarettes. What makes them worse than what is burned in petrol or diesel. And how much more exposure does the average person get to cigarettes than fumes from cars.

Erm, wait a minute I hear you say. It's the other way round. Indeed, it is. What do you think the chances are, that the increase in lung cancer ( of non smokers) over the past 50 years is related to the increase in motorised vehicles? Seems reasonable doesn't it. Never heard the government make such a link before though. Just think of the consequences if they ever did and that might give you some understanding of why second, third, fourth and fifth hand smoke are to blame. I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped smoking. Might explain why cigarettes are still affordable. Price them at fifty pounds a packet and the government might just have to explain away the deaths of non-smokers from lung cancer ie the majority

The SNP, Minimum Alcohol Pricing, and Big Mad Tam

So the SNP, now that they have an overall majority in Scotland are planning to push ahead with minimum alcohol pricing.

I've read the stats which show that Scotland's alcohol consumption is lower than it's ever been in the last 50 year, and lower than many other European countries. The normal stats that get banded about by the high and mighty tend to be those which are 10 years old. But, don't get me wrong, I think Scotland has a bad relationship with alcohol which needs to be annulled and quantity consumed isn't really the issue as I see it.

The problem is that it's socially acceptable to 'get plastered'. It's socially acceptable to take a pee in a bush. It's socially acceptable to fall flat on your face, or be sick in public (as long as you do it down an alleyway), and it's socially acceptable to drink to you fall asleep.

Society is the problem. That's why I'm not convinced on the effect that charging a minimum price per alcohol unit will solve much. Alex Salmond has said previously that this will reduce the number of middle class drinkers, drinking wine during the week. He's right. But, what's the problem with this? These drinkers don't cause much hassle to the rest of society, and tend to have their own health insurance. Maybe it's a good thing, but I don't think it helps Scotland improve as a country, unless you consider the knock on effects of their children and the next generation being a bit more sensible and not alcohol reliant. It's a bit of a long shot though, and maybe there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The problem I have is with Big Mad Tam. Big Mad Tam earns the minimum wage. He's a bricklayer lets say. He works hard, and expects (rightly or wrongly in this day) that he comes home to a cooked meal and watches the Celtic game on his cracked cable box, while his kids play with their stole Nintendo DS he got from the Barras. This is all they can afford, because they don't have much money.

Big Mad Tam, then comes home on a Friday and has his 6 cans of lager, and bottle of Buckfast/Other High Alcohol wine. Big Mad Tam works hard all week and thinks 'he deserves a drink' after working hard all week to put Iceland Lasagne on the table. You can probably see where I'm going with this. Big Mad Tam will continue with his six cans and bottle of Buckfast. You see, he deserves a drink after a hard week. If you put the price up from £8 for that to £15, where's it going to come from and who's the loser. Big Mad Tam deserves his drink after working hard all week after all.

What do people without ambitions do with their lives

I've worked with a lot of people over the years. People who are ambitious within their careers, those who have ambitions outwith their day jobs, and those who just want to see their dreams realised through their kids.

I'm in the former camp. Not too career ambitious, but realise I'll need to get to a certain level and earn a certain salary if I want to retire early...preferably in the sun.

What I've come across recently though, are people who don't fall into any of the above categories. I've worked in very corporate environments before, and have moved to a smaller (but still fairly large) multinational. The people I'm taking about come to work, Do their 9-5 and tick the necessary boxes to get by (sometimes), have no desire to succeed in outside interests and will never have kids. Their interests outside of work tend to be limited to menial things, like playing football on the playstation, or growing plants.

I just can't reconcile it. To wake up 365 days a year for 75 years with nothing. No ambition. No passions. No plan. This isn't about being organised or having the skillset required to succeed, it's just about wanting something in future....whatever that is.

Maybe God should have one of those Raptures after all, but instead of dooming man, he should just take out the pointless ones and leave the rest of us to do what we do, till we kill off civilisation or whatever the hippies reckon the effects of Global Warming, Nuclear Power etc is supposed to be doing to us.

This is it

This'll be my first blog ever then. Where to start. So many things annoy me. Let's start with super injunctions and the unidentified footballer. Seems to me he lives his life in the public eye, shags around and then uses his not-so-hard-earned's to buy a lawyer who uses law developed for the HRA so he doesn't need to face the consequences.

What a knob. Man up and take responsibility for your actions. That's what's wrong with Britain nowadays - people think they can do what they want and when the shit hits the fan they can run from it.

In my mind the unidentified footballer is no different from a smackhead who cuts his arm open, breaking into your house and tries to sue. Man up