D'Artagnan

Easy to say if you are not affected, some have supported the club from a particular place "For Generations".

Well firstly the fact that it has been "agreed in principle" would suggest it is something of a foregone conclusion - the actual survey then asks CR bears where they would like to be seated as an alternative. Secondly why was the possibility of being re-located not intimated to ST holders in CR prior to renewal ? Finally the UB's were originally located in CR1 but voted themselves to move to the Broomie - how many times are ST holders going to be inconvienced whilst the UB's make up their minds where they wish to be located ?

Very very badly handled to date.

I think the only silver lining to us not going up is that the new management team will be given a bit more breathing space to bring in players, develop a playing style and gel players ready for us to challenge next season for the only kind of honours Rangers should be interested in winning.

I really do identify with what you have written R. For me the purchase of a the ST was always going to be "unconditional". Bit like a marriage...for "better for worse, in sickness and in health" ;-))

Zap I recall quite a no. suggesting that when King et all got in McCoist would drop his wage demands - that hasn't panned out has it ?

If I had one criticism of the current regime Frankie they seem to be placing alot of reliance on their status as Rangers men, and I recall Paul Murray at press conference stating he didnt think a temporary manager would be required as he hoped "the momentum of change would carry us over the finishing line." As a matter of some urgency they really need to undertake a sitrep. (Sitution Report for non-military readers) . This is a support who have quite rightly had their fill of so called "Rangers men" - one of them is currently fleecing the club for £ 750K per annum - and hot air promises. I think the current board need to realise they have a lot of convincing to do irrespective of their qualifications as genuine Rangers men. Trueblue's previous post of "running on fumes" is a very apt description. Lemmings like me will buy an ST irrespective of whether King splashes the cash, but I think I am very much a minority these days and perhaps thats no bad thing. Despite all the soundbites coming from the board re the importance of ST sales - it was only in the latter part of this week I got a fairly bland e-mail asking me to renew.

I dont think that article is an attempt to change facts limeburner, more a plea to focus on what is important rather than polarise any debate with either emotion or get sidetracked by going off on tangents about the moral compasses of those involved at our club.

Rab I think the absence of facts & figure does not necessarily equate to uninformed choices. Mather, who you and I have referred to, was in a position and had the knowledge to make that remark. I think given that, its more othan just an implication.

It would be great if we had one Bluenose SMP DB ;-))

(William Pollard) For those not familiar with the writings of William Pollard, despite his use of words such as “organized, processed and format”, he was in fact a Quaker clergyman from the 1800’s rather than some modern day technological soothsayer. But that in itself serves to underline how valuable a commodity information has been throughout the ages. Furthermore his reference to “the right people” has particular significance for this article. Regular readers of this blog will be more than familiar than my much repeated mantra of “more information for the Rangers support”. The fact that it was the subject of my inaugural article for WATP magazine, should leave no-one in any doubt at how highly I value its importance. The propaganda war for control of our club has seen our support subjected to the release of information, much of which has proven to be a burden rather than a benefit in the battle for hearts and minds. To an extent as a support, we are still suffering from the hangover of information overload, much of which was neither organised, processed or presented in the right format. Often it is against this backdrop, we as a support have been asked to make decisions which affect, not only the direction of our club, but without being too melodramatic, on occasion, the very survival of our club. (The spontaneous and mass purchase of Season Ticket’s after being consigned to Division 3 springs to mind for the latter) Last week Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct managed, via the courts, to place further restrictions on our capability as a support to make informed choices. The value to our club of the Rangers Retail deal with Sports Direct will remain anything but clear and transparent. I’m well aware that attempts have been made to put this deal into some kind of perspective with the figure of Rangers making 75p for every £10 of merchandise being sold being widely circulated. But for those of us who don’t have a retail background, this figure has an element of jargon about it. Even if this figure is 100% accurate then what we need to know is how it compares to other club’s income from merchandise. That is not meant to be a criticism of those who have probably poured over accounts to arrive at that conclusion, just an admission that for some of us, that figure means relatively little other than being a series of numbers in the absence of comparative figures. The problem for Sports Direct is that in denying the Rangers support information which I would argue we are entitled to, they have not only treated their targeted client base with contempt, but as a consequence left us with little option to search amongst the “circumstantial evidence” in order to evaluate the benefit to our club of this deal. That circumstantial evidence does not make a particularly good case for its defence. We know it was negotiated at a time when the deals being brokered at our club were later criticised as “ill-defined, short term focused decisions with little advance recognition of medium or longer term requirements” We also know that Craig Mather’s described it as follows “It’s the worst, most one-sided commercial contract I’ve ever seen.” Pollard’s opening quote made reference to the “right people”. Unfortunately for Sports Direct, in this situation we can alter that to the “only people”. Despite my extremely limited knowledge of retail, I think it’s a pretty safe to suggest that the vast majority of people buying Rangers merchandise will be Rangers fans. If there is a considerable element of doubt that buying such merchandise will be of little benefit to the club then we will make informed choices about how best to spend our cash for the benefit of our club. I suspect Sports Direct victory in the courts last week will prove to be one of their most hollow victories ever. It is a mistake for Rangers fans to factionalise events this week. This is not about board's or individuals, irrespective of allegiances or suspicions. This is about a deal where the best interests of the club are not being served and that, above all, should be the starting point in any subsequent debate. As a support we have made errors in the past, often due to the lack of available information, it is not only imperative, it is critical, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

You dont think some bears, myself included, buy season tickets irrespective of the regime ? As we have done for years. The same logic is applied for next season also - the ST will be bought irrespective of whether King splashes the promised money or not.

Dreadful news, for many on here, myself incuded, he will be in the boyhood heroes category. His attitude, loyalty and love for the club mean that such admiration goes beyond boyhood for many of us.

Frankie, I think you may have hacked my heid and stolen my thoughts. ;-))

Cant see it happening Bearman. If you think back to the initial press conferences the hope expressed by the new board was that the momentum of change would be enough to carry us over the line. Clearly they were unaware just how bad things were on the footballing side - SM was just a stop gap measure imo. If he had secured promotion I think it would have been more difficult for the board, as they may have felt almost obliged to give him the job. I honestly dont think he was ever part of a longer term vision

It's not an opinion when its already been shown as erroneous by that media organisation's governing body. Its not an opinion when it runs contrary to the rulings of all the football governing bodies (bar none) both at home and abroad. Furthermore it shows a lack of journalistic professionalism (probably integrity) that they cannot apply the legal precedents over UEFA's treatment of Fiorentina to the Rangers situation. Which is all the more surprising when one of the proponents of the "new club" lie has apparently referred to the "long & illustrious" European pedigree of the Italian club.

So we should get used to organisations and journalists waging a war of hatred against our club ? We should allow journalists to peddle the "new club" lie on a media platform we pay for and we shouldnt care any more ?

Yes the selection of guests to talk about Rangers is another interesting angle which I didnt even go into. Chris Graham provides really interesting insight into that one.

It’s an interesting tweet from Jane Lewis. At its heart of course is an inference that we Rangers supporters will view any action, from a completely distorted viewpoint, which suggests a hatred of our club. Not so much “Reds” but certainly a McCarthyesque like “Rangers haters under the bed”. Jane Lewis works for a publicly funded media organisation which falsified the editing on an interview with the then Rangers manager, Ally McCoist, to present a completely different response to that which he offered, regarding a question about sectarianism. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502'>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502 Jane Lewis works for an organisation which sought to compare Rangers use of EBT’s with the Marseille match fixing scandals of 1994. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502 The latter link as you can see is still live, despite the result of 2 Tax Tribunals. Jane Lewis works for an organisation which continually breached its guidelines on accuracy with regard to its description of Rangers, despite numerous complaints being escalated through various tiers of management at Pacific Quay. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447 Perhaps Jane even remembers her BBC colleague Nicky Campbell suggesting the attack on the then Celtic manager Neil Lennon, may have been perpetrated by “A Rangers fan disguised as a Hearts supporter” Or does she think that the BBC Scotland footage depicting Ally McCoist falling to his death before a cup tie was really a “creative attempt to set up the clash between Motherwell and Rangers.” The fact that some of the criticism came from out with the Rangers community, should have served as a suitable signpost. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/bbc-crossed-the-line-with-spoof-of-ally-1350077 BBC Scotland presenters don’t like to be exposed for “sticking the boot into Rangers” as this recent interview with Tom English, Jim Spence and John Brown illustrates. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/32806513 The comments by Jim Spence at 05:13 into the discussion are particularly interesting, where he suggests that “you usually find when you ask a question John, people mounted campaigns to have you sacked” It’s the kind of revisionism which has been allowed to go unchallenged for far too long. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bbc-presenter-exonerated-over-rangers-comments.23841729 Allow me to re-phrase that for you Jim. Its not unusual to find, when you try to be a smart arse, and usurp not only the previous rulings of the BBC Trust regarding guidelines on accuracy, but also the rulings of the football authorities such as UEFA, FIFA, ECA, and the SFA, then you may find yourself, quite rightly, the subject of complaints. Unfavourable documentaries, unsavoury “creative” tone setting, untruthful and misleading editing of interviews. Refusal to adhere to the organisations guidelines on accuracy, refusal to accept the ruling and authority of football’s governing bodies, both at home and abroad. Is it really just poor journalism by this organisation or is it symptomatic of an institutional hatred towards our club ?

Lucy/Pete You are not alone in suggesting perhaps that article should have been "put on hold" until Ally's version of events had been heard. If Im honest though, I'm honestly struggling to see what parts of the jigsaw are missing for people. As had been alluded to already throughout this thread, what is the smoking gun which is going to justify such exhorbitant excess at our club ? Gunslinger spoke about the honouring of the contract - Id say its part of the financial malaise at our club that we are still negotiating the kind of contracts which were so harmful during Walter's final season during his 1st stint. Furthermore Frankie made a critical point several months ago - the issue of consistency. While others were being tarred as "****s" for their conduct over the penny shares we convienently turned something of a blind eye in terms of criticism of Ally. I'm genuiney struggling to understand where the demarcation line is for this type of conduct. In terms of the article much of the focus and discussion has centred around McCoist - but it was intended to be more wide reaching hence why I mentioned "others" and also the 3 bullet points which I included to demonstrate the need for change was more far reaching than just the ex-manager's wage. The culture of excess at our club continues to impede and restrict its ability to get back to its rightful place.

Shattered and suffering from sleep deprivation, big Gordy climbs on his mountain bike for the 14 mile cycle home. It’s at times like this he rues the decision to downgrade to just one family car, but needs must and every penny is a prisoner. The driving rain and head on wind would normally be a curse, but with a body craving sleep, they act as a form of stimulus. It’s the 6th night on the trot of 12 hour shifts for Gordy, and despite the 72 hour week demanding a heavy toll, Gordy welcomes the overtime. What he does not look forward to however, is telling the kids the PS4 will have to wait, or the wife that the much needed new kitchen will have to be put on hold for the time being. The winter service on the family car Gordy will have to do himself, irrespective weather. Next year’s family holiday will have to wait for the following year. Hopefully. Ranger’s season tickets and shares are the absolute priority for Gordy. Together, they are beyond the normal parameters of the normal family budget. But these are not normal times and Gordy is doing everything within his power to ensure he answers his club’s calling in its hour of need. We all probably know someone like Big Gordy, in fact some of us may be him. All of us have probably wrestled with the kind of financial dilemmas Gordy has faced these last few years. Such people are the absolute life blood of our great club. And they deserve better, much, much better. They deserve administrators at our club who negotiate contracts for the benefit of the club and not the self-serving needs of individuals. They deserve people employed at our club who draw a wage which is commensurate with the role they undertake and the challenges the club faces. In short they deserve people at the club who reflect their own willingness to sacrifice for the good of our club. The gravy train, which so many associated with our club, have ridden these last few years, is not fuelled by some mysterious benefactor – it is fuelled by the blood sweat, tears and sacrifices by Big Gordy and thousands like him. Alistair McCoist, MBE, and a few others – hang your heads in absolute shame.

An excellent summation Frankie - the media hypocrisy is a totally irrelevant sideshow. King now shoulders a considerable responsibility (not of his own making I may add) - but the reality is many fans are at the end of their tether. If he fails to deliver on his promises I think it will truly be the end of this model of ownership for our club. Perhaps worse.

Rab Have a read of this - the author regretfully does not wish his identity revealed. When the furore broke over the issue of the Rangers support singing its anthem The Billy Boys, there were plenty of well-founded suspicions among those of a Royal Blue persuasion that UEFA, in imposing a ban on the song, had been duped by those in Scotland peddling a revisionist take on history and presenting a false representation of reality, choosing to twist expressions of belief by others into anti-Catholic bigotry such as Graham Spiers on BBC telling the audience quite specifically that "******" meant "Catholic" in the minds of those who sang the song. The ****** movement, which was born in Ireland in the mid 19th Century sought to achieve Irish independence from Britain and the name was and is used regularly by those who desire to see a united Ireland by fair means or foul. This is an aspect which will be referred to at a later point in this essay. Protestant institutions in Scotland have been severely criticised in recent years; some, like the Church of Scotland, have chosen to respond to this by apologising almost regularly for events of the past; the Orange Order has tried to be accommodating but still ends up the victim of smears and ridicule; while Rangers FC, with their history of being a focal point of the country's Protestants, have floundered, not knowing how to contextualise their identity and preferring to just not mention the issue at all. All of this means that the history and identity of Protestant Scotland is denied a voice. What this chapter aims to do, therefore, is to examine what is nowadays claimed to have been anti-Catholicism that was prevalent in Scottish society in years gone past; and to specifically look at the relationship between the Scottish people and the strain of Irish republicanism that grew in Scotland in the late 19th / early 20th Century. Protestants and Catholics in Ireland alike were affected by the Potato Famine in the middle of the 19th Century and many of either persuasion sought refuge in other countries, Scotland being one of them. Scotland, apart from a few pockets of Catholics in the north-east and Western Isles was an almost entirely Protestant country. However, the number of Catholics and Irish Nationalists grew markedly in number in Glasgow especially after the influx from Ireland. However, despite claims to the contrary, the Catholics moving into Scotland were not as persecuted as some would have us believe. Chapels were built and attended regularly and priests were often seen in Glasgow walking the streets in their full regalia with little or no account of harassment; indeed, the strongest form of protest appears to have been a few letters sent to Glasgow newspapers bemoaning the fact that a visitor to Scotland might form the impression that such a sight meant Catholics were in the majority in the country. Of course, it would be inaccurate to claim that relations between the indigenous Protestants and incoming Catholics were perfect but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the newcomers were not subject to instant hostility and harassment from a people who at the time were still almost entirely Protestant. The rivalry between Rangers and Celtic in the early days was not as bitter or pronounced as it was to become. Indeed, after Rangers won the Scottish Cup for the first time in 1894 the Celtic hierarchy expressed satisfaction that Rangers had triumphed at last. Scottish society, however, was dividing sharply with numerous instances of violence surrounding the religious and political parades that were taking place. In one particular instance, an Irish Home Rule parade that took place in Glasgow in the 1890s culminated in a 16 year old Scottish Protestant being shot by one of the participants in the demonstration. An event such as this could only widen the hostility that the indigenous Protestant population would feel towards a militant, hostile element that was gaining strength in their own country. As will be seen further on in this essay, this was far from the last time violent acts were committed on the streets of Scotland in the name of Irish republicanism and the argument here is that hostility to such activity was natural given the seriousness and potential for damage to the country that could be inflicted by malcontents. Therefore, rather than accept the view that the Scots of the time were anti-Catholic to any great degree, the crux of this argument is that the divide in Scottish society was caused by violent Irish Republicanism being visited upon the indigenous population by those who sought to further the political aims of Ireland. The issue of World War One and doing one's duty was an evidently emotional one in Scotland in the immediate period after the war broke out. By January 1916, over 400,000 Scots had directly enlisted in the British Army. This represented a massive part of the Scottish population, perhaps 10% in all. It can therefore be argued that such a sacrifice by such a small country in the cause of duty permeated its way into everyday life, with everybody expected to do their bit for King and Country. What it also meant – completely understandably – was that those perceived not to be doing their duty were regarded with suspicion which evolved into hostility. This can be shown to be more than supposition when one considers the narrative of John Buchan's Mr Standfast where a Glasgow man is depicted at showing hostility to immigrant Irish taking the jobs vacated by those who had gone to fight in the trenches. "Aye, the Irish", cried the old Border radical. "Glasgow' stinking with two things nowadays, money and the Irish. I mind the day when I followed Mr Gladstone's Home Rule policy, and used to threep about the noble, generous warm-hearted sister nation held in bondage. My God, I'm not speaking about Ulster which is a dour, ill-natured den but our own folk all the same. But the men that will not do a hand's turn to help the war and take the chance of our necessities to set up a bawbee rebellion are hateful to God and man. We treated them like pet lambs and that's the thanks we get. They're coming over here in their thousands to take the jobs of lads that are doing their duty. I was speaking last week to a widow woman that keeps a wee dairy down the Dalmarnock Road. She has two sons and both in the army, one in the Cameronians and one a prisoner in Germany. She was telling me that she could not keep going any more, lacking the help of her boys though she had worked her fingers to the bone. "Surely it's a cruel job, Mr Amos", she says, that the Government should take both my ladies and I'll maybe never see them again and let the Irish run free and take the bread from our mouth. At the gasworks across the road they took on a hundred Irish last week and every one of them as young and as well set as you would like to see…." Scottish attitudes of the time can be further expanded upon with the deployment of another Scottish Protestant character in the same book who referred to the Ulster-Scots as 'our ain people'. While Buchan's book was published after the war, it is contended here that it is not unreasonable to associate the views therein with the thoughts of 1916 Scottish society. This theory is given further strength when one considers the case of a conscientious objector of the period that was held on March 22nd 1916. One of the defendants was one who described himself as an Irishman and who claimed to believe in militarism but failed to recognise the war's validity to him, given the country he pledged allegiance to. The response of one of the judges at the hearing, Baillie Irwin, is very revealing with regard to the reason anti-Irish republicanism began to develop in Scotland. Irwin, on the panel's rejection of the plea to be excused military service, was to tell the defendant that he was 'a man prepared to fight for Ireland but live off Scotland'. This can be linked to the feeling that was reported on in Glasgow that were Ireland to achieve Home Rule then the country would become a haven for hostile foreign armies and would be therefore a threat to Britain's national security. This, therefore, represents how a sense of injustice began to rise in Protestant Scottish society. While large numbers of Scots were fighting and dying at the front, the Irish element were perceived as shirking in their duty and were a subversive element and a danger to the war effort. While thousands of Scots had volunteered for military service for King and Country, the Irish politicians and people were doing their level best to undermine the war effort. At the time there were major discussions in Parliament with regard to the war effort being put in in Ireland. Irish nationalists in Parliament in fact went as far as to vote against the Conscription Bill in 1916, claiming they were opposed to the principle of compulsion. While this objection was later withdrawn, it is not difficult to see why they would be regarded as a danger to the war effort, especially with regard to later events which will be related further on in this article. With regard to the Irish contribution to the war, it is apposite to relate the numbers of soldiers that had enlisted from Ireland. By 1916 approximately 92,000 had enlisted: 47,760 from Ulster; 27,000 from Leinster; 14,000 from Munster; and 3,500 from Connaught. The figures are revealing in a number of ways. It does perhaps show that the Irish War effort was more than was generally perceived in Scotland of the time. However, with almost 50% coming from Ulster where Protestants predominated it is not difficult to see why the bond between Scotland and Ulster - referred to by Buchan – was as strong as it was. Indeed, one of the most prominent historians of the time, James MacKinnon, noted in his magisterial study of the 1707 Act of Union that the thousands of Scots who migrated to Ulster in the 17th Century 'by their thrift and energy, contributed to the prosperity of modern Ulster' further strengthening the argument that the bond between the two countries was a predominant factor in Scottish life at that particular period and not, as it is nowadays, either written off or dismissed as bigotry. Collectively, it cannot be legitimately argued that little, if any, contribution to the war effort was coming from Ireland. Instead, it is contended that anti-Irishness was not a major factor of Scottish society; but that anti-republicanism was, and rightly so given the methods used by those of that nature to further their aims. In essence, it is argued here that what is written off today as nothing other than tribal anti-Catholicism is anything but; instead, it is merely a continuation of a legitimate reaction in Scotland to migrants in the early part of the last century showing nothing but hostility to the country that provided them with a living and who, moreover, were prepared to visit violence on that country for the benefit of another. Submitted, therefore, is the argument that anti-******ism was a natural political thought for Scots to adopt given the circumstances in which violent Irish republicanism was brought to the streets of Scotland. The instances of Irish republicanism manifesting themselves in Scotland after World War One are many and varied and serves to underline the argument of this chapter that a hostile indigenous reaction to it was not only understandable but natural given the sacrifice the country had to make. It is further more argued that the evidence of the time is adequate to claim that given what the country had suffered during 1914 – 1918, the population of the time were far from being anti-Catholic bigots in deploring what was taking place in the streets of their town; but were simply exhibiting a very natural reaction to an organisation that was simultaneously showing hostility to Scotland while at the same time showing links with the power that so many Scottish lives were lost fighting against. There were suspicions in Britain that Germany was involved to an extent in the 1916 putsch in Ireland. Indeed, it was reported 3 years after the war had ended that an IRA man by the name of John Devoy had sent a telegram to Germany stating German help was expected as soon as the putsch was enacted. These were strengthened by reports in Glasgow's Evening Times of the period noting that posters entitled 'Why Germany Wants Ireland' had appeared in Dublin stating why exactly Ireland would benefit from Britain's enemy. With instances such as this taking place during the carnage of WW1, it is not surprising nor inconceivable that memories of them would outlast the war and would play a part in forming attitudes once the fighting in Europe had ended. That, therefore, can explain to a great extent why anti-Home Rule activity was evident in Scottish politics during that period, with many opposing it including John Ure Primrose, a leading figure in the Liberal Unionist party and the Chairman of Rangers. With the country still coming to terms with the effects of the Great War, and with memories fresh in the minds of the people of an enemy closer to home, it is far from improbable that the hostility to a malignant influence that had served to undermine the effort and sacrifice was revitalised with the instances of Irish republicanism that were reported on frequently in the Scottish media. These reports appeared – particularly in the early part of the 1920s – almost on a daily basis and a number are presented here as evidence that the presence of armed, violent subversives were an ever-present in the lives of the Scot of the time and have much to do with the forming of the contemporary attitudes. In 1919 the Irish War of Independence broke out and was followed by the Irish Civil War following partition in the early 1920s. The detail of affairs in Ireland is not important to this essay but rather how it affected Scotland. What became quickly evident was that Scotland as a country was in danger of within its towns and cities having atrocities being committed in the name of an organisation / ideology that had shown itself to be willing to work subserviently to the country many blamed for the outbreak of the 1914 – 1918 conflagration. It became evident there was a substantial and malignant influence trying to subvert the Scottish way of life within the Scottish community and, again, a hostile reaction to that is not only understandable but completely supportable, even from a perspective nearly a century on. The media were routinely reporting on Irish nationalist subversion, details of which are noted below, and therefore this is used to substantiate our argument that there was a marked difference between the attitude of the Scottish people to the big influx of Irish Catholics to that of the emergence of militant, violent Irish Nationalism and therefore, social phenomena of the time has been twisted in this day and age by revisionists with a definite agenda to subvert the truth. While it is not possible to note each and every instance of Irish Nationalist terrorism reported on in 1920s Scotland, it is apposite to note a few examples to show what the people of Scotland had to contend with. In February 1921, 9 detonators along with Sinn Fein propaganda and membership details were found in a house in Cambuslang. (Sinn Fein, incidentally, had over 80 active branches in Scotland during this period and reports had surfaced in the Scottish media of a note from Sinn Fein in Dublin being sent to the Kaiser requesting that 'after he had freed the suppressed nations in the east, would turn his attention to Ireland.) Shortly after, 16 people went on trial in the High Court in Edinburgh accused of being part of a Sinn Fein conspiracy. 9 were subsequently given jail sentences. In March 1921, two men who were subsequently found to be members of Sinn Fein were arrested over suspicion of a conspiracy to blow up a railway bridge at Eastfield near Rutherglen. Banba Hall in Maryhill was raided by police in 1923 and 20 men were arrested in relation to guns and ammunition found there which were later found to be shipped to Ireland. Further on in the decade, it was reported that an armed battalion of Irish Nationalists were undergoing military training in the Campsie Fells and, furthermore, had attended Mass at a local chapel in full military regalia. In the middle of all this, in January 1922, the Irish Race Congress was held in Paris and was addressed by a Mr Sheehan from Scotland. His delivery to the congress included the statement that the 250,000 Irish [Catholics] in Scotland do not accept British nationality but are only temporarily resident in a country that was waging war against them. The above examples, while not by any stretch of the imagination being exhaustive, serve to underline what was facing the Scottish people at the time. It can therefore be legitimately argued that the anti-******ism that was to manifest itself on the terraces of Ibrox Park was not, as some would have us believe in this day and age, anti-Catholic bigotry; but was in fact a legitimate resistance by a people who saw an alien presence doing their utmost to destroy the indigenous way of life. Having outlined the emergence of a violent, foreign menace on Scotland's streets, it is time to place all this in the context of the Rangers – Celtic rivalry and to counter some modern day myths and propaganda. Rangers, contrary to a ludicrous claim in the Evening Times of 1990, were not formed by brothers who wanted to make money out of selling replica football strips, but were formed by four teenagers who had taken an interest in the new game of football they had seen. Despite having no ball, pitch, or facilities of their own, they trained on Glasgow Green – where their first games were played – and gradually developed into one of the primary clubs in the land. Through time, in the words of Moses McNeil in an interview he gave in 1935, their fame became known worldwide. There is a contention to be made that the history of Rangers Football Club is the greatest rags to riches story in the world of sport. The Club's links with Protestantism throw up a number of debating points, primarily the topic of why Rangers emerged as the team identified with the dominant religion of the country. This is something that will be explored at a later stage although it is fair to say that Rangers were not founded to be a representative team of the Protestant church but were adopted by those of the country's religion as their standard bearers in the world of sport. Celtic, on the other hand, had religious links from day one, founded by a priest and with definite links to the Catholic church. As has been noted, a rivalry of sorts existed between the two teams in the early days but not of the nature that is known today. Instead, that element of the rivalry can be suggested to have deepened as events involving Ireland began to impact more and more on Scottish society. There is a school of thought that Rangers 'became' a Protestant club after a perceived influx of Ulster Orangemen into the Govan shipyards in the 1920s. However, it cannot be stressed too strongly that this is mere speculation and that there is little or no evidence to back this up. The contention of this article is that Rangers had been adopted by the Protestants of Glasgow in particular long before World War One broke out and that it was not as a reaction to Celtic's Catholicism. When Rangers were founded in 1872 the country was run on strictly Protestant lines. Of that there can be little argument. Church attendance and membership was of a far higher level than it is in modern times. Reverence of the Covenanters was a feature of Scottish life with many people, as a tribute to their ancestors who were persecuted and killed for their religion, taking worship in the open up on the hills. With that sort of backdrop it is perhaps not surprising that a Club that was formed within the new sport of football became adopted by the followers of the main religion in the country. Rangers' initial early years can be used as an argument that they were the natural team to develop into the standard bearers of the country's Protestants. They were young men who worked hard, respected the Sabbath and were quite prepared to stand up for what they believed in, such as having the courage of their convictions to the extent they refused to participate in the 1879 Scottish Cup Final replay on a point of principle. It is contended here that these examples would have appealed to the Protestants of the country because of the Protestant work ethic and the inherent instinct in Protestants to take authority on if they believe it is the proper thing to do rather than indulge in blind subservience. Therefore, it is contended – but not stated as fact – that the entire scenario surrounding Rangers' foundation would have made them the natural choice to be representatives of the country's Protestants. Rangers' popularity was spreading away from their immediate catchment area within years of them being founded and especially after their move to the Ibrox / Kinning Park area in 1876. Football specials were run to Rangers games in Edinburgh, for example, in the 1890s and in the early years of the last Century, football specials were run to Rangers home games from other areas of Glasgow and Lanarkshire. It is this development that we would contend shows that Rangers had become the favourites of a sizeable number of Protestants who had a number of other Clubs to choose from. In 1908, for example, football specials to Rangers games were advertised to leave from Bridgeton and Rutherglen stations. Both of these areas have strong links to Protestant history – Rutherglen with its strong Covenanting heritage and Bridgeton a place with stong links to Ulster and a place where large numbers of Protestant textile workers from Scotland's south west settled - and while it is impossible to know the religion of those who travelled on the trains to Rangers the fact that there was enough interest in Rangers in areas where the population was overwhelmingly Protestant to make special trains viable means it is not out of the realms of reality to suggest that Rangers were seen as the team for the Protestants at the turn of the century. With that being our argument, it is appropriate to look at the rivalry with Celtic in that context. Celtic had links with Irish Republicanism from inception with Michael Davitt, a prominent republican, planting the kick-off spot at Parkhead. As has been documented, Irish Republicanism and support for Home Rule had produced violence in Scotland as far back as the 1890s and with Celtic seen as the Irish Club it was natural that they would invoke hostility among their Protestant opponents. It is contended here that Rangers and Celtic, while being seen as the Clubs of Protestants and Catholics respectively in the early days, did not have the enmity we know today until after World War One and, furthermore, is because of Celtic's links with Irish militancy. As has been argued, Rangers' identity as the Protestant Club goes back further than the 1920s; however it is no coincidence that the violence and deep divide between the supporters two Clubs has its roots in this era given Celtic's identity and the hostility to the Irish involvement – perceived or otherwise – in World War One. Therefore, it is far from surprising that the song that had the chattering classes in Scotland up in arms recently has its roots in this period and at Ibrox, home of the team adopted by Scottish Protestants who had pride in King and Country. The song, it is argued here, was not about anti-Catholicism but about anti-******ism, a concept that developed due to a deep resentment of the violent activities carried out by followers of that philosophy and bringing terror to the streets, towns and cities of Scotland. That, therefore, is an argument that covers the background to the song of the Rangers supporters which was banned recently. As has been contended in this essay, its roots are not in anti-Catholicism but are in opposition to an alien menace that was attempting to subvert Scottish society. Celtic through the years have maintained their links with this philosophy, with Celtic fans openly engaging in support for the murderous actions of the IRA from the 1920s down through the remaining decades of the twentieth Century and right through the Troubles from the 1970s to the 1990s. It should be no surprise to anybody that the song The Billy Boys was the anthem of the Rangers support as it expressed opposition to the groups carrying out these deeds. In the past 20 years, Rangers have had more Catholics playing for them than at any other time in their history, some of them like Jorg Albertz and Neil McCann proving themselves to be favourites among large sections of the Rangers support. The argument that the Rangers fans were expressing a wish to see everybody of that religion dead by means of a song is as ludicrous as it is false. However, given we live in an age of immaturity in Scotland in 2008 then reasoned debate on what the song actually meant and how it came to exist is stifled as it does not sit well with those who feel comfortable among those who know and celebrate what the song opposes. This article seeks to redress the balance and give a fairer hearing to the founders of Rangers, the early Rangers supporters and their modern-day counterparts and their identity, culture and beliefs than has been afforded them in recent times.

RPB - I think you you should pratice what you preach re reading posts properly -

I didnt for a minute think those were your views - hence why I said "It appears" rather "You appear". Nonetheless its mentalist.