bmck

do you mind if we publish this on the front page s_a? its excellent.

You dont have to like it but to say bagpipes are an embarressment to music is just a silly comment.

its the reason why the whole world abandoned them - they're musically crippled.

to me someone who talks about patriotism while essentially being an ex-pat is more contradictory than one who dislike kilts and other fashion trends and musical tastes.

everyone chooses the bits of their history that they see as their tradtions - some people with the Romantic revival tastes of the early 1800s sentamentalise kilts and tartan; others see the Reformation and cultural freedom; others again choose our scientific tradition or whatever.

bagpipes are whiney and horrible. kilts are occasionally tolerable but otherwise tacky (rangers tartan & weddings excluded). see you jimmy hats and all that are just embaressing. they're not the parts of scottish history and tastes everyone must be proud of i dont think.

i know its harmless fun, but you cant turn it into a symbol to judge other people's patriotism by. just my opinion.

I said I don't mind them, not the same as liking them

 

But TBO they don't really bother me one way or another. I wore a Rangers tartan kilt at my wedding that's about it I must admit, and there was no bagpipes there

i too have dawned the rangers tartan - it's the only redeemable one.

I've only been to one Scotland game in my life and that was at Ibrox!

 

I've always put supporting Rangers ahead of Scotland but of course always want Scotland to win and do well even if there are players and managers who I haven't liked.

this is about my position - i always want scotland to win, but i just dont care. international football is boring.

I also don't mind tartan, kilts or bagpipes

i dislike all of them though - they're just tacky and entirely irrelevant to our culture and heritage.

still proud to be scottish though.

i've rethought from yesterday. im not so sure about that line of argument. i think most unionists would be happy to see people still proud enough to fly our country's flag, so it's at least a bit unionist.

think cammy's idea is the better though - one for the future.

The results of England, Wales and NI dont even register with me, international football is just an annoying break from the real stuff in my opinion.

that's my view.

gbs said "It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him." - the same is true of scotland. people from aberdeen hate people from glasgow - people from edinburgh are hated by people from glasgow. they then decide to throw off this hate for each other by dawning silly hats and skirts.

it's a nice sentiment, but its more of a pain-in-the-ass than aberdonians.

People can fly them at football matches for what they believe are unionist reasons. You may disagree that they are "proper" reasons, but that doesn't take away from their intentions.

ach, that old 'intentions' chestnut. the mystical, infinitely untouchable, reason to ascribe to things when nothing else makes sense. i'm sure they have unionist intentions - whatever that means.

If someone has a flag outside of football for whatever reason, it doesn't lose its meaning just because it's taken inside a football ground.

of course it does, because its immediately put in a completely new context with different connotations. you draw a palestine flag in the comfort of your own home do you think it changes just because you've drawn it on a jewish building? context changes meanings.

If someone donates to the needy, you think of that act as promoting Protestantism? Since when have acts of kindness been religion-specific?

no, the point was and is that if you want to claim noble intentions without noble acts, you're probably a hypcorite. if someone wants to convince me they're a protestant then they'll act like a protestant - ie: like a christian with specific theological beliefs, constantly guilty etc

I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I'm not referring to individual acts. I'm talking about it in more of a "corporate" sense for lack of a better phrase.

the only corporate identity (i think its exactly the right word) that can be display when supporting a football team is a football-team-supporter. unionists do unionist things (like, i dunno, make pamphlets about how multiculturalism is divisive); protestants do protestant things (feeding the poor, reading bibles, going to churches). football-supporters can also do these things, and they needn't cast it off this portion of their personality at the football, but it only makes sense as an aim, or an end, in another context.

However I don't have time to further explain what I am talking about at the moment. Frigging currency movements are screwing up my day.

while you're fixing that man, can you make it so i have enough to pay my mortgage with?

I couldn't say what the majority's reasons are but I doubt that if they were asked and they answered truthfully that many would mention Celtic.

when i said celtic earlier, i meant in the general opponent sense - ie: for the purposes of football banter and rivalry.

if you're to ask me, honestly, why i think people wave flags and sing rule britannia, its because its fun to shout; it winds sensitive people up; it annoys opposing fans; it gives a sense of group solidarity. ie: because you enjoy it. to me that's reason enough - i'll sing whatever i like, and if people dont like it, i dont care.

but i'm not going to pretend that i'm doing it for unionism, or protestantism, or whatever other label i'm insulting by associating its noble intentions with my excuse to get drunk and watch football in a crowd. if you think this is scoffers skepticism that's cool. cheers for the chat, man - it's been a genuine pleasure. our website's so good.

So you are saying that people can't hold a RHU flag for unionist reasons? Interesting viewpoint.

no, i'm saying they cant fly them at a football match for anything that can properly be called unionist reasons.

People can be pro or anti abortion, but surely they can promote their views without being accused of having an ulterior motive?

the point that i was making was that labelling their beliefs with the most positive words doesn't fully reflect their position - for instance, we'd likely say that those nutjob christians in america who hound people having abortions and throw stuff at them weren't really pro-life so much as they were anti-abortion.

likewise, i'm saying that rangers fans flying-flags aren't so much unionists as, as, well, i dunno. and i dont think anyone outside the west of scotland would know or care. it doesnt bother me, but i'm not going to be kidded on its about unionism or protestantism. its just football & football crowds doing what football crowds do.

My comment was made in a general sense and not restricted to Orange Lodges. It would cover most branches of Protestantism and I stand by them.

your comment doesn't reflect anything i know as protestantism - either in contemporary times or through history.

But they do. That's the problem.

who's going to object to the actually-protestant act of donating to the needy, or standing up for the oppressed, sharing property etc? absolutely no-one. there's no protestantism without love/goodness/fear of god, that sort of thing - as soon as you stray from these things into self-indulgence you can be doing lots of things, but not celebrating your religion/political stance. that's when people find enough leeway to go on their little rants, no matter how irrational they are. that's why we can (correctly) say that the plastic paddies are hypocrites.

celtic recently sponsored the Big Issue worldcup football team, and donated strips. it was clearly a marketing gimmick, especially with the accompanying "we at celtic have a history of helping the poor in glasgow" etc, but, no-matter their motives, the achieved some good, so any objections are sour and bitter. but no actual goodness is achieved, and claims of hypocrisy will ring loud because the stated intentions arent the same as the actual intentions, simply because its impossible to celebrate protestantism at a football match, as a personal faith is completely independent of football.

I don't think the main reason for it is "a GIRUY to celtic and their fans."

what do you think the main reason actually is then?

Is anyone saying it's about unionism? I haven't read the FF article, but I only brought up the subject as a counter-proposal to the sectarian argument. I wouldn't want to claim that's what it's about.

"i only" isn't going to deflect responsibility here. counter-proposals/proposals, they all hold the same weight. the person said that from his perspective it was just sectarian, you said it could just as easily be unionism, which isn't sectarian, and i've said it can't be unionism. that's where we're at. i agree that its not sectarianism, but i dont think your counter-proposal works as a counter-proposal.

However if that WAS what it's about, it seems that it's an impossible thing to do without people claiming there is an ulterior motive.

that's because there always is. there's a reason why anti-abortionists call themselves pro-life, and abortionists call themselves pro-choice. it doesn't matter about how often people claim ulterior motives, it only matters whether they are right - its just cutting off the discussion by positioning questions as a product of a constant pessimism hell bent on seeing the worst.

It seems that people have to put a negative slant on all things unionist or Protestant and it's impossible to promote either positively in today's Scotland (but that's another topic).

totally disagree - i think people just tend to realise that protestantism/unionism is nothing like what they see 'celebrated' at football games. ask a Reformed Christian, hardcore protestants, from the shetland isles if all the flag flying and orange walking influences or celebrates any of his theological beliefs - whether he thinks its anything to do with the authority of the Roman pontif or his view of molonism or the perpetual virginity, or whether scripture or tradition should be a binding authority for christians. protestantism is a particular sort of Christianity, not flags and songs.

positive protestantism is feeding the poor, defending the cause of the oppressed, not being bound by the dictates of roman pontifs etc.

unionism's the same. if these so-called protestants & unionists started acting more like protestants and unionists, people couldn't object. as such, counter proposals that suggestion they are really just celebrating unionism and protestantism cant stand (for me).

You've lost me here. I fail to see why it should bother Celtic and their fans, most of whom will not be aware of it. If it was anything to do with Celtic then why wouldn't it have happened at the recent game.

so you dont agree with frankie then - there's nothing mischevious in this at all? it's not meant to wind up anyone and is purely and solely because we love our norther irish players?

Thank you. That's the point I've been trying to make.

aye, the point im trying to make is that its as near sectarianism as it is unionism or protestantism or celebrating heritage (ie: not very) - the former is the lie told by celtic supporters and cuddly liberals, and the latter is the lie told by rangers supporters, mainly to themselves.

anyway, though - i think this is a good debate to have. the more this stuff is talked about the more a shared consensus can evolve and grow. i dont know if i'm right, but we'll hopefully get further for having talked it all thruogh.

this is an excellent article.

those in power have an active interest in maintaining the status quo that they're supposed to be changing, as it justifies & en-nobles their time. there is much talk about talk about sectarianism, but precious few definitions because people realise defining stuff makes them responsible for their definitions.

everyone involved in the process has a vested interest in dramatising sectarianism because they are the ones doing the investigating, they are the moral power searching for a solution - the people who it matters to, those being defined as bigots unfairly, don't get a say because for them things really have to change. and change is the very thing that would put all these groups out of a job. talking about talking about sectarianism is their agenda, i think.

an immense article, one everyone should read.

I also disagree with your assessment that less than 50% have any idea what unionism is.

i'd think if people were really interested in unionism they'd realise it has nothing to do with flag-flying and singing rule britannia - that they do it is enough to persuade me that they don't have any idea what it is.

if unionism were flying flags and singing rule britannia then its a view of britain and union thats long dead in any sort of political context.

as you wont get excited, i certainly wont get offended. i like people who'll dare to say *** to be honest - if your society is tailored to the sensitivities of the most sensitive people, then your society ends up weak. i just wish we wouldn't pretend its about unionism, or celebrating our players past. this is a GIRUY to celtic and their fans - its not sectarian, certainly, but no matter what apologists say, i wont be convinced that all this is motivated by any noble cause, because the majority of people (myself included) in the majority of situations are motivated by things other than noble causes. when someone starts explaining their possible noble motives for doing what they're doing, i tend to think they're lying.

as i said, it doesn't offend me - i'm not going to be convinced its a virtuous statement of political values though, and the fact that people are even arguing that makes me all the more suspicious of the motives. i'd rather we returned to Hello Hello, to be honest. no-one likes us; we dont, or, perhaps we do, care, because, really, if celtic fans can do it, why cant we do it? its just unfair.

its just another big jock knew for me.

i agree with cotter, to some extent, so i'll answer too.

I guess there's no arguing if you can state why 99% of people are doing something. Have you never considered that it could be more of a unionist/political issue rather than a religious one?

i dont think half the people holding the flags will have any idea what unionism is, much less its historical relationship with protestantism, and the relevance both have to our culture. and anyway, who's talking about unionism? just a minute ago this was about nothing other than celebrating our players/fans from that region as though it were any other region.

as for the 99%, i largely agree with that. 99% of people across the whole general public dont give a flying about such 'noble' causes as tradition and politics. if they were motivated about culture and history then they'd quickly realise football isn't the best way of celebrating this.

do i think celtic are just harmlessly celebrating their culture? no, not for a second. they do it to piss off the protestants/anti-irish as much as they do it for love of their own culture. do i think they should be banned? no, not at all - people have a right to their stupidity, i'd just prefer we didn't descend into a tit for tat and then shout "but they do it too".

i think we'd be better just avoiding all this completely.

Out of interest what is it you feel when you see the Red Hand flag?

like most people i think/feel various things when i see the Red Hand flag. symbols have shared and varying meanings within a culture. i've seen people people singing "hello, hello! upto your knees in ****** blood/fuck the pope" with red hand flags draped around them at games, on the tv - certainly i've seen more of them than people actually interested in celebrating any sort of culture or tradition. it doesn't offend me in the slightest - i like energy of any sort - but the red hand flag simply isn't a neutral symbol for unionism/NI. it was when it was made, but the signification of symbols change - when it gets attached to something irrelevant to it, it evolves. the NI flag, in the end, is completely neutral to me - i couldn't care one way or the other. no matter how strong a unionist i would be, if i was one, would make me think that a sensible way of promoting it would be using it as a GIRUY to timmy.

the reason i dont like this is because everyone knows the stated intentions aren't the real intentions - whether you are charitable and call it mischevious, or are prone to exaggeration and call it sectarian, the apologist stance is required because there's distance/contradiction between the several meanings that could be read into it.

if it were upto me, i'd have given it all a swift bye. that said, if it makes people a little noisier then it's good, but all in all, i would've avoided it if it were upto me.

Us:

Raised from sales: �£22m

Spent on arrivals: �£30.67m

Net spend: �£8.67m

Them:

Raised from sales: �£7.15m

Spent on arrivals: �£19.86m

Net spend: �£12.71m

details here: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/display.var.2441504.0.transfer_table_how_walter_smith_and_gordon_strachan_have_fared_in_headtohead_transfer_windows_figures_are_estimated_compiled_by_gary_smith.php

walter can incur a certain extent of transfer criticism, but i think he's been fairly shrewd. obviously time will tell with the new signings, but i'm quite happy to see decent money's been spent on youngster while still strenghthening. now it will interesting to see whether they get played.

its a ridiculous phrase - i've used millions though. i think his intent is shown is choosing him rather than a throwaway phrase in an age where everything is recorded. he doesn't even get the benefit of the preview button we have here and i say daft stuff i regret all the time.

i'm quite willing to bet he will have a quiet word with a kirk who wont give a flying because he's in the national squad on merit.

Unforgivable comment about Broadfoot. There can be no context in which such a comment should ever be uttered by an international team manager.

given that it was me who said about text, i mean if he was saying something like "in terms of skill and guile going forward he's a player of limited ability, but his overall benefit to the team outweighs any technical deficiences" would be a fair enough context for me.

in saying that, i doubt s_a would have failed to say something like that. but until i'd seen exactly what was said i reckon its better to be charitable.

what's the context? depending on the context it may be fair enough.

"person gets madwithit" isn't news for me.

man, footballers dont have to move anywhere. i wouldnt move to blackpool. its horrible.

that said, more generally gow can gtf. there really must have been something behind the scenes. he went from flavour of the month to outcast very quickly. tend to trust walt etc with these things.

You have to give the guy a lot of credit,he certainly has character as he showed in the OF game,fair play to him considering the amount of stick he constantly receives,well done Kirk.

100% agreed. i think he's a good player, and he seems in it for the cause. he's never going to be a silky player but no team is made up purely of the skillful sorts - industry's as important as flair.

i saw a picture of all the sectarian type abuse written outside lennon's house in one of the papers today. he must live very near me as it's right outside mine - thankfully it was a while ago so can't be said to be me. dont like the thought of lennon living near me though; can't be good for the house prices.

i find it hard to take when people are outraged at the stuff he does, though. it's just irrelevant.

gow can gtf i think. he can do what he likes with his own contract but rangers could stick him on boot cleaning duty if they liked. or half time entertainment.

who knows what went on - i think by and large smith is a good judge of character.

pete's right - these footballers have fragile enough egos; we need more people massaging them. the last thing we need is people expecting them to act like they're old enough to get on with the job they're assigned to. :D

same here, though i only got the "what the" out and it was in the back of the net!

cousin - about 40 yards out and pretty much at the touchline he was running the ball seemingly into the corner, away from caldwell (i think). he was keeping a hold of the ball shoulder to shoulder - round about ten yards from the touchline he took at touch goalwards. caldwel lunged; cousin got away. with the penalty area being flooded, instead of cutting it back he slotted it past boruc at the front post.

miller - it looked like adam (i think) got brought down in the box, just at the left-hand corner, with his back to goal. ball fell out to thomson and he just swept it up quite high and across to the other side - it seemed to hang in the air for an eternity and as it dropped, km shaped up, quite like novo's last year, and rattled into the far post.

mendes - after a period of pressure we got a corner. penalty box was stowed with humanity. corner played along the deck out to mendes about 30 yards out and in line with the near post. without even taking a touch he stuck his foot right through it - went through someone's legs and straight into the bottom corner. from the corner to the shot, the ball never went over two feet from corner spot to bottom corner of the goal.

kenny miller 2 - broadfoot galloped down the right hand flank, as wide as is possible and right on the by-line. he swung the ball in with some venom, and boruc took it low and just dropped it at kenny miller's feet. time stood still. miller took two ridiculous touches and finally just stuck it away.

that's from memory, though - i'm too excited to remember properly.