VanguardBears are to join protests against Glasgow City Council

[JohnMc 2,754]

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

It's just all part of the demonisation of Rangers.

 

Would the same "joke" have been made about a Rangers fan attending Parkhead? Absolutely not, because the SNP don't see anything wrong with that. They are encouraging the view that attending Ibrox has negative connotations.

 

It's more to do with having any positive involvement with Rangers as being something bad, than a Celtic fan watching a game with their rivals.

 

You can say that you refuse to join in, which just gives the anti-Rangers SNP further free reign to refuse us a fanzone, build ugly housing around the environs etc, but to dismiss it as a joke is giving encouragement to the enemies of our club.

 

 

This 'demonisation' didn't start with Susan Aitken, or even the SNP, it's been going on for a lot longer than that Bluedell. It happened when Labour controlled Glasgow, it happened when Labour controlled Scotland, it happens when Tories are strong or when Tories are weak. For me you saying "anti-Rangers SNP" misses the point, almost all mainstream politicians in Scotland are at best ambivalent towards Rangers. So making this about the SNP and the inevitable polarising of opinions that brings neither addresses the root of the problem or solves the specific issue at hand. The fanzone debacle last summer was annoying and unfair. However, it wasn't a huge surprise either and it didn't happen in a vacuum. I'd contend the same thing would happen no matter who was in power in George Square. 

 

I'm not dismissing it as a joke I'm telling you how I thought it was meant. Tell me, how come the political landscape in this city and this country completely changed, moved from Labour domination to SNP domination to SNP with a Tory resurgence, and yet our friends across the city remain largely in vogue and we remain outsiders shouting at the gates with almost no political capital or influence? Do you think that's down to people like? 

 

[Gaffer 1,665]

45 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Its a funny argument this BD - criticism of fans who base support of  political party relative to their sporting affiliation, but no criticism of politicians who make their political decisions designed  to inflict harm on a football club.

I appreciate you don't spend much time on here @D'Artagnan, which is why you'll no doubt have missed every opportunity I've taken to criticise (and take personal action) against those politicians.

[JohnMc 2,754]

2 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

It wouldnt surprise me John if this had been "leaked" deliberately.  A cynical attempt to woo voters of a particular mindset - a hatred of all things Rangers

It's possible, I doubt it'll do Ms Aitken much harm politically. I'm not conscious of a Labour revival in Glasgow, but I suppose the SNP might fear Labour somehow harnessing some sort of grassroots 'Catholics as victims' to rebuild their vote. Certainly some people have been very keen to play up the 'sectarianism is alive' trope recently, despite most evidence to the contrary. 

[Gaffer 1,665]

43 minutes ago, cooponthewing said:

Totally agree. You would have to question the motives of those who project the narrative the he is?

As far as I am aware, I am the only one who has said he is.  My motives are quite clear.  The enemy is NOT our own fans.  The enemy is these politicians (of all parties) who would do us harm, but not just on a football perspective.  I'm questioning the motives of those who only want to point at the hypocrisy and corruption of one party when they are all to be scrutinised.  If you had read any of my previous messages about politicians you'd know exactly what I think, and you'd equally be left in no doubt that I do not support any political party.

 

The point is that who we support, and our politics do not have to be intertwined.  What makes you guys the decision makers on who can be a Rangers supporter and who can't?  That's what I find very sinister.

[Gonzo79 15,294]

35 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

 That's what I find very sinister.

Next you'll be telling us you can't go on a protest in case a handful of teenagers are wearing scarves over their faces.  

[buster. 5,199]

29 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

As far as I am aware, I am the only one who has said he is.  My motives are quite clear.  The enemy is NOT our own fans.  The enemy is these politicians (of all parties) who would do us harm, but not just on a football perspective.  I'm questioning the motives of those who only want to point at the hypocrisy and corruption of one party when they are all to be scrutinised.  If you had read any of my previous messages about politicians you'd know exactly what I think, and you'd equally be left in no doubt that I do not support any political party.

 

The point is that who we support, and our politics do not have to be intertwined.  What makes you guys the decision makers on who can be a Rangers supporter and who can't?  That's what I find very sinister.

If you declare that only those who think in a certain political way can be considered as Real Rangers supporters, guess what happens...

 

 

[Bluedell 5,627]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

This 'demonisation' didn't start with Susan Aitken, or even the SNP, it's been going on for a lot longer than that Bluedell.

Nobody is saying it hasn't, but it seems to be getting worse and it's the SNP who are doing it at the moment.

 

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

 For me you saying "anti-Rangers SNP" misses the point, almost all mainstream politicians in Scotland are at best ambivalent towards Rangers. So making this about the SNP and the inevitable polarising of opinions that brings neither addresses the root of the problem or solves the specific issue at hand.

It may not address or solve the issue but it at least identifies it and who the current problems are, rather than ignoring it. It's then up to people's own conscience as to who they vote for.  

 

There's also a difference between ambivalence and actively working against us.

[Bluedell 5,627]

1 hour ago, Gaffer said:

The point is that who we support, and our politics do not have to be intertwined.  What makes you guys the decision makers on who can be a Rangers supporter and who can't?  That's what I find very sinister.

Traditionally there has been a link in who we support and who we vote for. I certainly know that my supporters bus, which is no longer running, was 100% anti-independence.

 

The pro-independence members on here certainly appear to take the side of the politicians rather than the club in +90% of cases where there are issues. It is only natural for this to cause comments.

 

John refers back to the issues when Labour were the majority. The big difference was that Rangers supporting Labour voters (guys like Bearwood Bear on FF spring to mind, there are loads more) actively attempted to do something about it. They would call out the politicians who caused problems and try and work to get things changed. They didn't sit back and defend them like we see with the nationalists on here. They tried to cultivate the Rangers fans within the Labour party.

 

I'm personally not trying to say who can or can't be a Rangers fan, but if there are those who do, perhaps those who it's aimed at should think about putting the club first before biased politicians once in a while.

 

 

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[stewarty 2,027]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

Traditionally there has been a link in who we support and who we vote for. I certainly know that my supporters bus, which is no longer running, was 100% anti-independence.

 

The pro-independence members on here certainly appear to take the side of the politicians rather than the club in +90% of cases where there are issues. It is only natural for this to cause comments.

 

John refers back to the issues when Labour were the majority. The big difference was that Rangers supporting Labour voters (guys like Bearwood Bear on FF spring to mind, there are loads more) actively attempted to do something about it. They would call out the politicians who caused problems and try and work to get things changed. They didn't sit back and defend them like we see with the nationalists on here. They tried to cultivate the Rangers fans within the Labour party.

 

I'm personally not trying to say who can or can't be a Rangers fan, but if there are those who do, perhaps those who it's aimed at should think about putting the club first before biased politicians once in a while.

 

 

It seems you are ambivalent about an individual right to identify as a Bear on the basis of his political allegiance, because you don't agree with them on certain matters.   Have I misunderstood?