Does the SNP have a Rangers problem?

[Gonzo79 15,294]

I think the issues are more to do with the constitutional matter than any left or right inclinations.

 

The SNP are a collective with one shared interest.  There are undoubtedly more left than right in there but it's largely irrelevant when it comes to their dislike of Rangers, which is nationalism vs unionism.  

[alexscottislegend 2,330]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

Are you suggesting it's impossible to be nationalist and hard left? 

 

By my reckoning, Sturgeon's SNP is as close to being hard left as makes no odds - centralising govt, huge state interference, leadership cult, obsessive media control, &c. And all done in a nationalist context.

A centralising government does not make it hard left  or socialist; I have seen nothing from Salmond in his career about overthrowing capitalism. An independent Scotland under present conditions would make it vulnerable to every multi-nationalist corporation out there. The characteristics of a socialist society you outline there are straight out a of a Ladybird guide and nothing to do with the Communist Manifesto. Though I do realise that to some hard left is anything to the left of Ed Milliband.

[Bill 13,717]

1 minute ago, alexscottislegend said:

A centralising government does not make it hard left  or socialist; I have seen nothing from Salmond in his career about overthrowing capitalism. An independent Scotland under present conditions would make it vulnerable to every multi-nationalist corporation out there. The characteristics of a socialist society you outline there are straight out a of a Ladybird guide and nothing to do with the Communist Manifesto. Though I do realise that to some hard left is anything to the left of Ed Milliband.

The purist at work. Sorry, the Communist Manifesto was never essential reading for me, nor was memorising core dogma. For me socialism was always about collective thought and action, all strictly controlled and directed at minimising individual rights. That's pretty much the SNP process in a nutshell so, Ladybird book or not, the SNP is the epitome of a national socialist movement.

[alexscottislegend 2,330]

11 minutes ago, Bill said:

The purist at work. Sorry, the Communist Manifesto was never essential reading for me, nor was memorising core dogma. For me socialism was always about collective thought and action, all strictly controlled and directed at minimising individual rights. That's pretty much the SNP process in a nutshell so, Ladybird book or not, the SNP is the epitome of a national socialist movement.

That rings a bell.....

[JohnMc 2,766]

I've a Romanian friend who I've got to know fairly well over the years. We found ourselves talking about politics one day and I asked about her memories of living under Ceaușescu and his hated Communist regime prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain. I knew what had happened to him but I was curious what happened to the thousands of others who were party members, supporters and politicians after the revolution. She simply shrugged and said "they became democrats", the same people stayed in power they just did it under a different name. 

 

As a Glaswegian I can honestly say I've seen no discernible difference in my local politicians since the SNP replaced Labour as the dominant party in the city. They are basically the same, they just have a different colour rosette. When Labour ran the city and the country there weren't many of their politicians pinning Rangers colours to the mast, but there seemed to be plenty happy to sport green and white and a surprisingly high number of Thistle supporters. Now the SNP run the city and the country it's the same thing. 

 

I don't have a particular problem with Murdo Fraser's article other than he's a politician himself and, for me, is clearly hoping it might garner him, and his party, some support. Judging by this thread he might be right too. I'm fairly cynical of his motives though. I don't think he's hoping a couple of SNP MSPs will 'out themselves' as bluenoses, or that Bute House will arrange a civic reception for Gerrard. I worry this is simply another salvo in the ongoing 'culture wars' that make up modern politics these days. In the end there's probably no other subject Fraser could have written about that would have created as much response, that's a very sad inditement on our society currently. 

 

In my experience nobody is going to have their political mindset changed by posters on a Rangers message board and so I have no intention of trying to alter any of my fellow posters deeply held political views. I have very few deeply held political views as it happens. In the last 20 or so years that I've posted on various Rangers related message boards the lack of political support the club and fans seem to have is a fairly regular topic. I actually do think it's an important topic. We all know that there are Rangers supporters in the SNP, just as there were in Scottish Labour back in the day, however they largely hide it. 

For me that's what needs addressed, a proper understanding of why openly supporting Rangers seems to be politically toxic and has been for a long time now. 

 

For work and now family reasons I'm a regular visitor to Ireland. Although I lived in Northern Ireland when based there I visited the Republic a lot and was initially wary saying I supported Rangers when conversation turned to football. I'd quickly discovered that certain assumptions were made about me when my football allegiances were known. It was assumed I was an Orangeman, I was a Loyalist and I was a bigot. I realised that most people there had never actually met a Rangers supporter, they'd a stereotype in their head from footage of rioting in Loyalist Belfast or Portadown, a basic understanding of the Glasgow football/religion split and perhaps some overheard song lyrics during a live match on Sky. After a few months I realised I was as much to blame for this stereotype as the disaffected youth covering his face with a red, white and blue bar scarf as he stones the police during a contentious parade in north Belfast. I'm not an Orangeman, or a Loyalist and I try not to be a bigot and yet I'm a huge Rangers fan. So I stopped down playing my football support and let people make their own minds up about Rangers supporters based on their interactions with me instead.

 

Like supporters of all clubs the Rangers support is broad and complicated. We all agree on very little, we hold different views on most subjects and, I believe, for the majority of our support who we want to win a football match has little bearing on who we vote for. I also understand that for some people supporting Rangers is an extension of their political belief system. For them it's an intrinsic part of their identity and belonging. That's fair enough and I don't get to tell them they're wrong to hold those views. At the same time they don't get to tell people they're wrong for holding different ones. 

 

I enjoyed my time living in Northern Ireland, it's a beautiful part of the world and I found the people there friendly and welcoming. I didn't care for their politics or politicians though. The politics of identity were dominant there then and remain so. I see shadows of that in the rest of the UK now. The rise of nationalism isn't just confined to Scotland. In my opinion Murdo Fraser's party are nationalist now, just a different type of nationalist. That's my political opinion and I don't expect anyone else to share it simply because we support the same football team. 

[Bluedell 5,627]

14 hours ago, JohnMc said:

As a Glaswegian I can honestly say I've seen no discernible difference in my local politicians since the SNP replaced Labour as the dominant party in the city. They are basically the same, they just have a different colour rosette. When Labour ran the city and the country there weren't many of their politicians pinning Rangers colours to the mast, but there seemed to be plenty happy to sport green and white and a surprisingly high number of Thistle supporters. Now the SNP run the city and the country it's the same thing. 

It's not the same thing. There were some Rangers-supporting Labour politicians, and some who were not Rangers fans were still willing to help the club. There are no Rangers-supporting SNP politicians and none that are willing to help us.

 

14 hours ago, JohnMc said:

I don't have a particular problem with Murdo Fraser's article other than he's a politician himself and, for me, is clearly hoping it might garner him, and his party, some support. Judging by this thread he might be right too. I'm fairly cynical of his motives though. I don't think he's hoping a couple of SNP MSPs will 'out themselves' as bluenoses, or that Bute House will arrange a civic reception for Gerrard. I worry this is simply another salvo in the ongoing 'culture wars' that make up modern politics these days. In the end there's probably no other subject Fraser could have written about that would have created as much response, that's a very sad inditement on our society currently. 

 

It's a sad indictment of the Rangers support when a politician does something positive for us and is met with claims of cynicism.

 

 

15 hours ago, JohnMc said:

 

 

 

15 hours ago, JohnMc said:

 

For me that's what needs addressed, a proper understanding of why openly supporting Rangers seems to be politically toxic and has been for a long time now. 

 

When they get met with unsubstantiated claim that they're a liar or that claims they're only doing it for political reasons from our own support, is it any wonder?

 

15 hours ago, JohnMc said:

 

I enjoyed my time living in Northern Ireland, it's a beautiful part of the world and I found the people there friendly and welcoming. I didn't care for their politics or politicians though. The politics of identity were dominant there then and remain so. I see shadows of that in the rest of the UK now. The rise of nationalism isn't just confined to Scotland. In my opinion Murdo Fraser's party are nationalist now, just a different type of nationalist. That's my political opinion and I don't expect anyone else to share it simply because we support the same football team. 

I'm not sure about the relevance other than to have another veiled dig at Fraser and his party. With friends like us....

[Gonzo79 15,294]

The response to Fraser's article amongst the Rangers support sums up a lot of our problems.  Arguments, disagreement, mudslinging etc.  

 

All the guy did was write about something loads of us moan about.  He's likely regretting it now.

 

Meanwhile, the likes of Dornan and Yousaf will continue to take pot shots, unchallenged.  We really are our own worst enemy.  

 

 

[Devil's advocaat 1,544]

Johnmc articulates his post far better than I ever could, spot on sir. ??

[der Berliner 3,749]

20 hours ago, Bill said:

The purist at work. Sorry, the Communist Manifesto was never essential reading for me, nor was memorising core dogma. For me socialism was always about collective thought and action, all strictly controlled and directed at minimising individual rights. That's pretty much the SNP process in a nutshell so, Ladybird book or not, the SNP is the epitome of a national socialist movement.

Maybe you try it then? And remember that in nigh each country where socialism (no country ever reached communism*, but that`s a dominant misconception in the West) developed they essentially had its own version, pending on the people** at work and the ressources they had at hand. Much like capitalism in politics  ("democracy" in about 300 shades) and economics works differently in every other country too. And having lived in the naughty "SED-ruled" and "Stasi-controlled" G.D.R. a.k.a. East Germany for 20 years and knowing hundrends of people who did so too, let me tell you that the second "bold" bit is way off the mark too. But rest assured, you`re not alone, as modern day German opinion-makers like to put East Germany ever closer to Nazi Germany, using the same terminology, drawing wild (but usually not challenged) comparisons and whatnot. Sick and tired of correcting lies to people and telling them about my experience, as most are simply not interested in those days or are neck-deep in their conception of socialism and East Germany that it would be a waste excercise. And in saying the above, I don`t want to say anything was just fine ... but if you look out the window these days at the various faces of capitalism, be it the Trump-lead and CIA-war-mongering US version, that of Erdogan in Turkey, the political madness of Italy or even those sheiks of Saudi-Arabia pulling the strings world-wide, the analogy of stones and glass-houses spring to mind. When people over here point fingers at politicial and business fiascos, essential slave-labour at meat-production companies, horrendously underpaid nurses and health personal or billions of tax money wasted on airports and train stations, or Bundeswehr-drones that didn`t even get a flying licence for Germany, you will quickly find someone point out that "in East Germany, it was worse!". The level they delve down to is nearly farcical. As if something bad makes another bad thing any better.

 

Heck, 20 mins of life-time gone for that, when I was looking forward to us chasing the Arabs.

 

*That what happens when words are liberally used far too often by those who could know better if they actually look what those words mean in a political and real world context. Just saying.

** People like to cling to power, no matter what system they use politically or via religion. Most hard-core socialist party leaders were wanting to keep their place as long as they could, but so too do certain people in the west too. Just look how Trump got his country worked up, how Erdogan rules Turkey, Lukashenko Belorus or indeed how the Iranian religious leaders dominate politics. Not to mention half the African states or some in South and Middle America. Any better than the much maligned "communist" countries? People craving power and utilizing the political system as much as they could. 

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, der Berliner said:

Maybe you try it then? And remember that in nigh each country where socialism (no country ever reached communism*, but that`s a dominant misconception in the West) developed they essentially had its own version, pending on the people** at work and the ressources they had at hand. Much like capitalism in politics  ("democracy" in about 300 shades) and economics works differently in every other country too. And having lived in the naughty "SED-ruled" and "Stasi-controlled" G.D.R. a.k.a. East Germany for 20 years and knowing hundrends of people who did so too, let me tell you that the second "bold" bit is way off the mark too. But rest assured, you`re not alone, as modern day German opinion-makers like to put East Germany ever closer to Nazi Germany, using the same terminology, drawing wild (but usually not challenged) comparisons and whatnot. Sick and tired of correcting lies to people and telling them about my experience, as most are simply not interested in those days or are neck-deep in their conception of socialism and East Germany that it would be a waste excercise. And in saying the above, I don`t want to say anything was just fine ... but if you look out the window these days at the various faces of capitalism, be it the Trump-lead and CIA-war-mongering US version, that of Erdogan in Turkey, the political madness of Italy or even those sheiks of Saudi-Arabia pulling the strings world-wide, the analogy of stones and glass-houses spring to mind. When people over here point fingers at politicial and business fiascos, essential slave-labour at meat-production companies, horrendously underpaid nurses and health personal or billions of tax money wasted on airports and train stations, or Bundeswehr-drones that didn`t even get a flying licence for Germany, you will quickly find someone point out that "in East Germany, it was worse!". The level they delve down to is nearly farcical. As if something bad makes another bad thing any better.

 

Heck, 20 mins of life-time gone for that, when I was looking forward to us chasing the Arabs.

 

*That what happens when words are liberally used far too often by those who could know better if they actually look what those words mean in a political and real world context. Just saying.

** People like to cling to power, no matter what system they use politically or via religion. Most hard-core socialist party leaders were wanting to keep their place as long as they could, but so too do certain people in the west too. Just look how Trump got his country worked up, how Erdogan rules Turkey, Lukashenko Belorus or indeed how the Iranian religious leaders dominate politics. Not to mention half the African states or some in South and Middle America. Any better than the much maligned "communist" countries? People craving power and utilizing the political system as much as they could. 

I've read your post twice and still haven't a clue what point you're making. To be honest, I've slightly less than zero interest in Germany, other than it's repeated inability to stay out of other European countries, so that might be holding me back. I don't suppose you have a short version.