Croke Park or Celtic Park

**Paddy Ramone** · 25/11/2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by lopez

As for the complex relationship of the peoples, this has come to the surface only since the decline of the empire. 100 years ago there was huge support for the Tories in Scotland with the Liberals gaining the 'home rule' support. Separatism was miniscule, almost unknown. I'm all for people gaining independence but that has to be the majority. That is not the case in Scotland or Wales. In fact both countries (especially Scotland) have contributed greatly to the (singular) British military occupation of Northern Ireland.

If the there is just one nation on the island of Britain, expain why the IRA never once bombed Scotland or Wales during the troubles. Surely they're as much Brits as the English according to your line of thinking.

You seem to completely ignore the strong affinity there is between the Celtic nations. In the Western Isles of Scotland, there are Gaelic-speaking Catholics on the islands of Barra and South Uist with a similar culture to people in the West of Ireland. The GAA and their Scottish equivalent also organize hurling-shinty compromise rule matches.

I suppose the Gaels of Scotland because they were born in the United Kingdom are British even though they might regard themselves as Scottish which contradicts that saying of yours, if you are born in a stable that doen't make you a horse.

**Plastic Paddy** · 25/11/2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by lopez
Since 1707.

And only until 1801

Originally posted by lopez
There is one head of state unlike Austria - Hungary before WW1. One parliament (devolution introduced in 1998). Britain built an empire, not Scotland and England and when Ireland was coerced into union it was with Britain not England and Scotland.

I'm not so much questioning the point I know you're making, but being a linguistic pedant. My pedantic point was that "Britain" ceased to be a political entity in 1801 with the annexation of Grattan's parliament and incorporation of the Irish Crown. Hence the "schoolboy error". And the sticky-out tongue.

Originally posted by lopez
As for the complex relationship of the peoples, this has come to the surface only since the decline of the empire. 100 years ago there was huge support for the Tories in Scotland with the Liberals gaining the 'home rule' support. Separatism was miniscule, almost unknown.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that in this day and age, a complex relationship exists on these islands between individual and group identity and political structures.

Originally posted by lopez
I'm all for people gaining independence but that has to be the majority. That is not the case in Scotland or Wales. In fact both countries (especially Scotland) have contributed greatly to the (singular) British military occupation of Northern Ireland.

I don't think there's much doubt in the case of Wales (after all, the vote on the Assembly was split 51/49 on a 51% turnout - i.e. just over 25% of the total electorate actually backed the Assembly) but I don't think the case is quite the same in Scotland. The (predominantly working-class) Nationalist vote is split between Labour and the SNP. Until a plebiscite is held, I really wouldn't like to say which way that one would go.

As for the question of Norn Iron, we all know that was a gerrymandered expedient for Lloyd George's "little local difficulty", and one maintained at great financial and emotional expense to people on both islands ever since. However, today's realpolitik would suggest that as the majority seemingly wish to maintain a union with the rest of the UK, the military occupation you refer to is no such thing. Whether those of us (myself included) who would welcome a 32-county republic like it or not.

PP

**Paddy Ramone** · 25/11/2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Conor74
On a similar vein (though not the same as the heroic figures you mention), but republicans Martin McGuinness is a big fan of Derry City and round these parts Martin Ferris played for years with Fenit Samphires in the KDL.

But realistically there was no real incentive to the GAA to open up their pitches so there was no big push to change the rules. We might all agree that they should, but what is in it for them? They are not a registered charity and their business is not handouts to an organisation that is a laughing stock. The current President Sean Kelly is very much in favour of opening up the grounds, for a fee of course. And of course the FAI should have to pay the GAA. Many posters here are very bitter about the GAA. I myself don't like gaelic football, I don't like many figures within the GAA (an infamous b****x from Cork springs to mind). But why should the FAI benefit from their inability to organise a ground within the past 100 years? If anyone here feels that it is right and proper that an organisation that went out and did all the work and put a remarkable project together should be expected to open its doors to the sick man of Irish sport and give them a free ride, then you're kidding yourselves.

Another nationalist soccer fan was Neil Blaney, the hardline Republican Independent Fianna Fail TD from County Donegal. Blaney was President of the FAI from 1968 to 1973. It was during this time that Blaney was dismissed from the government cabinet for importing arms into Ireland for use in the North.

I wonder is any coincidence that the equally hardline Republican GAA ended their ban on foreign games in 1971 while Blaney was FAI president and just after the arms crisis. Maybe all the FAI have to do is elect an a hardline Republican as President and the GAA will open Croke Park to them. What about Martin McGuinness as President of the FAI? A member of the oppressed Nationalist minority in the British-occupied Six Counties as President of the FAI would go down well with the GAA.

BTW who is the infomous b****x from Cork?

**Duncan Gardner** · 25/11/2003, 2:23 PM

Croke Park, of course. Get your lawyers to negotiate a deal for the rental payment, as Conor says.

The rumour that a still-prominent member of the IRA Army Council asked for meetings to be moved from Sunday afternoons when Sky TV starting showing English football? I imagine the unionist paramilitaries started that one

**lopez** · 25/11/2003, 3:49 PM

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
If the there is just one nation on the island of Britain, expain why the IRA never once bombed Scotland or Wales during the troubles. Surely they're as much Brits as the English according to your line of thinking.

I never said there was one nation in Britain - Wales and Scotland have an indigenous language as does Cornwall. Just one state. My response was to MikeW's suggestion that Wales playing in England isn't like its leaving the country. It isn't. Can't answer why the IRA only bombed England - I'd say it was down to economic targets - but they didn't feel restrained when it came to killing Scottish soldiers in NI so it can't be down to intra-Celtic 'affinity' that you seem to be suggesting.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
You seem to completely ignore the strong affinity there is between the Celtic nations. In the Western Isles of Scotland, there are Gaelic-speaking Catholics on the islands of Barra and South Uist with a similar culture to people in the West of Ireland. The GAA and their Scottish equivalent also organize hurling-shinty compromise rule matches.

The truth is that Scots have done very little to seek independence despite their consistent claim to be Celtic and separate. If there were a majority of MSPs who voted for a plebiscite in the Scottish parliament, at least any denial of such a referendum on independence by Westminster would be seen as undemocratic. But where is this majority. Why aren't there demonstrations? Indeed where's the political violence that is glorified in Braveheart?

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
I suppose the Gaels of Scotland because they were born in the United Kingdom are British even though they might regard themselves as Scottish which contradicts that saying of yours, if you are born in a stable that doen't make you a horse.

So there is a Gaelic -speaking Catholic indigenous minority in the North - West of Scotland who want independence. There's an English speaking Protestant minority in North East Ireland who call themselves British, and even think they're more British than the people here. Suppose the rest of Ireland wanted to be British too? As for my saying, can't see the connection. These people are Scots. Scots want to remain a glorified province of Britain. If they don't, get out and do something about it like Ireland did under the British and most of Eastern Europe did at some point under a very repressive Soviet Union. Whereas myself, I've yet buy a British passport. So if I'm ever done for treason, they won't be able to get me the way they got William 'Lord Haw Haw' Joyce.

I do like your suggestion for FAI president.

Originally posted by Plastic Paddy
I'm not so much questioning the point I know you're making, but being a linguistic pedant. My pedantic point was that "Britain" ceased to be a political entity in 1801 with the annexation of Grattan's parliament and incorporation of the Irish Crown. Hence the "schoolboy error". And the sticky-out tongue.

Apologies PP. Never recognised the act of union 1801. I would use the term Great Britain but I don't want to be making a libellous statement. Not when so many of the natives are moving to Spain every day.

**Paddy Ramone** · 25/11/2003, 5:25 PM

Originally posted by lopez
Can't answer why the IRA only bombed England - I'd say it was down to economic targets - but they didn't feel restrained when it came to killing Scottish soldiers in NI so it can't be down to intra-Celtic 'affinity' that you seem to be suggesting.

The truth is that Scots have done very little to seek independence despite their consistent claim to be Celtic and separate. If there were a majority of MSPs who voted for a plebiscite in the Scottish parliament, at least any denial of such a referendum on independence by Westminster would be seen as undemocratic. But where is this majority. Why aren't there demonstrations? Indeed where's the political violence that is glorified in Braveheart?

I think the reason that the IRA never bombed Scotland and Wales during the troubles was due to the prominence of Ruairi O Bradaigh in the Republican movement at the time. O Bradaigh was a proponent of a Celtic League including a United Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany. Scottish and Welsh Nationalism were beginning to have electoral successes at the time and IRA bombing campaign targeting Scotland and Wales would have alienated public opinion in those countries affecting the Nationalist vote.

I'll think you'll find that a large element of the anti-Nationalist element in Scotland are the "Plastic Paddies" who support Celtic. They claim to be anti-British and Republican, yet mainly vote for the unionist Labour Party, keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom. I don't see anything wrong with Celtic fans celebrating their Irish heritage but they should remember that their club were set up to form a bridge between the Irish and Scottish and not to divide the two nations. More Celtic fans should fly the Scottish Saltire flag as well as the Irish Tricolour.

Celtic fans sometimes seem to be more Irish than themselves, a bit like the Unionists you referred to in Northern Ireland, who think they are more British than the British themselves. It would be great if more Scottish Celtic fans embraced their Scottishness as well as their Irish heritage and finally realise that Celtic are Scottish club (of Irish origin) not an Irish club based in Scotland. The Republic of Ireland staging their matches at Celtic Park would increase sectarian tension, emphasing the fact the fact in some people's eyes that West of Scotland Catholics are not truly Scottish.

It would be much better idea if the GAA finally moved in the 21st century and allowed soccer to be played in Croke Park. Croke Park would have much higher profile, staging international matches in the most popular sport in the world. This could only be good for the GAA. The FAI would have to pay a high rent for use of the ground. The GAA are daft not opening Croke Park to "foreign games".

**liam88** · 25/11/2003, 6:34 PM

The IRFU can never return the favour can they?
Hurling at Landsdowne !??!

If Windsor Park

was offered for our qualifiers wouldn't you prefer Celtic Park ?

I know I would

Lionel Hutz · 25/11/2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone

I'll think you'll find that a large element of the anti-Nationalist element in Scotland are the "Plastic Paddies" who support Celtic. They claim to be anti-British and Republican, yet mainly vote for the unionist Labour Party, keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom. I don't see anything wrong with Celtic fans celebrating their Irish heritage but they should remember that their club were set up to form a bridge between the Irish and Scottish and not to divide the two nations. More Celtic fans should fly the Scottish Saltire flag as well as the Irish Tricolour.

Celtic fans sometimes seem to be more Irish than themselves, a bit like the Unionists you referred to in Northern Ireland, who think they are more British than the British themselves. It would be great if more Scottish Celtic fans embraced their Scottishness as well as their Irish heritage and finally realise that Celtic are Scottish club (of Irish origin) not an Irish club based in Scotland. The Republic of Ireland staging their matches at Celtic Park would increase sectarian tension, emphasing the fact the fact in some people's eyes that West of Scotland Catholics are not truly Scottish.

Were kinda of topic here but anyways........
You seem to miss the point of Celtic fc for many of the fans from Scotland, Celtic is the only outlet for their "Irishness'.
They live, work and are part of Scottish society and Celtic is there way of retaining links with Ireland, they should compromise on this to?

Btw there were a few Saltires on view at the game tonight.

**lopez** · 26/11/2003, 9:04 AM

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
I think the reason that the IRA never bombed Scotland and Wales during the troubles was due to the prominence of Ruairi O Bradaigh in the Republican movement at the time. O Bradaigh was a proponent of a Celtic League including a United Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany.

That's news to me. O Bradaigh's baby was his Eire Nua federal Ireland. From what I've read on him, he had enough on his plate trying to get this noble, if naive, idea through to worry about a pan - Celtic federation aswell. BTW, where's Galicia?

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
I'll think you'll find that a large element of the anti-Nationalist element in Scotland are the "Plastic Paddies" who support Celtic. They claim to be anti-British and Republican, yet mainly vote for the unionist Labour Party, keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom.

Here you are dead on, and do you wonder why? Scottish society - that is the Scottish society that is supposed to be trying to break free from the imperial shackles of England - has had a deplorable record towards it's Catholic (mainly Irish) citizens. Now you expect the Irish in Scotland to help bring about a situation that may - yes it's conjecture here but I digress - similar to Macedonia or Croatia.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
I don't see anything wrong with Celtic fans celebrating their Irish heritage but they should remember that their club were set up to form a bridge between the Irish and Scottish and not to divide the two nations. More Celtic fans should fly the Scottish Saltire flag as well as the Irish Tricolour.

Many, possibly most, Celtic fans would consider themselves Scots but with Irish ancestry. Some are the offspring of mix marriages, but are Catholic through the insistence of the RC church. I don't see many fourth or fifth generation Celtic fans at Ireland games. A few I've known would support Scotland if their first experience (pre mid eighties) at Hampden was not unlike being at a Rangers home game.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
Celtic fans sometimes seem to be more Irish than themselves, a bit like the Unionists you referred to in Northern Ireland, who think they are more British than the British themselves. It would be great if more Scottish Celtic fans embraced their Scottishness as well as their Irish heritage and finally realise that Celtic are Scottish club (of Irish origin) not an Irish club based in Scotland.

I presume it's the same with us 'Plastics' south of the border. Embrace our Englishness. Is it a case of getting rid of us so that it is easier to get tickets for games like Switzerland (I was asked for my passport by one w***er who heard my accent and yet I got mine through the Swiss) or are you just puzzled that we aren't supporting, indeed embracing a supposedly superior country? If us 'plastics' appear more Irish than the Irish themselves (sic) then it is usually down to people like you telling us what we really are or should be.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
The Republic of Ireland staging their matches at Celtic Park would increase sectarian tension, emphasing the fact the fact in some people's eyes that West of Scotland Catholics are not truly Scottish.

Of course it would. The last thing that native Scots like to see is their minorities (in particular the Irish ones) celebrating their heritage.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
It would be much better idea if the GAA finally moved in the 21st century and allowed soccer to be played in Croke Park. Croke Park would have much higher profile, staging international matches in the most popular sport in the world. This could only be good for the GAA. The FAI would have to pay a high rent for use of the ground. The GAA are daft not opening Croke Park to "foreign games".

Let's get it on.

**Paddy Ramone** · 26/11/2003, 9:32 AM

Originally posted by liam88

If Windsor Park was offered for our qualifiers wouldn't you prefer Celtic Park ?

I know I would

I don't believe that the IFA would ever offer Windsor Park to the FAI. That's a non-starter.

It would be great though one day to see a All-Ireland side play there and in Dublin. The reunited Ireland side could alternate their home matches between Windsor Park and Croke Park. But unfortunately this unlikely.

Even better still a new stadium could be built in Newry. It would be great to see a United Ireland side. Whenever the 26 counties (so-called Republic of Ireland) play the six counties (so-called Northern Ireland), it's more like an Old Firm match than an international match. I'm sure most patriotic Irish people would love to see an end to that and one Ireland side that all Irish people can be proud of.

Celtic Park is in Scotland not Ireland. It would be alright for Ireland to play their home games on a temporary basis there but it would be unacceptable as a pemanent home. If Celtic are to stage the home matches of an international team it should be Scotland not Ireland. Scotland have staged some of their home matches at Parkhead.

**Paddy Ramone** · 26/11/2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by lopez
That's news to me. O Bradaigh's baby was his Eire Nua federal Ireland. From what I've read on him, he had enough on his plate trying to get this noble, if naive, idea through to worry about a pan - Celtic federation aswell. BTW, where's Galicia?

I presume it's the same with us 'Plastics' south of the border. Embrace our Englishness. Is it a case of getting rid of us so that it is easier to get tickets for games like Switzerland (I was asked for my passport by one w***er who heard my accent and yet I got mine through the Swiss) or are you just puzzled that we aren't supporting, indeed embracing a supposedly superior country? If us 'plastics' appear more Irish than the Irish themselves (sic) then it is usually down to people like you telling us what we really are or should be.

O Bradaigh has always been a supporter of pan-Celtic nationalism. I have a quotation from him when he was asked about Celtic fans supporting the Unionist Labour Party in Scotland, while flying the tricolour and singing rebel songs.

"Singing rebel songs and striking Republican attitudes is totally inconsistent with voting for British Rule in Scotland. If such people really want to further the cause of Irish National Independence they should work for Scottish Independence also. To do so otherwise is a contradiction."

I think that makes perfect sense while I wouldn't agree with everything O'Bradaigh says or stands for. It has always in the British interest to divide and conquer. Sectarian divisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland keep both areas in the United Kingdom.

Of course people of Irish descent in England have just as must right to call themselves Irish as those born in Ireland. What I was objecting to was the so-called Irish Nationalists who vote to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.

**Plastic Paddy** · 26/11/2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
Of course people of Irish descent in England have just as must right to call themselves Irish as those born in Ireland. What I was objecting to was the so-called Irish Nationalists who vote to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.

A couple of minor points, Paddy.

1. The Nationalists who "vote to keep Scotland in the UK" are voting in a very different political climate from the one I think you perceive. There is a long-held perception that the SNP is run by a Protestant cabal, and as such, any vote for them may well lead to "worse conditions" (poor terminology, I know) for the Catholic population. The nearest analogy I can find to describe the situation I refer to is from the early 1970s, when the Nationalist population of Norn Iron found "direct rule" from Westminster more palatable than Unionist rule from Stormont.

2. There is a long socialist tradition in Scotland that cuts across cultural-religious divides, one that just doesn't exist in Ireland. The Labour Party has been very successful over time in providing a focal point and political outlet for this tradition. The Labour Party's unionist stance is thus only a secondary consideration for many who vote for them, although Blair and McConnell's love affair with the centre-right may yet see this voter profile change.

PP

**lopez** · 26/11/2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
O Bradaigh has always been a supporter of pan-Celtic nationalism. I have a quotation from him when he was asked about Celtic fans supporting the Unionist Labour Party in Scotland, while flying the tricolour and singing rebel songs.

"Singing rebel songs and striking Republican attitudes is totally inconsistent with voting for British Rule in Scotland. If such people really want to further the cause of Irish National Independence they should work for Scottish Independence also. To do so otherwise is a contradiction."

I think that makes perfect sense while I wouldn't agree with everything O Bradaigh says or stands for. It has always in the British interest to divide and conquer. Sectarian divisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland keep both areas in the United Kingdom.

I'd disagree with O'Bradaigh on this. It seems that he is suffering from a tainted view of Scottish society, one which, as PP rightly says, is totally different. On a different thread someone mentioned that SNP stood for 'Soon No Pope'. I don't have time for Juan Pablo and his predecessors, and the description of a party that ostensibly tries hard to distance itself from sectarianism is harsh. But I fear for the Irish/RC community of Scotland if there were independence. Symbols of ethnic pride, like Celtic FC, however dated they may seem to some people, are important to the Irish community in Glasgow. Just as in many of the new states in Eastern Europe, these will be deemed as unpatriotic by the new elites, high on 'freedom' and keen to cleanse outside contamination.

Don't think it will happen? Well similar things happened in the new Irish Free State. While British/Protestand/Unionist institutions and property were untouched, the efforts to turn the new state into some form of Gaelic Catholic Theocracy affected the lives of non-Catholics, particularly in contraception and divorce. Even in sport (hence this thread).

I was disgusted by the way 'immigrants' prevented Quebec from rightfully gaining independence some years back. But in all honesty, I probably would have voted with them if I was there. Minorities hate change. You just never know if you'll be the next target, and history shows plenty of examples: Be it Greeks in Turkey, Germans in Czechoslovakia, Indians in Uganda and Kenya, Russians in the Baltic states or Albanians in Macedonia.

**Paddy Ramone** · 26/11/2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Plastic Paddy
A couple of minor points, Paddy.

1. The Nationalists who "vote to keep Scotland in the UK" are voting in a very different political climate from the one I think you perceive. There is a long-held perception that the SNP is run by a Protestant cabal, and as such, any vote for them may well lead to "worse conditions" (poor terminology, I know) for the Catholic population. The nearest analogy I can find to describe the situation I refer to is from the early 1970s, when the Nationalist population of Norn Iron found "direct rule" from Westminster more palatable than Unionist rule from Stormont.

2. There is a long socialist tradition in Scotland that cuts across cultural-religious divides, one that just doesn't exist in Ireland. The Labour Party has been very successful over time in providing a focal point and political outlet for this tradition. The Labour Party's unionist stance is thus only a secondary consideration for many who vote for them, although Blair and McConnell's love affair with the centre-right may yet see this voter profile change.

PP

While there may have been anti-Catholic bigots once in the SNP, I think they are a dying breed. In fact there are are probably more anti-Catholic bigots in Labour and Liberal Democrats. If the SNP are so anti-Catholic, how come they support Catholic schools much more wholeheartedly than the Labour Party. Also when Bertie Aherne visited Scotland to open a famine memorial, it was the Labour Party who objected to his visit on the grounds that it might increase sectarian tensions. The SNP welcomed him with open arms.

The SNP mainly come from the same long socialist tradition in Scotland that you referred to. Many of the original founders of the Scottish Nationalist movement in Scotland were in fact Catholic and left wing in ideology. Ruairidh Erskine who was a prominent Scottish Nationalist once said "When Scotland was Catholic, Scotland was free". Erskine was a romantic Jacobite and wanted to bring back the Catholic Stuart monarch to Scotland. He was one of the few Scottish left-wingers to support the 1916 rising and was a friend of both Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera. Sinn Fein financed the Scottish National League, a breakaway group from the SNP who wanted to set up a Scottish Workers Republic.

The allegations that the SNP are anti-Catholic go back to the 1930's. The left-wing National Party of Scotland amalgamated with the the right-wing Scottish Party to form the SNP in an effort to gain more electoral support. The Scottish Party were ex-Tories who wanted dominion-status for Scotland within the Empire and were opposed to Republicanism. Andrew Dewar-Gibb, a right wing nationalist tried to get the SNP to change their policy on Catholic schools but failed. Dewar-Gibb also was opposed to Catholic immigration into Scotland. In the 1940's the left-wing regained control and the right-wing element was purged from the party. The modern SNP are not anti-Catholic.

**Paddy Ramone** · 26/11/2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by lopez
I'd disagree with O'Bradaigh on this. It seems that he is suffering from a tainted view of Scottish society, one which, as PP rightly says, is totally different. On a different thread someone mentioned that SNP stood for 'Soon No Pope'. I don't have time for Juan Pablo and his predecessors, and the description of a party that ostensibly tries hard to distance itself from sectarianism is harsh. But I fear for the Irish/RC community of Scotland if there were independence. Symbols of ethnic pride, like Celtic FC, however dated they may seem to some people, are important to the Irish community in Glasgow. Just as in many of the new states in Eastern Europe, these will be deemed as unpatriotic by the new elites, high on 'freedom' and keen to cleanse outside contamination.

I would have thought that Rangers FC would have to fear Scottish Independence more than Celtic. A Unionist bastion in the heart of an Independent Scotland would look like an anachronism. The Union Jack which the Rangers fans so dearly love would now just be an artifact of an era gone by. Surely Celtic's Irishness would be much more compatible with an Independent Scotland than Rangers' Britishness.

**lopez** · 26/11/2003, 2:11 PM

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
I would have thought that Rangers FC would have to fear Scottish Independence more than Celtic. A Unionist bastion in the heart of an Independent Scotland would look like an anachronism. The Union Jack which the Rangers fans so dearly love would now just be an artifact of an era gone by. Surely Celtic's Irishness would be much more compatible with an Independent Scotland than Rangers' Britishness.

I agree. Most Rangers fans are probably unionist, although I know one who is anti-monarchy, nationalistic (will ask him about independence next time I see him) while not dispartial to the odd, ahem, party song - and we're not talking SNP here.

But then so too in my opinion are the majority of Scots unionist. Rangers are the club of the indigenous people - not English immigrants - and I wouldn't let the Union Jacks and St George's flags fool you. The fact that they are mainly anti - independence is irrelevent. Come independence (which I doubt will ever happen) I've absolutely no doubt they will find it easy to accomodate a new state while continuing their anti-Irish and anti-Catholic activities.

Many thanks for the info on the history of the SNP.

**Paddy Ramone** · 26/11/2003, 3:35 PM

Originally posted by lopez
I agree. Most Rangers fans are probably unionist, although I know one who is anti-monarchy, nationalistic (will ask him about independence next time I see him) while not dispartial to the odd, ahem, party song - and we're not talking SNP here.

But then so too in my opinion are the majority of Scots unionist. Rangers are the club of the indigenous people - not English immigrants - and I wouldn't let the Union Jacks and St George's flags fool you. The fact that they are mainly anti - independence is irrelevent. Come independence (which I doubt will ever happen) I've absolutely no doubt they will find it easy to accomodate a new state while continuing their anti-Irish and anti-Catholic activities.

Many thanks for the info on the history of the SNP.

While Rangers are the club of indigenous people in Scotland, they didn't introduce their anti-Catholic policies until just before the first world war when Ulster Protestant workers moved from Belfast to Glasgow to work in the Harland and Wolff shipyards in Govan. I don't think the Ulster Protestant Unionist supporters of Rangers would like to see an independent Scotland and would feel betrayed by their cousins across the water if they declared independence. It certainly isn't in the interests of the Unionists of Northern Ireland to see a split-up of the United Kingdom.

I heard somewhere most of the marriages in the West of Scotland are now mixed which will problably lead to a lessening in sectarian tensions eventually. So I suppose if there was ever an independent Scotland, both Old Firm clubs might see it in their interest to adopt a more Scottish identity. We might see more Protestant Celtic fans and more Catholic Rangers fans. Sean Connery has a mixed Irish Catholic and Scottish Protestant background and supports both the SNP and Rangers (although he was in Seville supporting his first love Celtic).

Though Connery was born a raised in Edinburgh so really he should support Hibs or Hearts.

**lopez** · 26/11/2003, 8:35 PM

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
While Rangers are the club of indigenous people in Scotland, they didn't introduce their anti-Catholic policies until just before the first world war when Ulster Protestant workers moved from Belfast to Glasgow to work in the Harland and Wolff shipyards in Govan.

I've read the same. Indeed religious violence at football games in the 6C preceded anything at the old firm.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
I don't think the Ulster Protestant Unionist supporters of Rangers would like to see an independent Scotland and would feel betrayed by their cousins across the water if they declared independence. It certainly isn't in the interests of the Unionists of Northern Ireland to see a split-up of the United Kingdom.

Scottish independence would be on the surface a disaster for NI. Most Unionists are of Scottish descent. Provided a Scottish parliament, government, military dictatorship (why not?) does not possess irredentist designs on NI which could lead us into dark territory, NI unionists will look instead to England, which is judging by the shirts worn by the less desirable elements of Unionism, already the case. Perhaps Duncan Gardens could enlighten us here.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
I heard somewhere most of the marriages in the West of Scotland are now mixed which will problably lead to a lessening in sectarian tensions eventually. So I suppose if there was ever an independent Scotland, both Old Firm clubs might see it in their interest to adopt a more Scottish identity. We might see more Protestant Celtic fans and more Catholic Rangers fans.

Mixed marriages re any Irish community will break down the ethnic barriers. In my case it will take a little longer as 'er indoors is a 'plastic' loike meself.

Originally posted by Paddy Ramone
Sean Connery has a mixed Irish Catholic and Scottish Protestant background and supports both the SNP and Rangers (although he was in Seville supporting his first love Celtic).

Though Connery was born a raised in Edinburgh so really he should support Hibs or Hearts.

We are back to square one here. Connery, the man who banged on about wanting an independent Scotland for so long then whinging how it took ages to get a gong from Brenda (aka HRH Da Queen). Scottish Independence? Don't make me laugh.