Celtic Discussion

**Jim Smith** · 23/10/2003, 8:58 AM

In fairness the SNP have worked hard over the last 30 years to rid the party of the bigots and extremists. The Trade Union movement in Britian in the 50's and 60's was racist in the extreme - does that mean that the movememt still is?

The Labour Party have done and will do absoultely anything to thwart Nationalist aspirations in Scotland. A few years ago in Glasgow Central they made their candidate change his name from Mike to Mick and got him to tone down his English accent because they were worried that the SNP was more Irish than their candidiate. The Labour Party are a unionist party. They always have been and I can't see that changing.

**Paddy Ramone** · 23/10/2003, 9:03 AM

Wasn't the great Irish Republican and a patron of Celtic FC, Michael Davitt sympathetic to Scottish Nationalism? He was prime mover in the creation of the Highland Land League in Scotland which eventually became part of the Scottish National Party. Brother Walfrid at the formation of Celtic FC in 1888, even quoted a speech from Davitt about the Irish and Scottish national struggles being the one and the same which is why the name Celtic was chosen instead of Glasgow Hibernian.

Somewhere along the line Celtic forgot their original principles and became a mirror image of Rangers. The name Celtic was meant to unite Catholic and Protestant and Irish and Scottish but instead nowadays it is associated only with Irishness and Catholicism. Bob Kelly the Celtic chairman in the 50's always hankered after an all-Catholic side. Kelly was also an advocate of a Great Britain side. Celtic are as much a pro-British side as Rangers as is evident by their demands to join the English Premiership.

It's all a case of divide and conquer by the powers that be in the British establishment. Some Celtic fans can't get their head around the fact that Presbyterians can be proud of Gaelic culture and heritage as much as Catholics. Most Gaelic speakers in Scotland are Presbyterian. Also the first Irish Republicans, the United Irishmen were mainly Presbyterian and were linked to the United Scotsmen who wanted an indepenent Scottish Republic.

I think Hibernian FC are closer to the original principles of Celtic FC, they draw their support from both Catholics and Protestants and are proud of being Scottish AND their Irish origins. Also the great James Connolly was a fan of the Hibees. What stronger Republican creditionals can you have?

The simple fact is Celtic FC are a conservative Catholic pro-unionist football club who benefit from the sectarian divide in Scotland. It is in Celtic's interest to keep the divisions alive in the West of Scotland. Celtic are part of a cartel with Rangers and benefited from Rangers anti-Catholic policies because they could have the pick of the Catholics in Scotland. Celtic and Rangers are two sides of the same coin. They need each other to survive.

Also don't Orangemen want to maintain the Union. Surely this is the the opposite of everything the SNP stand for.

**Scotsman** · 28/10/2003, 6:56 PM

Hey troops this has turned a wee bit political.

Lionel I did think you sounded a wee bit Anti-Scottish but you did mention facts - I could it turn round and say that alot of innocent folk have died at the hands or Irishmen - IE Bombs etc - Now I know nothing of this topic and care not to and I also realise that not ALL irish folk condemn this.

I have to say that there was a saying for SNP - Soon NO Pope.

Alot of people do forget that Celtic was named this to unite the Scots and Irish.

The whole "I'm Irish" nonsense does exist and it gets boring.

Celtic and Rangers do need each other - You're quite right Paddy.

You certianly sound knowledgable - I'm impressed.

I'm a Labour man and my Father was in the Executive
Board at one point - There was no religous reasons for this - Working class background and the Tories certainly don't help the working class.

The Gaels of Scotland hung on to their Catholic views for as long as they could and some fled to Ireland because of persecution - IE: Highland Clearances.

Mary Queen Of Scots was Catholic and her Son James V of Scotland became James I of England - Did he realise the effect of this??

I think not.

Scotland does suffer from bigotry and to hide it is to encourage it.

Get rid of ALL walks - Orange and Hibernian.

What does Hibernian mean? - Excuse my ignorance.

We Scots did suffer like you Irish at the hands of the English also.

Glasgow was up in arms at the Union of the Crowns.

Anyway do you all really care about the religous aspect?

I know I don't.

I know a shed loads of Celtic fans who are proud Scots and rightly so.

Goodnight and God Bless.

**James** · 28/10/2003, 7:24 PM

Originally posted by Scotsman
I know a shed loads of Celtic fans who are proud Scots and rightly so.
.

celtic ARE a scottish team
i know aload of cork city diehards that are proud irishmen and rightly so, whats your point

**Scotsman** · 29/10/2003, 7:07 AM

Well if you had read the posts before hand you would understand that I am pointing out that not ALL Celtic fans try to be Irish.

Or a you hust looking for an arguement - Run away to school now!

**S.E.P.1990** · 29/10/2003, 9:33 AM

PaddyRamone - u sound very informed and it is a entertaining piece. i am just a bit bemused that u r desperate to link teams with ideals and, yet, u criticise (rightly) the fact that the Old Firm need seperate religious ideals to survive.

I think Hibernian FC are closer to the original principles of Celtic FC, they draw their support from both Catholics and Protestants and are proud of being Scottish AND their Irish origins. Also the great James Connolly was a fan of the Hibees. What stronger Republican creditionals can you have?

I am confused does this mean that because Catholics and Protestants support a team that they automatically become a republican team???

Plus I am not sure if Scottish nationalists would agree with the fact that nationalists in the north arent exactly bosom pals of the Ulster/Scots community!! Unless of course u r equating nationalism with religion - in which case Hibs couldnt possibly be republican if they take their support from both religious communities?

**Jim Smith** · 29/10/2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by S.E.P.1990

I am confused does this mean that because Catholics and Protestants support a team that they automatically become a republican team???

I think the "Republican Credentials" relate to James Connolly rather than the religeous mix of the fans. It saddens me to see teams defined on the religion of their fan base - I didn't realsie that football as we know it dates back to the middle of the 17th centuary

Originally posted by S.E.P.1990
Plus I am not sure if Scottish nationalists would agree with the fact that nationalists in the north arent exactly bosom pals of the Ulster/Scots community!!

The Scottish nationalists and the Ulster/Scots community in the North have very little in common politically. There is little or no political connection between the various 'nationalist' movements. OK there was the SRSP/SNLA and a supposed link to the INLA but we are talking way out on the fringes here.

This has come rather a long way off topic....

**�anna** · 29/10/2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Jim Smith
SRSP/SNLA and a supposed link to the INLA

wasn't that one man and an envelope full of powder or something?

**Jim Smith** · 29/10/2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by �anna
wasn't that one man and an envelope full of powder or something?

Off the top of my head your thinking of the anthrax hoax to St Andrews?

They have a bit more of a history than that, bank robbery and the like. It all seemed like a bit of a joke (capture Oban and spread out from there....) untill some bloke in Aberdeen was arrested with all sorts of "heavy ordinance" and military explosives that I think were supposedly supplied by Lybia. These people really are in the extreme and (fortunately) few are far between.

aussie_tim_1798 · 29/10/2003, 12:18 PM

while it may be true that neither side of the Old Firm would be as big as they are now without the other, it is certainly not true that Celtic need Rangers to be a big club.

Celtic were enormously successful from the moment they entered competition - at which time there was no bad blood between them and Rangers. Indeed, it was written in a chronicle in the early 1890s that "the Light Blues are a favorite amongst the Celtic crowd".

it was only when Celtic's success became too great for the establishment to tolerate, that the Glaswegian people, both high up and at grassroots, began looking around for a Protestant club to compete with this Catholic upstart. (it's hard to overestimate how fervent anti-Catholic sentiment was in 19th century Scotland - before Irish immigration, there were more anti-Catholic organizations in Glasgow than there were Catholics themselves!)

the two candidates were Queen's Park and Glasgow Rangers, but since the former doggedly maintained their amatuer status, it was the next most successful club who carried the torch for mainstream Scottish society. and that was the Club's priority for their entire history, right up until the 1980s when it no longer became feasible to remain officially sectarian. but at the grassroots level the culture is the same: those who really love the club, love it because of its opposition of Celtic and all that Celtic stands for. Rangers never had any connection to Ulster, yet fans fly the Unionist Northern Ireland St. George's Cross, give a "red-hand salute" (that they themselves invented) and sing songs about The Sash and the Orangemen etc. even though these things have nothing to do with the club.

so i hope you can see how it is plainly a one-way dependent relationship. Glasgow Rangers would just be another Scottish club (albeit a stronger one, but probably only marginally stronger than say Hearts or Aberdeen pre-1990s) were it not for Celtic. whereas Celtic's culture is one that is 90% pro-Ireland and the Celtic people, and less than 10% anti-British (and perhaps 0.1% anti-Protestant). let me put it this way: if Celtic re-located to Ireland, virtually nothing would change in terms of culture. if Rangers re-located to England, their flying of the Union Flag and singing of Rule Britannia etc would become quite irrelavant, even laughable. worse still, if Rangers stayed in Scotland, without Celtic, they would lose all identity whatsoever, and would simply be a pro-Union team singing their songs to deaf ears (although some other smaller Scottish clubs have taken to singing Flower of Scotland back at the Gers when they sing Rule Britiannia

)

aussie_tim_1798 · 29/10/2003, 12:42 PM

yes, James Connolly supported Hibs, presumably because as a 7-year-old boy he was present at the founding of the club, grew up in Edinburgh, and the first football game he went to was that of Hibernian FC!

but the last thing that would mean is that he would have been anti-Celtic. even today, Celtic fans universally list Hibernian as their second favorite club...

however, Hibernian, unlike Celtic, have in a typically Brit fashion, abandoned all their sociopolitical origins and are now as apolitical as any generic Scottish or English geographically-bound club. not only that, but its hardcore element have sided with the SNF (Scottish National Firm) - an alliance of BNP fascist "casuals" from Rangers, Hearts, St Mirren, Aberdeen etc. whereas the hardcore Celtic faithful have remained committed (if only in name for most) to the Left: Anti-Fascist Action, Red Action and Celtic Fans Against Racism all have a base in the Celtic support.

and i marvel at the hypocrisy inherent with those who say: "Irish people should support Hibs instead of Celtic", while slagging off Celtic fans for supporting a team that doesn't play in the FAI! it seems to me just a massive case of "tall-poppy syndrome" (i.e., jealousy), all this hostility towards one of the most successful clubs in Northern Europe...

**S.E.P.1990** · 29/10/2003, 1:35 PM

Rangers never had any connection to Ulster, yet fans fly the Unionist Northern Ireland St. George's Cross, give a "red-hand salute" (that they themselves invented) and sing songs about The Sash and the Orangemen etc. even though these things have nothing to do with the club.

let me put it this way: if Celtic re-located to Ireland, virtually nothing would change in terms of culture. if Rangers re-located to England, their flying of the Union Flag and singing of Rule Britannia etc would become quite irrelavant, even laughable.

Aussie Tim, interesting post.

If Rangers, as u said earlier in the post, represented the "establishment" then this establishment had very close links to Ulster in the late 19th century/early 20th century.

I dont get ur point about Rangers relocating in England. Rangers culture is British/Scottish/Ulster, its not English (i think u r making the usual mistake of mixing up the word British and English) - i think a more valid point would be if Rangers re-located in Northern Ireland would they there singing become irrelevant? i think the answer would be no.

Hibernian, unlike Celtic, have in a typically Brit fashion, abandoned all their sociopolitical origins

I am beginning to think that this abandonment is a good thing - it allows people to get outside both social and political stereotypes and become part of a wider community. It also seperates sport and politics - which is the way it should be. I am not too sure why u r saying its in typical Brit fashion here??

aussie_tim_1798 · 29/10/2003, 2:20 PM

If Rangers, as u said earlier in the post, represented the "establishment" then this establishment had very close links to Ulster in the late 19th century/early 20th century.

firstly, it is not a controvertible statement to say that Rangers represented the establishment... it is excellently documented; Bill Murray, outlines it quite well in his famous book on the Old Firm. secondly, can you please provide citations for these "very close links"? obviously, both societies had a large Presbyterian and Masonic contingent in a wider sociopolitical sense, but my point is that Rangers FC only became concsious, and vocal, about their religion and Unionism, AFTER the overtness of the predominantly Irish Celtic FC success.

I am beginning to think that this abandonment is a good thing - it allows people to get outside both social and political stereotypes and become part of a wider community. It also seperates sport and politics - which is the way it should be. I am not too sure why u r saying its in typical Brit fashion here??

this is a common mistake made by observers of the Old Firm troubles. an analogy: would you ask the Muslims in Scotland to abandon their social, political, and cultural edifices? or Indians/Pakistanis in England? Blacks in the United States of America? of course you wouldn't. it is unfair to expect those Celtic supporters conscious of their heritage, ethnic (Irish) and political (Left), to abandon it in favor of apsorption into the mainstream whole, thereby vindicating the intolerance and bigotry that created the tension in the first place.

(i think u r making the usual mistake of mixing up the word British and English)

no, i think you're making the common mistake of thinking they're not the same thing. in ancient times, there was Britannia (England), Caledonia/Alba (Scotland), and Cambria (Wales). the application of Britain, to the entire Island, was an invention at the time of "Union". thus, you can probably bet that those living in Scotland, or Wales, or Cornwall, who call themselves British citizens, are for all intents and purposes Anglicized. Rangers culture is Anglicized to a great extent, viz., hooligan casual element, Union Flag (the only Scottish club to really fly it), Rule Britannia. it is Anglo-Scottish. just as the Scots-descended northern Irish in Ulster are...

i think a more valid point would be if Rangers re-located in Northern Ireland would they there singing become irrelevant? i think the answer would be no.

you've just further illustrated my point! the identity of Rangers FC only makes sense because it exists in opposition to something - Northern Ireland is the only place outside of Scotland that said identity would be relavant, since it would then exist in opposition to the Gaelic and/or Catholic community.

"seperates sport and politics - which is the way it should be" according to whom, and why? this is what i meant was "typically Brit". in Spain, Italy, and other places, the connections between sport and politics is much more overt than Celtic and Rangers. e.g., Roma (socialist) and Lazio (fascist), Real Madrid (right-wing), Barcelona (left-wing), Basque clubs Real Sociedad and Athletico Bilbao, etc, etc. there is a strong case to be made for that fact that since you will never separate sport and politics, the latter should be pushed as far to the front as possible. consider the official anti-Racism campaigns: footballers, and football clubs, are in a special and unique position to influence society, particulary youngsters. and of course, anti-Racism isn't the only cause worth giving attention to... but (a hardcore Celtic fan might argue): a United Ireland, anti-fascism, Scottish independence, general leftist concerns, etc, etc.

the fans of Celtic FC have created a highly unique club and culture. becoming "part of a wider community", is a euphemism for created a monoculture........... and environment where only a certain culture is accepted by the "wider community". you see what i mean? it's not Celtic who have the problem, it's those who fail to accept their differing self-identity.

**gspain** · 29/10/2003, 3:33 PM

Originally posted by aussie_tim_1798

and i marvel at the hypocrisy inherent with those who say: "Irish people should support Hibs instead of Celtic", while slagging off Celtic fans for supporting a team that doesn't play in the FAI! it seems to me just a massive case of "tall-poppy syndrome" (i.e., jealousy), all this hostility towards one of the most successful clubs in Northern Europe...

Agreed it is ridiculous and disgraceful to expect Irish people to support Hibs or indeed any other British club - they should support Limerick or Shelbourne or Longford or whoever.

**S.E.P.1990** · 29/10/2003, 3:33 PM

the fans of Celtic FC have created a highly unique club and culture. becoming "part of a wider community", is a euphemism for created a monoculture........... and environment where only a certain culture is accepted by the "wider community".

becoming part of a wider community is not a euphemism for creating a monoculture - just like for me to say that ur approach to society could be seen as an attempt to segregate everyone into there own little boxes (the purest form of which we saw in Nazis Germany and apartheid in South Africa). Pakistanis and Indians in the UK, for example, have their own culture plus the culture of the nation they live in.

you've just further illustrated my point! the identity of Rangers FC only makes sense because it exists in opposition to something - Northern Ireland is the only place outside of Scotland that said identity would be relavant, since it would then exist in opposition to the Gaelic and/or Catholic community.

Now i am no supporter of Rangers, but I fail to see how it doesnt make sense for a Scottish team, which is part of Britain and has a link to Protestantism doesnt make sense??? U can see it crudely as opposition to someone/something or you can see it as representative of someone or something. By choosing to place it in opposition you are trying to strip it of any real meaning, you also seem to think that all followers of Rangers are either members of the "establishment" or easily led by these people (whoever they are).

a hardcore Celtic fan might argue): a United Ireland, anti-fascism, Scottish independence, general leftist concerns, etc, etc.

he/she might - then again he/she might not have any interest in any of these. i personally hope that all Celtic fans are individuals who are not (in a favourite word of yours) monocultural.

Rangers culture is Anglicized to a great extent, viz., hooligan casual element, Union Flag (the only Scottish club to really fly it), Rule Britannia. it is Anglo-Scottish. just as the Scots-descended northern Irish in Ulster are...

Naturally the great politically motivated clubs of Lazio, Roma, Athletico Bilbao, etc are also anglicized with their hooligan casual elements also??????

Now i know we r completely off the point of this thread but Scots descended in Northern Ireland are almost completely Scots, not Anglo-Scots. In what way are they anglo? do they share the same religion? are they all descended from english settlers in scotland? As i said earlier you seem to be getting Britain (a concept and word developed by the Scots, not the English) confused with the English (or anglo or anglicized).

aussie_tim_1798 · 29/10/2003, 4:05 PM

look at a picture of a highlander, a clansman, in traditional Scottish dress.

then look at a picture of an Ulster-Scot, in his traditional Orangemen dress. marching with a bowler's hat, playing little English-style diddies on flute, and distinctly non-Celtic drums, speaking solely English, singing songs about a monarch of England.

at one point yes....they could be called Scots, of a sort...lowlanders all.... i'm sure you've heard the famous tales of when the marauding rebels of 1641 used to spare Scottish planters as opposed to English planters on the basis of their "race". and of course the United Irishman org was instigated by Presbyterians, who were also being discriminated against on account of the fact that they weren't Anglican. but that soon changed, and they thence sought to become as close to London as possible. now what are they? they're not Scottish, or English, or Irish, but a bunch of Unionist (no doubt because of their ambiguous culture) anglo-scottish-irish nutjobs with nothing positive to contribute to anyone.

"Britain" is not a concept and word developed by the Scots! it is a word in the ENGLISH language, an anglicization of the Latin Britainnia, and it is a concept, "developed" at the time of Henry VIII (NOT James I as is often thought) in connection with efforts to "unite" the two kingdoms, by the ENGLISH crown, not the Scottish one.

"There were nine counties in the province of Ulster at the time of the Plantation. Of those counties, two were to be settled entirely by Scots, two mostly by English and two mixed. The remaining three counties were not part of the 1610 Plantation scheme, but they had already been settled by both, the English and Scots. King James specifically excluded Highlander Scots from the colonization scheme; he believed that they would simply team up with the native Irish to cause discord and unrest."

- http://www.motherbedford.com/Irish3.htm

**Scotsman** · 29/10/2003, 5:18 PM

Aussie Tim have you ever been to Scotland?

You talk about Scotland but do you know how a Scotsman thinks?

Britain derives from Brythnic which is the Celtic clans of Wales and Cornwall.

Strathclyde Britons were of the same Celtic clan as the Welsh.

So someone from the Lowlands of Scotland is not Scottish?

Well I'm a Lowlander and my name is Watson - This derives from the Highland Clan of Buchannan.

When the Scotti 1st moved to Scotland there were PICTS (Celtic) Welsh (Celtic) and a small number of Angles in Scotland.

The 1st King of Scotland united Scotland and the main language was Gaelic.

The Scottish culture was taken on.

Scots language derives from the Angles but was never considered English.

This became the common political language and with English invations and then finally the Union English became the main language.

I support Celtic and support them as a football team and that is all.

Lionel Hutz · 30/10/2003, 1:49 AM

Originally posted by Scotsman
Hey troops this has turned a wee bit political.

Lionel I did think you sounded a wee bit Anti-Scottish but you did mention facts - I could it turn round and say that alot of innocent folk have died at the hands or Irishmen - IE Bombs etc - Now I know nothing of this topic and care not to and I also realise that not ALL irish folk condemn this.

Im sorry if the stating of these facts offend you but I do not see how stating these facts as a counterweight to the argument that Ireland and Scotland have had a perfect relationship in the past could be deemed "anti-scottish"
I was simply trying to point out that there are usually two sides to every story!

As for the remarks about Irishmen and bombs.....just cheap, and indeed somewhat childish point scoring in my opinion as it had nothing to do with how the thread had developed to that point and in any case is hardly a topic that has been swept under the carpet in recent years!

**Scotsman** · 30/10/2003, 10:15 AM

So in one hand you're saying that by staing facts about Scotland I took offence but on the other me stating fact about Ireland you have taken offence and that's acceptable as it's childish from me.

Hello!!

Practice what you preach Lionel!!

You talk a good game and that' s all.