Kenneth Roy
Could Mr Salmond
be blown away
by his own charisma?
The Cafe
Requiem
Anthony Seaton
Three cheers for
our under-valued
public sector
The Cafe 2
James Robertson
and Tom Morton
Quintin Jardine
The day I left
Oz Blackstone’s wife
dead on the kitchen floor
John Cameron
Cruise ship captains
Andrew Hook
We were told to forget
our cares at the door.
I didn’t forget mine
The Cafe 3
Cybernats
Walter Humes
What on earth has
happened to
my dongle?
Islay McLeod
Lust in Balloch
06.09.11
No. 447
The Cafe 2
John Kelly’s attempt to equate the activities of the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan with the atrocities committed by the Provisional IRA is misleading, distasteful and frankly rather shameful.
While he correctly condemns the large number of Celtic fans who continue to indulge their fairly vociferous support for the Irish Republican Army, to compare this with Rangers FC’s recognition of British servicemen and women (by twisting another correspondent’s discussion of ideology) is very tenuous.
Likewise, he highlights the fact that Celtic FC have never been ‘anti-protestant’. Perhaps John Kelly would like to draft a companion piece considering the number of protestants who have been members of Celtic’s board since the formation of the club in 1888. I find that this pseudo-intellectual and short-sighted discussion of sectarianism in Scotland (in this case written with an obvious agenda) adds little to the debate, and simply attempts to defend the indefensible.
John Kelly is careful to address the fact that both Old Firm clubs have issues to address but, in his opinion, it is clear that the problems lie in Govan. Perhaps John Kelly should apologise for this one-sided, rather dubious and skewed excuse for serious analysis.
Dr Derek J Patrick
Since we cannot afford the large-scale marketing of the mainstream press, SR’s remarkable growth as an independent magazine is based largely on word of mouth
Here are examples of our journalism:
* SR played a leading role in the successful campaign to save St Margaret of Scotland Hospice
* An SR investigation into Scotland’s care homes revealed the truth about Southern Cross a full year before the company collapsed. We put the facts in the public domain. They were ignored until it was too late
* SR campaigned for greater transparency in Scottish public life and won a landmark judgement from the Scottish information commissioner which has led to a transformation in the information available about executive salaries and pensions in public bodies
* Having discovered elderly people still living in a near-derelict block of flats in Glasgow, sometimes without a water supply, SR campaigned to have them decently re-housed. With the help of Scotland’s housing minister, Alex Neil, we succeeded
* SR continues to campaign – so far without success – to broaden the range of appointments to national organisations beyond a self-perpetuating elite
Since SR does not accept advertising or sponsorship of any kind, and since the support it receives from its publisher (the Institute of Contemporary Scotland) is limited, SR depends on the generosity of individual supporters through the Friends of the Scottish Review
Click here
Our self-flagellation over
the minor issue of
sectarianism
Charles Lewis
Over the past decade or so, I have followed the general debate on sectarianism in Scotland and been particularly intrigued with the current discussion of the issue in the Scottish Review.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was raised in Glasgow by non-religious English parents whose allegiances lay with Manchester United. However, I became a Rangers supporter, and remain so, despite leaving Scotland to pursue my career in England, Switzerland and the United States. I would like to start by addressing some of the points made by John Kelly (30 August
My impression of the dialogue surrounding sectarian bigotry is one of increasing incredulity at some of the positions taken, a prime example of which is John Kelly’s attempt to draw a parallel between Irish Republican violence and the British Army’s presence in Iraq. No matter what John Kelly asserts, I have difficulty comparing an ad hoc group of armed terrorists such as the IRA with the legally constituted and democratically controlled armed forces of a sovereign country.
I also find it surprising that Mr Kelly is critical of the reception given to British servicemen and women by Rangers supporters when football clubs across Britain welcomed them as part of the ‘Help for Heroes’ campaign. The exception to this was, of course, Celtic Football Club, some of whose supporters infamously displayed their disdain for Remembrance Sunday with a banner emblazoned with the slogan ‘No Bloodstained Poppies On Our Hoops’. When faced with a conflict one disagrees with, the tradition in Britain is to support the troops while condemning the politicians who send them to war. Given that one of those politicians became chairman of Celtic Football Club, I can appreciate that this outlook elicits a certain degree of discomfort for some. But what is truly absurd in Mr Kelly’s argument is the attempt to legitimise the IRA in order to excuse offensive chanting by Celtic supporters.
In general terms, I find John Kelly’s perspective to be remarkably one-dimensional. He appears to adhere to the theory that Rangers and their supporters are anti-Catholic and anti-Irish; ‘ethno-religious bigotry’ is the term he coins for this. The problem with theories is that they need facts to support them and this one consequently fails to stand. Rangers have Catholic players, had a Catholic captain and a Catholic manager, all of whom have been met with resounding approval by the vast majority of Rangers supporters.
There is a conspicuous dearth of discussion within the Scottish media based on indicators such as economic success or social exclusion that one might expect if sectarianism were a genuinely serious problem.
Indeed, contrary to popular perception, Rangers signed Catholic players as long ago as the 1890s. Rangers also have a large number of Irish supporters who travel over regularly for games. Surprising though it may seem to some, Rangers supporters really have no interest in the religion of Rangers players whether they be Protestant, Muslim, Orthodox, Jewish or Catholic. What does concern them is their performance on the field of play.
Mr Kelly’s demand for an apology from Rangers Football Club is very telling. Firstly it implies that sectarianism is, and always has been, a one-way street. It is about apportioning blame while absolving others from any suggestion of fault and it also involves humiliating the apologiser. As one analyses Mr Kelly’s argument, whether it be his excuses for the IRA, his failure to hold Celtic to the same standards he expects from Rangers or his demand for an apology, one could be forgiven for thinking that he is more interested in point scoring within the Old Firm rivalry than in a substantive discussion addressing sectarianism.
One striking feature about the wider sectarianism debate is that the core of the ‘problem’ is commonly portrayed as involving vocal support at football matches. Indeed, in certain cases there appears to be an implicit assumption that this is the cause of religious bigotry, although to my knowledge no evidence has ever been presented to support this theory. I say ‘problem’ because it is unclear to me that there is a real issue here beyond a few bruised sensibilities. Certainly I accept that songs and chants may be offensive to some but this is true of football songs and chants the world over.
However, bearing in mind the multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-religious make-up of Old Firm teams and the lack of any related hostility from their supporters, then it is justifiable to question whether there is a link between the origins of these songs and the intent with which they are sung today. Rather than demonstrating a deep-rooted ‘ethno-religious bigotry’, I suggest that they are sung simply because they always have been. Tradition and the ‘winding-up’ of rivals are far more important factors than ethno-religious hatred.
There is a conspicuous dearth of discussion within the Scottish media based on indicators such as economic success or social exclusion that one might expect if sectarianism were a genuinely serious problem. Indeed, statistics for ‘mixed marriages’ point to a high degree of social interaction. Given the prevalence with which sectarianism is portrayed as being synonymous with ‘anti-Catholicism’, the string of Catholic lord provosts of Glasgow and the relatively large number of Catholic MPs suggest the political world is hardly discriminatory, while the existence of a state-funded Catholic school system is a privilege effectively denied to all other groups.
The presence of prominent Catholic academics in the pages of this journal is indicative of equality in terms of educational opportunities. With the exception of the occasional rant from politicians or clerics against the Act of Settlement, sectarianism invariably seems to revolve around football.
There are occasions where churches merit criticism and we should not
shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices
of these churches.
Post-devolution Scotland’s apparent obsession with sectarianism comes at a time when churches in general are quietly dying from disinterest. Church attendance is increasingly a ritual adhered to for christenings, marriages and funerals. Otherwise, most people simply cannot be bothered. In 1984, over 250,000 went to see Pope John Paul II in Bellahouston Park; in 2010, barely 60,000 turned up to see Pope Benedict XVI.
Yet, as public interest in religion wanes, sensitivity to perceived sectarianism has taken centre stage. Charities have been created with full-time positions. Newspapers jump on incidents with screaming headlines. Politicians, ever vigilant for the opportunity to attract publicity and votes, make grave pronouncements. The police argue that they need more resources to deal with the problem, while academics, lawyers and journalists promote themselves through various media outlets. All this represents a tremendous mobilisation of resources for a few terrace chants in questionable taste. The suspicion arises that there are some in positions of influence who see sectarianism as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Let us be clear. It is neither bigoted nor sectarian to criticise the policies and practices of the Catholic Church nor those of any other church for that matter. It is one thing to discriminate against an individual on the basis of their intimately held belief; it is quite another to disagree with a church’s teachings such as those on birth control. There are occasions where churches merit criticism and we should not shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices of these churches.
Can Jack McConnell’s melodramatic phrase ‘Scotland’s shame’ be justified when it primarily denotes football tribalism? Might it not be more productive if politicians’ and academics’ energies were devoted to addressing matters such as state of the economy, poverty and the appalling health record in some parts of the country? Or, if we are serious about violence and anti-social behaviour, why not focus on knife-crime, racial abuse and attacks on partners, which are viewed by the public as far more important concerns? It is time this national self-flagellation over a relatively minor and declining social problem came to an end.
Charles Lewis retired recently after a career mainly spent in the accounting industry – 15 of them as a partner – where he specialised in systems audit and the audit of controls over financial reporting for very large public companies. He currently lives in the USA
our cares at the door.
I didn’t forget mine
The Cafe 3
Cybernats
Walter Humes
What on earth has
happened to
my dongle?
Islay McLeod
Lust in Balloch
06.09.11
No. 447
The Cafe 2
John Kelly’s attempt to equate the activities of the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan with the atrocities committed by the Provisional IRA is misleading, distasteful and frankly rather shameful.
While he correctly condemns the large number of Celtic fans who continue to indulge their fairly vociferous support for the Irish Republican Army, to compare this with Rangers FC’s recognition of British servicemen and women (by twisting another correspondent’s discussion of ideology) is very tenuous.
Likewise, he highlights the fact that Celtic FC have never been ‘anti-protestant’. Perhaps John Kelly would like to draft a companion piece considering the number of protestants who have been members of Celtic’s board since the formation of the club in 1888. I find that this pseudo-intellectual and short-sighted discussion of sectarianism in Scotland (in this case written with an obvious agenda) adds little to the debate, and simply attempts to defend the indefensible.
John Kelly is careful to address the fact that both Old Firm clubs have issues to address but, in his opinion, it is clear that the problems lie in Govan. Perhaps John Kelly should apologise for this one-sided, rather dubious and skewed excuse for serious analysis.
Dr Derek J Patrick
Since we cannot afford the large-scale marketing of the mainstream press, SR’s remarkable growth as an independent magazine is based largely on word of mouth
Here are examples of our journalism:
* SR played a leading role in the successful campaign to save St Margaret of Scotland Hospice
* An SR investigation into Scotland’s care homes revealed the truth about Southern Cross a full year before the company collapsed. We put the facts in the public domain. They were ignored until it was too late
* SR campaigned for greater transparency in Scottish public life and won a landmark judgement from the Scottish information commissioner which has led to a transformation in the information available about executive salaries and pensions in public bodies
* Having discovered elderly people still living in a near-derelict block of flats in Glasgow, sometimes without a water supply, SR campaigned to have them decently re-housed. With the help of Scotland’s housing minister, Alex Neil, we succeeded
* SR continues to campaign – so far without success – to broaden the range of appointments to national organisations beyond a self-perpetuating elite
Since SR does not accept advertising or sponsorship of any kind, and since the support it receives from its publisher (the Institute of Contemporary Scotland) is limited, SR depends on the generosity of individual supporters through the Friends of the Scottish Review
Click here
Our self-flagellation over
the minor issue of
sectarianism
Charles Lewis
Over the past decade or so, I have followed the general debate on sectarianism in Scotland and been particularly intrigued with the current discussion of the issue in the Scottish Review.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was raised in Glasgow by non-religious English parents whose allegiances lay with Manchester United. However, I became a Rangers supporter, and remain so, despite leaving Scotland to pursue my career in England, Switzerland and the United States. I would like to start by addressing some of the points made by John Kelly (30 August
My impression of the dialogue surrounding sectarian bigotry is one of increasing incredulity at some of the positions taken, a prime example of which is John Kelly’s attempt to draw a parallel between Irish Republican violence and the British Army’s presence in Iraq. No matter what John Kelly asserts, I have difficulty comparing an ad hoc group of armed terrorists such as the IRA with the legally constituted and democratically controlled armed forces of a sovereign country.
I also find it surprising that Mr Kelly is critical of the reception given to British servicemen and women by Rangers supporters when football clubs across Britain welcomed them as part of the ‘Help for Heroes’ campaign. The exception to this was, of course, Celtic Football Club, some of whose supporters infamously displayed their disdain for Remembrance Sunday with a banner emblazoned with the slogan ‘No Bloodstained Poppies On Our Hoops’. When faced with a conflict one disagrees with, the tradition in Britain is to support the troops while condemning the politicians who send them to war. Given that one of those politicians became chairman of Celtic Football Club, I can appreciate that this outlook elicits a certain degree of discomfort for some. But what is truly absurd in Mr Kelly’s argument is the attempt to legitimise the IRA in order to excuse offensive chanting by Celtic supporters.
In general terms, I find John Kelly’s perspective to be remarkably one-dimensional. He appears to adhere to the theory that Rangers and their supporters are anti-Catholic and anti-Irish; ‘ethno-religious bigotry’ is the term he coins for this. The problem with theories is that they need facts to support them and this one consequently fails to stand. Rangers have Catholic players, had a Catholic captain and a Catholic manager, all of whom have been met with resounding approval by the vast majority of Rangers supporters.
There is a conspicuous dearth of discussion within the Scottish media based on indicators such as economic success or social exclusion that one might expect if sectarianism were a genuinely serious problem.
Indeed, contrary to popular perception, Rangers signed Catholic players as long ago as the 1890s. Rangers also have a large number of Irish supporters who travel over regularly for games. Surprising though it may seem to some, Rangers supporters really have no interest in the religion of Rangers players whether they be Protestant, Muslim, Orthodox, Jewish or Catholic. What does concern them is their performance on the field of play.
Mr Kelly’s demand for an apology from Rangers Football Club is very telling. Firstly it implies that sectarianism is, and always has been, a one-way street. It is about apportioning blame while absolving others from any suggestion of fault and it also involves humiliating the apologiser. As one analyses Mr Kelly’s argument, whether it be his excuses for the IRA, his failure to hold Celtic to the same standards he expects from Rangers or his demand for an apology, one could be forgiven for thinking that he is more interested in point scoring within the Old Firm rivalry than in a substantive discussion addressing sectarianism.
One striking feature about the wider sectarianism debate is that the core of the ‘problem’ is commonly portrayed as involving vocal support at football matches. Indeed, in certain cases there appears to be an implicit assumption that this is the cause of religious bigotry, although to my knowledge no evidence has ever been presented to support this theory. I say ‘problem’ because it is unclear to me that there is a real issue here beyond a few bruised sensibilities. Certainly I accept that songs and chants may be offensive to some but this is true of football songs and chants the world over.
However, bearing in mind the multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-religious make-up of Old Firm teams and the lack of any related hostility from their supporters, then it is justifiable to question whether there is a link between the origins of these songs and the intent with which they are sung today. Rather than demonstrating a deep-rooted ‘ethno-religious bigotry’, I suggest that they are sung simply because they always have been. Tradition and the ‘winding-up’ of rivals are far more important factors than ethno-religious hatred.
There is a conspicuous dearth of discussion within the Scottish media based on indicators such as economic success or social exclusion that one might expect if sectarianism were a genuinely serious problem. Indeed, statistics for ‘mixed marriages’ point to a high degree of social interaction. Given the prevalence with which sectarianism is portrayed as being synonymous with ‘anti-Catholicism’, the string of Catholic lord provosts of Glasgow and the relatively large number of Catholic MPs suggest the political world is hardly discriminatory, while the existence of a state-funded Catholic school system is a privilege effectively denied to all other groups.
The presence of prominent Catholic academics in the pages of this journal is indicative of equality in terms of educational opportunities. With the exception of the occasional rant from politicians or clerics against the Act of Settlement, sectarianism invariably seems to revolve around football.
There are occasions where churches merit criticism and we should not
shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices
of these churches.
Post-devolution Scotland’s apparent obsession with sectarianism comes at a time when churches in general are quietly dying from disinterest. Church attendance is increasingly a ritual adhered to for christenings, marriages and funerals. Otherwise, most people simply cannot be bothered. In 1984, over 250,000 went to see Pope John Paul II in Bellahouston Park; in 2010, barely 60,000 turned up to see Pope Benedict XVI.
Yet, as public interest in religion wanes, sensitivity to perceived sectarianism has taken centre stage. Charities have been created with full-time positions. Newspapers jump on incidents with screaming headlines. Politicians, ever vigilant for the opportunity to attract publicity and votes, make grave pronouncements. The police argue that they need more resources to deal with the problem, while academics, lawyers and journalists promote themselves through various media outlets. All this represents a tremendous mobilisation of resources for a few terrace chants in questionable taste. The suspicion arises that there are some in positions of influence who see sectarianism as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Let us be clear. It is neither bigoted nor sectarian to criticise the policies and practices of the Catholic Church nor those of any other church for that matter. It is one thing to discriminate against an individual on the basis of their intimately held belief; it is quite another to disagree with a church’s teachings such as those on birth control. There are occasions where churches merit criticism and we should not shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices of these churches.
Can Jack McConnell’s melodramatic phrase ‘Scotland’s shame’ be justified when it primarily denotes football tribalism? Might it not be more productive if politicians’ and academics’ energies were devoted to addressing matters such as state of the economy, poverty and the appalling health record in some parts of the country? Or, if we are serious about violence and anti-social behaviour, why not focus on knife-crime, racial abuse and attacks on partners, which are viewed by the public as far more important concerns? It is time this national self-flagellation over a relatively minor and declining social problem came to an end.
Charles Lewis retired recently after a career mainly spent in the accounting industry – 15 of them as a partner – where he specialised in systems audit and the audit of controls over financial reporting for very large public companies. He currently lives in the USA
06.09.11
No. 447
The Cafe 2While he correctly condemns the large number of Celtic fans who continue to indulge their fairly vociferous support for the Irish Republican Army, to compare this with Rangers FC’s recognition of British servicemen and women (by twisting another correspondent’s discussion of ideology) is very tenuous.
Likewise, he highlights the fact that Celtic FC have never been ‘anti-protestant’. Perhaps John Kelly would like to draft a companion piece considering the number of protestants who have been members of Celtic’s board since the formation of the club in 1888. I find that this pseudo-intellectual and short-sighted discussion of sectarianism in Scotland (in this case written with an obvious agenda) adds little to the debate, and simply attempts to defend the indefensible.
John Kelly is careful to address the fact that both Old Firm clubs have issues to address but, in his opinion, it is clear that the problems lie in Govan. Perhaps John Kelly should apologise for this one-sided, rather dubious and skewed excuse for serious analysis.
Here are examples of our journalism:
* An SR investigation into Scotland’s care homes revealed the truth about Southern Cross a full year before the company collapsed. We put the facts in the public domain. They were ignored until it was too late
* SR campaigned for greater transparency in Scottish public life and won a landmark judgement from the Scottish information commissioner which has led to a transformation in the information available about executive salaries and pensions in public bodies
* Having discovered elderly people still living in a near-derelict block of flats in Glasgow, sometimes without a water supply, SR campaigned to have them decently re-housed. With the help of Scotland’s housing minister, Alex Neil, we succeeded
* SR continues to campaign – so far without success – to broaden the range of appointments to national organisations beyond a self-perpetuating elite
Click here
Charles Lewis
In the interest of full disclosure, I was raised in Glasgow by non-religious English parents whose allegiances lay with Manchester United. However, I became a Rangers supporter, and remain so, despite leaving Scotland to pursue my career in England, Switzerland and the United States. I would like to start by addressing some of the points made by John Kelly (30 August
My impression of the dialogue surrounding sectarian bigotry is one of increasing incredulity at some of the positions taken, a prime example of which is John Kelly’s attempt to draw a parallel between Irish Republican violence and the British Army’s presence in Iraq. No matter what John Kelly asserts, I have difficulty comparing an ad hoc group of armed terrorists such as the IRA with the legally constituted and democratically controlled armed forces of a sovereign country.
I also find it surprising that Mr Kelly is critical of the reception given to British servicemen and women by Rangers supporters when football clubs across Britain welcomed them as part of the ‘Help for Heroes’ campaign. The exception to this was, of course, Celtic Football Club, some of whose supporters infamously displayed their disdain for Remembrance Sunday with a banner emblazoned with the slogan ‘No Bloodstained Poppies On Our Hoops’. When faced with a conflict one disagrees with, the tradition in Britain is to support the troops while condemning the politicians who send them to war. Given that one of those politicians became chairman of Celtic Football Club, I can appreciate that this outlook elicits a certain degree of discomfort for some. But what is truly absurd in Mr Kelly’s argument is the attempt to legitimise the IRA in order to excuse offensive chanting by Celtic supporters.
In general terms, I find John Kelly’s perspective to be remarkably one-dimensional. He appears to adhere to the theory that Rangers and their supporters are anti-Catholic and anti-Irish; ‘ethno-religious bigotry’ is the term he coins for this. The problem with theories is that they need facts to support them and this one consequently fails to stand. Rangers have Catholic players, had a Catholic captain and a Catholic manager, all of whom have been met with resounding approval by the vast majority of Rangers supporters.
Mr Kelly’s demand for an apology from Rangers Football Club is very telling. Firstly it implies that sectarianism is, and always has been, a one-way street. It is about apportioning blame while absolving others from any suggestion of fault and it also involves humiliating the apologiser. As one analyses Mr Kelly’s argument, whether it be his excuses for the IRA, his failure to hold Celtic to the same standards he expects from Rangers or his demand for an apology, one could be forgiven for thinking that he is more interested in point scoring within the Old Firm rivalry than in a substantive discussion addressing sectarianism.
One striking feature about the wider sectarianism debate is that the core of the ‘problem’ is commonly portrayed as involving vocal support at football matches. Indeed, in certain cases there appears to be an implicit assumption that this is the cause of religious bigotry, although to my knowledge no evidence has ever been presented to support this theory. I say ‘problem’ because it is unclear to me that there is a real issue here beyond a few bruised sensibilities. Certainly I accept that songs and chants may be offensive to some but this is true of football songs and chants the world over.
However, bearing in mind the multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-religious make-up of Old Firm teams and the lack of any related hostility from their supporters, then it is justifiable to question whether there is a link between the origins of these songs and the intent with which they are sung today. Rather than demonstrating a deep-rooted ‘ethno-religious bigotry’, I suggest that they are sung simply because they always have been. Tradition and the ‘winding-up’ of rivals are far more important factors than ethno-religious hatred.
There is a conspicuous dearth of discussion within the Scottish media based on indicators such as economic success or social exclusion that one might expect if sectarianism were a genuinely serious problem. Indeed, statistics for ‘mixed marriages’ point to a high degree of social interaction. Given the prevalence with which sectarianism is portrayed as being synonymous with ‘anti-Catholicism’, the string of Catholic lord provosts of Glasgow and the relatively large number of Catholic MPs suggest the political world is hardly discriminatory, while the existence of a state-funded Catholic school system is a privilege effectively denied to all other groups.
The presence of prominent Catholic academics in the pages of this journal is indicative of equality in terms of educational opportunities. With the exception of the occasional rant from politicians or clerics against the Act of Settlement, sectarianism invariably seems to revolve around football.
shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices
of these churches.
Yet, as public interest in religion wanes, sensitivity to perceived sectarianism has taken centre stage. Charities have been created with full-time positions. Newspapers jump on incidents with screaming headlines. Politicians, ever vigilant for the opportunity to attract publicity and votes, make grave pronouncements. The police argue that they need more resources to deal with the problem, while academics, lawyers and journalists promote themselves through various media outlets. All this represents a tremendous mobilisation of resources for a few terrace chants in questionable taste. The suspicion arises that there are some in positions of influence who see sectarianism as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Let us be clear. It is neither bigoted nor sectarian to criticise the policies and practices of the Catholic Church nor those of any other church for that matter. It is one thing to discriminate against an individual on the basis of their intimately held belief; it is quite another to disagree with a church’s teachings such as those on birth control. There are occasions where churches merit criticism and we should not shrink from that for fear of being smeared by the public relations offices of these churches.
Can Jack McConnell’s melodramatic phrase ‘Scotland’s shame’ be justified when it primarily denotes football tribalism? Might it not be more productive if politicians’ and academics’ energies were devoted to addressing matters such as state of the economy, poverty and the appalling health record in some parts of the country? Or, if we are serious about violence and anti-social behaviour, why not focus on knife-crime, racial abuse and attacks on partners, which are viewed by the public as far more important concerns? It is time this national self-flagellation over a relatively minor and declining social problem came to an end.
