A conditional common

front between the Old

Firm may be needed

Alasdair McKillop

 

In the past few weeks I have been waiting for the latest edition of Scottish Review with enhanced eagerness. The debate on sectarianism has been fascinating, even if participation can leave one feeling mentally bruised. I was intrigued to read Jeanette Findlay's (9 August) counter-thrust to my own piece and hope that I will be allowed to respond in turn: as a university student, opportunities for procrastination are to be seized with both hands.      Let me begin by stating that it is regrettable that she should have received abusive and inappropriate emails in the wake of the publication of her first SR piece. This is unacceptable.
     Scottish Review is an online current affairs magazine. Despite the many academics and ex-academics who contribute, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. The tone and some of my language was thus different to that which I might adopt in an academic context. For example, I would never dream of using the word 'trendy' in a piece of academic writing (I was a bit surprised when Microsoft Word informed me that 'trendiest' is a real word). This was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that the comparison to which it was applied has been adopted by people with a well defined position on the issue of sectarianism. It was not a comment on the validity of the evidence but the fact that it has been widely appropriated of late.
     In a similar vein, my addressing her as Jeanette Findlay was intended to be personal but also respectful. These things could do with a bit more personal and human in my opinion; the straw men and women have populated the debate for too long. Furthermore, it was not my intention to suggest that Findlay 'was not very intelligent'. I was a bit disappointed that she attributed such base intentions to me but I should also take some responsibility for how I framed my own argument.
     My suggestion that 'most people' would find the actions of Celtic fans at Tynecastle disgraceful was apparently lacking in content and rigour. I don't think it was particularly contentious to suggest that just as the physical attack on Neil Lennon was plainly wrong, so was the violence perpetrated by Celtic fans at the same venue. This was a value judgement made on the basis of observation of some of the basic moral and legal standards that pertain in our society. I certainly found both disgraceful and I hope the majority would mirror my stance – otherwise we have bigger problems than those being discussed here. I hope she can forgive a Rangers fan who wanted to see what it was like to be on the same side as 'most people'; it doesn't happen very often.
     I did not say that the IRA was engaged in a sectarian campaign. I said that the Kingsmill massacre was sectarian murder carried out by the IRA; there was nothing particularly nuanced about that. Findlay charges me with not providing a proper discussion of the IRA and its 'armed struggle' but she was guilty of the very same thing in the conclusion to her first contribution when she said that Celtic fans singing in support of the IRA was nothing more than a means of expressing support for a 32-county Irish republic. This came across as a convenient way to absolve her fellow fans of responsibility for voicing support for an organisation that carried out Kingsmill and other atrocities.
     Yes the primary target of IRA violence was the security services – unlike their opponents they were foolish enough to be walking the streets wearing uniforms – but hundreds of victims were innocent civilians. This might not be nuanced discussion but the reality was brutal and uncomplicated. By chanting specifically for the organisation, support is being expressed for an ideology and objectives but also the tactics used to achieve these; the two can't just be neatly separated.
     In relation to the debate on sectarianism, Jeanette Findlay suggests that no further discussion of this is needed. I would strongly disagree. Chanting in support of an organisation that committed sectarian murder shouldn't escape the audit. Why does support for Irish nationalism have to take this particular form? To those Celtic fans who think that is an important dimension of their support for the club I say: 'Can you not do better?'.
     Jeanette Findlay also said that I claimed 'it might have been the fault of Irish immigrants' that they achieved economic parity in Scotland 100 years after their counterparts in America. This was not what I said. I said that they might have contributed in some way. I did not give any indication as to how significant I thought this contribution was relative to other factors or what form it might have taken. I certainly did not use the emotive word 'fault' or claim that the Irish were solely to blame.

 

     Professor Devine has pointed out that the Irish in America used political machines and trade unions for collective advancement but in Scotland they failed to do this despite having a leading place in the labour movement from the end of the 19th century. Actually this is somewhat admirable but it calls into question the role of the Irish middle class (there has always been one) and political figures.
     To reframe the general point I was originally trying to make: Scottish society might not have been solely responsible but the way the comparison has been used often implicitly or explicitly gives that impression. Looked at another way we might highlight the exceptional factors evident in American society that facilitated such incredible social mobility and note the fact that the Irish in Scotland – Catholic and Protestant – settled predominantly in an arc stretching from Ayrshire up through Glasgow and continuing to the western fringes of West Lothian. The 20th-century narrative of this arc has been one of serious economic decline and post-industrial distress, a subject that has been discussed by other SR contributors in the past. Personally I think relating the poor rate of social mobility to this factor has much explanatory power. Whatever the balance of factors I think there needs to be some sort of acknowledgement that the reasons behind it are complex, many and interrelated.
     E F Fanning also took the time to respond to my piece. It is true that 'whataboutery' is indeed an unfortunate by-product of the debate but it is a related to the dogma and the defence of entrenched positions which have characterised 'exchanges'. In my first piece I noted that this had been a characteristic of the Rangers support in the past.
     The listing of grievances, the denial of any culpability whatsoever for the current states of affairs and an unwillingness to try and view the problem from a different perspective all lead to the debate taking on a frustrating cyclical or back and forth air. They also make it tedious and pedantic, even for those who strap on the armour and are foolish enough to offer an opinion (I suspect those hardy souls still following the debate are nodding in agreement at the moment but I have no empirical evidence to support this contention).
     Calls for apologies for past behaviour suggest that, unfortunately, there are still people who think that the resolution of this problem will only come with the defeat of the 'other' side thus allowing posterity to point and say 'look they were in the wrong the whole time'. This is unrealistic.
     Although neither of my respondents commented on this, I ended my first piece on what I thought was a relatively positive note by suggesting that it might be beneficial for the fans of Celtic and Rangers to recognise that there are common problems that confront the two clubs and therefore a conditional common front might be required depending on future developments. Some people, however, seem unable to resist the call to man the age-old barricades.
     I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that the rancour is suddenly going to be eradicated from the rivalry (I passionately hope that Rangers beat Celtic every time the two teams meet – if I need two hands to keep track of the goals then even better). The intensity of the rivalry is something that both sets of fans relish. The challenge is to make sure that it is conducted at a temperature just below boiling point and in such a manner that does not lead to violence.
     In the meantime, I wait with some trepidation for the next meeting with my PhD supervisor.

 

Alasdair McKillop is a PhD student in history at the University of Edinburgh