Summer on Mull (1)

Photograph by Islay McLeod

 

 

We are having an open

debate. Yet still I receive

abusive emails at work

Jeanette Findlay

 

I am delighted that SR is the kind of place where we can have a reasoned and temperate discussion on the issue of sectarianism. This makes it almost unique in Scottish public life and, in fact, may be a very important element in relation to both the upcoming legislation and to reaching some resolution of these issues, if only in terms of the readership of publications such as this. I may be overstating it but, in my experience, there is no other space in which this has happened.
     In that spirit, I would like to respond to both Alasdair McKillop and Mark Elliott, both of whom have identified themselves as academics. I did not so identify myself, but I am one and I am happy to continue the discussion using the norms of our profession.
     Alasdair McKillop begins by referring to some evidence I cited as 'trendy'.  This is not a normal term to describe evidence of any kind; either the evidence is valid or not and whether it has been widely quoted is irrelevant. His reference to the source of the evidence, Tom Devine, is certainly respectful but he states without much by way of elucidation that Professsor Devine's original point is more nuanced than the way I presented it. 
     I recognise the limitations of space which prevented him for expanding on this point and I hope he will accept that I was simply delivering a summary of the same evidence which he does not dispute. The one substantive point that Alasdair McKillop makes in this regard is that it might have been the fault of the Irish immigrants to Scotland that they didn't achieve occupational parity till nearly 100 years later than the Irish who went to America. A significant point such as this should have been supported by some evidence or examples and I would like to hear more from McKillop on this point.
     Towards the end of his piece, McKillop states: 'It seems to be a feature of the debate on sectarianism that people are allowed to interpret what others mean when they say something'. I agree that this is a common failing in the debate but, unfortunately, he is guilty of precisely the same thing he accuses others of.     
      At various points, he says that I inferred, said, or think things which I did not say and which I don't actually think. Examples of this are statements to the effect that I think that all Celtic supporters are morally pure (the meaning of which is not clear). He says: 'The bottom line is that Ms Findlay appears to be suggesting that the culture and actions of her own supporters are morally beyond reproach'. I didn't say this, and it would be a very foolish person indeed who would presume to say this on behalf of tens of thousands of people, most of whom they have not met. I am not clear what it would mean to say that a culture is moral or immoral (maybe, as an economist, this falls outside the remit of my discipline).
     McKillop states: 'What she failed to point out was that Celtic supporters have been to the fore in perpetrating activities that most people would find disgraceful.'  This is a statement without content and which lacks rigour. It is not acceptable to back up your views by referring to the views of 'most people' which is why it should not be deployed when discussing contentious issues. With reference to the game at Tynecastle, when Lennon was attacked by a Hearts fan, McKillop says Celtic fans attacked stewards. I was at the game and I did not see this or hear anyone mention it. However, it appears that there is filmed evidence that it did happen, albeit in response to a teenage girl being bear-hugged then grappled to the ground by stewards.

 

     Throughout his piece, McKillop adopts a rather unfortunate and unduly personal tone in relation to me and to my motivation. He refers to me throughout as 'Ms Findlay', which is in contrast to the style of address used for everyone else he mentions; he talks of me 'pronouncing' on issues rather than simply discussing/debating/writing; and at one point he says: 'Others who are perhaps more savvy than Ms Findlay would argue that support for PIRA is unacceptable but supporting the "old IRA" is legitimate and non-sectarian'.  This comes across as nothing more than a contrived opportunity to suggest that I am not very intelligent because he then proceeds to say that the very thing that those 'more savvy' people might say is also wrong. 
     He goes on to say: 'This brings me to her final point regarding Celtic fans singing in support of the IRA – something, apparently, they should be allowed to do with no questions asked'. In fact, all I said about this was that it wasn't sectarian, a view he acknowledges has been accepted in law. I explicitly allowed for the fact that people could, and indeed do, think a variety of things about this and about whether it is appropriate, so he is again attributing to me things that I did not say.
     He then lists a sectarian act which has been attributed to the IRA and uses this as proof that the IRA was engaged in a sectarian campaign. A proper discussion of the legitimacy of any armed struggle is, to use Alasdair McKillop's own words, 'more nuanced' than this and he has been very selective in his use of evidence. Furthermore, the same approach could be applied to every armed force in every conflict since history began. I would contend that neither in their public statements nor in the overwhelming majority of their actions was there a sectarian element to the actions of the IRA. In McKillop’s own words: 'An end to blanket condemnations would also be nice'. However, I do not think a further discussion of this is either productive or necessary. The legal position is, as we both agree, clear. 
     Someone, I can't remember who, has said that just because you hate something does not make it hateful. I accept that support for Irish Republicanism causes some people, even many people, distress but you cannot, on that basis, deny people the right to take that view. I am not clear what Mark Elliott's point is precisely but these comments probably serve as a reply to him also. Notwithstanding all of that, however, I agree that some people who are singing about the IRA are not doing it in support of any political aim or expressing any historical or cultural identity but are just engaging in the age-old activity of winding up the opposition support. That is where my mention of appropriateness comes in. 
     I apologise to Alasdair McKillop if this sounds like feedback from a meeting with his PhD supervisor, but in this debate, far more than many others, it is important to try to be precise; to say exactly, and no more than, what you mean to say and to treat the writings and statements of others in the same manner. To Mr McKillop's credit he has engaged in open debate in his own name unlike those who have sought out my work email address and emailed me abusive and inappropriate emails since my first SR piece was published.

 

Jeanette Findlay is an economist working in a Scottish university