A Response to Scottish Football's Sectarian Problem

I was dismayed to read an article on Bleacher Report entitled Scottish Football’s Sectarian Problem. I have no wish to enter into a sectarianism debate, or become involved in a tit-for-tat, “you’re worse than us” type argument, but some of the points made by the author, Samuel Aughey, really do require a response.

Mr. Aughey starts out by making the unsubstantiated claim that there is no sectarian problem in Scotland. Well, the various police forces in Scotland are required to keep a record of religiously-aggravated crimes which makes interesting reading. This is neither the time nor the place to expand, but suffice to say, sectarianism is a problem in Scotland, although the scale of that problem is open to debate.

The author then contradicts himself, laying out a catalogue of sectarian incidents, real and imagined, the blame for which he places at the door of Celtic Football Club, and Celtic management, players and supporters.

Let’s look at the author’s first claim—that Celtic were founded by an Irish Catholic priest to keep Catholics away “from the influence of the Protestant churches.”

Contrary to the author’s claim, Celtic were founded not by an Irish Catholic priest, but by a Marist monk, Brother Walfrid. The Head teacher of Sacred Heart parochial school in Glasgow’s east end in 1887, Walfrid left Co. Sligo as a child during the famine and was horrified by the poverty, hunger, and disease endured by the hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants to the second city of the Empire. Celtic was founded to raise funds to feed and clothe these starving immigrants.

Walfrid was further motivated by the ubiquitous presence of Protestant missionaries, eager to hand out food to the Irish on the condition that they publicly renounced their Catholic faith. Was it sectarian of him to try to do something about this? What was a Marist Brother to do?

Celtic was intended to be inclusive from the start. The typical Irish-founded football club in Scotland was called “Hibernians,” “Harp,” “Emerald,” “Shamrock,” or some such Irish-derived name. The new club was called “Celtic,” (pronounced with a hard “C”) at Walfrid’s insistence, because it was a name both Irish and Scots could identify with, encompassing their common cultural heritage. Brother Walfrid sought the support of both Catholic and Protestant, Irish and Scot, for his new club.

Unlike Rangers, who from 1920-89 knowingly employed only one Catholic player (who was told by the club to keep quiet about it after they found out), Celtic have always been open to all, and many of the greatest ever Celts have been Protestant. Celtic would be nothing today without the contribution of Jock Stein, the Protestant manager who led the club to their greatest victory.

Until the end of the First World War, Rangers were clearly Scotland’s second-biggest club. Only with the influx of Protestant shipyard workers from Belfast, and the adoption of a Protestants-only signing policy in 1920, did Rangers acquire the financial muscle to challenge Celtic’s supremacy in Scottish football.

In his rather hysterical and paranoid piece about Celtic/Catholic plots to destroy Rangers, Mr. Aughey complains that in the 1950’s, Celtic flew “the Irish Republican flag which they insisted on flying at their stadium in preference to the British Union Flag.”

He goes on to state that many people found this offensive because, “the IRA were engaged in one of their ongoing bombing campaigns against British citizens in Northern Ireland.”

First of all, the flag in question was (and is) the flag of the Republic of Ireland. Celtic have flown the Irish flag since their inception, first a gold harp on green background, then, since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, the tri-colour. It is flown on match-days only, in contrast to the flags of Scotland and the UK, which are flown constantly above Celtic Park.

Secondly, in 1952, when the Scottish Football Association attempted to force Celtic to take down the flag of Ireland, there was no “IRA bombing campaign.” The IRA Border Campaign which lasted from 1956-62 was still four year away. At that time, there had been no serious IRA activity in the north of Ireland in over 30 years.

Even taking account of IRA/Provisional IRA activities, why would anyone find the flag of the Republic of Ireland offensive?

Celtic refused to remove the flag, and to their great credit, Rangers did indeed back them, although it is stretching credibility beyond breaking point to suggest Rangers “saved” Celtic. This was an orchestrated attack on Celtic’s Irish heritage by the Scottish footballing establishment and the question must be asked, who were the bigots here?

Next, Mr. Aughey complains that Vatican-inspired plotters conducted an unspecified “hatchet-job” on Rangers, and that the then-Celtic manager (the universally-respected Martin O’Neill) “systematically and deliberately pinned the blame for all Scotland's sectarian problems at Rangers door.”

What actually happened in this instance is that during a press-conference before Celtic’s UEFA Champions League match with Barcelona in November 2004, O’Neill was asked a question by a Scottish journalist about the sending-off of former Northern Ireland internationalist Neil Lennon during the match against Rangers the weekend before.

O’Neill said that Lennon had been the subject of sectarian and racially motivated hatred from the Rangers support. This was picked up by a UEFA delegate, and following an investigation by UEFA, Rangers were fined over their supporters’ singing of a charming little ditty entitled The Billy Boys. To the tune of Marching Through Georgia, Rangers fans had for decades exulted in being “up to their knees in Fenian blood.”

Celtic’s response was a “deafening silence” rages Mr. Aughey. Does the author imagine that Celtic could or should have said something to change the fact that Rangers supporters routinely broke UEFA rules on sectarian chanting? Maybe silence was the only appropriate response from Celtic.

In the case of Rangers Vice-Chairman Donald Findlay QC, in addition to The Sash, he was filmed singing The Billy Boys, on the night that a Catholic Celtic supporter was murdered in Glasgow, shot in the chest by a crossbow bolt fired by, you guessed it, a Rangers supporter. You bet Rangers were hugely embarrassed (by Findlay’s singing that is).

That happened in 1999. The incident involving the two Celtic players referred to by Mr. Aughey happened not around the same time, but about five years later. The players were filmed on a mobile phone camera, at a Celtic supporters function in Ireland, singing along to the well known folk song, The Fields of Athenry, a song popular with Celtic supporters, and indeed a song much-loved by Irish and non-Irish people the world over.

In the grainy images, with poor sound quality, it is far from conclusive that the players did anything, other than sing the words to the song. I wonder which verse or lines Mr. Aughey finds offensive?

Mr. Aughey’s piece descends into the gutter with references to child abuse at Celtic Boys Club. First of all, wasn’t the article supposed to be about sectarianism? Why mention something which is clearly not sectarian?

Secondly, wasn’t the article supposed to be about Celtic and Rangers? Why mention something about Celtic Boys Club, which is a completely separate organization to Celtic Football Club?

Thirdly, why the insistence on referring to child abuse amongst clergymen? What has the Church to do with Celtic, or indeed Rangers?

Fourthly, the person in question was never an employee of Celtic Football Club.

Mr. Aughey’s piece, purporting to educate the unwary on sectarianism in Scottish football, is nothing more than an ill-informed tissue of lies, half-truths and distortions. I could easily respond with a litany of allegations of sectarianism involving Rangers - management players and supporters - but that would be extremely unhelpful, not to mention something which really has no relevance on a sports website.