More Thoughts on Scots Independence – by Falloch and (Again) by Winston Smith

Winston Smith’s post yesterday has provoked some reaction, as I thought it might.

Winston himself has provided a lengthy follow-up piece, but first I want to offer you Falloch’s opinion in which he goes through Winston’s piece and comments on it. Falloch’s comments are in bold.

I will see you at the end of Falloch’s comments in time to introduce Winston’s further words of wisdom.


“I’m not a football fan and I generally wish you would all concentrate on more important issues. But, I have to say, there is a sense that Celtic’s victory last night was one of those special historic moments. It’s a great result for Scotland too and goes beyond football.”

What a way to warm up your audience, put them on the back foot immediately with a little patronising. The first sentence is a bit wordy though Winston, you could have shortened it to “Halfwits, listen to me!”

Sport does indeed occasionally reach out past its own sphere, unfortunately though more often than not this is the result of politicians attempting to utilise it for their own ends (Salmond and his Saltire at Wimbledon, anyone?). However, I’m honestly not sure that last night was one of those occasions, as great as it was. I really do not believe that the result and Celtic’s subsequent inclusion in today’s UEFA Champions League draw (Barca again!) has had, or will have any effect, profound or otherwise on Scottish society other than very happy Celtic supporters.
The result (not the game itself, because you don’t subject yourself to anything so trivial) may have enticed you to put down “Lanark” for a moment or two, but I think that’s the extent of it.

“Little wonder then that Rangers fans are hurting today. They hurt because they have separated themselves from Scotland. Rangers fans revel in Scotland’s failures nowadays, not our successes. Just recently on a Rangers forum, for example, I was shocked to read that a majority of them wished England success in a football game against Scotland.”

If The Rangers Football Club Plc fans are hurting at all, it is due to the competitive nature, at varying levels, scope and intensity, of the relationship they have with Celtic fans. I would be doubtful if Scottish identity plays a part, primarily because I think most of them castigate Celtic and Celtic fans for being Irish and not Scottish/British (manifest in the songs they apparently STILL sing), whether the fans or the club have claimed such an identity or not.

Indeed, what about those fans that would support the Irish national football team in a match against Scotland, would you be “shocked” at this betrayal of Scotia? You say “we aspire to be tolerant of varying faiths, religions, and cultures”, yet you seem fairly intolerant of support for the English football team from anyone living or born in Scotland.

You probably are not aware, seeing as you are not a football fan (why would you be!), but a Scottish-born ex-Celtic player was continually verbally abused at football grounds the length and breadth of the country for having the temerity to choose the Irish national team over the Scottish national team. Are you aware that the largest minority in Scotland is the English? We are in the realms of birth, blood and belonging here, and unfortunately accents identify a man as being different before his attackers ask him where he was born – you can ask the many English people who are verbally and physically assaulted on the streets of Scotland.

In your analysis that fans of The Rangers Football Club Plc “have separated themselves from Scotland”, you reveal the dark Janus-faced nationalism which a lot of people fear, leading them to wonder that if a ‘Yes’ vote is achieved next September, how will all those who voted ‘No’ be treated?

You ask us (Celtic fans) to put aside our historical grievances: firstly, I’m not sure that ALL Celtic fans do have historical grievances, but those of an Irish nationalist persuasion certainly can’t proclaim their political beliefs (yes, some football fans think of things other than football, who knew eh?!) for fear of prosecution thanks to legislation passed by the current Scottish nationalist government.

“Celtic fans need to understand that there is a growing rejection of what Rangers stood for, all across Scotland. Proof of that is there for all to see, in the groundswell of opposition to Rangers being crowbarred into the SPL last year, in voting trends, in football forums up and down the country, on the streets and in coffee shops — almost everywhere.”

I’m unsure as to how voting trends show a rejection of Unionism (I’m assuming that is what you mean by “what Rangers stood for”). Obviously the vote for the Conservatives has been steadily dropping since the late 1980s, although it has maintained at circa 500,000 for the past few general and local council elections. It is well documented that there are people voting for the SNP who don’t want independence, and those who vote for unionist parties that do. It could be argued The Rangers Football Club Plc also stood/stand for the neo-liberal model of using other people’s money to generate private wealth, and it can be construed that both Salmond and Swinney are keen devotees of that doctrine due to their contention that an indy Scotland would/should be able to borrow on the international financial markets due to the strength of the oil reserves.

What about the connection between the SNP and Jim McColl (Scotland’s most successful entrepreneur according to the SNP, and keen advocate of the Yes vote – is he considered a bad unionist in your analysis? Do you know that he is a The Rangers Football Club Plc? supporter and possible future owner? A The Rangers Football Club Plc supporter and not a unionist, mind-blowing eh?!)

“Outside of Kinning Park, the Union Jack is considered offensive just about everywhere in Scotland. Scottish people generally want nothing to do with Northern Ireland’s problems, except where we might help fairly resolve them, and we aspire to be tolerant of varying faiths, religions, and cultures.”

Again, your aspirations may need a little work, because you certainly don’t appear to be tolerant of those cultures that hold the Union Flag (the ‘Jack’ is flown on a ship) as central to their identity, or are you playing to the gallery here? Are ok with the SNP banning expressions of Irish nationalism?

Also, you possess huge generalisations about the attitudes and loyalties extant in Scotland and the Scottish people.

“We need Celtic and Celtic fans to play their part in the forthcoming referendum and vote favourably for independence. It just makes sense. Celtic could be the true champions of Scotland in that competition, and Scotland could make real progress towards building a new, better, country, making us all winners.”

Who is the ‘We’? Are Celtic fans not currently part of your group? And if there is a ‘We’, who is the ‘Them’?

“vote favourably for independence” – are there implications if anyone doesn’t?

“If you can imagine a Scotland that invested in its economy and created dignified jobs for people, if you can imagine a Scotland that didn’t take part in these evil foreign wars but vehemently opposed them, imagine a culture of hope and optimism instead of one that reduced people to bitterness and poverty (in a Scotland that didn’t dump half of its population on the scrap-heap), if you can imagine all that, you can have it. It’s that simple.”

Imagine a world where the international system of finance and industry doesn’t exist!

“So, I am asking all Celtic fans to put all their historic grievances to one side. You can always go back to them, if you want to. Get behind the Yes campaign and you could do more to undermine those representatives of Unionism and their vile agenda than you ever will on a football field. That and more.”

The irony is that the singing of certain songs and the waving of particular flags may have, in some way small or large, helped the Yes campaign if they hadn’t been banned.

So, Celtic fans can forget their historic grievances (whatever they are, and if they have them) until the Yes vote is obtained, and we can return to them afterward. Implying that we will still have grievances in an indy Scotia?

“Posted by Winston Smith”

Winston, maybe it was the patronising opening sentence, or your facile under developed argument, or maybe your intolerant and uneducated approach to the subject matter which made me write this trite reply. Maybe it was a combination of all three, I don’t know. But what I do know is that Celtic supporters and those who support other football teams (I know, why would you!), including The Rangers Football Club Plc, and also people who do not follow football at all (I don’t look down on you for it Winston, well…maybe a wee bit), are not an homogenous group, just like the Scottish society.

Posted by Falloch


And now we have Winston’s follow up comments – I should make clear that neither writer has seen the other’s response (until now) so if there are overlaps, or you feel matters are not addressed fully, that will be why.

Feel free to chip in with the independence debate in the comments!

Take it away Winston!


As expected, responses to my post from those of a Rangers supporting persuasion are entirely negative. Disappointing that they are not alone in that though.

The negative responses seem to fall into a couple of categories which I’d like to try and respond to.

1) We hate or don’t trust the SNP and / or Alex Salmond.

Nobody is asking you to trust Salmond or the SNP. We have a choice to make that goes way beyond party politics. The SNP secured our opportunity to make a decision on independence, but we owe them nothing. After independence, we can create a new political system that accommodates and reflects the will of the people. It will be democratic and you can vote for whatever party and policies you want. Compare that to what you have now — there are more Pandas than Tory MPs in Scotland, yet here we are again being dragged into a war by the Tories.

2) We need more info on how an independent Scotland would function in terms of economics and politics. What about the pound, Europe, etc, etc?

There are a million important questions we should be discussing. But let me throw some light on a huge conspiracy at the heart of this whole debate, a conspiracy that implicates the media, particularly the BBC, and most political parties in Scotland who are aware of the downright dishonesty of the debate so far and how important it is to control it by any means.

First of all, all those questions are being squarely directed at the SNP. There is rarely a day that goes by where we don’t hear of some news report that includes the words “independence” and “warning” and the SNP are put on the TV and expected to have all the answers. If they don’t have the answers, then independence is risky, that’s the narrative.

But those questions should be getting directed at all political parties, not just the SNP. Don’t we have a right to know how Labour would act if the people democratically voted for independence? What would the Labour Party do with the pensions or Trident in an independent Scotland? What about the Liberals and the Tories?

This is the trick, pin responsibility for every possible eventuality on the SNP. Don’t even ask Labour or anyone else what they will do if the people vote for independence. It’s very sinister when you think about it.

A lot of people are asking about these things and the truth is you are being deprived of a grown up discussion on the subjects. It’s a point blank refusal to take the possibility of independence seriously, and a point blank refusal to let you discuss it like adults.

We should all be discussing a variety of policy options on trident, the pound, the EU, etc, from all political parties, but instead the focus is only on the SNP who are responsible for everything.

Don’t believe me? Show me one link where Labour, the Tories, and Liberals are asked to explain what their policies would look like in an independent Scotland, on Trident, on the economy, the currency, pensions, the EU, NATO, etc, etc.

Saying you are against independence isn’t good enough: if you are asking the SNP what policies they would pursue after the referendum, you should be asking Labour and everyone else too.

Looking at it like that, when you think about it, the SNP are the only party that have at least tried to involve you in a grown up debate.

Posted by Winston Smith



Filed under Guest Posts, Independence, Politics

311 responses to “More Thoughts on Scots Independence – by Falloch and (Again) by Winston Smith


    over at the battle for control of Sevconia, a new front might be opening up, who’s side will he be on, or will he want to be the head man.

    I don’t think he will settle for a blazer and tie this time

    • Raymilland

      The king is dead, long live the king!

      Wake up, wake up
      Exercise your every right
      With your plan
      On the up and up
      And your prize money struggle in sight

      Cut ’em up, cut ’em up
      Physical in every way
      Tough enough, tough enough
      Face up
      And blow your big body blues away

    • eastside

      Looking for a way just as long as it doesn’t involve putting his hand in his pocket! Sevconians, a laugh a minute, lol.

  2. Monti


  3. Are Kerry ghirl and chat lhadie on ?…… Or maybe out eating some nests .

  4. Only having a laugh Mon…t,.it ..! And cat lady ! I would like to wish the torbert select all the best in the cl.

  5. Steerpike

    I sense another pointless round of trading insults may be upon us, so let us discuss something non-contentious to lighten the tone.

    I do not believe a Rangers fan should feel responsible for the creditors, in fact I cannot think of even a tenuous link to blame the fans.
    Moreover I do not see why a Rangers fan should care more about the creditors plight than any other creditor in the UK, and there are thousands daily, business is a risky business. The Scottish public at large do not view Rangers creditors with any special importance, why should Celtic fans ?

    It seems to me the fans do what they do best, they hide their tribal rivalry behind a conceptual pretense, in this case it is the morality of not paying your debts.

    People like to believe they are civilized and are not driven by their basic animal instincts, but in the case of football rivalry this is a false perception. There is wind up and there is blood lust, pent up feelings bottled up for decades of Celtic being dominated by Rangers, this kind of raw seething emotion is impossible to conceal behind a moral banner.

    Before anyone gives me some tripe about how the fans should have forced regime or governance change, have a wee think about the realities of this, on the key areas we can now identify with perfect hindsight, no fan intervention was feasible given the timescales and the vast sums involved.
    Rangers fans consist of 40,000 individuals, with individual views and opinions on everything from the manager to the strips. It took one man with money 5 years to galvanize the Celtic support, to suggest 40,000 fans could have achieved something similar is ludicrous, especially with the BTC hanging over the club.

    • Winston Smith

      Steer, the issue regarding creditors for non-Rangers fans revolves around the insistence that it is still they same club. This amounts to a double standard: when it comes to repaying debts you claim to be a new club, when it comes to everything else you are the same club.

      As you say, business is a violent process, businesses go under, it often involves people being left with unpaid bills. That’s life. We are all involved in that.

      But, normally, when a business dies or goes through liquidation, the owners etc don’t show up a few weeks later bragging about how they didn’t have to pay their bills and how they are now debt free. Worse still, they claim to be the same company…

      The price you pay as a business for going into liquidation and ridding yourself of the debt is that you are dead. Accept that and we will stop going on about the u paid creditors.

      • Steerpike

        Hello Winston,

        Your case does not need the embellishment, no bragging took place and the debt free statement was to counter spurious insolvency claims, you gave fabricated one claim and took the other claim out of its context.
        Now to the crux of the matter:

        ” Steer, the issue regarding creditors for non-Rangers fans revolves around the insistence that it is still they same club. This amounts to a double standard: when it comes to repaying debts you claim to be a new club, when it comes to everything else you are the same club.”

        You seem to care little about the creditors, and yet it is supposed to be all about the creditors, it seems more about the status of the club and its history that concerns you, you make no case for the moral responsibility of the fans to the creditors.
        If the fans are not morally responsible for the debt then attaching this debt to their club is counter intuitive, why do you accept them to do otherwise ?

        Liquidated companies are taken over all the time, it retains its goodwill, to historical customers it is for all intensive purposes the same company, Rangers fans are the customers in this case. When Rolls Royce went bust, no customer thought of the new company as the new Rolls Royce, it was just Rolls Royce.

        • Winston Smith

          Steer says “You seem to care little about the creditors, and yet it is supposed to be all about the creditors”

          I am not morally responsible for the plight of Rangers’ creditors. I am morally responsible only for my own actions. If it gives you any satisfaction I will gladly admit that I have no more than a fleeting concern for the creditors, and I would guess most non-Rangers fans think the same. I certainly don’t lie awake worrying about them, if that’s your simple point.

          Nevertheless, Rangers FC died. What any of us think is unimportant. We can’t redefine the meaning of words (like liquidation) just to suit Rangers fans. Selling the goodwill is common practice but I think you would struggle to find anyone seriously arguing that it means the entity being liquidated isn’t essentially dead. Liquidated means dead, killed off, finished, over and done with, gone…. It’s meaning was uncontroversial until last July.

          Why do you think they had to apply for a license to play in the 3rd division? Why do you think they had to apply to play in the 3rd? Why do you think nobody at the SFA or SPL or SFL ever came out in public and said it was the same club? There’s a thousand other indicators.

          One thing I think you need to factor in here is the propensity of some Rangers fans to turn violent towards anybody who seemingly says a word against them. There’s a growing list of people who have been at the sharp end of that thuggery and bullying.

          Consider how journalists and radio talk show hosts, not to mention officials of the game and those involved in football, feel about being the target of that stuff. Think how their wives and children might feel. Need we mention the members who sat on the three man committee who had to be moved to safe houses last summer? It’s essentially terrorism. Terrorism often works.

          It would be heartening to see someone like yourself take that on board in a considerate way, and factor in how it impacts on just about all coverage of this subject.

          One thing I would add. Celtic fans and others have hinted at the cowardice of reporters and others when it comes to discussing the death of Rangers. I disagree with that. I can totally understand why a reporter or radio host would not want to put the security of his family on the line over some moot point about a dead club. At the same time, I admire people like Andy Walker and others who have had the courage to be honest on the subject.

          In my opinion, steer, and I have read a good few of your posts on here, this association and affiliation you have with ‘the subject’ is beneath you. Take that however you want.

          • Steerpike


            My point was about the fan’s moral responsibility, and you seem to agree with me, I have no particular feelings about the status of Rangers, but I can understand both sides, and there are two valid sides. I do not accept the threat of violence scenario, no evidence to support orchestrated intimidation, just a few thugs venting their spleen. I give the press a bit more credit for bravery, they are used to reporting on unsavory characters, it goes with the job.
            The SFA and LNS made a ruling and nothing the press can print will alter this, according to the authority Rangers is still the same club, that is the story, liquidation does not mean the end of the club, just the company.

            ” In my opinion, steer, and I have read a good few of your posts on here, this association and affiliation you have with ‘the subject’ is beneath you. Take that however you want.”

            We must all choose our own story, and unfortunately in mine I am no angel.

            • Winston Smith

              Steer: “I do not accept the threat of violence scenario, no evidence to support orchestrated intimidation, just a few thugs venting their spleen. I give the press a bit more credit for bravery, they are used to reporting on unsavory characters, it goes with the job.”

              Violence and the threat of violence has a more profound feel when you are on the receiving end. Graham Spiers has been attacked for his views on Rangers and in a fairly recent interview he said he was intent on keeping away from certain subjects.

              If you add Spiers and Lennon to the three committee members that’s five people involved in the game that have been attacks or threatened by Rangers fans. That’s proof. I’m sure there will be others.

              I can’t think of one person involved in the game who has been threatened or attacked by Celtic fans. I’m not suggesting Celtic don’t have elements like that, there just doesn’t seem to be as many. Maybe they just lack conviction…

          • cam

            Winston dear bhoy,i knew you would out yourself eventually.
            Another wee “neutral” with a chip on the shoulder.You don’t follow the fitba much do you?,,,aye right!
            Couple of wee snide digs and a rewrite of the history books,,,just your average undercover Tic fan on a mission.
            Have a read at this,Google Hugh Dallas being assaulted,have the conviction to declare your allegiances and wake up.

            • Winston Smith

              I have a vague awareness of football, I’m not completely in the dark, but terrorism isn’t football it’s crime. I certainly wouldn’t devote more than 10 minutes a week to football — the criminal matters mentioned featured prominently in the news recently.

              Your suggestion that I have a secret anti-Rangers agenda made me laugh (or at least snort) out loud, well done. Hardly a secret when I wrote an article trashing them and that article was on Paul Mcconville’s homepage for about 4 days. It’s hard to imagine how I could be more up front with it, maybe if I hired a blimp. I’ve set out my reasons.

        • @ Steerpike


          The company that took over newco Rangers was Sevco, not Rangers,
          Sevco bought the assets. so where is the lineage.
          If my Granny aged 88 died, and my neighbours daughter aged 18 bought
          her house and contents with a loan from investors, then changed her name to my grannies name, would she be my Grannie. ?

          • Steerpike


            I know the company that took over Rangers assets and undertaking was Sevco and that is the lineage, regardless of your granny’s demise. Rangers the company is hardly going to take over its own assets and undertaking, is it now ?
            How many spurious analogies can one set of fans use ?

            Since when did a football club solely consist of its company identity ?

            • @ Steerpike,


              There are many acrimonious debates among Rangers fans as to whether Rangers newco are in fact old Rangers or not. But the overall stance before Rangers fans debated the issue was that when you are liquidated that is it finale dead.
              Let us take this argument to the very person who gave newco life Charles Green. Charlie boy prior to Rangers old’ co decending into liquidation was aghast at the attitude of Dave King then the old Rangers director when he had urged a C.V.A. be voted down by the 276 creditors.
              Charlie was incredulous at this so he went on television and said King is suggesting that rather than get a C.V.A. through that retains all the tradition and history, vote against it and go down the newco route. Why would a true Rangers fan suggest that. Who needs spurious analogies
              steerpike with information like this.
              The voice of Scotland James Traynor now head of communications at Ibrox during his period as a journalist emphatically pronounced Rangers were a new club once liquidation took place.
              Traynor wrote in the Daily Record that some Rangers fans believe that the history which would be lost at liquidation, must be protected, but any newco must make it clear that a newco means exactly that a newco from the very beginning. when the C.V.A. was rejected Traynor wrote ‘Rangers F.C. as we know them are dead.’

              Richard Gough one of rangers greatest captain’s wrote in a newspaper column ‘The club I broke blood sweat and tears for is dead.

              Walter Smith one of the greatest Rangers figures in their history and lately the chairman of the newco said of green’s consortium when Green’s bid was accepted ‘ I wish the new Rangers football club every success in the future.
              If I was a Rangers fan Steerpike Like yourself I would be gutted, but life goes on. Bow out gracefully and enjoy the fact you can still go to Ibrox
              and enjoy a game of football, times a great healer.

              Most of this information I write came from an article written by one of Scotland’s most respected journalists Graham Speirs who himself believes Newco to be exactly that.

              Kind Regards

      • Monti

        Well said Winston….

  6. Paul

    “I do not believe a Rangers fan should feel responsible for the creditors”
    Yes that about sums you up, a decent fan would show sympathy by having a say on what he considers a downright theft from fellow fans and would maybe have orchestrated a SB boycott until the perpetrators/spivs running down a reputation are shown the door. That would be a noble and decent act don’t you think? Of course you do not. To agree with you means that the ordinary fan has been punished by having his team humiliated, do you agree, then if so then it is the ordinary fans responsibility to punish the responsible party.(Spivs)

    • Steerpike

      Evening Paul,

      ” a decent fan would show sympathy by having a say on what he considers a downright theft from fellow fans and would maybe have orchestrated a SB boycott until the perpetrators/spivs running down a reputation are shown the door”

      I am trying to figure out what the above means ? Do you think the fans should have boycotted the new club out of sympathy to the old creditors ?
      You have lost me mate, want to try again.

      ” To agree with you means that the ordinary fan has been punished by having his team humiliated, do you agree, then if so then it is the ordinary fans responsibility to punish the responsible party.”

      Hmmm, I think it is essential you try again, how do the ordinary fans punish the responsible parties without destroying their club and why ?

      You have failed to make the case for fan responsibility, which was my opening premise, morality is based on reason, give us the reason.

      • portpower

        Hmmm, I think it is essential you try again Sp, how do the ordinary fans punish the responsible parties without destroying their NEW club and why ?
        That`s better. Do keep up Sp.

  7. Paul

    ” I am trying to figure out what the above means ? Do you think the fans should have boycotted the new club out of sympathy to the old creditors ?
    You have lost me mate, want to try again.”
    So rangers are a new club, then stop pretending they are still rangers.

    • Steerpike


      What is a company ?

      It is an empty vessel until you fill it up with assets, employees and revenue, to the layman a company is its contents and these contents more or less stayed the same, only the vessel changed. It is quite normal to perceive the tangible contents as more important and relevant to the identity of the company.

      What is a club ?

      A club must be a company and that company must have a shared undertaking to participate in football, no undertaking no club, the vessel may contain all the same contents but without the undertaking it is not a club. Liquidation did not prevent Rangers from carrying out their undertaking to participate in football, it was off season, this allowed the undertaking to be transferred to the new company with the same contents. If Rangers had failed to participate in football then the undertaking is broken, and Rangers would be a new club.

      • Raymilland

        vessel in vane

        • Raymilland

          I cant be held responsible for the things I say
          For I am just a vessel in vain
          And I cant be held responsible for the thing I see
          For I am just a vessel in vain

          No boat out on no ocean
          No name there on no hull
          And its not a strain at all to remember
          Those that Ive left behind
          Theyre all standing right here beside me now
          And most of them with a smile

          My ideals have got me on the run
          Towards my connection with everyone
          My ideals have got me on the run
          Its my connection with everyone

          Such free reign
          For a vessel in vain

      • ok, now tell us what liquidation is,
        then tell us what happens to a company that gets liquidated.

        • Steerpike

          Liquidation is a process, it is a winding up of the company’s affairs, part of this process entails the sale or transfer of assets and undertakings.
          The assets and undertaking were sold and transferred from one company to another company, the old company is now empty and dead, and the new company adopts the identity of the assets and undertaking, the club in other words.

          If selling assets and transferring undertakings from one company to another means new club then there are a lot of new clubs out there.
          Technically Rangers was not fully wound up when the assets and undertaking were transferred, and they had met their undertaking obligations to play football, so no broken pledge exists.

          • @gortchomhor

            It wasn’t sold as a going concern and you know it. Selling assets or liquidating them is not the same as selling a company as a going concern. Using your logic it’s hard to see how a company could die. If it was they would have the same company registration number.

            • Steerpike


              Selling the assets and undertaking of a football club in a liquidation process is the same as selling a going concern WHEN the concern does not stop going, it was the end of the season, it did not fail to participate in football and therefore fulfilled its undertaking.
              The only difference between a CVA and a liquidation sale is the change of company, a change of company does not cancel the undertaking, failure to participate breaks the undertaking.

          • eastside

            What if half the assets are sold to 2 separate people, who gets to claim ownership of ‘the Club’?

          • ” the new company adopts the “IDENTITY” of the assets and undertaking,”

            So a company buys the assets from a failed company, it then has to take on the IDENTITY of the company that failed,
            ARE you sure about this,

            Is it legal to carry on trading ,using the identity of a failed company ?

            Is a football club a company/business in it’s own right,?

            if it’s the same CLUB, separate and apart from the company why is a club penalised for a companies refusal to pay social tax.

            why does a CLUB need to be up to date in IT’s tax affairs to qualify for a license to play in UEFA competitions.

            can you tell us the name of the holding company that got liquidated that allows Rangers to carry on playing as the same club,

      • portpower

        What is a company ? Which owes it`s twin? PLC- Please Leave Cash.

      • Monti

        Can you explain when it comes to reporting of football clubs heading into administration & liquidation that it it depends on what club is being reported on?
        For example in recent times Dunfermline Athletic & Hearts have been under the threat of liquidation, I have spoken to a number of Pars & Hearts fans who believe this action concludes their clubs history, not one mentioned ” it’s just the company” football fans know what liquidation means, it means at the point of liquidation the game is up, the game is over, THE END!

        • Steerpike


          There is nothing to explain, I accept there is a case for attaching a club’s history to the well being of the company,there are two valid arguments.

          The key in my mind is when the company goes into liquidation, in a football club trading is playing football, it is not selling strips, the SFA are not sharing an undertaking to sell strips but to play football. Rangers the club fulfilled its undertaking to play football and off season its assets and undertaking were sold to another company, it did not cease trading in the football sense and was effectively a going concern.

          If a company buys the assets and undertaking of Celtic but not its shares then as long as this does not prevent them from fulfilling their undertaking to play football then its the same club.

      • Arb urns

        I like this post Steerpike and empty vessel in the one post has to be progress by the methil ranger……….

  8. Paul

    And evening steerpike

  9. Raymilland

    I do not believe a Rangers fan should feel responsible for the creditors, in fact I cannot think of even a tenuous link to blame the fans.
    Responsibility & blame; you could be on to something there.

    When all formal investigations/retribution of the club is finalised; the fans should not have any grievance out with the confines of Ibrox boardroom.

    Retrospection cannot save TRFC from further disgrace

    • Steerpike

      ” When all formal investigations/retribution of the club is finalised; the fans should not have any grievance out with the confines of Ibrox boardroom.”

      Hello Ray,

      I am sure the fans will accept your imaginary retribution with grace and dignity.

      • Raymilland


        Some say Charlie was unreal 😉

        SCOTTISH football club Rangers was last night plunged into further chaos after former chief executive Charles Green was reported to the Serious Fraud Office, according to an announcement issued to the stock exchange by Worthington Group.

        Worthington, which has links to former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, said it had information “relating to the conduct” of Green and Rangers commercial director Imran Ahmad that warranted investigation. Green, who stepped down last week, helped relaunch the club in June 2012, but a dispute over the ownership of the club’s assets has rumbled on since.

        Rangers yesterday said the new claims are “highly spurious”.

        • Steerpike

          CG and Rangers are two different entities, he must face his own music.

          • Raymilland


            “CG and Rangers are two different entities, he must face his own music.”

            ‘Charles Green as chief executive of Rangers’ is legally bound to adhere to the terms of the 5 way agreement. Sevco/Rangers will be liable for any breach of the terms by Mr Green (end of).


            No party may assign or otherwise dispose of any rights under this Agreement including (without limitation) by way of declaration of trust. Any purported assignation in breach of this clause shall be void and confer no rights on the purported assignee.
            Step forward Craig Whyte

      • portpower

        Steerpike, put your 2 bob into East Fife. Honest football. I could imagine you on the tannoy. “Welcome sevco.”

  10. Fra

    The vessel sank to the bottom of the ocean and died.

    If you take a new vessel, you cannot have the same name therefore its ????????? MK2.

    Sounds perfectly simple to me.

  11. Monti

    For heavens sake, can you not just be nice for once?

  12. Steerpike

    This is the way I see things:

    SDM and Fergus McCann both used tax avoidance schemes.
    WATP is no more a claim to superiority than ” Glasgow is green and white “.
    Celtic fans have ethno-religious bigots and so do Rangers, the vast majority are decent supporters.
    Both clubs speak out against sectarianism and claim bragging rights over each other.
    The Scottish media is biased to both OF teams for commercial reasons.
    The SFA/SPL is biased toward both OF teams for commercial reasons.
    The govt is biased toward both OF teams because of commercial and social reasons.
    Craig Whyte bungled an orchestrated liquidation plan and cost the tax payer 12 million.
    The SPL wanted Rangers back in the SPL for commercial reasons, the fans wanted a harsher outcome for liquidation.

    None of the above nor the gossip over the last year makes Rangers or its fans toxic supremacists, and the over reaction to these events merits a study in human behavior.

    • eastside

      Yet ALL of the evidence of corruption consistently lead back to 2 Clubs, Rangers RIP and Newco FC…..hmmm…..

    • David Murray created tax avoidance schemes and offered them to millionaire footballers and concealed contractual terms from HMRC and SFA/SPL.
      Fergus didn’t do that. A company should not be sponsoring tax avoidance schemes for highly paid employees.
      We know the difference between WATP and G is GW. One of the clubs had a sectarian employment policy up until 1989 and after effects still linger. WATP and open prejudice for most of your history adds up to something far more sinister than Glas is G and W.
      Celtic didn’t have the cream (!) of the MSM smoozing together on succulent lamb and Contreau (ze warmth of Chic and the coolness of Minty and what do you get – an unacceptably close relationship that allowed Murray to get away with murder and still does).
      Yes Craig Whyte was a perfect patsy – a man with an increadibly high opinion (delusional) of his own corporate turnaround skills. Murray and his advisors were apparently duped by the most transparently crooked man in Scottish business life. No, Murray sold Rangers down the river: he took all the adulation but when the scheme failed he sought and founding a willing fall guy. Very cowardly behaviour from Murray but typical of this man who never took a risk with one ha’penny of his own money.

      • Steerpike


        You are either against all tax avoidance schemes in principle or you are not, you cannot just cherry pick to suit your self interest.
        Rangers have been outspoken critics of ethno-religious sectarianism for decades, WATP is not sectarian in any shape or form, and neitheris Glasgow is green and white, it is just chest bashing.
        Celtic has the identical succulent lamb relationship with the media and the SPL.
        Murray sold Rangers for sound commercial reasons, this does not make him a toxic supremacist.

        Not your best effort.

  13. Monti

    If they are the same club, why did Charles Green have to buy the history?

  14. cam

    Charlotte back and being notified by that due to possible copyright infringements documents have been removed,,,oh good.

    • Monti

      You & all of Sevconia should be LISTENING to Charlotte!
      If you had LISTENED over the last couple of years to people who knew what was going on, maybe you could have done something about saving the ORIGINAL Rangers!

      • Steerpike


        If Rangers fans had listened to Phil, would that make the BTC go away ?

        Nope, according to Phil himself there was nothing anyone could do to save Rangers, kind of dumb to blame Rangers fans now don’t you think ?

  15. Raymilland

    Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 5m
    The 5 way agreement. A document of significant public interest that should never have remained confidential.

  16. Raymilland


    “CW Exempt Acts”
    means all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC, the sanctions for which are enforceable against RFC and not against CW as an individual and which are not CW Enduring Acts;

    “CW Enduring Acts”
    means all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC, the sanctions for which are enforceable against RFC and not against CW as an individual where such acts or omissions relate to or are in any way connected with, directly or indirectly, corruption, fraud, bribery, match-fixing, unauthorised or undisclosed payments to players or Match Officials, or any matter similar in its reprehensible nature to any of the foregoing which acts or omissions are of at least equal gravity to those found to have been committed by or engaged in by RFC in the JP Determination

    Never let your feelings get you down
    Open up your eyes and look around

    • Steerpike


      Rangers have accepted the consequences of CW’s actions, it is over, nothing left to punish them for except in your imagination.

      • Raymilland


        Is said undertakings all above board?

        “CW Enduring Acts”

        means all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC

        The above undertakings by CW would have included his involvement with Green’s Sevco transaction.
        I would imagine that the SFO; and the SFA have yet to close the book on Sevco/Rangers.

  17. Raymilland

    Having difficulty mortgaging your home?

    Title insurance; protect your ID; protect your home 😉

  18. Eastside

    Steerpike, what if 2 separate entities purchased half the assets each during the asset sale, who gets to claim ownership of “the Club”? Liquidation sale of assets go to the highest BIDDERS or bidder, they are not necessarily purchased all together as assets can be separated for sale during liquidation asset sales. There is a reason assets of a liquidating business can be sold separately Steerpike, the reason is that the business is DEAD to all intents and purposes.
    As an aside, why is the 5 way agreement not standard practice or procedure in sport if this is normal? The “5 way agreement” or anything similar has never ever been heard of before in the history of Football or any Sport across the Globe. Surely other Football Clubs or similar Sport entities who have been hit by liquidation would have simply signed up to similar agreements? Can you give a single example of this happening elsewhere or is as expected, this is an unprecedented way of dealing with a liquidating sport entity? Yet we are expected to believe there is nothing abnormal about this globally unprecedented “agreement”!

    • Steerpike


      I will deal with your last point first, it is standard practice in America to transfer assets and undertakings from the liquidated company to an incubator company to enable the club to continue, this is done to protect all parties from further damage. There is nothing untoward in an association facilitating a rescue package for a member deep in trouble, in fact it would be perverse not to do so, don’t see what the problem is. Obviously there are cases where no amount of help will save the club and some do go extinct, but in the case of Rangers this was not the case.

      Ownership of a club goes to the company that has the undertaking to participate in football, this undertaking is only granted to the company if it can demonstrate it can participate in football on a commercial basis. I do not know if Queens Park own Hampden but they still have an undertaking.
      Lots of clubs share grounds and training facilities, some grounds are owned by councils and rented out to companies/football clubs.

  19. Jeez Cam – look at all the TUs you are getting these days! You used to get about 25 TDs for every comment.

    You have definitely crossed the line from acerbic and witty melon twister to self parody. You are going to have to sharpen up or you will be our cuddly mascot.

  20. Raymilland


    As reported in The Telegraph in April 2013;

    Worthington Group Ltd is a professional litigation company and, if its court action is successful, it will either end up owning Rangers or the consortium will be forced to pay £22 million.

    The original investors – Green, Ahmad, Stockbridge and the rest – exchanged their ownership of the Rangers subsidiary for shares in the plc worth £22 million.
    That is what Worthington Group value the club at and, should they acquire the assets, then Whyte will collect another £7.33 million.

    Further, if Rangers lose to Worthington, then everyone who invested in the share issue will end up with nothing.

    Ironically, Green, although he is no longer chief executive, remains a director of RIFC. While he is also technically a director of Sevco 5088 (which Rangers on Monday told the Stock Exchange they owned), he would inadvertently appear to have a foot in both camps.
    Green has since sold his shares to Sandy Easdale (according to the above Telegraph article those shares could soon be worthless); Green would now appear to have left the Rangers ‘camp’.

    Obviously big Sandy can read; so we must assume that come what may; Mr Green has given the big man some sort of assurance with regard to security of the assets in lieu of the shares now supposedly held by Mr Easdale.

    The possibility of Whyte’s court case would cause alarm bells within the terms of the 5 way agreement; and untold damage to TRFC. As much as I would enjoy the damage caused by a court hearing; it is unlikely any such court hearing will ever take place.

    Taking account of the above posturing over ownership of the assets; while those assets cannot be mortgaged; a sale and leaseback would best suit the ‘original investors’ (especially with the threat hanging over the validity of the IPO as laid bare in a hearing of CW’s claim).

    Will it be possible to pull off such an audacious ‘freeing of funds’ without attracting outrageous cry of ‘blue murder’?

  21. Clarkeng

    Well young Winston, what say you now that our democratic process has been seen to work and the government has been prevented from taking action against Syria?
    I read your comment about the tories dragging us into another war and could not help but wonder if you had been holidaying on Mars for the last fifteen or so years.
    As far as I can recall the last war under the tories was the battle to reclaim the Falklands and this was entered into only after a virtually unanimous vote in parliament to recover sovereign territory invaded by an aggressor.
    The most recent three wars have been under labour as follows :-
    Kosovo – illegal war promoted by George Robertson and undertaken without a parliamentary vote.
    Iraq – entered into by the new messiah Tony B Liar on pretences so far fetched………..anyway the man should be tried as a war criminal.
    Afghanistan – entered into by the one time Sellik Fitba Club chairman Dr John Reid on the promise not one bullet would be expended.
    Not one of these threatened any sovereign territory nor had we been attacked by any of the countries.
    As for your points on independance thankfully as polls show today you are also someway off the mark and the majority of Scots realise we are better off as part of the union.
    The idea that after a yes vote that the same donkeys who currently govern at Holyrood would suddenly transform into politicians who actually gave a shit about what the electorate thinks is absolutely astounding.
    There would be major infighting in the unionist parties between unemployed MPs and sitting MSPs for positions which would totally overshadow any focus on Scotland and God forbid if the SNP actually won the vote we would be back in the dark ages very quickly with the exception of our progressive policy on criminal punishment which would probably be developed to abolish incarceration except for motoringing offences.

    • Steerpike


      So Scottish politicians are shit unless they are Scottish politicians in Westminster, is that the thrust of your premise ?

      Your argument belongs in the dark ages my friend.

      • Clarkeng

        I did not think I had advanced a premise simply had pointed out the facts of recent wars.
        My comment on the Scottish Parliament stands.
        The current governing party seems intent on promoting issues which are against public opinion.
        Take McAskill and his softly softly approach to crime, take the wind farm debate, take the draconian approach to the use of cars all while they use ministerial cars for ourneys as short as 150m and regularly for what can only be described as personal or party use.
        That is not to say the other parties are not guilty of this either in Scotland or at Westminster however my point is aimed only at the current party of government.
        Far from the dark ages my argument falls squarely in the here and now and the do as I say not as I do mentality of the political class needs to be changed.
        We vote them in to represent our views not disregard them.
        This premise applies whether we vote for independance or not.

        • Raymilland


          The entire country is in danger of going to the dogs.

          Shawfield is always good for a bet 😉

        • Fra

          Your opinion?? it would be a dictatorship who went against the common will of the people. These decisions are not arrived at willy nilly. They dont always sit well with many but laws have to be upheld and we dont always have the full facts to hand.

          Sound bite politics might appeal to more to the politically uneducated but I prefer one who makes a decision then explains why they arrived at this decision. The release of the Lybian. I wont say bomber as I dont believe he was guilty. International chicanery played a hand in his incarceration. This was humanitarian and I commend McCaskill for that brave decision

          • Clarkeng

            So would you describe Tony B Liar as a dictator or as the new messiah?
            Would you trust wee Eck with your pay poke?
            Does Iraq qualify B Liar to be considered a dictator and a despot?
            Seems pretty close to me.
            And he is still bumping his gums trying to drag us into war in Syria.
            The issue is not about upholding the law that is the least we should expect of our governing classes.
            Rather it is about creating laws which the electorate did not vote for and were not required and which essentially were not within the mandate given by the electorate.
            Parties and politicians should be taken to task for the creation of unnecessary acts which did not feature in the manifesto.
            Unfortunately after years of seeing politicians act as if they were above the law or the will of the people we are now bound in a political malaise which prevents the democratic process from operating purposively.
            On the Megrahi thing it is now clear McAskill tried to save face by claiming the release of Al Megrahi was his decision and that it was made on humanitarian grounds.
            This backfired spectacularly and as soon as the truth came out the SNP ran for cover.
            This was the type of sound bit politics you say you don’t like and was proved to be a lie.

        • Winston Smith

          It seems to me that you don’t have confidence in any politicians but for some reason are singling out the SNP. I also think, in that respect, and some of the others you mention, we probably agree on more than you suggest.

          One thing you got wrong concerns the Tories involving us in wars — it was the Tories under Thatcher and Major that took us into Iraq back in 1990/1991. I wouldn’t rule out just yet the possibility of us being involved in any forthcoming attack on Syria, although I hope I am wrong.

          More generally, though, looking at the history books, the Tories have absolutely no qualms about involving us in wars and dirty deeds and are rightly regarded as quite a war mongering bunch.

          I also agree that Labour under Blair played a scandalous part in dragging us into wars and conflicts around the world; 5 under Blair alone, if I remember right. It’s one of the main reasons I and many others abandoned them.

          In terms of why I argue for independence, I’m swayed more than anything by the idea that we are simply more likely to be able to exert democratic pressure on a government in Edinburgh than we are on one in London. Add to that simple geographical point the fact that the government in Edinburgh would be wholly focused on matters that concern Scotland. It would also have some teeth so that it could act too.

          I think you’d be wrong to suggest that the government in London, whether Labour or Tory, is going to give Scotland a fair deal; they’re primary concern is and always has been the interests of London and England, to the detriment of us and others. The preferred phrase is the ‘national interest’ which seems to be code for policy that suits certain people and businesses south of the border.

          Regarding what you call the SNP’s softly softly approach to crime, I think we have the second largest prison population in Europe (the last time I looked) and we’re comfortably in the top ten amongst first world countries around the world. I think your perception here is just wrong.

          On crime, though, we clearly have problems as a country with so many people involved in theft, drugs, violence, etc. I think 90% of crime or maybe more would disappear if people generally were better off, had better prospects, and had an economy and society that invited them to get involved rather than one that disregarded and shunned them.

          Independence with targeted investment offers us a chance to do something about crime and a range of social problems like drug addiction that are all fuelled by poverty — the status quo not only created these problems but has let them fester over many years to the extent that its going to take a long time for us to fix things. It’s not the most glamorous of subjects, but the rewards are potentially huge in terms of giving broken people, broken families, and broken communities reason to have hope.

          I apologise for not responding sooner, I honestly didn’t see your post. I notice you addressed me as young Winston which indicates to me you might have kids or even grand kids. That being the case, I think you have a moral responsibility to try and make things better for them by voting for independence. At worst, if it all goes pear-shaped, you can say you genuinely had good intentions and I fail to see how they could end up worse off than they otherwise would be.

          We don’t need to guess how bleak the world will be for your kids and grandchildren if we don’t get independence. There’s nothing out there for them. Trends suggest there’s going to be less as we are expected to compete more and more in a globalised world with sweatshops in places like China. Whitehall’s answer to that is cut benefits, privatise the NHS, make us work longer and harder for less.

          The choice is ours but generations to come are going to need to live with the decision we make next year. You seem smart and thats why I’ve avoided the usual exchange of petty insuts here. I’d rather you changed your mind and got involved and helped us get across the line. A few motivated people can make a huge difference with things like this, I really believe that.

          • Clarkeng

            Sorry but I think you have misunderstood me regarding the issue of parties taking us into war and hence I disagree that the first gulf war should be considered an illegal war.
            My point is this ( and was in response to your original remarks re democracy ) that before B Liar, governments were accountable to parliament and would not consider going to war without consulting them and the subject being voted upon.
            Whilst that might not make a war legal in international terms it does at least ensure that we as a country (or our elected representatives) have made or at least approved the decision.
            I am not arguing about the rights and wrongs of war.
            All wars are wrong but here in the real world these things happen.
            Your argument failed to take account of this fact.
            And before you jump to any conclusions that does not mean that I am happy to accept some decisions and not others.
            I am concerned only with the legitimacy of the acts undertaken in our name by our governments.
            Approval by a vote in Parliament is the very least we should expect to take place before any decision is made.
            I have more miles on the clock than most on here and yes I do have a family who have now grown up.
            Obviously I would like to see change and improvement in the living standards in Scotland and in the UK as a whole but you are correct to say I have no faith in the Scottish Parliament to deliver this and the situation at Westminster no matter which party is in power also seems pretty hopeless.
            As you rightly point out Labour have become a party of millionaires and self serving toadies.
            The current bunch are a sad pathetic lot and lack talent and ideals.
            Where do we go from here?
            Who knows.
            There is not one political party who has the policies or the balls to make the changes necessary.
            They have too many vested interests.
            I have real concerns regarding the sustainability of the welfare state and the NHS.
            Basically whichever government who comes to power next will need to resolve this quickly and wasted monies in foreign aid and other such “charitable” gestures will need to cease and the money spent at home on things that matter to the people of this country.
            Finally politicians need to be aware they are servants of the electorate and not there to make decisions on our behalf without consultation.
            Who will I vote for?
            Whoever provides the most cogent manifesto to take Scotland and the UK forward.
            My fear is not how bleak the future might be if we do not get independance.
            For the hard working conscientious among us the future will never be bleak and independance will not change that.
            It is more how bleak could the future be if we do vote for independance given the level of intelligence displayed by your average ( or should I say less than ) MSP.

            • Winston Smith

              To take your last point first, I don’t agree that MSPs are any less intelligent than MPs. Regardless, the simple logic of my argument — even if they were less intelligent — is that with independence they’d be more accountable to us, more focused on matters relevant to Scotland, and more responsible towards us.

              On the issue of parliament’s sanctioning of war, I think it’s a fairly moot issue. Most involvement in wars and conflicts is done with covert actions and by proxy. The ones they do ask for parliament’s endorsement with have up until last week been rubber stamping formalities. I’ll lay a bet with you that we end up embroiled in an attack on Syria, regardless of parliament.

              What you need to remember about the British parliamentary system, one of the main reasons it has remained pretty much unchanged over the years, is that it serves the elite well in terms of freeing them up to involve us in wars and dirty deeds abroad. That in a sense is what it was designed to do. When it stops doing that they will redesign it or find some loophole to bypass it. The US system is very similar. If necessary they will just come up with a new definition of the word war.

              On the NHS which seems important to you, the SNP have stood up to Whitehall very well there. If it wasn’t for the SNP our NHS would be getting privatised, just like England’s. Be in no doubt about that, they are privatising the NHS south of the border. I think the plan is to sell of the profitable parts and leave the unprofitable stuff poorly funded but under government control, just as they did with Royal Mail.

              As I said on my last post, I think we agree on more than we disagree on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s