Historically civil wars and internecine strife have often been more brutal than conflicts between sovereign nations.
Whether we go back to the US Civil War, which cost the lives of more American soldiers than any conflict before or since, or look at the conflicts brought into the open with the crumbling of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, there seems to be more viciousness exchanged between neighbours than across national frontiers.
Cambodia, China, Russia, many African nation-states – the hatred and violence exceeds wars where patriotism for one’s country can unite a country against another.
(That is not to say that war between nations is civilised and genteel. It is clearly not.)
If we look at the present “conflict” for the soul of Rangers, we can see similar signs – of conflict rather than violence of course. Continue reading
Mr Ahmad was one of the key members of Mr Green’s consortium which bought Rangers* last year.
(By Rangers* I mean the assets and business which make up Rangers Football Club and which were bought by the company which is now 100% owned by the PLC – clear enough?)
In fact, if one accepts the version of events put forward by some of the Rangers-supporting bloggers, Mr Ahmad in fact pulls the strings of Mr Green and is the eminence grise behind the recent boardroom strife at Ibrox.
Mr Ahmad is now, according to many press reports and to some detailed posts on the blog of my good friend (though we have never met) Bill McMurdo, proceeding with a claim against Rangers for £3.4 million of damages for his departure in April. Continue reading
There are lots of sources of information for those outside the “Ibrox bubble” who want to gauge the feelings of the Rangers faithful. As well as various fan message boards, which pass wry comment on their football team and the rest of the world, with a spirit of tolerance and goodwill to all men which is only too rare these days.
There are also various fan groups who have differing agendas and view the situation at their club from a wide range of perspectives.
And there are the “Rangers bloggers”.
I won’t do a run down of them today (although I wonder what reaction I would get if I put up a poll here for readers to tell me who their favourite Rangers blogger is). Not today anyway… Continue reading
After a brief hiatus, I am back at the blogging again. Apart from penning some thoughts on Hearts and the apparent imminent departure of Mr Romanov from the Scottish football scene, I had been engaged in preparation for, and attending at, the Sheriff Court with my gown on my back again.
I mentioned this briefly on Twitter (can readers imagine my pain in having to compress thoughts into 140 characters?) and was hugely gratified by the kind words and congratulations offered to me.
I would not be back “in the saddle” without having had huge help and support and I am immensely grateful to friends, family and wider acquaintances for their backing.
After the blogging I have done over the last 20 months or so, rattling off a 17 page and 6,000 word submission on the implications of the Tenements (Scotland) Act seemed a breeze. And we got the result we wanted.
But, to reassure anyone who is worried about it (although that number would be very small) I will still be blogging for as long as I find interesting things to write about. Continue reading
Bill McMurdo, the well-known, prolific and always interesting blogger on Rangers-related issues, wrote a blog post which prompted me to post a comment on his blog.
He was good enough to publish it, notwithstanding his openly-stated comments policy:-
“Only supportive comments will be approved. This is not because I cannot take criticism but because those who disagree with me abused the privilege allowed them here of saying so.”
It provoked some questions from his commenters, and I now see a whole blog post!
Rather than clutter up Mr McMurdo’s comments thread with my brief reply, I thought I would do so here. Continue reading