I don’t know if Scotland have ever worn a poppy but I suspect the SFA have been landed in this issue against their will by association with the FA in England. Fifa have indicated it is a political symbol and prohibited its attachment to football shirts. The FA and SFA plan to disregard that ruling and wear the poppy anyway.
Deliberately defying the rules is laced with Moral Hazard for the SFA, which will not be lost on the decision makers at Hampden. For years to come this act will be cited as evidence of double standards. It provides evidence for those who object to its very recent inclusion in football ceremony on the basis that politics should have no place in football.
Of course, declining to follow the FA’s lead would be a political act in itself, but one which fell within the rules.
I’m firmly of the belief that politics (as opposed to values) should have no place in football. I know this is a utopian aspiration, as sport and politics are inextricably linked, but only because trumpets continually insist on making them so.
522 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 14
- »
NATKNOW on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 1:16 PM
.comment-meta
VFR800A8 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 12:45 PM
NatKnow on 3rd November 2016 12:31 pm
Constitutionally it isn’t binding; in fact due to the nature of the British Constitution – or lack of it – there are many things that don’t have to be enacted but are accepted. However, in the spirit of democracy it should be actioned.
I wonder what the reaction would be if, for instance, part of the UK were to vote for independence and this was put to a vote in the UK Parliament and rejected.
KTF
————————————————
Can you explain clearly what flavour of Brexit it is that we’re apparently moving towards? Freedom of movement? Access to markets? Norwegian model? Swiss model?
IMHO, that is not the issue here; the issue is about carrying out a referendum which was never explicitly or implicitly reliant on Parliamentary approval. It’s about respecting the democratic will of the people (as far as we can). The type of Brexit I’d look for is a much longer debate!
What the government is asking for is for us to trust them to do it in whatever way PM Theresa May decides. That’s the PM that is unelected by the peoople BTW.
Yep, in a nutshell which is pretty much what we do with all international trade, financial and immigration issues. You can throw defence into that bucket as well. It’s a delegated power via our democracy; much in the same way as a lot of delegated legislation allows national, devolved and regional government to work. Incidentally, all our PM’s have been unelected “by the people”; their party elects them. The PM doesn’t even have to be an MP!
I think I’d rather that it was discussed/agreed in parliament so we at least get a chance to see what and how they intend to implement it.
So voting for inaction and non-decision making then, not Brexit? It’s funny how no-one seemed to think the agreement of terms was an issue during the campaign; or the need for MP’s to agree on them. Smacks of sore losers IMH.
However, if “benevolent dictatorship’ is your bag then look not further than Edinburgh.
We certainly don’t get benevolence from the anti-Catholic monarchy-loving, pound-loving, financial control-from-London Scottish National Party. Sturgeon could make Theresa May and Ruth Davidson seem a better option. I’ll stop now; I don’t want to give my political leanings away!
KTF
Timaloy29 1, 36
Can you expand on your post as I dont get it.might be just me but have never seen support for the ira expressed by any club or countries fa..willing to be corrected and apologies if I am wrong
HH
Oh dear another job slips by eat the breid, I reckon once he gets the sugar lump he’ll never work in fitba again.
Wigan Athletic have appointed Warren Joyce, the Manchester United Under-21 boss, as manager.
Let me see if I understand this ….
1. wearng the poppy is a political act.
2.not wearing the poppy would also be a political act (but one that is within the rules)…
am I correct so far?
If so, there are only 2 options…. wear the poppy or not wear the poppy. Either option is, as set out above, a political act.
Inexorably is defined as “incapable of being disentangled, undone, loosed, or solve:” and/or “hopelessly intricate, involved, or perplexing”. The latter affords the option on, however difficult of separation, while the former does not. In this case, since there are only two options, and both are defined as political, and affords no option which is not political, we must assume that, by defintion, P67 intended the former – that, football cannot be separated from politics.
If so, doesn’t it make the statement ‘that politics should have no place in football’ inconsistent with what has already been stated, and, frankly, impossilble.?
Off to a meeting. Will check back later.
(As you can probably guess, I dont believe the politics can be separated from football).
AN TEARMANN on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:12 PM
Timaloy29 1, 36
Can you expand on your post as I dont get it.might be just me but have never seen support for the ira expressed by any club or countries fa..willing to be corrected and apologies if I am wrong
HH
____
Do you not agree that singing IRA songs is a political act?
DESSYBHOY on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 1:35 PM
Paul67
You have banged the nail on the head. Anybody can throw a couple of bob in a collection box and preen themselves on having done their patriotic duty.
I have long advocated that poppies, red and white alike, should be distributed free with no collection boxes in sight.
Parliament should raise income tax by a ring fenced penny in the pound. The money to be used exclusively for the welfare of the armed forces and their dependants.
While it is at it, parliament should do away with the nonsense of the Northern Irish troubles not being considered a war situation. Thus depriving the injured and dependants of the killed of income on a level of those involved in a war situation such as Afghanistan.
It’s not even an international week….
Or a transfer window!
MIKE IN TORONTO on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:27 PM
Let me see if I understand this ….
1. wearng the poppy is a political act.
2.not wearing the poppy would also be a political act (but one that is within the rules)…
am I correct so far?
##
No.
Not wearing a poppy is not an act. It doesn’t require any activity to not wear a poppy. It is the natural state of being to be without a poppy.Ergo it is not an act, political or otherwise.
Mike in Toronto- that’s kinda what I was gonna say. Every act is political – well, most. If you accept the status quote as many do and say ‘I’m not getting involved’ that’s as political as trying to change it.
So while I think football and other sport should not be a political first port of call, calling for it to be de politicised is political! And in reality what we have witnessed in sport since forever but more so recently is the attempted use of sport to cement the cultural and political hegemony and dominant narrative – in this case ‘our wars and armies are good, everyone else’s are bad. We’re morally upright. Everyone should thank us.’
regardless of what the Britain did in Ireland or elsewhere the cynical exploitation of those who killed and were killed to set an agenda is despicable.
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:38 PM
Given the extent over the last decade that wearing a poppy has been turned into a symbol of patriotism it takes a conscientious act not to buy one.
This is karma. His tackle in a game in which they were getting pumped effectively ruined a young Celt’s career.
Brentford midfielder macleodinho will require reconstructive knee surgery and has been ruled out for the season.
The former Scotland Under-21 international was previously ruled out for a year because of various injuries after he joined the Championship club from sevco in January 2015.
A couple of weeks later the management team including eat the breid, molly weir and mcparland, who was given his jotters at Annfield by the Blessed Brendan and who also brought Fenian Joey north, were told tae find another mug tae hire them, and they did, 46,000 of them.
Fab montage on the tele featuring Boris,Michael,Liam,Nigel,Angela,Priti,
David and Nigel Le F—— declaring the desirability of “returning Sovereignty to Parliament.”
Hey Ho -.
See the Herald is indulging in good old whitabootery over Scotland and England’s spat with FIFA.
According to someone called Martin Williams, a friendly between Ireland and Switzerland is on a par with a FIFA World Cup tie between Scotland and England.
First of all I firmly believe that there’s no room for politics in sport period. The only countries that display poppies are the victors, hence FIFA’s stance. I have no time for the alleged corrupt body that runs the game but it is their game and their rules, rightly or wrongly as a club fae the east end of the city can attest to.
The national side of our wee country have never displayed poppies in the past, our bullying neighbour’s have, even when told not to on their tops; they circumvented the rules and wore them on a black armband.
So the wee puppets north of the border that didnae have the testicles tae vote for freedom, unlike the Canadians’ who in 1812 actually drove their capitalist neighbours back home tae think again, are following suit at their master’s beckoning.
Incidentally I wear a poppy but only in respect of the great Canadian men and women who volunteered, for without them we would NOT have the freedom we now assume or the lifestyles we currently enjoy
TONTINE TIM on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:45 PM
The Yanks seem to have a running joke about how slow witted their northern neighbours are.
Just sayin’.
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:51 PM
All this poppy hoo haa stems back to Labour’s Gordon Brown vainly trying to win voted by showing how truly British he was.
Just saying.
TIMALOY29 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:32 PM
AN TEARMANN on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:12 PM
Timaloy29 1, 36
Can you expand on your post as I dont get it.might be just me but have never seen support for the ira expressed by any club or countries fa..willing to be corrected and apologies if I am wrong
HH
____
Do you not agree that singing IRA songs is a political act?
_______________________
It begs the question, who is defining “political”. In terms of UK legislation, supporting any of the multiple groups that the UK Home Office has determined to be a Proscribed Terrorist Organisation under the generalisation of the Irish Republican Army (OIRA, PIRA, CIRA or RIRA) is unlikely to be seen as a political act in the Scottish Courts, particularly in light of the OBaF Act.
It can therefore be argued that it’s not a political act; that’s the crux of the whole issue of viewing the singing of “rebel songs” as a criminal act.
Having said that, it’s the support who have previously, and continue to sing songs that are viewed as IRA songs. So the Club itself cannot be viewed as acting in a political nature but could be, under strict liability, be held to account for the conduct of the support. But that’s one for the future.
KTF
‘Show poppies the red card’
QUONNO on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:57 PM
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:51 PM
‘All this poppy hoo haa stems back to Labour’s Gordon Brown vainly trying to win voted by showing how truly British he was.’
##
It doesn’t of course, but you carry on think that if it makes you feel better.
Goredung Broon has a lot to answer for.
Surely the solution is for Scotland to withdraw from FIFA and see how the pesky foreigners survive without us.
VFR800A8 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:59 PM
‘It begs the question’
###
If I was a moderator, I’d ban anyone who uses the phrase ‘begs the question’, inappropriately.
It’s lazy.
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 3:06 PM
Seriously. Could you explain the increasnig poppyism of the last decade?
Isn’t the poppy a Scottish thing?
Like Earl Haigh.
Cliques?
Five of us bonded by having a 50p in each of our shoes. every interval time we gathered behind the school bogs, to show the 50p’s and ensure we were still in the gang. Everything was fine until somebody spent his on crisps and singles from the van.
Things quickly fell apart for us after that.
QUONNO on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 3:09 PM
It was part of a campaign by the British Army to reintroduce and reinforce the notion of Britain as a martial nation.
It came about because of a crisis in recruitment. People just weren’t joining up in sufficient numbers, partly because there were other jobs available.
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 3:10 PM
Isn’t the poppy a Scottish thing?
Like Earl Haigh.
No! No! Ernie. Surely we a All Together.
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:38 PM
.comment-meta
MIKE IN TORONTO on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:27 PM
Let me see if I understand this ….
1. wearng the poppy is a political act.
2.not wearing the poppy would also be a political act (but one that is within the rules)…
am I correct so far?
##
No.
Not wearing a poppy is not an act. It doesn’t require any activity to not wear a poppy. It is the natural state of being to be without a poppy.Ergo it is not an act, political or otherwise.
___________________________________
Ernie, unless you live in a forest somewhere in the UK the sale of Poppies is everywhere so in order to not wear one you will have to say “no” or move to avoid at least one Poppy seller between now and Armistice Day.
Therefore you need to take action. Whether the action is driven by unwillingness to support the cause or unwillingness to spend money, it’s still an action.
KTF
VFR800A8 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:59 PM
TIMALOY29 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:32 PM
AN TEARMANN on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:12 PM
Timaloy29 1, 36
Can you expand on your post as I dont get it.might be just me but have never seen support for the ira expressed by any club or countries fa..willing to be corrected and apologies if I am wrong
HH
____
Do you not agree that singing IRA songs is a political act?
_______________________
It begs the question, who is defining “political”. In terms of UK legislation, supporting any of the multiple groups that the UK Home Office has determined to be a Proscribed Terrorist Organisation under the generalisation of the Irish Republican Army (OIRA, PIRA, CIRA or RIRA) is unlikely to be seen as a political act in the Scottish Courts, particularly in light of the OBaF Act.
It can therefore be argued that it’s not a political act; that’s the crux of the whole issue of viewing the singing of “rebel songs” as a criminal act.
Having said that, it’s the support who have previously, and continue to sing songs that are viewed as IRA songs. So the Club itself cannot be viewed as acting in a political nature but could be, under strict liability, be held to account for the conduct of the support. But that’s one for the future.
_____
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you said.
However, I was making a general point about us as Celtic fans. In my personal opinion, by choosing to sign IRA songs you are making a political statement. I completely disagree with the OBaF act and don’t believe such a statement should be illegal (it refers to no creed, colour, sexuality etc)
Celtic fans singing political songs isn’t necessarily a political statement by the club itself (unless the club hierarchy endorsed it)
It would be difficult for any Celtic fan to argue that “politics has no place at football” at the same time as arguing “singing the roll of honour shouldn’t be a criminal act as it’s a political song and not sectarian”
VFR800A8 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:05 PM
NATKNOW on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 1:16 PM
.comment-meta
VFR800A8 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 12:45 PM
NatKnow on 3rd November 2016 12:31 pm
Constitutionally it isn’t binding; in fact due to the nature of the British Constitution – or lack of it – there are many things that don’t have to be enacted but are accepted. However, in the spirit of democracy it should be actioned.
I wonder what the reaction would be if, for instance, part of the UK were to vote for independence and this was put to a vote in the UK Parliament and rejected.
KTF
————————————————
Can you explain clearly what flavour of Brexit it is that we’re apparently moving towards? Freedom of movement? Access to markets? Norwegian model? Swiss model?
IMHO, that is not the issue here; the issue is about carrying out a referendum which was never explicitly or implicitly reliant on Parliamentary approval. It’s about respecting the democratic will of the people (as far as we can). The type of Brexit I’d look for is a much longer debate!
—–
But it is exactly the point – Brexit means Brexit means nothing. It’s a catchphrase not an explanation.
—-
What the government is asking for is for us to trust them to do it in whatever way PM Theresa May decides. That’s the PM that is unelected by the peoople BTW.
Yep, in a nutshell which is pretty much what we do with all international trade, financial and immigration issues. You can throw defence into that bucket as well. It’s a delegated power via our democracy; much in the same way as a lot of delegated legislation allows national, devolved and regional government to work. Incidentally, all our PM’s have been unelected “by the people”; their party elects them. The PM doesn’t even have to be an MP!
——-
When we vote for a party they publish a manifesto – so we know what we’re voting for. If it’s such a delegated power then why have a referendum – why don’t the delegated officials do their job?
——
I think I’d rather that it was discussed/agreed in parliament so we at least get a chance to see what and how they intend to implement it.
So voting for inaction and non-decision making then, not Brexit? It’s funny how no-one seemed to think the agreement of terms was an issue during the campaign; or the need for MP’s to agree on them. Smacks of sore losers IMH.
——–
Plenty of people who think that there should never have been a referendum in the first place and stated so. Me included. Was only done because Cameron couldn’t manage his extreme right-wingers.
——–
However, if “benevolent dictatorship’ is your bag then look not further than Edinburgh.
We certainly don’t get benevolence from the anti-Catholic monarchy-loving, pound-loving, financial control-from-London Scottish National Party. Sturgeon could make Theresa May and Ruth Davidson seem a better option. I’ll stop now; I don’t want to give my political leanings away!
——–
What were you saying about democracy earlier and respecting the wishes of the people? ;-))))))
Clearly, we need to go for a pint…
KFC
Mancs…………..come an get your free ‘Rolls of Dishonour’……… only at The Louden.
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 3:14 PM
QUONNO on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 3:09 PM
It was part of a campaign by the British Army to reintroduce and reinforce the notion of Britain as a martial nation.
It came about because of a crisis in recruitment. People just weren’t joining up in sufficient numbers, partly because there were other jobs available.
I am open to correction. Was it not Gordon Brown who reintroduced the wearing of uniforms in civvy street and promoted the idea of an Armed Forces Day with all the jingoism, and in some quarters the sectarianism that accompanies it?
I think I will Brexit the blog for a while. Just Poppying out for a break.
ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 3:08 PM
VFR800A8 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:59 PM
‘It begs the question’
###
If I was a moderator, I’d ban anyone who uses the phrase ‘begs the question’, inappropriately.
It’s lazy.
_______________________
Ernie, see your post: ERNIE LYNCH on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 2:38 PM
If I was a moderator, I’d ban anyone who didn’t use a space after a ‘full stop’ or used ergo when they could type an extra 5 characters and use therefore instead.
It’s lazy.
KTF
BSR
“…singles from the van”.
Brought back lovely memories of my schooldays!
Good morning, just, from a sunny eastern seaboard the morning after the Cubs won the World Series.
No apologies for last night’s Game 7 updates. It was an epic match up.
Re politics in football, I am old enough to easily remember Bob Kelly withdrawing from a European Cup tie against Ferencvaros, spelling, after Russian tanks invaded Czeckoslovakia in 1968 to douse the Prague Spring.
UEFA redrew the competition keeping iron curtain sides separate from clubs west of the iron curtain.
As a Yank. BREXIT smershit.
Phil
Roll n’ crisps and ahem a sing- ell ( not a typo )
ThumbsUp © Philvis
TIMALOY29 on 3RD NOVEMBER 2016 3:14 PM
I don’t disagree; I was trying to show the complexity between who defines a political act and who is penalised because they don’t necessarily agree with the definition.
A poorly worded response I fear – apart from the phrase “it begs the question” why I think was excellently worded.
KTF