Brian Wilson article in The Herald, "What did the SNP expect in George Square"

dh1963

dh1963

Administrator
Staff member
Official Ticketer
Every morning on the BBC website there's an article showing the front pages of all the papers today.
I notice that Celtic Director and former Labour MP Brian Wilson has a piece in The Herald today on page 14, advertised on their front page with the line "What did the SNP expect in George Square".

I can't see it online yet. Wondering whether it's another hatchet article on our fans being bigots, or whether it might be someone finally pointing out the inevitability of there being a title party that involved a few drinking too much and getting out of hand.

Anyone buy that paper and able to give more detail?

The Herald front page is the 5th one down on this BBC website page.

www.bbc.co.uk

Scotland's papers: 'Life should mean life' and vaccine refuseniks

The sentencing of sex offender Graham McGill and Scots missing jab appointments make the front pages.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
tumsheeheed said:
Apparently he said there was a lot of Good Vibrations coming from George square a lot of Heroes and Villans and Wouldn’t it be nice if it could happen to them and ultimately let’s go surfin now everybody’s learning how come on a safari with me I’ll get me coat !
Click to expand...
:( :oops: :p :)
 
Bear all said:
That headline should read SNP got what they wanted.
Click to expand...

This is the key point of the weekend.

The SNP along with every Rangers hater in Scotland was desperate for George Square to happen on Saturday.

It was all so easily avoidable, but the SNP and GCC didn’t want to avoid it as they knew how valuable a tool it would be for political posturing when the inevitable happened.
 
Brick_Top said:
This is the key point of the weekend.

The SNP along with every Rangers hater in Scotland was desperate for George Square to happen on Saturday.

It was all so easily avoidable, but the SNP and GCC didn’t want to avoid it as they knew how valuable a tool it would be for political posturing when the inevitable happened.
Click to expand...
All about hating anything with the union flag instead of doing a job for the whole of Scotland
independance is their sole aim, f@ck anything else
 
Brick_Top said:
This is the key point of the weekend.

The SNP along with every Rangers hater in Scotland was desperate for George Square to happen on Saturday.

It was all so easily avoidable, but the SNP and GCC didn’t want to avoid it as they knew how valuable a tool it would be for political posturing when the inevitable happened.
Click to expand...
Their pet MSM on standby for the pre agreed quotes.
 
This, I think:

IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.

There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.

Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.

The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.

In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?

Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.

If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?

It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.

I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.

Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.

I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.

Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.

The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.

Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.

The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.

If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?

Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
 
"I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument."

He might be a bitter supporter of the other side, but I need to be fair here and say that he has a helluva lot right in this article.
 
The SNP and other Rangers haters were furious at the first title celebrations. Furious that there was no police battering people, furious that thousands gathered waving Union Jacks and having a good time. So they turned to "oh but what about the benches" for some uproad. They were not happy, they wanted pictures of police battering Rangers fans and something to cling onto for political points.

That's what Saturday and the aftermath is all about.

A bitter, divisive and wholly sinister political party.
 
Rangers proposed a plan to have 10k season ticket holders inside the stadium over 4 different days to negate any gatherings after Saturday’s game.

As we know the authorities knocked this back.

Given the authorities unhappiness with events in George Square after the title was first clinched I’m minded of the below quote from Einstein

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
 
Wilson makes the points that have already been made on here.

The scottish government had the power to keep this within and close by the Ibrox area. This article has double impact now we have been made aware of the request from Rangers to have an event at Ibrox and the subsequent refusal.

They are trying to pin all the blame on Rangers and the fans - they need to take some responsibility for their lack of planning. Rangers FC have no case to answer - all we did was win a fxxking title and enjoy the occasion.
 
johnnybravo said:
All about hating anything with the union flag instead of doing a job for the whole of Scotland
independance is their sole aim, f@ck anything else
Click to expand...
There were plenty of saltires on show as well on Saturday. Does it then come down to the wrong kind of individual waving said flag? Cos if it does we are getting into dangerously territory here.
 
Very good article, refreshing to read someone capable of giving a balanced view based on reality
 
Let us be of no doubt, the whole scenario on Saturday was channelled by the SnatziP as a major propaganda stunt.

We all knew where and when our support would congregate and party, so why not simply open Ibrox?

Certainly, some would have gone to George Sq anyway to re-state our position of recovering Glasgow from the bheasts but in far less and more easily manageable numbers.

This is a very sinister state of affairs and we, as a support, must realise we are being de-humanised and politically targeted by the Roman Church appeasing Govt and their state police.

How we go about being smarter and more organised is for Bears savvier than me, but we must start fighting fire with fire and becoming far more disciplined and streetwise.
 
johnnybravo said:
Wilson is surprising me,
one of the few, and he’ll be copping a lot of flak for speaking the truth
Click to expand...
Like him or loathe him, like the “old” MP’s who sat in Westminster, they’re all a cut above the rabble of jumped up councillors who now govern us from the kiddy on parliament in Edinburgh.

This shower couldn’t lace their boots and would be shown up in any debate against those who previously represented us in our real parliament.
 
That’s a very fair argument.

You could be forgiven for suspecting however that Ibrox was not allowed to be used in order to help ferment the disorder that followed on the streets.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
This, I think:

IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.

There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.

Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.

The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.

In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?

Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.

If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?

It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.

I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.

Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.

I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.

Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.

The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.

Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.

The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.

If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?

Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
Click to expand...
Cap doffed!
 
Let's not kid ourselves - the same would have happened if it had been Celtic who won the league.

SNP Govt declined Rangers suggestion due to SNP Govt "rules". They offered no suggestions in return.

All they wanted was Rangers to issue statement after statement. It was no different to "Plan B is to do plan A better"..............

If fans were in the stadium - there is no way George Square would have become any sort of focal point.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
Click to expand...

Great article, with an astute finishing line.

Edit to add, this is the SNP all over, ban things, say no, stamp your feet, never trying to help or find solutions.

This is what happens when you have an anti-UK grievance party in control.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
This, I think:

IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.

There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.

Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.

The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.

In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?

Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.

If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?

It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.

I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.

Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.

I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.

Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.

The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.

Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.

The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.

If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?

Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
Click to expand...
Thats an excellent appraisal of the farcical nature in which the SNP have managed COVID. They are so out of their depth its frightening.
 
‘Lack of planning’, ‘naivety’ or ‘oversight’ by the SNP and GCC is not what transpired on Saturday.

Allowing 20k Rangers fans to march from Ibrox to George Square was a very calculated move. They knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what it was going to provide them with.

I’m not condoning the minority of arseholes that caused bother, but allowing the events of Saturday to unfold as they did was simply a ploy by those in power to garner ammunition against a demographic that they view as a political enemy.

There were several simple solutions to avoid that gathering at GS on Saturday, but the powers that be didn’t want to avoid it.

Unfortunately said minority of arseholes done much of our enemies work for them.
 
This was Manchester all over again. The authorities knew it was going to happen and chose to ignore it. The statement Rangers put out would have been run past Useless and co, after the celebrations when we clinched the league. To me it said "your not supposed to do it but we know you are "
We now find out SNP blocked a sensible plan that would have pleased fans and would have been easier to police. Why? Because they can't make an unpopular decision to their voters. Big, bad bunch of (mainly) Unionists getting to enjoy themselves.
 
tumsheeheed said:
Apparently he said there was a lot of Good Vibrations coming from George square a lot of Heroes and Villans and Wouldn’t it be nice if it could happen to them and ultimately let’s go surfin now everybody’s learning how come on a safari with me I’ll get me coat !
Click to expand...

He thought, "I Can Hear Music" but it was only Pet Sounds. They were waiting for The Warmth of The Sun so that they could Do It Again but I'll Getcha Back. They'll be celebrating All Summer Long, having Fun, Fun, Fun.

Don't Worry Baby, they'll Shut Down and go back to their Rock & Roll Music.
 
tumsheeheed said:
Apparently he said there was a lot of Good Vibrations coming from George square a lot of Heroes and Villans and Wouldn’t it be nice if it could happen to them and ultimately let’s go surfin now everybody’s learning how come on a safari with me I’ll get me coat !
Click to expand...
VjvtzrM.jpg
 
That's an excellent article. At last we have someone in the media spelling it all out. The madness of knowing there would be anything between 10,000 - 20,000 of our fans out in the city on Saturday. Yet not allowing them into an outdoor arena to see what it was they wanted to celebrate. Thereby meaning they had to find other outdoor places to go.
It's incredible incompetence and an example of the stupidity of the government. If thousands of people are going to gather anyway, put them somewhere that you can control better and, ultimately, the actual place they want to be.
 
That is a really good and well-reasoned article. The 'bigger picture' closing line is especially astute - there is no bigger picture when it comes to Rangers, just recrimination and small mindedness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top