Should Glasgow Celtic Make The Prem Leap or Remain Relegated In Scotland?

Jim Brogan for Celtic in the Old Firm circa the John Travolta years...

Bv GeorgeCross

Glasgow Rangers are in the news again due to their financial situation; they were rumored to go into administration or even liquidation. Because of this, the old question about Celtic playing in the Premier League has resurfaced.

Background

The quality of Scottish football has been on a downward spiral for the last 25 years, both in terms of the domestic league and International football, predominantly because they have not been producing the class of players that they used to. During this time, the Old Firm has basically had a duopoly over Scottish honors. This might be good for the fans of the Old Firm, but the reality is that outside of Scotland, they really cannot compete consistently. Year after year, we see the Scottish Champions reach the Champions’ League Qualifying rounds, only to be knocked out and dumped into UEFA’s second tier competition, the Europa League. This has happened because the quality that the Old Firm face on a weekly basis is just not good enough, and the fact that they cannot attract the best talent or compete financially.

But now Rangers’ very existence is threatened, what does this mean for Celtic? The potential bounty and competition on offer in the Premier League would surely solve this issue. But is this prospect a possibility?

Legal, & Social Issues

A lot of people over the year always mention the Welsh teams playing in England [for example Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham, Newport County], but the biggest difference [I believe] is that when these teams were established, there was no real Welsh League in existence and were able to join England’s, but had to start at the bottom of the pyramid and work themselves up via promotion.

This route, although it would take many seasons, has been mentioned for Celtic in an effort to please Football League chairmen. But let’s face it, the only reason they want to join is for economic reasons and nothing else.

Imposing...

With Celtic Park having a sell-out 60,000 seat capacity stadium, I can understand why this would be a more attractive proposition than Queens Park Rangers, Swansea City, West Bromwich Albion or erm, Crystal Palace to the Premier League’s moneymen.

However, there would predictable opposition from [smaller] English teams, such as Crystal Palace, and their fans.

Realistically, if Celtic were allowed to enter the English pyramid, it would only be a matter of time before they climbed the leagues and reached the Premier League. And, to be perfectly honest, they would probably be there to stay. This would mean they would be taking a lucrative spot from a potential promotion candidate – not to mention taking a Football League spot, whether it is in the Championship, League One or League Two. It is not hard to understand why 70+ chairmen would oppose this, because Celtic’s inclusion will reduce the places available.

As Celtic is not a member of the F.A. they cannot compete in the FA Cup. And UEFA rulings state that you cannot participate in two competitions in two different countries, i.e. the Premier League and the Scottish Cup, and then qualify for Europe – therefore ruling out UEFA’s competitions. So, while it may make more economic sense to play in the Premier League, they still would not be able to compete against England’s elite with their Champions’ League money.

Political

At the moment, Great Britain has three separate FIFA members [F.A., F.A.W. and S.F.A.], and each member of the Union values their independence fiercely. So, would Celtic playing in England put this in jeopardy? What is the SFA’s stance on this? Would FIFA put pressure on the three Associations to merge into one as GB? There is already pressure from the Scottish and Welsh Associations, for their players not to participate in this summer’s London Olympics for this very reason.

There is also another political reason, albeit potentially controversial, not to allow this. On the one hand, much of Catholic Scotland is Separatists who would like to break up the Union and have an Independent Scotland. But the same people [of Catholic Celtic] would like to play in the Premier League because of money. Many English people, me included, find this hypocrisy insulting; if Scotland wants Independence from Great Britain, that is fine, but do not pick and choose when you want to be part of the Union – you are either in or out – surely Scottish Independence is more important than your football team being wealthier?! Right? Right?

—-

54 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by kaya on 2012/04/02 at 10:52 PM

    The entire Scottish independence thing bewilders me. Sure, the English scoff at pounds from the Bank of Scotland, but what’s not to love about the summertime vacationers from the south? Either start following gaelic football or give up the parliament and SPL crap and give Scottish football a chance to survive in Europe. The british balkanization crap needs a rest.

    Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 4:14 AM

      Are you saying that England is playing Serbia’s role in the former Yugoslavia? Which politicians are akin to Milosevic and Tito (and Arkan)??

      Reply

      • Posted by kaya on 2012/04/03 at 12:18 PM

        LOL. Not at all. I’m saying Scotland cut the crap out wrt the independence thing. However, for that matter, I don’t know why the UK doesn’t have a U.K. team and cut the English/Welsh/Scottish/N. Irish thing out, too. The ex-Yugoslav teams is a different story which the UK should stop “aspiring” to.

        Reply

        • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 5:15 PM

          That would be England + Bale! Plus it would piss off all the neo-Bravehearts!

          Reply

        • “Cut the crap with the independence thing”

          Kaya, Sorry, I’m confused here, maybe you can explain yourself a bit better.

          Does it offend you that Scotland wants her Independence back? Are we somehow uniquely incapable of being Independent?

          George, maybe you can also explain what a neo-Braveheart is too?

          The worlds first international football match was Scotland v England 140 years ago, should we throw our history away so that GB can have an Olympic football team?

          Reply

          • Posted by kaya on 2012/04/04 at 1:25 PM

            Sorry, I usually pick my words more carefully, and I didn’t read below George’s response to my comment before making my follow-up.
            I’m far from a Scottish political science expert (but I do have family there and have been to a Ranger’s match)… but I don’t understand why political independence is a priority. How far does the average Scot really want independence to extend? How about separate currencies and foreign trade? To people from a country as large as the US, the fragmentation doesn’t make a lot of sense. There’s probably more similarity between your average Scot and Englishman than there is between someone from northern and southern Virginia.
            In any case, I certainly would say that if Scotland wants political independence, there’s no way they should be taking part in the BPL. Then again, Monaco plays in Ligue 1…

            Reply

            • Hi Kaya, imagine for a moment that the USA is governed by your larger North American neighbour Canada. The capital seat of government is Montreal. Every year you send all your taxes to Montreal and they in turn begrudgingly send roughly 75% of your taxes back to you, whilst claiming that you’re a subsidy junkie. Out of this pocket money you fund education and health. When you realise that you send more taxes to Montreal than you get back, you might feel peeved that the Montreal government are spending money on things not particularly relevant to the needs of average Americans. Then say they unilaterally decide to have a war with Mexico and don’t bother to consult you, unfortunately due to poor economic conditions caused by all the resources being in Montreal, a disproportionate number of US citizens fight for the Canadian army. Now sit back and ponder why you wouldn’t be better off being Independent. Hopefully this ham fisted analogy will help you understand that Independence and self determination is natural.

            • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/04 at 5:45 PM

              Do you have sources for the figures you quote, or are you believing your local SNP rep?
              I’m originally from London and if you think about how much revenue London generates, do you thinking we have an expenditure that is more or less?
              I think a lot of this stems from the North Sea Oil that you want to keep to yourselves. If When Scotland get their Independence, I hope we make sure you can’t have Sterling and you take the Euro. Be careful what you wish for!

              England should actually seek independence from Scotland.

            • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/04 at 6:05 PM

              And the Royal Bank of Scotland didn’t mind taking UK Taxpayers’ money did they? Wanted to be part of the Union then, didn’t they, eh?

            • Here’s the figures you want, George. Scotland with 8.3 percent of the population pays 9.6% of all the UK taxes.

              http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/03/GERS-07032012

              As to your assertion that RBS wanted UK taxpayers money. Well first off it was IMF money that the Westminster borrowed at preferential rates. If RBS had been operating in an Independent Scotland, all those decades of banking taxes would have been paid into a Scottish Treasury. Scotland with a GDP around £131 billion, could have afforded the bail out in the same way the UK government went to the IMF for support. You are aware that the US Federal Reserve stepped in to bail out US operations linked to RBS and HBOS. In Europe the governments of France, Belgium The Netherlands and Luxembourg joined forces to help the Fortis and Dexia Banks operating across their borders.

              It’s an international banking convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into those sorts of debt laden conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks. In the case of the RBS…roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland…

              As to your contention that Scotland would have to take the Euro or the pound. Perhaps you’re unaware Scotland entered the Union using the pound in 1707 and that Ireland after Independence used the pound until the 1970’s, some fifty years after Independence. Sorry to keep coming back at you with facts, but if you will use lazy clichés… cheers Murdo

            • Posted by dth on 2012/04/04 at 8:28 PM

              An independent Scotland would be in trouble currency-wise, whether it went Euro, Pound, or, uh, whatever it’d call its own currency. Real trilemma there.

            • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/05 at 4:41 AM

              So what you’re saying is that Scotland has alway paid a more than proportionate level of taxation since entering the Union? Or is this post North Sea Oil revenue?

              It is clear that you’re very pro-Independence, but why not just ask the one simple question at the ballot? Why the second? Sounds like you’re not confident and are hedging.

              For every fact and figure you quote, don’t you think I could find a White Paper suggesting something else from the people who want to stay as part of the Union?

              Re. 2014, we all know Scotland won’t qualify. Your summer will be spent hating on England as usual.

              You might as face facts mate. Scotland is basically an English county. A “shire” if you like.

              Cheerio chap!

            • Oh dear it appears that when you run out of arguments all you have left is abuse. I don’t hate England or the English, 12 percent of SNP members were born in England, my granny was English. As you obviously educate yourself via the Daily Mail, you just keep on thinking the same jingoistic way old fruit.

              I’d love to think that Scotland would qualify for Brazil 2014, but we’ve not got a strong squad and as we have Croatia, Belgium, Serbia, Macedonia and Wales in our group, it’s going to be a struggle. England have got to get past the giants of European football like San Marino, Montenegro, Ukraine, Moldova, Ukraine and perennial favourites Poland, so that’ll be a struggle too, well not against the teams but more your media expectations.

              No, you can’t come up with papers of any colour to dispute the economic sense of Scottish Independence, if you could you would.

            • Posted by matthewsf on 2012/04/05 at 5:50 AM

              Guys please keep this an impersonal exchange, even if emotions are high.

              TSG is a great spot for tense, important debate where all opinions can come and converse. But slinging personal character attacks actually cheapen what you’re saying.

            • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/05 at 7:43 AM

              I apologise, Matt.

              You never answered my questions Murdo. If Independence is such a no-brainer, why not ONE simple question? And what about GDP % pre / post Oil & Gas?

              You know England would still top that group. It is tougher, yes, but we’d still qualify. And you know it. Keep telling yourelf that you’re in a tough group.

              Erm, type in “Scottish Independence, pros and cons” into a search engine and you’ll see a whole list of results and depending on what your politics are, you can believe what you want.

            • I want a simple Yes – No question on the referendum, as does the SNP.
              It’s civic Scotland who are advocating for Devolution Plus, a democratically elected government is honour bound to listen to those requests.

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/04 at 7:42 PM

      And I forgot, Kaya, you’re not the only one who reads The Economist.

      Reply

  2. To suggest the Catholic community in Scotland are separatists is woefully ignorant of the strange paradox of prominent Scottish Catholic personalities and politicians who fully support an Independent Ireland but are wholly against the natural Independence of Scotland. For example Dr John Reid chairman of Celtic Football club and former MP and Home Secretary under Tony Blair.

    People living in Scotland will vote in a referendum in 2014 for the return of Scotland’s Independence, their decision will not be affected by the travails of either of Glasgow’s largest football clubs, both of who are a blight on our society and part of the problem of Unionism.

    To describe the right to self determination as ‘British balkanisation’ suggests that you really do not understand the issues and might not be aware of exactly how insulting such a comment actually is. Heh, perhaps we should start calling July 4th ‘Separatist Day’, how does that sound?

    Reply

    • Posted by JGD on 2012/04/03 at 4:50 AM

      Well stated. I wanted to say something about the separatist remark, but you said it much more succinctly than I ever could.

      Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 6:22 AM

      Sorry, I did not mean to offend.

      However, Reid is not the common man on the street, is he? I did try to find out what proportion of Scottish Catholics support the SNP and whether it was higher than the proportion of the Scottish population as a total (just like the Scottish Catholics and Labour).

      Reply

      • Supporters of Scottish Independence come from all walks of life and religions. In the past it was easy to point at examples such as Sir George Younger actively chasing the Orange vote in Lanarkshire or Glasgow City Council Labour members being elected by virtue of which chapel they attended. With the rise in the desire for Scottish self-determination, this has all changed.

        Attempts have been made to paint the pro-Independence SNP as being pro-Islam whilst simultaneously being both anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant.

        Reid, is not the man on the street, his vast remuneration via Parliamentary expenses exposed the gulf between himself and those who pay to visit Parkhead.

        I apologise to the moderator, if I was hasty in my original comment. There is a great deal of disinformation about Scottish Independence and Identity on the Internet. The problems of Celtic and Rangers will not impact one iota on the road to Independence. Suffice it to say I believe the only path for Scottish football’s recovery is that both Old Firms teams are relegated to the bottom rung of the third division where the once mighty Clyde now reside.

        Reply

        • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 8:28 AM

          For those of you who don’t know, (simplified) the Orange vote stems from William of Orange, who was a Protestant. The Orange Institution is heavily linked with Unionism. Not sure if you’ve heard, or made the conection, but listen to Rangers fans sing “The Billy Boys” song. Not as bad as it used to be but still exists. (And many other teams sing the song in the same tune with modified lyrics, but no sectarian theme).

          Reply

          • Erm George the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act finally came into law last month and already there have been arrests of the thicker bigots who don’t get it that offensive behaviour can not be condoned in a civilised society.

            Amongst the many now banned sectarian songs you’ll find the Billy Boys, The Boys Of The Old Brigade, the so-called Famine Song, and the chant of “Ooh Ah, Up The Ra”, which is sung by Celtic supporters. Can you tell me what other SPL team sing a modified version of the Billy Boys?

            Reply

            • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 8:56 AM

              I didn’t know that the Act had finally passed. There had been a lot of talk about this, but nothing happened for a long time.

              Wasn’t referring to just SPL. EPL teams sing “hello, hello we are the XXXX boys”. Not sure if they even know the origins (or care)…

            • Posted by TC on 2012/04/03 at 9:36 AM

              not true- hearts also sing the song at Hibs and Celtic, as do a number of other teams casual groups

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 10:19 AM

      Do you think Celtic (if that is their desire) should be allowed to play in England? And regardless of religion, what do you think of a Scottish team playing in England if Scotland gains their Independence?

      Sorry for the heavy theme TSG, but in this case, sport and politics go hand in hand.

      Reply

      • Posted by matthewsf on 2012/04/03 at 10:29 AM

        I think theme is great — I just ask everyone to be respectful here and not emotional or personal. Keep going.

        Reply

  3. Posted by JGD on 2012/04/03 at 12:39 AM

    Stay put. Encourage investment in the SPL to make the league itself rise to the challenge posed by Celtic and Rangers. I get that it’s not as sexy a league as the BPL, but there is rabid support and an infrastructure already in place. What’s to stop a few oil sheikhs from buying, say, Motherwell or Dundee United and splashing serious cash to attract top international talent? Hearts produced some promising results immediately after Romanov took power (before he sacked Burley).

    Reply

    • Posted by Jared on 2012/04/03 at 6:14 AM

      Why would an oil sheikh want to buy into Scotland? There is little money coming into the league itself and to get deep into the Champions League it would take a huge output in terms of cash to bring in the players all the while getting very little back in return. There is zero prestige or glamor in owning an SPL club unlike a team in the Premier League, France or Spain. Throw in Financial Fair Play and it would be virtually impossible for a sheikh to turn a club into a Man City or Chelsea. The rabid support you speak of is there but the population of Scotland isn’t big enough to interest an outsider. The fact that there appears to be zero interest from any sheikhs to buy Rangers right now should show just how far that league has fallen.

      Reply

  4. Stay put. The SPL was strong once and it can be strong again. Attendance and viewership figures in Scotland are actually quite high per capita. In Celtic and Rangers (assuming Rangers can retain it’s power), they have two clubs that have regularly challenged for honors in Europe–Celtic last played in the Europa League final in 2003 and Rangers played in that same final in 2008. When Rangers recover (and I’ve no doubt they will, the manky bastards), the SPL will be stronger than it’s been in years. I suspect in the meantime some other teams will grow, especially Motherwell.

    Investment is certainly needed, though. Romanov and Hearts did much to discourage that, unfortunately.

    Reply

  5. At least Celtic is on the same island. A writer for Business Insider thinks someone should/could buy Wolverhampton and make them the New York Wanderers:
    http://read.bi/HF2irN

    Reply

  6. Posted by Jared on 2012/04/03 at 6:09 AM

    I think their best bet and the best idea for many of Europe’s second tier leagues is to form up into smaller international leagues. The one I’ve read most about would be for Scotland’s best, Holland’s best, Norway’s best, and Belgium’s best to form up. The reason behind that is the league would have a better opportunity to bring in TV money with the increase in population that the league would cover. There would be relegation/promotion to and from the national leagues into that league.

    The only obstacle would of course be UEFA/FIFA and the rules that they have in terms of league structure. They are not keen on leagues being made up of various teams from different countries.

    Reply

  7. Posted by TC on 2012/04/03 at 9:05 AM

    both rangers and celtic should take their (editor’s note: left in just this once —>) bigoted sectarian ways as far away from Scotland as possible. There are already meetings to expand the SPL and change voting procedures. Cant wait to see the league rise again with Aberdeen at the helm! cmon the dons! challenging the OF since 1903!

    Reply

  8. Posted by Freegle on 2012/04/03 at 9:29 AM

    Everyone obviously has strong emotional responses to this issue because of the history involved but this is an economical issue. Always follow the money. If the F.A. can make more money with Celtic involved and Celtic can make more money by moving, they will both find a way to make it happen. That may be oversimplifying the issue, but remember that ultimately, they are both business ventures. As a result, their goals are to make as much money as possible and sometimes, you need to ignore history and old alliances in order to do that.

    Reply

  9. Posted by Evan on 2012/04/03 at 9:40 AM

    Celtic and Rangers should both play in the Championship. Celtic would probly be promoted to the Premier League first time. Rangers, maybe not…

    Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 11:52 AM

      Why the Championship and not from the bottom rung of the ladder? What about teams in League One trying to gain promotion to the Championship? How would you please the chairmen of the football league clubs?

      Reply

      • Posted by Jared on 2012/04/03 at 12:28 PM

        In the immortal words of Randy Moss, “straight cash, homey”. That’s all any of these chairmen care about. Pay them what they would get for moving into the Championship including lost ticket revenue from playing at the higher level with more games.

        Reply

        • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 5:41 PM

          But why would the League chairmen allow it at their expense? If I am a Championship chairman, or even the lower half of the PL, I’m not voting for it. You might get paid in the short term, but what about pissing off your fanbase (most likely no waiting list for season tickets either)?

          How long would you compensate them for, under your model Jared? How how would you calculate this sum? Not sure it’s sustainable or even comparable in the long run.

          Reply

          • Posted by Jared on 2012/04/04 at 6:17 AM

            I don’t think it’s feasible either but if it’s going to happen then money would be what it will take. I think there would be more than a few chairmen that would be willing to take the money based on the way we’ve seen so many clubs hover around administration plus the fact that most of them don’t make money. I’m not sure that there would be enough new money coming into the leagues to make it work.

            The issue of the fans shows just how fickle they are. They might be angry initially but they’ll be back. Heck, Man Utd fans buy those silly green scarves yet show up at Old Trafford every week wearing offical team jerseys. Where do they think that money is going?

            Reply

  10. Posted by pudgelife on 2012/04/03 at 9:56 AM

    It is apparent that there are currently vast inequalties in the Scottish game in both attendance and revenue. For example, the following are the average home attendences for SPL games this season
    Celtic – 50515
    Rangers -47021
    Hearts- 13625
    Hibs -12145
    Aberdeen-10191
    Dundee United – 6944
    Motherwell FC – 6027
    St Mirren – 5447
    Kilmarnock – 5156
    Dunfermline Athletic – 5016
    St Johnstone – 4678
    Inverness Caledonian Thistle – 4545

    The foregoing established that there is simply no footing for most SPL teams vs the bigger clubs.

    Celtic have been able to develop a sustainable model, in large part based upon the overseas and expat revenue, for the domestic competition, but have demonstrated that they can no longer compete with the big boys of European football. )But note that Celtic just lost the League Cup Final to Kilmarnock last month, demonstrating that there is some parity in the cup competitions).

    Rangers, however, are currently in the throes of administration (read bankruptcy) as a result of living far outside thier means. For example, they are currently under investigation for having multiple player contracts and not paying multiple forms of taxation. Furthermore, Rangers have already sold off merchandising rights (JJB) season ticket rights (ticketus) and the youth program in order to succed domestically, and compete in the Europa league. Now that there is talk of liquidation.

    For the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League to allow Rangers to return to the Premier League next season (note that they were unable to obtain their UEFA license to play aborad next year) without penalty for all of the “iregularities” will demonstrate that there is not a level playing field, and if that is the case, Celtic should attempt to move south. Joining the Championship would provide a similar size of club and offer Celtic the oppotunity to seek promition to the EPL. Travel would be easier with a move to England vs an Atlantic League which would require supporters to fly all over northern europe

    Reply

    • Posted by Jared on 2012/04/03 at 12:31 PM

      Isn’t it easier to fly from Glasgow to Northern Europe via Ryan Air than it is to travel to Swansea, Cardiff, London or Norwich by train?

      Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/03 at 5:44 PM

      Your making the assumption that Celtic fans travel in their numbers to away games…

      Reply

  11. Posted by pudgelife on 2012/04/03 at 1:49 PM

    Your question presupposes that people would not be wiling to fly budget airlines (like Ryan Air/Easy Jet) to legs in England. Customers would be able to choose to drive to venues, like Newcastle, or take a train/flight to England. Trips to say the Netherlands, or Scandavia (assuming for the sake of argument that an Atlantic League is limited as such) suffers from a paucity of travel options.

    Reply

  12. I highly doubt the recent stories have any substance. Think about it – Rangers are in a massive heap of trouble. As a result, the other SPL clubs have sensed a chance to change the balance of power in Scottish football by changing the voting structure and removing the Old Firm veto which currently exists.

    Celtic don’t want this so they start to make noises through their PR department (i.e. the media) about jumping ship to England, thus denying the rest of Scotland the extra revenue they generate.

    In reality, they know damn well UEFA and FIFA would never allow it. Consider the precedent this would set – would, say, Benfica be allowed to switch to La Liga or Anderlecht to Ligue Un? This would open a massive can of worms which would destroy European football.

    As we learn every time the transfer window opens, just because the press tell us somebody wants to move doesn’t mean they actually want to – it’s all just a political power-play.

    Reply

    • Posted by JGD on 2012/04/04 at 9:16 AM

      There’s a huge difference between a Scottish squad moving to England and a Portuguese squad moving to Spain. Namely that Scotland and England are part of the same country while Portugal and Spain are completely sovereign states.

      Reply

      • In football terms – which is all that matters here – there is zero difference. England and Scotland have distinctly independent FAs, domestic competitions and European co-efficients as well as international teams and rankings.

        Reply

  13. Posted by Don Baldo on 2012/04/04 at 8:59 AM

    Celtic will remain in the Scottish Leagues for the simple reason FIFA and UEFA do not allow clubs to move leagues….

    The only exceptions are area’s which had no league previously See MLS & the Aussie A League which contain Canadian and a Kiwi sides respectively and for historical anomalies such Berwick Rangers playing in the Scottish Leagues, Derry City playing in the Irish League and Cardiff/Swansea (and formerly Wrexham & Newport) playing in the English Leagues.

    The article writers ignorance about Scotland particularily regarding the upcoming referendum is shocking.

    Not to mention that in 2008, Celtic reached the Quarters of the Champions League (knocked out by AC Milan), Aberdeen reached the last 32 in the UEFA Cup (knocked out by Bayern) and Rangers actually reached the final of the same competition…..so it’s bad but not that bad.

    The problem for Rangers and Celtic was with the SPL they shafted the other clubson the TV deal, made sure there was no competition and then blamed all the other clubs when they failed in Europe.

    20-25 years ago the Scottish League was one of the most vibrant and competitive in Europe with almost half the league having a credible chance of the title on opening day….

    If the outcomes of Rangers woes results in Celtic being dragged down with the rest and having to rebuild from the bottom up then most Scots think that would actually be a very very good thing.

    Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/04 at 6:01 PM

      When Salmond and Co. sets a date for this referendum, I will believe it. Last time I read it was *intended* to be Q4 2014 or Q1 2015. Why the wait? That seems an awfully long time to get out of a Union you desperately want to get out of. Perhaps they don’t think they’ll actually win and need 3 years for the spin doctors to work their magic, eh?

      I am aware of Scotland’s achievements, but considering their UEFA co-efficient is so poor that their Champions have to go through a qualifying round speaks volumes, no?

      Reply

      • Salmond has said the date of the referendum will take place in Autumn 2014 or Fall 2014 if you like. 30 months to reverse 300 years of Unionist propaganda is only fair and gives the time needed for a proper public consultation, arrangement, provision, debate and campaigning in Scotland, given the complexities and verifications involved in these processes, it seems sensible that the referendum should be held no later than November 2014. A date before or between June 2014 (the European Parliamentary elections) and May 2015 (the last date for a UK Parliament General Election) would seem advisable, allowing both for summer holidays, the Commonwealth Games, the Ryder Cup and the Brazil World Cup 2014 and for the need to allow political adjustment prior to a UK poll. No need for spin just due diligence on what is Scotland’s first ever vote on the Union.

        Reply

        • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/05 at 10:29 PM

          So, does this fall under an economic argument or political? Seems the SNP has their work cut out.
          Re. Pound, didn’t ROI have their own currency post Independence and not Sterling, ie Irish pound/punt? Surely you’d have to be part of *Great Britain* to be part of GBP? Get your independence, and STILL have you interest rate set by Westminster. To be honest, I really don’t care about Scotland, no skin off my nose. But I will watch Scotland wilt like Ireland, Greece and Portugal. And I won’t bat an eye lid.

          Reply

          • George, I’ll try to explain again, the pound is also Scotland’s national currency just as much as it is the currency of the rest of the UK, we went into the Union with the pound. Scotland also owns a proportional share of the Bank of England, which underwrites that currency. As an independent state, Scotland would have approximately 10% of a stake in the Bank of England, and therefore 10% of influence on decisions made. Under the Union, any influence Scotland has is exercised by Chancellor Gideon Osborne. 10% of influence is considerably more than the influence we have just now.

            Westminster could not prevent Scotland from using sterling, as the Westminster politicians have been trumpeting, for the simple fact, that much like the US dollar, it is a fully trade-able currency. As such any country could adopt it if it felt like it. However, if Westminster did somehow force Scotland out of the pound, any such decision would wreak havoc on the economy of the rest of UK as Scotland would do that most simple think ans withdraw our proportionate share of the Bank of England’s gross reserves. Current estimate 121,000 US million dollars.

            Ireland used the pound sterling as its currency from independence in 1922 until the Republic signed up to the ERM, the precursor to the euro. The Irish punt was worth exactly the same as the pound sterling. It was in fact the pound sterling, only in a prettier shamrock blessed wrapping.

            “To be honest, I really don’t care about Scotland, no skin off my nose.”

            So why choose to write an article and pontificate on matters you know absolutely nothing about?

            Reply

            • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2012/04/06 at 7:49 AM

              If the Irish Pound was worth the same as Sterling, why was there an exchange rate? Please, I would love to hear this explanation. You’re ERM facts are simply wrong, Sir.

              I was writing about Celtic potentially joining England, until you hijacked the thread with your pro-Scotand / Independence BS.

              Only time will tell what will happen. I predict that the Independence wont happen, and London will continue to spend “Scotland’s” oil money…

            • “It was only in 1978, when beckoned to join the EMS, a Franco-German project for a new zone of monetary stability in Europe, that the Irish government decided to make the change. At first there was some hope that it would prove possible to hold the Irish pound’s value at one pound sterling while still respecting the fluctuation limits in the EMS, despite the fact that Britain had not joined the new exchange-rate mechanism. But the strength of sterling in the early months of the EMS, buoyed up as it was by North Sea oil revenues and by the tight monetary policy of the Thatcher administration, put paid to that hope. It is arguable that a continuation of the sterling link into the early 1980s would have proved politically unsupportable, considering the loss of competitiveness that it might have entailed at a time of rapidly growing unemployment associated with the fiscal adjustment of those years”. “Encyclopedia of Irish History and Culture”, Vol.,1 James Donnelly ed., Macmillan Thomson Gale (2002)

              Happy?

              “There is also another political reason, albeit potentially controversial, not to allow this. On the one hand, much of Catholic Scotland is Separatists who would like to break up the Union and have an Independent Scotland. But the same people [of Catholic Celtic] would like to play in the Premier League because of money. Many English people, me included, find this hypocrisy insulting; if Scotland wants Independence from Great Britain, that is fine, but do not pick and choose when you want to be part of the Union – you are either in or out – surely Scottish Independence is more important than your football team being wealthier?! Right? Right?”

              I responded to your rather garbled, ill thought out paragraph above that bears no resemblance to life in contemporary Scotland. You appear to suggest that Catholic Scots want Independence with no actual facts to back this up and then condemn the same religious group for wanting the predominantly Catholic supported team to play in the EPL.

              Sadly all that remains between us is typing, I have nothing more to say to you as you simply do not understand the first this about the Independence issues in Scotland. Fear not I’m sure England will survive as an Independent country without Scotland’s money. Toodles.

  14. Posted by GeorgeCross on 2014/09/19 at 3:13 AM

    And the result is in.

    But we all knew Scotland didn’t have the bottle to go it alone. Common sense prevailed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: