Quite apart from the fact that 'Fenians' is a sectarian term while 'huns' is not, the fighter for truth and justice, McMurdo, leaves out one little item from his diatribe: O'Hara made his 'huns' remarks online EIGHT years ago! He'd probably forgotten all about it until some Tory journalists decided to rake about in his past, looking for dirt. To the minds of The Peeppul, though, anything that reflects badly on a Celtic-supporting member of the SNP, especially one with a name like Brendan O'Hara, is to be pounced on. They somehow think it justifies their own bigotry. It shows how desperate they are when they have to go digging about in the past to find anything unsavoury. For example, they never tire of going on about the Mark Walters incident, even though, at the time, that kind of vile racism was par for the course throughout society. I'd better look out if my books become more popular; I used to use words like 'darkie' and 'sambo' away back in the 1970s. I'd never dream of using these terms nowadays but that doesn't seem to matter to The Peeppul.
These desperate attempts to justify the bigotry of The Peeppul have been going on for a while now. There are three ways that they do this: the first is obviously the 'both as bad as each other' myth, the second the claim that the whole combination of Celtic supporters, Catholics, the Irish and those of Irish descent are the real bigots. The third is McMurdo's favourite; that religious and racial bigotry simply don't exist in Scotland anymore. McMurdo cites a Sociology Professor, who claims to have proven that such bigotry and discrimination are things of the past. His name is Steve Bruce.
Bruce's big discovery was that the most disadvantaged group in Scotland was comprised of those that declared 'no religion' or 'no religious upbringing' in the 2011 Census. He deduces from this that it's atheists that are discriminated against and not members of a particular denomination. Perhaps Sociology as a subject is not as stringent as some others, but if I made a claim like that, based on such flimsy evidence, in a Second-Year History essay I'd be quite rightly censured for it. And yet Bruce advances this bold assertion as part of a supposed academic enquiry.
The truth is that discrimination depends on how others view you, not on how you view yourself. Bruce's atheists might well not be discriminated against qua atheists at all. A man that has never been Christened or attended church can justifiably claim on a Census form that he is of 'no religion' and had 'no religious upbringing' but such questions aren't asked on a job application form. Instead, a prospective employer will see that the man's name is Timmy O'Tim and that he attended St. Fenian's High School in Coatbridge. Any discrimination against this applicant, therefore, has nothing to do with him being an atheist. It's easy to see that Professor Bruce's conclusion from his data is at best laughable and at worst disingenuous.
If you have a look around the internet at websites that expound the idea that sectarian bigotry in Scotland is a thing of the past, they either have an agenda of being apologists for anti-Catholic bigotry or to argue that Catholics in Scotland are the real bigots; some do both. A case in point is a blog called 'Truth on Sectarianism' which was written by one David McIntyre. A quick scan over some of his post titles tells a tale: 'More Evidence of Celtic's IRA Support', 'Celtic's Sectarian Shame', 'Celtic's Extremist Element' and 'Bishop Admits Sectarian Problem' all show exactly what this character's aim is. The Red Hands on his followers' ID pictures and the other sites followed by Mr McIntyre, including 'If You Know Their History', 'Sweeping Since 1888', 'Vanguard Bears' and even 'Leggoland', betray the true thoughts of this individual.
The story these days is that it's Secularists that attack Catholics and the Catholic Church; such is the contention of Professor Tom Devine. Rather shamefacedly I have to admit that Tom Devine is an historian, so I can't have a go at his subject! Still, he's not discussing history here. He's making assertions without giving any real evidence; something he probably wouldn't dream of doing in one of his History books! In any case, it's true that the likes of the self-righteous Richard Dawkins directs most of his attacks toward the Catholic Church (with Islam a close second) but that doesn't tell the whole story. Quite a few of McMurdo's Disciples post links to Dawkins's site and, if you visit the site, you'll find a few familiar names among those commenting. There are others as well on Dawkins's site that, through the language they use, betray the fact that they are not Secularists but religious bigots. And, in any case, it's not Secularists that go about shouting "Fuck the Pope" and wanting to be up to their knees in Fenian blood!
Back to Professor Bruce, who, for his book saying that sectarianism was a myth, carried out a survey of victims of violence to see if they felt that they had been attacked for sectarian reasons. Very few of them made this claim and Bruce says that 'country of origin' was one of the more common reasons given. I wonder which country that would be? Again, though, Bruce misses the point. The point of view of the victim is pretty irrelevant; he should have been asking the ones that carried out the attacks. Perhaps, though, that wouldn't yield the results Bruce was looking for. The bigotry in this country is not just confined to anti-Catholicism; much of it is anti-Irish. Even an Irish-sounding name is like a red rag to a bull, which probably explains the petitions against Brendan O'Hara.
So does Steve Bruce have an agenda? Well, I'm not going to be like the Professor and jump to wild conclusions but it is interesting to note that he was educated at the Queen Victoria School in Dunblane. Involvement in the armed forces is a major part of being a pupil at this school, which is bound to impart a certain way of looking at the world. There are also dark stories of Masonic influences at the school (http://stolenkids-dunblane.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/irregularities-at-queen-victoria-school.html). I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
It seems the Westminster Establishment is running scared in the run-up to Thursday's vote. In the past few days the scare stories have been ramped up to 11, with all the well-worn shite about 'Cybernats' and a stage-managed 'riot' in Glasgow. Again, while our media calls on Nicola Sturgeon to control the SNP's 'extremist fringe', they say nothing of the 'extremist fringe' of the other parties, who are out beating up SNP campaigners on the street. I suppose that wouldn't fit with the story they're trying to promote.
As for this 'extremist fringe', I'm beginning to wonder about it. Piers Doughty-Brown; now there's a name to conjure with. I bet he didn't grow up in Castlemilk or Pollok! The only time I've ever encountered anybody called 'Piers' was at university. He had a double-barrelled surname as well and that was about as much as I knew about him, apart from his tweedy clothes and floppy, Hugh Grant hairstyle. He and his cronies didn't mix with us common scum, preferring to frequent some high-class establishment on the outskirts of Stirling. The only time they actually mixed with us mere mortals was when one of them was standing for election as Students' Union President; as Conservative candidate, of course! So what has this to do with Doughty-Brown? I'll just give you two words to conjure with: agent provocateur.
Let's make sure we all get out and vote tomorrow and rid ourselves of all those Westminster gravy-train riders, liars, backstairs dealers and self-servers!
"Have you seen some of the abuse those Cybernats are dishing out online? The language they use - it's a fucking disgrace! I didn't know any cunt actually employed those kinds of words. I was blushing like a bastard!"