Rangers in SFL3 - right decision, wrong process

As we now know, so long as the decision of the Scottish Football League is respected, Rangers FC in their new guise will participate in the Scottish Football League Division 3 next season.  They will be playing their local derbies against Queen's Park - something that hasn't happened since 1948 - and will make away trips to such exotic locations as Annan's Galabank and Montrose's Links Park.  More bizarrely, they will be playing in a lower tier of the league than my own Albion Rovers who I have followed though the thin and thin since 1994, and my "adopted" team of Greenock Morton.

I believe that the right decision has been made, but probably not for the reasons many think.  What I have been far from in agreement with is the way this situation has been handled and the way in which this decision has been arrived at.  For example, I cannot see how punishing a club and its fans for the actions of its owners (with secondary effects on the club's many creditors) is in any way responsible - and certainly not the remit of a football league of which Rangers FC was not a member at the times of its alleged offences.  I also resent the way in which the debate has focused on how the SFL will decide Rangers future: it isn't the responsibility of the league to make such a decision, but to invite a new club to join the league following a newly created vacancy.

It is probably helpful if I make it very clear I am not a Rangers supporter.  I dislike a great deal about what the Old Firm represents, not least the sectarian associations which still refuse to die.  I feel that the way in which Rangers and Celtic have dominated Scottish football to a ridiculous degree has not been to the benefit of the game in general.  The sense of entitlement and commercial arrogance of the Old Firm clubs have hardly tempted me to think too positively about them.  Then again, for someone who spends their Saturdays at Cliftonhill or Cappielow, that's not a surprising thing to say.

What might be more surprising is that, in spite of the fact that I dislike Rangers, I'm not one of these fans of other clubs who has been clamouring for the harshest punishment possible.  I don't like to see any club going to the wall, whether it's Clydebank, Airdrie, Gretna or Rangers.  These clubs have or had histories, supporters and links with their communities.  True, I feel that the situation surrounding Rangers is a huge wake-up call for the Scottish game and it would have been both immoral and setting a dangerous precedent to offer a newco Rangers a place in the SPL - but nonetheless the club's ceasing to exist wouldn't have been a cause to celebrate.  And it would have demonstrated how easily any club could find it's future threatened as long as people such as Craig Whyte are allowed to forget their business sense the moment they find themselves in a club boardroom.

What I have found more than mildly irritating is that, during the protracted debate that has followed Rangers' being deducted points a few months ago, it became obvious that as far as the football authorities (and some clubs) are concerned, Rangers were perceived as too big to fail.  This itself speaks volumes about the ailing state of Scottish football and the need for revisiting how the game is governed.  No club should be "too big", especially not one that had dominated to the detriment of others who now (in the case of Stenhousemuir at least) seem to have become content to accept the skewed arrangements and feed on the scraps which fell from the rich man's table.  When vested interests are cited as a means of parting from precedent, it speaks of an unhealthy dependency and underlines the inescapable reality that Scottish football is far from a meritocracy.

Of course, there are serious issues of justice to be settled.  That, for me, is now a matter outwith the football authorities' responsibilities, especially as Craig Whyte's takeover is currently subject to a criminal investigation.  I hope that Whyte and the other discredited individuals who brought the club to its knees are, at the very least, prevented from going anywhere near a football club again in their lives.

And then there are the SFA and the SPL, who appeared to be making the rules up as they went along to accommodate Rangers.  I can only guess at their motivations, but it appears that the existing structures they are so keen to maintain require a strong Rangers at the centre.  What is certain is that the interventions of Neil Doncaster and others only confused the matter and lent themselves to the common perception that there was no-one actually in control.

There has been a great deal written about the internal politics of Scottish football, and I have no wish to add to it.  What I want to say, however, is this: the Scottish football authorities simply had to follow precedent and apply it equally to all member clubs.

It was entirely up to the SPL members to decide on whether or not a newco Rangers should be allowed into its ranks.  I personally feel the final decision was the right one. After that decision was made, the SPL's responsibility was to identify an alternative club to take Rangers' place (something which, amazingly, didn't seem to feature in their thinking) - not to influence the decisions of other footballing bodies the new club might wish to approach.

As for the SFL, why the lengthy debate and the discussions about Rangers' recent history?  Why was its focus solely on the future of the Rangers newco?  It's not as if this is a new situation - what normally happens when a vacancy appears (this time created by a member club moving into the SPL) is that indications of interest are invited from non-league clubs.  So why, on this occasion, was Rangers the only club under consideration?

Let's take the case of Airdrie.  The old club found themselves in a similar predicament to Rangers and dissolved at the end of the 2001-2 season.  A newco was formed, with the name of the proposed new club Airdrie United.  The SFL were understandably concerned at the prospect of setting a precedent by which heavily indebted clubs could reform and reapply for their own place in the league and instead decided to admit Gretna.  Airdrie United, however, bought out struggling Clydebank and with it a place in the second division.  The vital point, however, is that the newco had to apply for its place in the SFL and that its application was rejected in favour of another.

When Gretna were relegated from the SPL in 2008, the club was liquidated and accepted into the SFL (on the premise that a new buyer would be found) - but only into the Third Division.  Unfortunately for Gretna, being relegated to the bottom tier put off prospective buyers and sponsors and they resigned from the league.  The SFL chose to replace them with Annan Athletic from a shortlist including Edinburgh City, Spartans and Cove Rangers.

A similar process occurred in 1994, when Caledonian Thistle and Ross County were elected into the league.  Why then, given this apparently tried and tested method of admitting new members, did the SFL not follow its own procedures in this case?  Why was there both internal discussion and public debate about which league a newco Rangers should be admitted to?  Why were the likes of Alloa Athletic's board compelled to take on board the views of their own fans in their decision making process when historical precedent should have instead done all the talking?

As far as the SFL was concerned, a vacancy had arisen.  One high profile new club had expressed an interest.  What should have happened is that applications should have been invited and each of them been taken on their respective merits.  Admittedly the process is fundamentally flawed in key respects but, until the governance of the game is reformed, it's the only one we have and should be followed for the sake of consistency and fairness.  On this occasion the SFL chose against following their own procedures and instead spent inordinate amounts of time debating which division Rangers should start out their new existence.  This would surely not have happened if the club in question had been St Mirren, Dunfermline or Inverness Caley Thistle.

What is now likely is a stand-off between the SFL and the SPL, whose attempted interference to influence the outcome of the SFL vote was heavily resented and whose plans for an SPL2 are now in serious jeopardy. The SPL has apparently threatened not to invite either Dundee or Dunfermline to take Rangers' former place in protest at the outcome and thereby may prevent the newco Rangers being admitted into the SFL. How this internal strife will help Scottish football, I can't imagine. What is actually now needed, as Alloa Athletic director Ewen Cameron told The Sun, is "a unified league of 42 clubs". The game also needs an urgent and overdue injection of integrity.  The resignations of Neil Doncaster and Stuart Regan would well be a positive start in that respect, but are about as likely as a Morton victory in the Scottish Cup final.

I can't see the likes of Edinburgh City, Cove Rangers or any other potential applicants for the vacant SFL place able to offer what the newco Rangers clearly do.   In that respect, the outcome is the right one - while the process, the nature of Scottish football's politics and what passes for leadership within the game leave a great deal to be desired.

I hope the SFL's decision is respected and look forward to the Glasgow derby, in which I will naturally be cheering on the Spiders.  The main thing is that a newco Rangers have been allowed to survive and move forward.  It not only Rangers that I hope will emerge stronger from this, but Scottish football more generally.  Admittedly in the short-term there will be economic effects that will be keenly felt, but in the longer-term there lies an opportunity to rebuild the game, its governance and its structures - and to make sure that the financial well-being of member clubs is not inextricably connected to the continued success of two giants.

How to choose a baby name...democratically

As I've very recently become a new dad, in the next few months or so I might reflect on parenthood more than a little!

I would like to thank everyone on twitter, some who I know well and some less well, for all your kind congratulatory messages yesterday after I announced the arrival of baby Xanthe.

Somebody noted that "Xanthe is such an ACE name" and inevitably conversation turned to how we picked it.  When I explained how we named her, someone else commented "if that's true, that's almost as cool as the name itself!"  Intrigued?

We were told at our second ultrasound scan that our expected child was a girl.  I've been naturally suspicious of such predictions since my little "brother" turned out to be a little sister all the way back in 1991, so I didn't feel a sudden urgency to have the bedroom decorated pink - but obviously we needed to start thinking about potential names.

Actually, we'd given some thought to names in the recent past.  It would have been much easier for a boy in some respects.  Given my background, I like Gaelic names and eastern European names (my grandfather was Polish) but Anna is less keen on them, especially when she can't even spell Ciorstaidh or Agnieszka never mind pronounce them.  She prefers "pretty" names, although the name meanings are also quite important to her.  Needless to say we found it a bit difficult to agree, although with a little help from a book of names we managed to create a list of 19 names we both liked.

We decided that we would allow our family and some close friends to vote for our baby's name.  Democracy can sometimes produce undesirable outcomes but as we thought each of the names was perfectly good, it seemed an excellent way to have people involved in our child's life from even before she was born.  Additional benefits were also knowing what names people didn't like and being able to share with our child in the future the choices her whole family made for her.  Obvious secondary advantages include the knowledge that if - when she is older - she doesn't like her name, we have the evidence with which to blame Grandad and Auntie Suzie.

Most importantly, we wanted to involve people who are close to us - and not least to make them feel involved.   After all, they're going to play important roles in our child's life, so why shouldn't they have a say?

Of course, questions were raised between us about which electoral system should be used and what the terms of the franchise should be.  Debate raged about whether STV or AV was better (we eventually settled for the preferential system used in the Eurovision song contest, how very me!) and how old people should be before they should vote.  That was settled quite easily: anyone who can write the numbers 1 to 8 is perfectly equipped to vote.  And so everyone in our family aged from 5 upwards was sent a pink ballot form.

I must say that most people were more than happy to take part in democratically choosing the name!  The children seemed far more excited than expected, and indeed some were so thrilled by their first experiences of democracy that they can't wait to vote in a "proper" election.   Interestingly, the children seemed to get the idea of preferential voting much easier than some of their elders did.  They were also very excited about knowing the outcome and analysing the results in astonishing depth (I suspect we have some future psephologists and statisticians in the family).

We also received some very nice messages from the voters, the highlight I think being this: "How wonderful to allow us to pick your daughter's name...this is a lovely idea and Keanu [6 year old boy] was excited picking names.  All the best."

As is perhaps to be expected with preferential voting systems, strange and unexpected results can be thrown up.  Names we thought would do well did not, while others we considered to be a bit adventurous and less likely to do well proved very popular.  After everyone had made their choices the most popular six names were:

1) Xanthe   2) Emma   3=) Rebekah   3=) Heidi   5) Aaliyah   6) Charlotte

It wasn't necessarily the case that we would go with the most popular name, especially when there were very few points separating the top handful.  I have to admit preferring Heidi or Emma but eventually we agreed to abide by the express verdict of the voters!

My brother asked me "did you know you've named your daughter after a Greek football team?"  Well, there is a team (and a town) called Xanthi, but surely Xanthe is a much more unique name than Chelsea, Charlton, Everton or other clubs children sometimes share their names with.  Of course Xanthe is a Greek name, the meaning of which is "bright".  I'm pretty sure she'll live up to this in more ways than one.

So, that's the story of how we used democracy to select our girl's name.  The outcome was not what we expected, but it was terrific to have so many people involved and interested - and quite exciting tallying up the points as the forms gradually came in.  I suspect we're not going to carry the democratic principle into every aspect of our parenting though...

I am a dad!

On Saturday, at 9.59pm, a baby girl came into the world.

At the same time, other babies were being born across the globe.  This one is perhaps no more special or precious than any of the others.  There is one small difference though - little Xanthe Aaliyah has me for her dad.

Becoming a dad took me by surprise. It was one of those things that I always would have liked but became resigned to never happening.  There were reasons for this; suffice to say that Xanthe is in some ways a minor miracle.

Being a former medical student, I've seen a number of children being born.  However, the knowledge and experience that ultimately gives doesn't entirely prepare you emotionally for the time when it's your own baby.  I'm naturally quite an emotional person and, while it was wonderful to have stayed with Anna the whole time, it was mentally exhausting.

Now I hear the women among you telling me that's nothing compared to what you go through and I know you're right.  But it's still an amazing emotional rollercoaster for any dad who's present.

I am still experiencing a range of feelings two days on, but mostly tiredness.  I expect these sleepless nights are here to stay (for the foreseeable future at least) and in the next few weeks we need a bit of time to adjust to this new reality.  So I'm guessing blogging will be kept to an absolute minimum.

For now, I'll stop writing and let the photographs to the talking.  

National Trust responds to my complaint!

The National Trust has responded to my complaint in relation to the promotion of creationist theory at the new Giant's Causeway visitor centre in County Antrim, Northern Ireland.

The National Trust drew my attention to a statement they have made in which it claims that they have acted in the interests of diversity and in recognition of the fact that "some people" hold different views.  It also had this to say:

"Hello Andrew, thanks for sharing your concerns. Just to reassure you, the exhibition showcases the science of how the stones were formed, the history of this special place and the stories of local characters. One of the exhibits tells the story of the part played by the Giant’s Causeway in the historic debate about how the earth’s rocks were formed and about the age of the earth. Of course we fully support the scientific explanation for the creation of the stones 60 million years ago." 


So, that's all right then.  Sadly, this didn't deal with the thrust of my complaint, which was as much about the naivity of the National Trust's decision-making and the unintended consequences of throwing a sop to creationists.  And so, I have replied:

"Many thanks for responding. Reading that statement only partially allays my concerns. Clearly the NT does not support the creationist view, but of course I did not for one moment believe that it did. The very best thing that can be said is that the NT has been incredibly naive about this, especially as the creationist group it has been in discussion with is already claiming this sets "a precedent to be applied elsewhere". 

"What I don't understand is the need to sit down and enter into discussions with organisations like the Caleb Foundation in the first instance; and, if diversity really is the issue, why were representatives of other religious groups and non-fundamentalist Christian churches not approached for their views? Also, if alternative views really do need to be given a wider airing on the basis that "some believe them", I'm imagining that bogus beliefs that aliens created the Pyramids should also - holding to that principle - feature alongside historical explanations at the appropriate sites. Would the NT approve of that? Of course not. 

"The NT has inadvertently sent out a signal to creationists that their opinions have been vindicated, and has been seized upon by creationists as such. The spokesperson for the group is correct - a precedent has indeed been set. The genie now needs to be put back into the bottle.

"You state that 'for some people the debate continues today'. Indeed, but what kind of people? Uninformed and often narrow-minded people. The NT really should have been careful not to be perceived as giving credence to the views of such individuals but, sadly, it failed to recognise the unintended consequences of its decision. I feel personally offended by this; not least that creationist groups have had far more input into plans for the Visitor Centre than have NT members."


I remain saddened that such a reputable organisation has seen fit to help the creationist cause, however well-meaning its reasons.  This is a setback to so much the National Trust professes to stand for.  I genuinely hope it reverses its unwise decision and, in future, thinks twice before sitting down with groups like the Caleb Foundation to solicit their opinions.

National Trust throws sop to creationists

It is been revealed this week that the respected preservation organisation, The National Trust, has surprisingly lent credibility to the claims of creationists by allowing their arguments to be presented alongside those of the scientific community at the new Visitor Centre at Giant's Cause in County Antrim.

This seems to have been partly due to pressure from Northern Irish ministers and the fact that the new centre has been partially funded by the public, including fundamentalist Christians.

As a member of the National Trust, I am disappointed that it has made this decision.  Not only is it paying credit to a bogus science, it creates controversy where there is none and allows creationists to perceive it as a vindication of their arguments.  It is also naive and socially irresponsible of the National Trust, given the strength of the evangelical churches in Northern Ireland and the divisive influence they wield.

I have written a complain to the Trust, the whole of which can be read below:

"To whom it may concern,

As a member of the National Trust, I am frankly appalled to discover that the Visitor Centre at Giant’s Causeway in County Antrim is to present the creationist misconception of the formation of the stones alongside the more rational scientific analysis.

I am surprised that the National Trust has, in the words of a representative of the Caleb Foundation, “acknowledge[d] both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this.”  More worryingly is that the move is being perceived by creationists as “a precedent for others to follow."

It is right for the National Trust to say that the debate about the precise age of the earth is ongoing.  But to say this in the context of creationist claims that the world is a mere 6,000 years old and the stone formations of the Causeway are a result of Noah’s flood is entirely disingenuous and gives credibility to an entirely incredible claim. 

There is no “ongoing debate” in the scientific community which is challenging the conventional wisdom of how the stone formations of Giant’s Causeway and Fingal’s Cave came into being.  I am disturbed that school children will interpret the presentation of such misinformation as a suggestion that the claims of the scientific community and fundamentalist creationist Christians are equally valid, when in fact they are not. One is a view based on the best understanding of scientific evidence; the other one based on a strangely literal interpretation of an allegedly divinely inspired text.

I would defend creationists’ rights to express their views, but I do not wish to see the National Trust effectively teaching these views in a scientific context.  I understand that the Trust’s reasoning was to highlight how ideas about the Causeway’s origins have evolved over time, but what has actually happened is for you to inadvertently legitimise a view lacking any kind of scientific base.  Creationists will understandably see this as a vindication of their arguments – something we feel will be particularly negative given the polarising influence of evangelical churches in Northern Ireland.

While I understand that the primary aim of the National Trust is preservation, I feel that it is vitally important that the Trust recognises its role in educating that nation.  Presenting fundamentalist views as part of an evolutionary process would be acceptable; claiming that such voices represent part of “the ongoing debate”, especially as far as the age of Giant’s Causeway is concerned, is frankly nonsensical. 

I would ask that consideration is given to rethinking the decision, and what simply appears to be a sop to the strong evangelical tradition that retains mainstream status in Northern Ireland.  I find it inconceivable and outrageous that the only World Heritage Site in the province, visited by millions from across the world, is promoting (intentionally or otherwise) an incredulous interpretation as to how the iconic basalt columns were formed.  Furthermore, it is a poor use of members’ money.

I also know a number of Christians, have my own beliefs and would suggest that the majority view within the modern church that science is not incompatible with faith.  The creationist arguments espoused by a small minority of Christians should not be given credibility, or even lent the impression that they speak for the Christian mainstream.

We are disappointed with your decision and hope that reason will prevail, with the National Trust adhering to its remit of preservation and education rather than fostering controversies where there are none. 

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Page

Quite how the National Trust reconciles this action with its wider aims I'm not sure. Certainly, its reputation as a champion of science and education has been undermined to some degree.  

Creationists can think what they like, but presenting their perspectives as equally valid with scientific views should have no place in 21st century Britain.