a suitable case for treatment?

Tom Campbell, author of "Celtic's Paranoia... All In The Mind?" exposes his own state of mental health to the scrutiny of dabblers in psychology with an article penned as a follow-up to the reprinting of his recent book.

The dust has settled on another Old Firm clash and the atmosphere at Celtic Park was as hysterical as ever with tribalism triumphant and paranoia paramount. For days ahead newspapers, broadsheet and tabloid alike, are scanned for hints of favoritism, the telecasts and presenters studied with attention worthy of a behavioural psychologist. Even before the contest begins the referee will have been reviled by both sets of supporters and, throughout the match, his every decision and gesture will be scrutinised for bias or prejudice.

With each debatable decision during the course of the afternoon many Celtic supporters will recall past injustices in this fixture: Stephane Mahe's ordering-off at Parkhead in 1999; Jorge Cadete's 'goal' disallowed at Ibrox in 1997; the assault on Charlie Tully by Cox in 1949 at Ibrox; the ordering-off of two players (Malcolm MacDonald and Jimmy Mallan) in the Victory Cup semi-final at Hampden in 1946 ... For these supporters the list of 'injustices' is endless and, although attention to the past is admirable, it verges on paranoia. Still, as the saying goes, 'Just because you're paranoid it does not mean they're not out to get you.'

Is there truth behind Celtic supporters' claims of scandalous treatment at the hands of Scotland's legislators, media, and referees?

The mis-treatment of Irish immigrants (and Catholics) constitutes a shameful chapter in Scotland's history. This statement is beyond doubt, attested to by scholars and academics from both sides of the country's religious divide. Treated with contempt by the Scottish establishment, deprived of employment by discriminatory practices, this was a community downtrodden and cheated. Is it any wonder that a ghetto mentality should have emerged? And, given the nature of the hostility towards the newcomers, why should their one symbol of success (Celtic Football Club) be treated any better? How could Scotland's football legislators be immune to the epidemic of prejudice and discrimination practised everywhere else?

In fact, they weren't. Celtic were treated disgracefully by the SFA during the Second World War and for at least a decade after it. The club's players were suspended more harshly than others: George Paterson and Jimmy Mallan (ordered off in a replayed Victory Cup semi-final by a referee probably intoxicated at the time) were suspended for three months for 'dissent' while Charlie Tully was given a month's suspension for his first (and only) ordering-off when the norm at the time was a two-week ban. Difficulties were placed in the club's path with regard to the signing of star junior players such as Bobby Collins and Paddy Buckley in 1948; Collins was eventually signed, but Buckley was lost to St. Johnstone (and later Aberdeen). The club was censured and fined for the misbehaviour of some of its supporters although that conduct was not much worse than at other clubs; on one occasion Celtic Park was closed for a month after disturbances at Ibrox. In 1952 Celtic came within one vote of being expelled from the SFA because it refused to haul down the Eire flag, till then fluttering from the flagpole above the Jungle as a tribute to most of the club's founders but largely neglected and ignored by those attending Celtic Park.

The campaign - and it was a campaign - was led by the long-time secretary of the SFA George Graham, later knighted 'for his services to football'. Desmond White once said: 'He'll roast in Hell for what he tried to do to Celtic.' Objective football men and with no connection to Celtic have also described him as 'a bigot', and it was clear that he was orchestrating the attacks on Celtic with acquiescent members of the SFA following his lead. And throughout those years of anti-Celtic actions never once did the SFA make any comment on the fact that another of its member clubs was actively pursuing a shameful policy of religious discrimination by not considering Catholics for any position within it.

Silence is regarded as a form of consent in law, and Celtic-minded people were correct in assuming that the SFA, if not approving outright, had no real objections to the practice. Many Celtic supporters during that period have been criticised for having considered the match official as a branch of the enemy. However, at a time when anti-Catholicism or anti-Irish sentiments were widespread, it would be miraculous if such a representative group as Scottish referees were also free of the disease of institutionalised racism.

Older Celtic followers still seethe with indignation at the antics of such referees as M. C. Dale at the Victory Cup semi-final in 1946 who ordered off two Celtic players, later reporting a third (Matt Lynch) who received a month's suspension. After the contest, the referee, reportedly, was so drunk that he required assistance from the SFA secretary to complete his match report - and Celtic directors had drawn their concerns to the attention of the secretary of the SFA at half time, before the trouble really started!

That incident marked the height of the nonsense, but the evidence is overwhelming that Celtic consistently received very questionable treatment from the match officials in contests with Rangers. Accordingly, suspicion about the impartiality of referees has been a constant factor in the make-up of Celtic supporters, based on fact, sustained by folk memory - but too often presented as an excuse for failure. It was much easier to give a decision Rangers' way rather than Celtic's - as Jim Callaghan found out in 1969 when he decided (wrongly) not to order off Celtic's John Hughes for a foul committed off the ball and behind his back. Callaghan, a highly regarded FIFA referee, was suspended for eight weeks after Rangers had lodged a protest a week after that League Cup match, won 1:0 by Celtic.

Another area of suspicion involves the Scottish media, and once more the memory of Celtic supporters goes back a long way. Some of the media institutions were bastions of reaction against Catholics. The BBC - or at least the Sports Department - in those days simply did not employ Catholics, no matter how well qualified. It was a cosy little club chaired by Peter Thomson (memorably described by Jock Stein as 'Blue Peter'). When Celtic won the League Cup in 1957 by beating their greatest rivals 7:1 in the final, the more paranoid Celtic fans were not too surprised to find that the TV footage of the second half of the match had been erased - although to be fair the fault was attributed to a technician in London.

The Glasgow Herald, the leading newspaper in the West of Scotland, also enforced a strict policy of not employing Catholics, at least in managerial positions.

However, I would suggest that the distrust of the Celtic supporters for journalists is a relatively new development. Full credit must be accorded to most journalists in Scottish newspapers who were even-handed in their match reports, and more importantly in commenting on the unfair treatment accorded Celtic by the authorities - although the autocratic SFA, under Graham's aegis, appeared impervious to criticism. The pre-1980 journalists were generally a credit to their profession, although some, like Tommy Muirhead, David Meiklejohn and Willie Waddell (former Rangers stars) must have had a soft spot for their old club.

Surprisingly, even today in these more enlightened times, not too many journalists admit to being Rangers sympathisers. Given Rangers' success over the years and the demography of Scotland, it simply beggars belief that there are no Rangers supporters among the media but nobody admits to being one. Such clubs as Third Lanark, St. Mirren, Morton, Motherwell, Hearts (and Shettleston Juniors) might not have suffered so much financial hardship if their self-confessed followers in the media actually attended their fixtures.

The collective sense of injustice Celtic supporters feel in approaching Old Firm fixtures is real, but largely rooted in the past. The decades during which Celtic were treated badly has left an emotional scar, and the result is an on-going loss-of-confidence in the authorities. The habit of dismissing their complaints at present as 'paranoid' is a hi-jacking of the question, akin to Stalin's policy of incarcerating any opposition in lunatic asylums.

Are Celtic supporters paranoid en masse? Consider the facts: more than 50,000 season-ticket holders, and a waiting list of another 10,000, and we can assume that for every person who attends at Celtic Park regularly there are another six in the larger community who have a soft spot for Celtic. For the sake of argument, let us assume that there are more than 300,000 Celtic sympathisers in Scotland. If paranoia is as widespread as is claimed, it should be reported to the United Nations as a matter for concern to the World Health Organisation.

What can be done? It should be recognised that the situation has improved in recent times. The Irish - and Catholic - communities have become part of the fabric of a modern Scotland, and have contributed to the development of the country in every area of life. Discrimination against any minority is unlawful, and more importantly punishiable. That enlightenment has meant a considerable and welcome improvement for most newcomers. Only in isolated pockets, increasingly out of touch with the modern world, do the old hatreds smoulder on. The three traditional targets of Celtic supporters' suspicion - the SFA, referees, and the media - should be evaluated by present-day standards.

The SFA has become more accountable, perhaps not by choice. Bob Kelly and George Graham were representative of two religious and ethnic communities when they were feuding for a decade; Fergus McCann and Jim Farry,equally at loggerheads, represented a new reality in Scotland. The underlying emphasis is no longer on religious or social backgrounds, but on business and financial clout. Celtic, as a major player, is listened to in the council chambers at last.

Referees? Necessary but unloved, they deserve sympathy. Match officials are better trained nowadays and more qualified than ever, but they have to deal with a newer set of circumstances. Directives from FIFA, UEFA and the SFA proscribe their decisions and leave little room for tolerance or even commonsense; players, aware of the rewards for success, are more professional in their training and approach with the result that the game has speeded up leaving referees increasingly with split-second decisions to make. A proliferation of cheating among players adds to the referees' problems. They cope with all these reasonably well but in the over-heated context of an Old Firm clash their problems may be compounded with knee-jerk accusations of bias based on religion.

It should be time for all supporters to label a referee as 'incompetent' or 'mistaken' or 'having a bad day' without looking into his religion, and TV coverage has improved the position. Invariably, the camera shows that the official has got most decisions right and that, when wrong, he has been unsighted or conned by a player. Given the improved training of referees and this intense coverage, an inefficient official cannot hide for too long.

However, the authorities, nominally in favour of referees explaining their decisions later and reviewing cases of orderings-off, are too prone to admit to errors. The classic example would be the official praise bestowed upon Hugh Dallas for his performance during the first half of the Old Firm league decider in 1999; his superior described it as 'magnificent and worthy of a world-class referee'. No doubt he would have lauded Herod for his contribution to Children's Rights, or Robert Maxwell for Pension Fund stability.

The media? A cut-throat circulation war among newspapers has led to a new form of football journalism. The appetite for news about their clubs has led to fans devouring every piece of gossip and rumour masquerading as news and, as the most fanatical supporters in the country, Celtic supporters fall into that trap all too readily. Some journalists find Celtic followers easy to wind up, easy to infuriate - and such reactions help boost circulation. Perhaps it is not malice that inspires such writing, but a well-founded and understandable desire to increase circulation, to retain their jobs by keeping themselves in the limelight (akin to the role of the eunuchs in the harem)

As a historian I appreciate more than most the lessons of the past, and I would not jettison that material; however, as an observer of Scottish football I feel It is time now for every case to be considered strictly on its own merits - and without resorting to the emotional baggage of past events and injustices to distort it.

CelticÕs Paranoia - All in the mind?
by Tom Campbell Fort Publishing, 2001 229 pages (illustrated) ISBN 0-9536576-3-9 £11.99 (see a full review of the book and an interview with the author in reviews)

Back to top