Dissertation

Understanding Sectarianism in Football
Does the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications
Act criminalise young football supporters for non-sectarian crimes?
Fraser Allan Cairns
BA (Hons) Media, Culture & Society, 2015
School of Social & Health Sciences
University of Abertay Dundee

1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
University of Abertay Permission to Copy 3
Abstract 4
Introduction 5
Literature Review 7
Methodology 17
Results 30
Discussion 40
Conclusion 44
Bibliography 46

2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank everyone who has assisted with my research by filling out
the survey for my methodology section. Special thanks must go to Marie
McCusker, David Scott and Hugh Henry who all agreed to give me their time to
help with a crucial part in research undertakings.

3
Abertay University
Permission To Copy
Author:
Title:
Qualification:
Date of
Submission:
* I agree that a copy may be made of the whole or any part of the above-
mentioned project report without further reference to the undersigned
or
* A copy shall not be made of the whole or any part of the above
mentioned project report without the written consent of the undersigned.
(* Please strike out whichever does not apply)
Signature:
Address:
Date:

4
Abstract
Scotland has been an interesting place to live over the course of the past few
years. Having played our part in the London Olympics we then had the honour
of hosting the Commonwealth games in 2014. When countries host such events
it is ordinary practice to host an opening ceremony celebrating the host nation
and all it stands for, what it means to its natives and in some cases playing up to
the stereotypical ideas that other people have of that country. If silly, the
portrayals are not to be negative. It would be unusual for a country to depict
shameful areas of its history in one of these ceremonies. This is why on the
night of the opening ceremony we witnessed the most extraordinary,
unintentional but not unknowingly exhibits of the tribal rivalry between the
Glasgow’s two football teams who are forever associated with the issue of,
what some call Scotland’s shame, sectarianism. When Her Majesty The Queen
entered and Celtic Park stood up to the national anthem and RAF smoke team
flew over with the red white and blue anyone with an ounce of knowledge on
the rivalry would have noticed what exactly was extraordinary about it. It would
be easy to be surprised that there was no reported trouble on the night and if
viewed in isolation and events that had large potential to cause public disorder
and didn’t. It was hardly a talking point the next day expect in banter between
rival fans which is why this research aims to provide insight in to why football is
the context in which this rivalry is largely understood in Scotland.

5
Introduction
That night in Glasgow was extraordinary for the other reason that it happened
at an event that, although hosted at Celtic Park, was out with the usual context
in which you would expect there to be any talk of the Old Firm rivalry and
sectarianism. Study of sectarianism in Scotland is virtually impossible to carry
out without understanding why it is understood largely in the footballing
context.
This is why the claim from James McMillan in 1999 that Scotland is an
endemically sectarian society seems odd as for that to be true it would surely
just be reflected in football and football teams all over the country rather than
being understood largely only in football. However, discussion of sectarianism in
Scotland struggles to escape the relation to football and football supporters in
particular that of the Old Firm. The view that football supporters are the only
people involved is a view held my many and is reflected in the Offensive
Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (OBFTC Act).
Since its introduction of the act it has come under scrutiny for many reasons.
Some critics believe that it restricts the civil liberties of football supporters and
thus treats them unfairly to the wider population. It is my view that this is the
case and furthermore, it is my view that young football supporters are the most
vulnerable group within the larger group of football supporters. It is my first
aim to find out if the act does criminalise football supporters for non-sectarian
crimes more generally and highlight what the problems with this are. Of course,

6
if this is the case then it does criminalise young football supporters for non-
sectarian crimes by extension, however, the focus of my study is to find out the
extent to which it could be said young people are vulnerable and highlight why
it represents a misunderstanding of the issue to criminalise this group to try and
eradicate the perceived issue of sectarianism.

7
Literature Review
To provide a satisfactory answer to the research question it is important to
distinguish an accurate definition of sectarianism. This is problematic area in
research undertakings due to the complexity of the issue and the wide range of
differences in understanding of what sectarianism is. Typically sectarianism
refers to divisions in religion. The Oxford definition for a sect is a group of
people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as
heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong so of course this
applies to Protestants and Catholics. However, in Scotland sectarianism is often
understood in the context of football and thus beliefs, traditions and values
possessed by supporters of the Old Firm. In Scotland we have a charity
dedicated to eradicating sectarianism called Nil by Mouth (NBM). They define
sectarianism as follows:
“Sectarianism in Scotland is typically related to Protestant/Catholic
divisions but it is helpful to understand that sectarianism also occurs
within other faiths and is a feature of religious intolerance. Although
sectarianism is rooted in religion it is often linked to cultural, historical
and political differences. It is frequently argued that in recent years this
type of intolerance of others has little link with history or association
with religion itself.” (Nilbymouth.org)
This suggests that it always involves religion although it branches out to be
division in other sections of society. It is, therefore, understood by them as

8
more than simply a religious divide but a political divide too with class and
national identity being commonly discussed aspects of the rivalry. A definition
offered to us by Liechty and Clegg describe sectarianism in a similar way:
“system of attitudes, actions, beliefs and structures at personal, communal and
institutional levels, which always involves religion and typically involves the
negative mixing of religion and politics.” (2001) This also suggests it is more
than a religious issue, however, differs from Nil by Mouth’s view, as for Liecty
and Clegg, religion is an essential factor whereas Nil by Mouth don’t see it as
such but do accept it often stems from religion. Interestingly Nil by Mouth state
that the link to religion present day can be low. This is a key point when
discussing sectarianism and the same point is made by people who have been
critical of NBM such as academic, Steve Bruce. However, Bruce argues that a
declining religious link means the term use of the term sectarianism becomes
inappropriate in the Scottish context as Steve Bruce et al (2004) define
sectarianism in much simpler terms and state that by sectarianism, they mean
discrimination against somebody in terms of their religion. (p.4)
The complexity of the issue is reflected in the different definitions given to us in
academic literature however it is clear that religion is the most important and
most common factor. However the problem with defining sectarianism as
anything more than a religious issue is that things such as nationalistic
expressions can be wrongly linked to religion, and thereby, wrongly attributed
to sectarianism. When answering the question in the title we are questioning
whether or not the Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act

9
criminalise young football supporters for non-sectarian crimes, we are analysing
the extent to which the offense could be said to be religious offenses. It will be
important to refer back to these definitions in subsequent research to see if the
definitions given to us are accessible and accepted by members of the general
public. This is why it is crucial to analyse the importance of religion in
contemporary Scotland.
In Sectarianism in Scotland Steve Bruce and his co-authors discuss the
significance of religion in Scottish society and the extent to which of religious
division might exist. Scotland does have a sectarian past which modern ideas of
sectarianism stem from. Previous laws that restricted Catholics to vote, teach
children and buy land among other things however the worst of sectarian
natured laws were abolish in 1829 with the Emancipation Act. Catholics have
previously been victims in a society that enforced laws of a sectarian nature of
that there is no doubt, however, it does not exist in Scotland present day. The
two jobs that are restricted to a Catholic are the Lord High Commissioner to the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the monarch. These
restrictions are not Scottish in origin as they were made five years before the
act of the Union. Bruce also notes that the Catholic encyclopaedia describes the
former position as “an office which no Catholic, of course, would desire to
hold.” When suggestions were made to amend the act by Scottish Secretary
Michael Forsyth in 1999 the Catholic Church were not active in pressing the
government to change the act suggesting that generally the Catholic community
were satisfied with existing laws. A census in 2001 proved the group in society

10
with the worst socio-economic status was non-religious people showing no
evidence that economic distribution in Scotland favours any particular religion.
This would also suggest that Catholics must hold jobs that keep their economic
status above that of those with no religion. (Bruce et al, 2004)
With the lack of evidence to suggest that sectarian is institutional it is important
to consider the extent to which there is sectarianism in society at ‘street level.’
In a 2001 Glasgow survey nobody claimed to have experienced sectarian
violence or experienced discrimination in the workplace of a sectarian nature
but claimed that they knew it went on which suggests there is a perceived idea
of sectarianism in Scotland that makes us assume bigotry as a result of our past
without truly analysing it. Steve Bruce et al. (2004) highlight the declining
religious interest in general. In the Scottish Social Attitudes survey of 2000 27%
of Glaswegians did not claim a religion. 36% said they were Protestant and 24%
said that they were Catholic. Of those who did claim only a third attended once
a month or more probing that religious engagement in Glasgow is low and that
the some religious identity is claimed loosely as many people do not practice in
religion. It is for these reasons that multiple academics have described
sectarianism in Scotland as mythical. Sectarianism is often studied in the
context of Northern Ireland where the division is evident in society with
residential segregation determined by religion so sectarianism in Scotland is not
comparable as such religious cleavage does not exist. For example, we do not
have or have never had, segregated housing schemes based upon religion and
live in mixed communities where Rangers fans and Celtic fans, live next to each

11
other and work in the same professions as each other as do the small amount of
practicing Protestants and Catholics.
Joseph Bradley (2009, p. 239) states that religious identity now is understood by
what football team somebody supports rather than religious practice and that
this makes the term sectarianism erroneous. This is a fundamental point when
understanding sectarianism in Scotland. It is difficult to imagine that it can exist
only in football if it doesn’t even exist elsewhere in society. Also the extent to
which nationalistic expression from either side can be said to be linked to
religion has to be questioned when we the importance of religion is declining.
The commonly discussed example given by those who would argue it existed in
football is the one of Maurice Johnston by Rangers in 1989. David Ranc
introduces his case study on The Old Firm in his book ‘Foreign Players and
Football Supporters: The Old Firm, Arsenal, Paris Saint – Germain’ as follows;
“This case study looks at the change introduced by the signing of Maurice
Johnston in 1989 by Rangers. For the first time in living memory a Catholic (and
more importantly, a Scot from arch-rivals Celtic) was signed to play for
Rangers.” (2011)
This could be said to be the myth of sectarianism in football as Bill Murray
(1984) argues that no anti-Catholic signing policy existed and backs this up by
listing ten Catholics who played for Rangers before and during the First World
War and then a further four in-between the end of the First World War and the
signing of Maurice Johnston. Interestingly there was a Catholic named John

12
Spencer who played for Rangers from 1985-1992, therefore, would have been
with them at the time of the controversial signing of Maurice Johnston. The
difference between Spencer and Johnston being that Maurice Johnston was a
higher profile footballer, an ex-Celtic hero and thus a higher profile Catholic.
This could suggest that the section of the Rangers support who did voice
discontent believed that they were signing a Catholic for the first time although
it is probably the case that Maurice Johnston was disliked as a result of his
success with Celtic. If we analyse more recent cases, when it was rumoured
Rangers would re-sign Kenny Miller (who had already crossed the divide once
before) the Rangers fans were very vocal in their opposition to this. When the
signing was made there was a rapid shift in attitudes that saw Miller being
generally accepted and supported. There is also the case of Jon Daly who
currently plays for the club. He is a Catholic and from the Republic of Ireland but
this is not considered an issue and his religion and citizenship are a mere
irrelevance to Rangers fans so the declining significance in religion is reflected
here in the sense that 30-25 years ago this would have probably been a
controversial signing.
We now have an interesting situation where the literature reviewed gives
sufficient evidence to suggest that a high level religious intolerance does no
longer exist in Scottish society in politics, on the street or in football yet the
issue has risen to prominence since James MacMillan’s speech at the Edinburgh
festival in 1999 when he said this:

13
“In many walks of life – in the workplace, in the professions, in academia, in the
media, in politics and in sport – anti-Catholicism, even when not particularly
malign, is as endemic as it is second nature.”
It may be that the evidence given in the research is not easily accessible for the
general public and that the speech at the Edinburgh festival by a high profile
public figure gains high levels of media attention and a greater reach. Steve
Bruce said this on the issue:
“It is surely no accident that the lists of those who think Scotland is still an
endemically sectarian society is led by a musician, a novelist and a professor of
literature- all untouched by evidence beyond their personal experience.” (2004,
p.154)
The novelist he is referring to is Andrew O’Hagan who wrote “Scotland is a
divisive and bigoted society.” And the Professor is Professor Patrick Reilly who
wrote “To ask if there is anti-Catholicism in Scotland is like asking if there are
French men in Paris.” The Church of Scotland and Politicians began to debate
the issue as if it was a problem on the ascendency though it seemed there was
no credible evidence to suggest this.
Bruce et al (2004, p. 145) argues that groups of people such as the previously
mentioned public figures along with the media and the anti-sectarianism charity
Nil by Mouth are responsible for creating a moral panic and also argues that the
media dress up stories with sectarian elements to sell more papers due to great
interest in the two football teams. Furthermore they question the motives

14
behind the charity as it would not exist if sectarianism wasn’t perceived to be a
problem so to salvage personal careers it is in their best interests to persuade
funders (the public) that sectarianism is still a prevailing problem.
Interestingly NBM were not invited to the Scottish Government’s justice
committee when setting up the Offensive Behaviour at Football and
Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act. The decision to exclude Scotland’s
only charity dedicated to tackling the issue of sectarianism from giving evidence
to the committee meant the bill was left it open to criticism. Of course,
supporters of both clubs were already voicing discontent. Interestingly,
although both fans opposed the bill, Celtic supporters appeared to be slightly
more active against it with a campaign titled “Kill the Bill”. This could be
because Rangers fans were criminalised under existing laws and the club has
been sanctioned by UEFA for their songs on the grounds that they were
religiously intolerant. Songs sung by the Celtic support to antagonize Rangers
fans are generally pro IRA making them political. Additionally Dr Stuart Waiton,
who gave evidence at the justice committee, was in strong opposition to the Bill
and argues that extreme deterrents are used to stop football supporters
exercising act of expression that are not restricted to people out with football
stadiums in Scotland, therefore, football supporters are treated unfairly in
comparison to the rest of society. Waiton (2012) shares the view of Bruce and
his co-authors have that sectarianism in Scotland is something of a myth in
society and that sectarianism is used to gain support for a law that is an attempt
to control liberties such as the freedom of expression for the working classes. In

15
the same justice committee meeting Waiton argues that it is just banter
between two sets of fans and the use of sectarian language is not a genuine
attempt to direct hate at either religion. As previously discussed religion can be
falsely claimed. It is suggested that it is falsely claimed as an add-on to the
identity of being a Rangers or a Celtic supporter. We have previously discussed
Joseph Bradley’s statement earlier that sectarianism is erroneous because
religion is now interpreted by what team somebody supports. This suggests that
religion is claimed because of what team people support rather than choosing a
particular as an extension of a particular faith. This is why Waiton would argue
that it is common place for rival fans to exchange offensive chants and although
the Old Firm contains religious language it should be accepted that it is no
different to the offensive nature of exchanges that happen between rival fans
all of Britain.
Interestingly, Waiton is a published author on both youth regulation and
sectarianism and describes the link between youth groups and sectarianism as a
distant one. He gives evidence from a 2002 survey that shows people under 25
are far less likely to go to Church than people over 55 and offers us another
example from Bruce and his co-authors that things such as sex before marriage
are discussed in terms of generational differences in Scotland and not religious
differences meaning that for young people religion is not an important factor in
life. Waiton describes this declining importance of religion as being as significant
because the majority of arrests for sectarian crimes come from young age
groups. It then seems those who are most affected by the “myth of

16
sectarianism” are the young people who live in a society where it has never
been less of a problem. It will be interesting to find out later on if this is
reflected in an analysis of convictions under the OBFTC Act. (p.77)

17
Methodology
In this section of my project I will outline the methods that I have chosen to
seek important information to assist with my research and I will explain why
collecting data using these methods is appropriate. In the literature review I
stated the importance of comparing sectarianism in Scotland, as understood by
the general public, to academic understanding found when reviewing literature
The use of a quantitative method was necessary in this instance as it is
important to gather data from as many respondents as possible to create data
with a wide range of demographics data that could be said to be the a fair
representation of the view held by the general public. This is why I opted to
carry out a survey for the first part of my data collection. I am also used a
qualitative method in research interviews. My aim here is that I will have
comments from the appropriate people to give more detailed analysis of the
issue for a greater detailed discussion after having collected a more general
public view. There are ethical matters to take in to account with both of these
methods as there is with all research. For both methods it was important that
the respondent was aware that the information they gave to me was for study
purposes for this project only and would remain confidential. The aim of the
study is also made known to people so that they had a better understanding of
why they were answering the questions that they were and could answer
accordingly. The interview information is for the purpose of this research only.

18
The use of a survey was a beneficial method of research to as it was sent out
over the internet so it was time effective and was carried out with relative ease.
The statistics given allowed for data trends to form that would make for an
interesting comparison to the data found while reviewing literature such as the
definitions of sectarianism given to us by academics and the extent to which
these are accepted by the public. It was also important to consider who the
survey would reach. Although I want to capture a view that could be said to be
the one of the general public it is important to consider a lot of non-football
fans will not know a lot about the Act, therefore, won’t be able to comment on
some questions. Their opinion on the treatment of young people and football
supporters will still be interesting to get so for this reason some questions will
not require an answer. I expect that most of the respondents will be football
supporters as the interest in the topic makes them more likely to complete a
survey. It is also important to note that my means of getting the survey out
relied purely on social media and forums. This was more than effective as I
cleared 100 respondents, more than double my minimum target. To receive
answers that were representative of people’s confident opinions it was
important not to make all questions compulsory. This means in a multiple
choice section there was an N/A option. It was important people’s opinions
were not forced as there are many grey areas where there are debates
concerned with sectarianism where people did not feel confident enough of
give an answer. The answers given to these questions were given so, by those
most confident in their answer.

19
The first page of the survey collected the respondent’s demographic data. This
was essential in order to compare and contrast the answers form different
sections in society. For example we statements 2 and 3 of the multiple choices
were concerned with young people’s behaviour at football matches and their
education about bigotry so it would be appropriate to compare and contrast
young age groups (under 30) with older people being anything above that.
Other data collected in this section was concerned with the area the
respondents was brought up, currently lived, gender, religion and whether or
not they were a football fan and who they supported if so. All of these areas are
aspects that might change a person’s viewpoint on the matter for example west
coast answers might differ from east coast.
The first question of page two asked the respondent what they thought best
defines sectarianism. The definitions presented were as follows. Sectarianism is
religious intolerance and nothing more, sectarianism always involves religion
but can mix religion with political and cultural matters, and sectarianism is
discrimination against a group in society and does not have to have a link to
religion and a fourth option for the user to define sectarianism in their own
way. This was done to see if there was a difference in the way older groups
defined it in comparison to younger groups.
The next section included ten statements in which the respondent was required
to answer in a multiple choice scenario. The questions asked were concerning
age relations as well as the extent to which they thought sectarianism was a

20
prevailing problem, if it only existed in football and if they believed that
sectarian language used in the football stadium made the person saying it a
bigot. The statements concerning youth behaviour were worded as follows:
1. Young people are more likely to be vocal at matches, therefore, are most
affected by anti-sectarian laws.
2. Young people have received better education against bigotry. They are
less likely to use sectarian language.
The respondents was required to state they agreed with the statements or not
using the scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree and N/A. The answers
were quantified using a weighting scale as were the rest of the multiple choice
questions. The purpose of these statements was to gauge am idea of what the
public perceptions of youth behaviour was in regards to the issue. Both of these
concern themselves with two of the major perceptions of young people that
come across when discussing sectarianism with people. One is that at football,
in particular matches at Ibrox or Celtic Park, the singing groups or ‘ultras’ as
they might be better known appear to mostly consist of under 30’s. As they are
the singing sections of each stadium they may be more likely to be convicted
under the act. The second is one that, presently, society is expected to move on
and leave the bitter aspects of the rivalry behind and one way to do this is
education. Previously discussed charity and one that we interviewed for this
research, Nil by Mouth, do workshops in schools educating them to be tolerant
of other religions and cultures. There is then a perception that young people

21
who have grown up with this in their school curriculums may be better
educated and less likely to use what is perceived to be bigoted language.
A later statement was worded as follows:
 The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications
(Scotland) Act 2012 is purely an anti-sectarian law.
The reason for this statement was to see is simply to see if people would
describe it as so. This would be a key statement for analyses as if the public
didn’t think it was then that would suggest it does criminalise people for non-
sectarian crimes. In hindsight, I would have changed the wording of the
question to make it more understandable to something like “Would you
describe the act as anti-sectarian?” Regrettably the long wording of the
question was the main reason that 14 respondents selected the N/A option,
therefore, a large percentage that changed the weighting of the answer
significantly.
Another key statement asked if they felt that is sectarian language was used this
made the person who used it a bigot. This is a key statement as it would give an
indication as to whether or not the argument put forward to us by Stuart
Waiton, that terrace chants although sometimes involve language of a
derogatory nature are merely teasing exchanges between supporters, is
accepted by the general public. If the answers to this support that argument it

22
could be pivotal in proving that the term “90 minute bigot” is accepted. The
term is often used to describe people who used bigoted language in football but
do not carry that behaviour outside the stadium such as in the street or in the
work place etc.
For the interviews it was important to approach the appropriate people who
work within a group or organisation that has been affected by the act. Groups
include groups of football supporters so for that reason The Rangers Supporters
Trust and the Celtic Supporters Trust were approached as representative of the
Rangers fan base as were the two clubs ‘ultra’ groups, The Union Bears and The
Green Brigade, as they could be described to be the vocal representatives of
each fan base. Out of these options the Celtic Supporters Trust were the only
group who agreed to interview.
The editor of ‘Since I Was Young’ Motherwell FC fanzine was also approached
and agreed but then did not reply to emails after a period of time so I had to
move on and secure other important interviews. The reason I sought after a
representative from this fans group, is they created a campaign titled “Heavy
Hands Empty Stands” campaigning against the heavy handedness of police at
games among other disputes that have occurred under the instruction of the
OBFTC Act.
My remaining targets for interview were then a representative from the SNP
government, a representative from the Labour Party and David Scott from Nil by

23
Mouth. Since I was only successful in interviewing one person from within
football, it was crucial that I was more successful in agreeing interview terms
with the mentioned people. A representative from the SNP was sought after in
order to give balance to my research as the SNP were responsible for the
introduction of the act. Unfortunately I did not get an interview from them but I
did, however, successfully connect with Hugh Henry, an MSP from the labour
party, and David Scott, campaign director of Scotland's leading anti-sectarianism
group Nil by Mouth. I had successfully agreed interviews with three
representatives from different areas of society that are concerned with this
issue however I was disappointed I did not manage to get a comment from a
representative from the SNP. I feel this would have balanced my research to
some degree and given a more ‘two sided’ argument in the context of being for
or against the act.
As I live a considerable distance from all three of the interviewees and have
work commitments that, combined with university work, make for a
consistently busy schedule it was then mutually beneficial for the interviews to
be carried out over the telephone for time management and ease of contact.
The interviews were done in order of agreement so Marie McCusker from the
Celtic Supporter’s Trust was the first to be interviewed. My line of questioning
had to be relative to the research question and be designed to get the type of
information I required. For example I sought after the interview from a
representative from a Celtic fan group as Celtic fans, in particular the Green
Brigade, were very vocal in their opposition to the bill as reflected in the title of

24
their “Kill the Bill” campaign. In the initial reply the Celtic Supporters Trust had
stated to me that they were also in strong opposition. It was then appropriate
for the first question to be worded as follows:
1. The Celtic Supporters Trust is in strong opposition to the Offensive
Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act
2012. What are your main reasons for this?
Giving Marie the platform to outline the main reasons for the opposition to the
bill from the Celtic support would immediately give me valuable information
that could be compared to other information in subsequent discussion. Here are
the rest of the questions:
2. Do you think that young people (young being people 30 and under) are
more vocal at matches and, therefore, more likely to be affected by such
anti-sectarian laws?
3. Before the act was in place Rangers fans would be scrutinised on the
basis that the songs they sang were deemed religiously intolerant. The
songs Celtic supporters are presently scrutinised for are often addressing
socio-political matters. Do you think that this makes them non-
sectarian?

25
4. Would you define any particular songs by the Celtic support as sectarian
and are these the songs being targeted?
5. Do you think the act is shaped to restrict the freedoms of football
supporters who can be transgressive by nature?
6. Do you have any further comments to make?
The questions were to prompt Marie to address some of the arguments that
have been raised during my research in regards to the theory that Celtic fans
songs addressing political matters mean they are not sectarian and to get a
better idea on the general feel of the act from a body of Celtic supporters.
The second interview was carried out with campaign director for anti-
sectarianism charity Nil by Mouth, David Scott. I was delighted to have agreed
this as he would, of course, have strong opinions on the matter and ideas about
how to tackle sectarianism within and without football. The planned questions
for his interview were as follows:
1. Using the definition of Sectarianism given to us by Nil by Mouth
“sectarianism in Scotland is typically related to Protestant/Catholic
divisions but it is helpful to understand that sectarianism also occurs
within other faiths and is a feature of religious intolerance. Although
sectarianism is rooted in religion it is often linked to cultural, historical

26
and political differences. It is frequently argued that in recent years this
type of intolerance of others has little link with history or association
with religion itself.” do you believe that sectarianism is still a prevailing
problem in football and in wider Scottish society?
2. Do you think the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening
Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 has been effective? To what
extent?
3. How would you respond to claims from academics such as Steve Bruce
that charities, such as Nil by Mouth, are responsible for creating a moral
panic and that is in the best interests of the charity to keep what he calls
the ‘myth of sectarianism’ alive to keep the charity going?
4. Is there any age group that are more likely to act in a way that could be
deemed sectarian than others?
5. In your opinion does the Offensive Behaviour at Football and
Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 criminalise football
supporters for non-sectarian offenses?
6. If sectarianism is still a prevailing problem what still needs to be done to
eradicate it?

27
7. Do you have any further comments to make?
In the first question it was important to acknowledge that Nil by Mouth uses a
particular definition of sectarianism. All answers are relative to an
organisation’s or a person’s opinion and this has to be recognised throughout. It
was important to take the opportunity to ask David some pertinent questions
about the subject matter addressing the issues we have covered in regards,
definitions, youth behaviour and the general feeling from Nil by Mouth towards
the act. This is why I asked him how he would respond to claims that charities,
such as NBM, create a moral panic. It was important to give him the platform in
my research to respond to these claims to help create a balanced discussion. It
would also be interesting to see what he had to say about the issue more
generally.
Finally I interviewed Hugh Henry form the Labour Party. Labour has recently
been vocal in their opposition to the act and has promised to scrap it should
they gain power in the near future. Admittedly I did not target anyone specific
from the Labour party. Hugh Henry was chosen to get back in touch as they felt
he was the most relevant person within the party to respond. Here were my
questions to him:
1. How would you define sectarianism?

28
2. What do you think are the main aims of the Offensive Behaviour at
Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012?
3. Do you think the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening
Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 has been effective? To what
extent?
4. Do you think sectarianism exists outside of football?
5. Do you think the act can criminalise football supporters for non-
sectarian crimes?
I feel it was important to ask for his definition on sectarianism first of all, to help
understand his answers and second of all, to add another sample to illustrate
the wide variety of ways in which sectarianism is understood by different
people. Question number 2 was to ask someone who is involved in the political
system what the main aims of the act are from their view. His answer to this
question could add clarity on its main aims and be pivotal in helping me answer
my research question. Likewise number 3 is an important question to get a
word on the effectiveness of the of the act and find out if it has adequately
been addressing its main aims. Finally questions 4 and 5 are designed to address
issues that have been reoccurring throughout this research in regards to
sectarianism being understood in terms football and the problems with this and

29
for his answer to my research question that will give me a good source for
subsequent discussion.

30
Results
In this section I will outline the key findings from the research. I will begin this
by analysing the results of the survey before discussing the data gathered in the
interview phase. The survey was intentionally structured to gauge how the
subject matter is understood by different sections of society. The main
comparisons to be made are between younger groups, in which I included
people who were aged 30 and under, with over 30’s who were considered to be
older. The main reasons for this are that three of the questions were concerning
youth education against sectarianism, youth behaviour at football and people’s
perceptions of the relationship between young people the police. Secondly, it
would be interesting to compare their answers in other sections to see if it
represents a shift in the general attitudes towards sectarianism and how we
perceive and define it.
One of the key aims of the survey was to find out to what extent the definitions
of sectarianism offered to us in the literature review is accepted by the general
public. This was important to see if there was a difference in opinion from
people who defined sectarianism as solely religious had different answers to
those who defined it as not having any necessary link to religion at all. The
definition most accepted was definition number two “sectarianism always
involves religion but can mix religion with political and cultural matters” With
55% of all respondents selecting that choice. 20% selected definition 1 stating
that sectarianism was purely a religious issue with 17% saying it does not need

31
to have a religious link at all and 8% offering other definitions in which didn’t
need a religious link. So although only 20% said it was a purely religious matter
75% in total said religion was a necessary factor. With this information it will
then be interesting to see to what extent people believe it is a prevailing
problem in society as evidence in the literature review suggests the religious
link is minimal.
It was then, appropriate to add a filter when analysing results that excluded the
latter two definitions and then reversing the filter to exclude the answers of
those who used the first two. This was to see if there was a general variance in
the weighting to the answers particularly in the multiple choice section of the
survey. When doing this we noticed that between these two groups there was
little difference in their answers to key questions. So then we categorizes the
groups into young people who defined sectarianism with definition 1 and 2,
young people who defined sectarianism as definition 3 or 4 and then two
groups divided the same way with old people to see if there was any variance
between these groups in answers relating to sectarianism and youth behaviour.
Again the variance was minimal but there was a slight change in the way the
groups defined sectarianism that could be used as evidence to support the
arguments that our attitudes towards sectarianism and how we define it are
changing in order to keep “the myth of sectarianism” alive.
This was represented in the statistics with 50% of older people defining
sectarianism “Sectarianism always involves religion but can mix religion with
political and cultural matters” (definition one) and 27% defining sectarianism

32
“Sectarianism is religious intolerance and nothing more” (definition two). In
contrast, 62% of young people defined sectarianism using definition one and
10% using definition two. Although, when totalled up, 77% of older people and
72% of young people felt a religious link was necessary for something to be
sectarian only 10% of young people believed that it was purely a religious issue
in contrast with 27% of older people showing that as in society other social-
political factors have more weighting than they previously did and there are less
people who perceive it in purely religious terms.
In total 75% of respondents defined it as definition one or two suggesting that
religion is still a key factor when discussing sectarianism with 55% of all defining
it using definition two suggesting that the majority of respondents would not
count something that has no religious link as sectarian. This presents us with a
problematic situation as it is open to owns own interpretation what has a
religious link or not. Also, we have already been given evidence in the literature
review to show just how insignificant religion is in Scottish society especially
among young people yet, in the survey, 67% of young people felt it was a
prevailing problem in Scottish society. This suggests the evidence reviewed in
the literature review might not be easily available to them or as pushed on to
people as media representations of the issue that lead to a general
misunderstanding of sectarianism.
Defining it as more than a religious issue presents us a problem as it is
problematic to decide what carries with it a religious link. The extent to which

33
national identity and sporting allegiance can be linked to religion is a key area
for debate.
Then there was the 25% that defined sectarianism as something that
discrimination against a sect in society and did not need to have any link to
religion at all. One person gave further information and said “that as long as a
sect exists and is being discriminated against then that is sectarian.” Following
this definition there might be sectarianism that can’t be described as anything
else such as homophobia or religious bigotry but simply offensive. If in
subsequent research, we find that young football supporters have been
criminalized for behaviours that might fall in to this category it would suggest
the act does criminalize then for non-sectarian offenses as sectarianism is
understood by most people. It is here we arrive at a key point in regards to the
act and what it claims to be in its contents. When asked if they believed the act
criminalised young football supporters for non-sectarian crimes and to give
reasons for their answers a lot of respondents said yes because it doesn’t claim
to solely eradicate sectarianism. This is something that Marie McCusker
highlighted in her interview that she wouldn’t describe it as an anti-sectarian act
because it targets offensive behaviour and threatening communications of
various types as in the title. In the acts contents the three sections it states are
unacceptable to express hatred against are a religious group, a social or cultural
group with a perceived religious affiliation, a group defined by reference to a
thing mentioned in subsection (4), with the groups listed in subsection four all
being concerned with matters such as sexual orientation and race, in other

34
words, areas in society that can cause divisions but are understood in their own
context outside sectarianism and football.
What is interesting is that although people felt that sectarianism is still a
prevailing problem in society with 65% agreeing with that statement, 88%
disagreed that it only existed in football. Furthermore another statement in the
multiple choice section asked if they felt someone who uses derogatory
language in a football stadium is a bigot. 79% of all respondents disagreed with
this with 49% selecting strongly disagree. Only 3 people strongly agreed with
the statement. It also suggests that the notion of the “90 minute bigot”, where
a normally law abiding citizen goes to a football matches and sings offensive
songs that are sometimes in a bigoted nature degrading opposition stops after
the match and resumes an ordinary living, is generally an accepted one.
Where the vulnerability of young people is concerned 70% of the respondents
felt that young people were easily targeted in wider society. There was no
overall agreement on the idea that young people are more likely to be vocal at
matches with 48% agreeing and 46& disagreeing with the remaining 6%
selecting N/A. However 61% disagreed that young people have received better
education against using sectarian language suggesting that many people feel
age won’t make much of a difference.
It is now appropriate to disseminate the results from the interviewing process.
Here we should gain further insight for discussion in relation to the key themes
that I have studied so far with those being definitions of sectarianism,

35
perceptions of youth behaviour and general feeling towards the act. The first of
the three completed interviews was with Marie McCusker from the Celtic
Supporters Trust (CST). The first question I asked her was to outline the main
reasons that the CST were in opposition to the act. She felt that pressure on
Alex Salmond was a fundamental part of the introduction of the act and this
was attributed to the previous First Minister, Jack McConnell, beginning work
on sectarianism that Salmond was criticised for not continuing. Interestingly, in
the literature review was discussed Jack McConnell involvement and how he
became vocal after James McMillan’s 1999 speech. It could be said that this was
the catalyst for a sequence of events that started with increased political
discussion on the issue that Salmond may have felt pressured by previous
regimes and the police to act.
McCusker questioned the overall necessity of the act claiming that previous
laws were adequate. This is a key point for study when answering the research
question we have to compare it to previous legislation. Rangers fans had been
in trouble with their songs for years before this act was introduced on the
grounds that their songs were religiously intolerant. I asked her in questions 3
and 4 if she felt that because Celtic songs, generally, addressed political
matters, if she felt that mad them non-sectarian. She offered the Oxford
dictionary definition of a sect as “a body of persons agreed upon religious
doctrines.” and defines sectarianism as “adhering to a sect in a bigoted
fashion.” In the survey one respondent who didn’t attribute a religious factor to
sectarianism said a sect just needs to exist but as highlighted here a sect needs

36
to be founded on religious doctrines. This is evidence to suggest that the
homophobic and sexist offenses now criminalised under the act are not
sectarian as they are not sects agreed upon religious doctrines. It is likely that
the 25% of people who did not attribute religious factors to their definitions of
sectarianism are not aware of the oxford definition for a sect. It is also worth
noting that the areas they perceived as sects have another titles attributed to
them such as sexism and homophobia which do not fall under the sectarianism
category in socio-political discourse.
The second interview I carried out was with David Scott from Scotland’s leading
anti-sectarian charity, Nil by Mouth. Question one asked him if the definition
given to us by Nil by Mouth on their website was still an accurate in his opinion.
He gave me a definition from Dr Duncan Morrow’s Advisory Group and
described it as capturing where we are in 2015.
“Sectarianism in Scotland is a complex of perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, actions
and structures, at personal and communal levels, which originate in religious
difference and can involve a negative mixing of religion with politics, sporting
allegiance and national identifications. It arises form a distorted expression of
identity and belonging. It is expressed in destructive patterns of relating which
segregate, exclude, discriminate against or are violent towards a specified
religious other.”
Interestingly, he notes sporting allegiance as a factor that can mix with religion.
The extent to which the fans of either club can be linked to religion is not large

37
for reasons such as declining religious significance. The exact reason that Joseph
Bradley (2009) said the term sectarianism can become erroneous. What it also
does it represent a further example of a shift in attitudes that add extensions on
to the definition.
One would think that Scotland’s leading anti-sectarian charity would first of all,
have been invited to the justice committee meetings to give evidence when the
bill was going through and secondly, be fully supportive of the act of the said
charity. Neither of these things is true for the OBFTC Act. In question 3 I asked
David how he would respond to claims form academics, such as Steve Bruce,
that charities such as NBM are guilty of creating a moral panic and that it is in
their best interests to keep the myth of sectarianism alive to keep the charity
going. He responded saying that 8 thousand arrests since 2003 for sectarian
violence and intimidation and gave the example of the young boy hit with a
bottle before the last Old Firm game. David did accept that the media can blow
the issue out of proportion at times but argued that just because Scotland is not
comparable to Northern Ireland, it does not mean it should be dismissed. Here
we arrive at a key point. We have a very tense football rivalry that can result in
violence in the street and domestic abuse, however, is our understanding of this
really that this is a religious conflict? So far the survey that I conducted and the
answers from David Scott would suggest that many people think these acts of
violence represent religious conflict. Although there is undoubtable rivalry and
there are arrest statistics to go with it, perhaps academics such as Bruce,

38
Waiton and other like-minded authors would argue that it should be dismissed
as a sectarian issue.
The final interview I did was with Hugh Henry MSP for the Labour party. He
defined sectarianism as follows:
“Sectarianism can be defined as bigotry, intolerance, or hatred of a particular
group of people which is based upon religion, race, ethnicity, nationality,
political belief, sexual orientation etc. It can take many different forms in
different communities. In Scotland, it commonly describes religious conflict and,
in the West of Scotland in particular, it is often taken as a specific reference to a
perceived conflict between Protestants and Catholics.”
Interestingly he describes it as being based upon various factors and doesn’t
state that they necessarily have to be linked to religion but does add that in the
West of Scotland it is understood as a reference to the conflict between
Protestants and Catholics. However, I think at this point the problems with
understanding it as any more than a religious issue have been well documented.
I sought after a representative from the Labour party because they stand in
opposition to the act. Hugh Henry was chosen by Labour to talk to me and he
described the OBFTC Act’s underlying aims to be eradicating sectarianism. He
claims that it is failing because you cannot criminalise other things and hope it
gets rid of the problem and agreed with the view that to tackle (the perceived
problem of) sectarianism you have to go outside the football ground. He
described the act as being destructive rather than productive, a view shared by

39
Marie McCusker when she said that it has ruined the relationship between
football supporters and the police.
He added that current laws were efficient again reinforcing an idea that has
been put forward by Marie McCusker and others and that Sheriff have found it
hard to prosecute under the act. Ultimately he believed the act does criminalise
football supporters for non-sectarian crimes as the interpretation of what is or
is not sectarian is confusing and that many of the songs sung at football
matches are nationalistic expressions that carry with them political identities.
This is true for both clubs but especially true for Celtic as cases where their fans
have been brought to court are for chants concerned with Irish freedom.

40
Discussion
At this stage in the research I feel that the evidence presented so far has
adequately proved that the OBATC Act does criminalise football supporters for
non-sectarian crimes. However, at this stage we have no yet uncovered the true
extent to which young people are involved..
The introduction of the OBATC Act was a significant part in the process of
Scotland’s changing attitude towards sectarianism that arguably started around
the mid 90’s with the foundation of Nil by Mouth, James MacMillan’s speech
and other events that happened around the same time and/or a result of these
events. What this does is enforce a degree of expectancy on young people who
have grown up through this time and have had charities such as Nil by Mouth
coming in to school to educate them on sectarianism. So in relation to this act
and youth behaviour we have considered so far, if there are a general belief
young people are easily targeted by police, if young people are more likely to be
vocal at matches and if they are more likely to be educated and not sing these
songs. All of these questions were explored in the survey.
However, I think it is still appropriate at this stage to research further, the link
between youths and sectarianism as the survey results alone do not stand as
significant evidence to prove or disprove my theory that young people might be
more vulnerable under this legislation. I then took to Lexis Nexis to gather
sources of information from newspaper articles on offenders of the act to see
the people who have been charged fall under the age category I set for young

41
people which was 30 and under. From the articles I found 14 people had been
brought to court under this legislation. Of that 14, 11 of them were under 30
with one of the older group being just 31 with the others aged 36 and 48. The
average age of the young people from this sample was just 19 with the overall
average from the sample at 24. It is also worth noting that 30 and under is a
barrier I set myself to create a clear guideline for myself to distinguish ‘young’
and ‘old’ and that these are terms that are also open to one’s interpretation and
many people would argue that the 31 year old, and perhaps the 36 year old, are
young men too.
Notable cases found in this sample include the recent case of Scott Lamont who
was jailed for 4 months for singing the ‘Billy Boys’ on the way to the most recent
Old Firm derby on the 1st of February and Connor Fulton who received a 4
month banning order from Ibrox after pleading guilty to the for singing
“offensive and sectarian” songs. (Rose, 2013) There was also the case of
Rangers fan, Richard Monteith, who was the 36 year old that was charged, but
for breach of the peace, not under the OBATC Act on the grounds that the
Sheriff did not think him using the word ‘fenian’ would incite public disorder.
(McAngus, 2015)
Now if we compare the outcomes of these cases to the outcomes of the cases
involving Celtic fans a key problem with the act is again highlighted that the
OBATC Act has been criticised for it not adding anything to previous legislation
with a low conviction rate for any of the ‘new’ crimes as described by the act.

42
Joseph Cairns was 20 at the time of his court date and he was found not guilty
of breaking this law after singing IRA songs at a football match. The Sheriff said
it would seem okay if Irish folk singer Christy Moore had sung the song in a
concert hall in Glasgow, but not for it to be sung by a football fan at a match.
(STV News)
Another Celtic fan cleared was supporter Calum Graham, 21 at the time, for
similar reasons to Joseph Cairns. This gives a degree of weight to the argument
that previous laws were adequate. However, Celtic Supporters Michael
Donnelly and Martin Walsh who were 30 and 22 at the time of their court
appearance were convicted for singing songs about the hunger strike and the
IRA on the grounds that singing about a proscribed terrorist organisation could
incite public disorder. It here seems that there is no consistency with the
enforcement of the act even within the justice system as both chants were in
support of a proscribed terrorist organisation so for one to be inciting public
disorder and the other to not seems strange. This sample has helped draw
conclusions on matters regarding previous legislation and youth criminalisation.
Interestingly, recent news praised the success of Nil by Mouth in putting
sectarianism “on par” with racism and David Scott was quoted saying that
nobody talks about 90 minute bigots anymore. The survey I conducted would
suggest otherwise. It stated “If somebody uses derogatory language at a
football match it makes them a bigot.” (Garavelli, 2015)

43
Interestingly 79% of all respondents disagreed with this with 49% selecting
Strongly Disagree. Only 3 people strongly disagreed with the statement. This is
evidence to show that the notion of a “90 minute bigot” is very much an
accepted one in many parts of society. This gives weight and credibility to the
argument that songs and chants that may even contain sectarian language are
merely teasing exchanges between supporters so the extent to which they
could be said to be sectarian hate crimes is questionable. (Garavelli, 2015)
This demonstrates how complicated the perceived issue of sectarianism is. Even
in a time where most people are in agreement that the OBFTC Act is not
adequate or necessary, between politicians, academics, football supporters and
the general public there is not a mutual understanding of what exactly the issue
is.

44
Conclusion
As I set out to find out if the OBFTC Act criminalises young football supporters
for non-sectarian crimes I would first of all like to discuss the limitations of this
research. For one, it does not touch on social theory. For example, one might
argue that the work of Norbert Elias on the Civilising Process could perhaps
adequately account for such legislation coming in to practice. I would also have
liked to have successfully negotiated more interviews and that I should have
attempted to get more. Strathclyde Police would have been an appropriate
body to seek comment from that would have given better balance to discussion
and a greater insight in to the issue.
I have had to study the changing attitudes of sectarianism and how they can
relate to young people in contemporary Scotland. I believe this research has
showed that Scottish society presents us with a much disorientated
understanding of the issue of sectarianism. This is reflected in the evidence that
suggests that Scotland is not a sectarian society in the religious sense. It seems
that it is still perceived to be a prevailing problem as a result of other social
issues concerned with the rivalry that has found it testing to shake off
association with a sectarian past and history. This leads to the fragmented
understanding of the issue. Furthermore young people and in particular young
men are undoubtedly the most vulnerable group despite being least attached to
any religious division that previously existed. This was shown in the sample I
collected in which the majority of cases were involving people under 30.

45
Thankfully prosecutors struggle to convict under this legislation and the act is
coming under severe criticism.
Differences in national identity are a more common cause for conflict in
contemporary Scotland. Stuart Waiton (2012, p.81) makes the point that even
Unionism in Scotland today, is not understood in the context of Unionism versus
Irish Republicanism but it is understood in the context of Scottish
Independence. The division between Unionists and Scottish Nationalists is
certainly not a religious one yet some media outlets still describes post
referendum events as sectarian.
The contents of the act that states sexism and homophobic acts are criminalised
under this legislation and we have found that these cannot come under the
category of sectarianism. This information alone stands as evidence to suggest
that the act does not target sectarian behaviour in isolation but other offensive
behaviours as well. This effectively means the argument concerned with the use
of sectarian language at football is even sectarian because of a declining
religious interest is, although important to consider, is not key to answering the
question as the sexual, homophobic and ableist chants that are criminalised
under this legislation cannot be said to be sectarian.

46
Bibliography
 BBC. 1999. Composer attacks ‘anti-Catholic bigots’ Retrieved November
10th 2014 from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/08/99/edinburgh_festi
val_99/415149.stm
 M.Bradley, J .2009.. Celtic Minded 3. Glasgow : Argyll Publishing. 239.
 Bruce, S. (2011). Scottish sectarianism? Let's lay this myth to rest. .
Retrieved 20th Nov 2014 from:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/24/scotla
nd-sectarianism-research-data
 Bruce, S., Glendinning, T., Paterson, I. & Rosie, M. 2004. Sectarianism in
Scotland. Edinburgh University Press
 Garavelli, D. 'Scotland’s Secret Shame'. Scotsman.com. N.p., 2015. Web.
18 Apr. 2015.
 Kelly, M. ’Final Nail In The Coffin For SNP Act'. Scotland on Sunday 2015.
Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
 Liechty, J. & Clegg, C. 2001. Moving Beyond Sectarianism: Religion,
Conflict and Reconcilliation in Northern Ireland. The Columbia Press
 McAngus, S. 'War Hero Charged With Sectarian Singing At Rangers
Match'. Falkirk Herald 2015. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
 McLeod, K. ‘Celtic Fans Lose Human Rights Bid.’ Daily Record 2015: 27.
Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
 Murray, B.1984. The Old Firm – Sectarianism, Sport and Society in
Scotland. Bell and Bain Ltd
 Nil By Mouth. 2012. What is sectarianism? Retrieved November 24th
2014 from: http://nilbymouth.org/what-is-sectarianism/
 Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research. London: SAGE
Publications.
 Rose, G. 'Fan Banned For Sectarian Song At Ibrox'. The Scotsman 2015.
Web. 1 Apr. 2015.

47
 STV News,. 'Celtic Fan Cleared Of Bigotry Charge Faces Second Case Over
IRA Song'. N.p., 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
 Waiton, S. 2012. Snobs’ Law: Criminalising Football Fans in an Age of
Intolerance. Take a Liberty.

Dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Dissertation

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation