As I sit here on a beautiful morning in Castlebar, Count Mayo, in anxious anticipation of my daughter’s appearance in the All Ireland final of the Scór Sinsir, it’s difficult not to think of my mother’s grandparents who emigrated from Belmullet just down the road. 

Facing all the travails of Irish immigrants to Scotland at that time, Mum’s grandparents eventually found themselves in Cleland. A small Lanrkshire mining town, where children would play on the bing, a mountain of mining waste.

Fortunately for me, it was from there that Mum met a young football prospect from Coatbridge, and the rest is history. 

To this day though, not a history welcomed by elements of society in the West of Scotland in particular.

This hatred manifests and overflows when these regressive societal groupings are gathered together in one mass of deeply unpleasant toxic, supremacist, sectarian and racist bigots, who unilaterally identify as fans of The Rangers.

But remember, they’re only that way for 90 minutes. Then they go home to be productive members of a modern, inclusive society, welcoming all and sundry in their loving, progressive embrace. 

No seriously.

That’s what we’re still asked to believe.

There is a particular kind of weariness that comes with being a Celtic supporter in the modern age. It isn’t the physical exhaustion of the miles traveled or the vocal cords strained. Rather, it is the mental fatigue of dealing with a neighbor that refuses to join the twenty-first century, and revels in historic hatred. 

We find ourselves, once again, mired in a “dispute” that shouldn’t be a dispute at all. At its core, this isn’t about footballing rivalry or “banter.” It is about the basic, fundamental right of workers to go to their jobs without being assaulted. 

It is about the right of fans to attend a match without fearing a pitch invasion from individuals who view sporting rivalry as a mandate for Neanderthal violence.

The Context: Safety Over “Sporting Imbalance”

The news that Celtic have moved to withhold the away ticket allocation for the upcoming derby has, predictably, sent the usual suspects into a state of performative outrage. The Ibrox club has scurried to the SPFL, crying “sporting imbalance.”

It is a deflection so transparent it would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high. Let us be clear: Celtic are right.

The fact that we are even having a debate about whether a club should be forced to host a group of documented thugs, who only weeks ago were involved in a hugely dangerous violent incident targeting Celtic staff, players and fans, is a damning indictment of the leadership at Ibrox and the spinelessness of our governing bodies.

The Myth of Individual Accountability

Following the disgraceful scenes at Ibrox on March 8th, where a Celtic victory was met with a literal charge of the light-headed brigade, the narrative from Govan has been one of “individual accountability.”

They claim they are “working through” sanctions. They argue that an entire group shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a few.

I oppose collective punishment, but if you cannot control these ultra thugs within the environs of your home stadium, then how on earth can Celtic be expected to facilitate a 2,500 allocation of them which includes the masked ultras mainly responsible for the recent violent attacks on Celtic players, staff and fans. Not to mention the fact that virtually nobody has ever been held accountable for the numerous previous incidences.

It wasn’t just the Union Bears of course, but they didn’t just lead the charge, they were enthusiastically trying to get other violent elements of the support to join them in what could have been a catastrophic incident. 

Why the “Union Bears” Are a Collective Risk

The Union Bears are not a loose collection of strangers who happened to sit in the same postcode. They are an organized, self-identified collective. On March 8th, that collective identity was used to facilitate a violent breach of security.

 * They didn’t just “wander” onto the pitch; they ran the length of it in retaliation for a loss.

 * In the ensuing chaos, at least one member of the Celtic staff was assaulted.

 * Police and stewards sustained injuries while simply trying to do their jobs.

* Fans were attacked and had fireworks fired at them, into a stand containing families.

When a group clearly uses its organization to facilitate violence in a witnessed attack, the group loses its right to the privileges of organization. 

If a pub becomes a consistent hub for organized brawls, the licensing board doesn’t wait for every individual regular to be convicted before they shut the doors. 

They recognize that the environment itself has become toxic.

The pattern is undeniable

When you lay out just some the incidents chronologically, it becomes impossible to ignore:

Unless of course you’re The Rangers board or the SFA.

• 2019: Pitch invader confronts Scott Brown

• 2022: Broken glass, bottle assault on physio, multiple fan injuries

• 2025: Coins, bottles, vapes, lighters, mugs thrown at Celtic players

• 2026: Pitch invasion, assaults on players and staff, flares thrown

It is not a one‑off.

It is not a blip.

It is not a misunderstanding.

This is a systemic failure to control a section of the home support.

And Celtic have every right, indeed every responsibility, to protect their people.

Celtic’s Reasonable Compromise

Celtic’s position is not one of “banning Rangers fans” for the sake of it. It is a position of basic safety management.

The club explicitly stated they were willing to provide the full allocation, provided that none of those tickets were handed to the Union Bears. 

Think about that for a second. Celtic were willing to welcome over two thousand visiting supporters. All they asked for was a guarantee that the specific group responsible for the most recent outbreak of violence be excluded. Especially since the review into this matter has not concluded. 

Instead of seizing this opportunity to show moral leadership, Rangers chose to protect the Ultras. By refusing to separate themselves from the thugs, the Ibrox board has effectively tied their identity to their most volatile element.

A Dereliction of Duty at Ibrox

The statement from Ibrox regarding “sporting imbalance” is a masterpiece of gaslighting. To suggest that the absence of 2,500 fans is a greater threat to the “integrity of the competition” than the physical safety of staff and supporters is a perversion of logic.

Where was the concern for integrity when Celtic staff were being targeted?

The failure of the Rangers board to proactively seek out and permanently ban those responsible for the March 8th violence is not just a lapse in judgment; it is a policy. They appear terrified of their own basement dwellers. They have allowed a “tail-wagging-the-dog” dynamic to take root, where the Ultras dictate the terms and the board provides the cover.

The Stadium as a Workplace

It’s easy to forget that a football stadium is a workplace. For the players, the coaching staff, the stewards, and the cleaners etc Celtic Park is where they earn their living.

If Celtic had reason to believe a specific group of people intended to bring dangerous materials or violent intent into the stadium and did nothing, they would be liable. 

The risk assessment is clear: the presence of the Union Bears constitutes an unacceptable threat to the safety of everyone else in the ground.

Setting the Right Precedent for Scottish Football

Rangers claim that withholding tickets sets a “dangerous precedent.” On the contrary, it is exactly the precedent Scottish football needs.

For too long, the “Old Firm” label has been used as a shield to protect a “both-sides-ism” that ignores reality.

 1. There is no “both sides” to a staff member being assaulted.

 2. There is no “both sides” to a violent pitch invasion, with intent to attack players and fans at the other end of the ground. 

Is it somehow unreasonable to set the precedent “if your organized fan groups cannot be stopped from inciting or participating in violent incidents, they will not be invited?” 

Or is that just the game in this country finally acknowledging the need for common sense safety procedures, and being forced to confront one clear and obvious security risk. 

Final Thoughts: Why is this a debate?

It is a debate because we live in a country where the SFA won’t enforce the rules against the establishment club, and the club themselves won’t risk a single coin of the ultra blue pound to protect players, staff and fans of other clubs, in particular Celtic. 

We have a media that is often too hesitant to call out the Ibrox hierarchy for their cowardice, preferring instead to talk about “tribalism” as if it’s an act of God rather than a series of choices made by grown men.

Celtic are not being difficult. They are acting as the only adults in the room. They offered a compromise, and it was rejected.

If the SPFL has an ounce of integrity, they will look at the evidence and tell Rangers quite clearly: Your right to an away allocation does not trump the duty to keep people safe.

Until Ibrox values the safety of the public over the approval of the Union Bears, they have no business complaining about being left outside the gates.

Celtic simply cannot be seen to let that potentially disastrous last encounter remain unacknowledged in a practical (not just performative) way. 

The Celtic board have a duty of care,  and the Ibrox club have remained unpunished for a lengthy series of attacks and incidents that endanger the entire playing staff and the fans. 

Celtic are unequivocally right to protect Paradise. 

Let’s shine a light on Scotland’s shame and demand consequences for actions that simply cannot be tolerated.