When the Advisory Group on Tackling Sectarianism began its work three years ago, its chairman Dr Duncan Morrow said Scotland was weary of the lingering impact of sectarianism and was ready for change.
Now, three years on, the advisory group has delivered its recommendations and we have been some idea of what that change could be. What Dr Morrow calls the anxious silence around an old, old problem could be about to be transformed into some serious talking and then, at long last, political, social and institutional change.
The need for the change is unquestioned. Despite various attempts to tackle the problem (some better than others), sectarianism, and in particular its poisonous fusion with football, still lurks at the edges of an otherwise liberal and open society, but, as Dr Morrow writes on the opposite page, is it not necessarily easy to define. It is not "one thing", he says, and is not limited to the realm of theology and religion. It also cannot be dismissed as just a problem for football or one section of society. It is an instinctive, thoughtless hostility that can be found everywhere and anywhere.
The advisory group's recommendations could help end that hostility, but it will depend on what action is taken by government, churches, schools, community groups and, most important of all, the football authorities. The report makes it absolutely clear that the football authorities are not doing enough and among its recommendations, it says the bodies that run the game should do more to find out the extent of the problem and the relationship between sectarianism and football. To some, the idea of more research might look like kicking the can further down the road, but it could help in one important respect. It could help close the gap between the general acceptance that sectarianism exists and a relative lack of evidence about its form and extent. More evidence could mean better action.
Quite rightly, the report says any action that is taken needs to be across society and against all types of sectarianism. It also makes the valid point that sectarianism is not just a problem of one section of society and that "polite" forms, in the office, for example, or the golf club, also exist and to some extent legitimise the angrier, more visible type seen in pubs or stadiums. Employers, community groups and schools can help in this area, but also central to the solution is much more co-operation between churches.
As for the football clubs, the report makes the point that no serious and long term attempt to address and tackle sectarianism in Scotland will succeed without the sustained co-operation and engagement of the football authorities, and it criticises what it calls their reticence in tackling sectarianism. If there is to be change on sectarianism, there must be change right at the top of football.
One option which has been mooted is the idea of strict liability ie. football clubs would be punished if their fans behaved badly and while the report holds back from calling directly for strict liability to be introduced, it does say that sanctions for clubs as well as fans are urgently needed. The big clubs continue to say strict liability would be unworkable and could seriously damage their financial fortunes, but sectarian behaviour will not be reduced or eradicated at games unless there are real consequences for the club themselves. The report increases the pressure on the authorities to accept strict liability or come up with an alternative. The status quo is no longer acceptable.
The good news is that there is considerable evidence of increasing social integration between Protestants and Catholics in Scotland and it is important not to assume, in the search for solutions, that the problem is bigger than it is. But it is now for the Government to say how it will act on some of the report's central recommendations (to ensure for example the sectarianism is better integrated in to the school curriculum) and the football authorities must do the same thing. There is nothing inherently sectarian about national game, but sectarianism will not be solved without the national game doing much more about it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article