WHEN the time comes for the SPFL to write its next statement on sectarian chanting they can use a shortcut key to save time on typing up the lines we all know so well.

Hit F5 for "we are satisfied that the club took all reasonable and practical steps to try and ensure acceptable conduct from its supporters, we have not seen any evidence of a breach of SPFL rules".

This is the depressingly familiar, inevitable end result of the "probe" launched after events at Stark's Park on Friday night, when the match delegate included the Rangers fans' songbook in his report to the governing body. For the second time in a month the spotlight was on Rangers fans for sectarianism and for the second time in a month you can be sure the consequences will be the same, ie no consequences at all. This will be another of these embarrassing little investigations which peter out not only because the SPFL and SFA leaderships are compromised, but because neither of them have the authority to do anything about it. Why not? Because the clubs refuse to let them.

In the summer of 2013 Stewart Regan and Campbell Ogilvie, the chief executive and president respectively, told the SFA members that the time had come to copy Fifa and Uefa and introduce "strict liability" on discriminatory behaviour by supporters. In other words, if fans step out of line it is the clubs who pay the penalty, be it via fines, part-closure of grounds, docking of points, whatever. There would be no hiding behind "we did everything we could, it wasn't our fault". The issue was put to a vote at Hampden and the result said it all: only five per cent were in favour of it.

Regan bit his tongue, praised the quality of debate and said clubs did recognise there was a need to do more, but more tellingly he summed it up like this: "It's disappointing because Uefa do this [strict liability] and it works. If clubs are dealt with, and they behave inappropriately again and are dealt with again, there comes a point where fans are spoken to and behaviour improves. The Scottish FA's view is that it should be able to work on a domestic level. However, it was a leap too far for the members. Clubs would have been voting to punish themselves in the event of unacceptable behaviour. So you can see there's a bit of self-interest coming into play. No club wants to sign its own warrant for a sanction." When the SPFL was formed, that same summer, it adopted all of the same rules on "unacceptable conduct" and didn't want to know about strict liability. And so clubs can claim they are taking a stance without the risk of being held accountable.

The end result can be thousands of supporters inside Hampden singing "The Famine Song" and "No Pope of Rome" and a pathetic, watery response from the authorities, as if that is just what happens in 2015 Scotland. There is the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, of course, but that is ill-conceived and impractical legislation unpopular with lawyers and the police, let alone supporters. There were only 12 arrests for sectarian behaviour at the Old Firm game. The police have said often enough that they will not wade into stands and start arresting dozens of fans for singing, let alone hundreds or thousands.

Earlier this season clubs in England received a letter from the Football Association informing them that "strict liability" was to be introduced there. The FA had been pressurised into that by MPs and campaigners appalled by some racist, homophobic and anti-semitic incidents. There is no evidence that the Scottish Government is inclined lean on the SFA and SPFL in the same way, or that campaigners here will be as successful.

That's a shame, because strict liability and zero tolerance would work. When Rangers or Celtic have been disciplined by Uefa they can't get statements out quickly enough to warn fans and condemn those who embarrass them. When there's an SPFL probe? Barely a word. The ironic thing is that after a stinging initial fine or two, which would force the penny to drop with fans, no club would benefit from a tougher line more than Rangers.

And Finally...

This will come as a shock to some of those who oppose the "return" of alcohol to Scottish football, but pubs in the shadow of our grounds are packed solid until a few minutes before kick-off. The notion that fans might turn into savages if they can buy drink inside stadium, or that they cannot be trusted with a drink in them at a game, is a laughable misunderstanding of what actually happens around the country every weekend.

A decent percentage of those watching games every already do have a drink in them at a game, maybe a coupe of pints, or three or four, whatever. They manage that without causing bother for anyone around them or those supporting the other team. Being able to sell booze at games would increase revenue for clubs and end the mad rush of fans leaving pubs as late as possible to make kick-off. The ban came from a snapshot in time which is now 35 years old, from an era and circumstances which bear no relation to football as it is today.