Celtic, politics and war crimes a bad mix

Yesterday, the headlines brought a load of jitters for Celtic supporters with fears – that the club tried hard to allay – that Shunsuke Nakamura might leave; and for only £1million. We are entitled to our cold sweats on such occasions as there are two main types of Celtic fan: those who love Nakamura and those who prefer other clubs.

But, in the best traditions of political spin, a potentially more damaging blow was floated in the press and played down by mainstream media and independent fan sites alike. That was the credible suggestion that the Right Honourable Dr John Reid MP might be offered a place on the board of directors at Celtic Park.

Let us be clear on one thing – Reid’s Celtic-mindedness is not in question as anyone who has witnessed the super-smooth passing of his vehicle to the main doors of the stadium will testify. The fact of his being ushered to his place with such efficiency shouldn’t irk horn-tooting Celtic fans too much – Special Branch takes charge of that sort of thing, with Protectevent left to deal with the lower-risk targets.

But in an era when Celtic fans have rightly enjoyed – if not always fully recognised – the fact that we now rarely need fear the back pages of a red-top press dominated by a desire to define our club as in crisis, the Kerrydale Street suits have taken a monumental risk. Or to be more figuratively melodramatic – they have thrown a loaded gun in the air and invited the unidentified catcher to do as they please.

With such a dangerously bad plan, it is difficult to know where to start in highlighting exactly why such a decision would be so wrong. So let’s focus on the uncertainty – the fact that no-one will confirm or deny such a proposition exists. From a cynic’s point of view, that all seems very in keeping with the New Labour style Reid so readily adopted – float controversial proposals with an unsubstantiated off-the-record briefing and test the public response, particularly when there is a more engaging story to capture the attention.

If that is the case, the relative lack of media interest will only convince Reid, Peter Lawwell, Brian Quinn and Dermot Desmond that such a move will be accepted by fans and a Scottish news industry that has been in the pocket of the Labour party for decades.

But what does Reid bring: political contacts and nous? Certainly, he self-evidently has all of those in spades, hence his rise to the roles of Health Minister, Home Secretary, Minister of Defence and Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Balancing that has been a “combative” style that has been likened to a Rottweiler’s, aggressive attempts to bully dissenters into submission and a contempt for debate on matters of such trivia as international law; of life and death.

The latter issue should be of greatest concern to Celtic directors, sponsors and supporters. Let’s not forget that history – and many still hope an international court – may yet judge key figures in our government to be war criminals due to its illegal invasion of Iraq, against the will of the British people and at the cost of thousands of innocent lives, not to mention Scottish soldiers. John Reid has been one of the most ruthless proponents of this indefensible calamity. Is it supported by even a sizeable minority of Celtic fans?

Do our supporters in North America, where distaste for the war is growing rapidly, feel the need for one of Tony Blair’s arch henchmen to take a position of honour and influence at Celtic? Will Reid help promote the Celtic “brand” worldwide in countries where his beloved war is reviled?

What does all this promise of Reid’s sensitivity and sympathy towards the feelings of fans? True, he once made a shamefully misguided attempt at populism as the former health minister who urged that people should be left to smoke. That sort of blunt knife approach to public opinion has largely been eradicated from Celtic since the wreckage of the Kelly-White era was salvaged to create a modern corporation that understood how to communicate.

The suits at Celtic have done remarkably well in recent years in turning around a club that routinely got a kicking on and off the football field.

That they should even contemplate entertaining the contemptible practices of tobacco companies and comparable organisations seeking to use old-pals leverage for political gains without regard to the views of the people who support the club smacks of a small group of men who are in danger of losing touch catastrophically.

Few politicians rise to the heady levels Reid has enjoyed without dirt or blood on their hands. He has been no noble exception. Hearts made a similarly audacious move with the, by comparison, angelic George Foulkes. Presumably this example impressed some of the powers that be at Celtic.

Finally, it is perhaps only proper to apologise to Celtic supporters for, on this occasion, rejecting Peter Lawwell’s request to disassociate Celtic from politics. If we hear no more talk of Reid’s involvement at Celtic, it might be easier to comply in future.

John Reid on Wikipedia

George Galloway on John Reid