For Celtic PLC, will Resolution 12 be their Labour Party IndyRef moment?

If you thought the above headline signalled a party political blogcast, rest easy – this is instead about a lesson from history.

For most of my lifetime, the Scottish political scene has been a two-horse race. There was a brief period before 1979 in which the Scottish National Party was securing around 30% of the vote but, for decades, Labour and the Conservatives had dominated the vote with the majority of seats going to Labour.

Having lived through the Margaret Thatcher years, I saw support for the Tories evaporate and Labour secure what seemed an unassailable position of political supremacy.

But the two graphics posted tell a remarkable story: from 56 Westminster MPs in 2001 to just one in 2015; from a party that was able to lead a Holyrood administration for the first eight years of the Scottish parliament to one facing predictions of a near wipe-out in just over six weeks time.

The details of Scotland's changing political landscape and the complex issues are various but one common accusation remains: that Labour thought Scotland would always vote Labour, regardless of its message or policies, because Scotland always HAD voted Labour.

Political allegiance is usually more complex than simply assessing lists of candidates and policies. For many, it is tribal, sentimental, to do with family traditions, even “in the blood”.

Many of those who abandoned Labour did so with a heavy heart. “I didn't leave Labour; Labour left me”, was a common defensive cry from those facing accusations of disloyalty – even treachery – giving succour to their political enemies. The very need to explain exposed a deep-felt sense of anguish – sometimes guilt – in abandoning the party that had once represented their parents' and grandparent's interests when no one else would.

But, for huge numbers of those who believed in a set of values, the party's shift to accommodate modernism and “new realities” represented a betrayal – and the rational conclusion that if the party no longer held true to its founding principles and ideals, then it was no longer worthy of support.

And yet this logical outcome was something that the party's leaders, political strategists and communications professionals apparently believed would never happen.

It beggars belief that a party that could be so strategically successful in its campaigning in the Scottish Independence Referendum could at the same time finally exhaust the patience of those who had long doubted their political integrity.

But the reality is as stark and sobering an example as it is possible to get of the folly of taking people for granted. Labour's tactics, communications and cooperation with parties it claimed to oppose was for many the final nail in its coffin.

Yet there is room for suspicion that Celtic's directors and chief executives are similarly complacent.

While many, if not most, Scottish football supporters deem the Scottish Football Association to be corrupt, flying in the face of its own rules and the principles of fair play in order to maintain an establishment club in the Premiership, Celtic have stood by.

As the team, players and fans were cheated, Celtic at no time formally complained or protested publicly.

As a new club was entered into the bottom division – one which did not meet SFA criteria for membership, depriving qualified applicants a place – Celtic approved. And, infamously, they took no part in preventing the Ibrox Newco being admitted to one of the top two divisions, leaving the fight for integrity to the laudable actions of Turnbull Hutton.

Raith Rovers leading the way where Celtic apparently feared to tread.

And now we have Resolution 12, which seems almost certain to fail, and on which the club could have acted years ago.

And, for all this, they expect continued support – primarily with cash – from supporters they no longer defend, appear to care for or even represent.

So what is Celtic? A club that plays in the same colours at the same ground as the one graced by Tully, Johnstone, McGrain, Burns and Larsson? Its continuity as the entity founded by Brother walfrid is in no more doubt than that of the Labour party of Keir Hardy.

But it's values can no longer be seen as being in any way consistent with those that once bonded together a “Celtic family”. Celtic fans are being asked to support a club that no longer values fair play, the communities from which it has gained its support or playing football for the fans in a way to thrill and inspire.

And without those values, does the name, strip and ground alone entitle the club to the continuing support of people who have agonised over its decline?

When Labour found common cause with Tories and LibDems to oppose Scottish independence, the sharing of a platform with a Tory-LibDem coalition, as well as some cynical tactics, were too much for even its most faithful supporters.

But you could easily replace Labour's Jim Murphy, John McTernan and Blair McDougall with Dermot Desmond, Ian Bankier and Peter Lawwell, standing with the SFA and the Ibrox regime, led by a convicted criminal.

It appears that they do so in the belief that a promise here, a discount there and a “heartfelt plea for unity” are all that are needed to keep the tills ringing for yet another season; employing naïve hope in the aftermath of crushing experience.

But when trust has been damaged beyond repair, can supporters Keep the Faith?

--