I first became aware of Ray Wilkins through football stickers and cards, when he was a Chelsea player.
At that time, I had a real fondness for Manchester United – most boys of my age had an English team and my school was largely divided between the Liverpool and Man United fans.
At the time, Dave Sexton was the man charged with restoring United to the top of the English game.
Ray Wilkins was just one of his key recruits, alongside the likes of Joe Jordan and Gordon McQueen from the Leeds United side of Don Revie.
Later paired with Bryan Robson, the two formed a formidable midfield partnership – Robson being the dynamic “gives-it-and takes-it” box-to-box midfielder, while Wilkins was always the more considered footballer – but tough, as you had to be in those days to exist in the hardest position in the British game.
He went to AC Milan at a time when several players from the English First Division were being wooed by Serie A. It was only natural as the English League was the best in the world at the time, as six consecutive European Cup (before the post-Heysel ban) wins testified.
Ray had two good years there, which was testament to his technical skills, before spell at paris St Germain and then, to my horror, joining Rangers in 1987.
Although Graeme Souness had signed top England internationals such as Chris Woods and Terry Butcher, Celtic fans were already hoping that the sporting gods would see Rangers squander their money, as they often did.
But that was never on the cards with Ray Wilkins.
He had everything needed to shine in the Scottish Premier League and a lot more. Not just his abundant skill and the physicality to allow him to demonstrate that in the most chaotic of environments, he was every inch the professional's professional.
There was never any likelihood that he would be another complacent player looking for a big payday.
More than 80 England caps, his country's captainship and the fact that he played professionally beyond 40 are enough evidence of that.
The season after Ray Wilkins signed for Rangers, Souness recruited the next big Scottish thing, Ian Ferguson from St Mirren.
I recall many a time standing in the jungle when the home fans would celebrate Ferguson's inclusion in the Rangers team. We knew that he would likely disrupt his own team with his determination to stick one over on us, lunging into challenges and howking long-range shots over the bar.
No Celtic fan ever relished having Ray Wilkins on the pitch. We understood that he would be the direct opposite – somehow in the most frenetic of atmospheres always seeming to have time and space on the ball to use it to damage us.
I recall pictures of tears in his eyes at the end of his final game for Rangers before he went to QPR. I was just relieved that he had left them.
He played on, even returning to Scotland to play for Hibernian, seeming to just want to play the game at the highest level possible for as long as he possibly could.
I have no personal anecdotes of Ray Wilkins the man, though I have read the multitude of stories praising him as a kind and decent human being.
But, he was one heck of a footballer and his passing at the age of 61 is also a reminder of another era in Scottish football, one that was hard for Celtic fans of my generation to live through.
Ray Wilkins made that time immeasurably harder for Celtic. But he did so with skill, professionalism and honour in the best – and almost forgotten – traditions of the game.
Few of his ilk remain but football would be better for more men like Ray Wilkins.
--
Where your writer attempts to use fast food analogies in order to draw lessons relevant to Scottish football.
There has been much talk in Scotland - again - about that old chestnut known as "common sense".
You know the drill.
There is a controversial decision - very often by virtue of nothing other than the fact that it benefits Celtic, either directly or indirectly through its perceived impact on a would-be rival.
(Recently around Cédric Kipré's red card for putting his studs into Scott Brown, to which “common sense” said he should not have been sent off and eventually prevailed with the card being rescinded.)
The pundits are inflamed. They disagree.
What is the rule?
Usually these professional analysts, most of whom have played the game, haven't got a clue. (Why would you expect people who are supposed to be enhancing the knowledge of millions of viewers to spend time learning the rules?)
There is a heated argument, which may be the most entertaining thing that has happened on the show.
How do we resolve this? Let's pour oil on troubled waters by calling for "common sense".
Yes, the pundits and presenters nod, wise words. "Common sense".
Surely, we can all agree on that.
But can we?
Do you ever stop to consider what that really means?
In our personal lives, of course we know.
"Whatever happens, don't disturb me," a relative says. Later they find that their car has gone.
"What happened?"
"The police towed it. I was going to tell you but you said not to disturb you."
"Have you no common sense?"
So far, so easy.
But take another case – your favourite guilty secret fast food joint. It's 10.15 am and you really fancy your favourite breakfast bun that's available until 10 – but they have one on the rack and your server agrees it is only common sense to sell it to you.
Mmmm... You know you want it but do the rules allow it?
"Eh, excuse me," a customer in the next queue says to a staff member, indignantly, "When I asked for that, I was told that your rules stated I couldn't buy it after 10 o'clock."
"I was just doing what I'm paid to do," his server explains.
"I was only using common sense," says your server.
"Or maybe there's something about me that you don't like," says the increasingly-frustrated customer.
"You're paranoid," you and the two staff members retort in unison.
The manager saunters in.
"Look, let's not get silly about this. Both of my staff were doing their jobs honestly and to the best of their ability. I fully support both of them and I think this criticism is unfair on people doing a job that few would envy."
Meanwhile, the other customers have become interested and are taking sides.
"That wee jobsworth is always like that," someone shouts, "He had ten Big Brekkies there last week and wouldn't sell me one of them at two minutes past!"
"Oh, really!" pipes another, "Well Mr Common Sense here did the same to me yesterday. It's only 'common sense' for those and such-as-those with that so-and-so."
By this time, the manager is becoming increasingly defensive, while you are preparing to take your swag away.
"You know, serving you people is a thankless task that I wouldn't wish on anyone."
"Just train them to be consistent!"
"Just hire people with common sense!"
"Aye, common sense when it suits YOUSE!"
As chaos ensues, a crestfallen woman with a clipboard identifies herself as being from the regional quality assurance team.
"I would like to say that I recognise the frustrations expressed here and sincerely regret them.
"While the rule on selling Big Brekkies after 10am may seem pedantic, we ask all our branches to observe it for a number of reasons.
"Firstly, sandwiches still on the rack at 10am show a higher dissatisfaction rate, which is difficult to remedy as our entire production setup moves to lunchtime meals at 10 o’clock.
"Secondly, we believe that our customers deserve a consistent service across all our branches and we find that leaving these seemingly-small decisions to local level can leave customers disappointed over matters that may not be immediately obvious."
"Really?" says the manager, "And who even asked you?"
Forgive the parable – and before going further I should make two points.
Firstly, of course no reasonable person has had more than a small portion of their morning spoiled by disappointment over which fast food they were allowed to buy, so the example is frivolous.
Secondly, there is not a burger joint, pie shop or chippie – never mind chain – in the country that is not run and staffed far better than any of the Scottish football authorities.
At the weekend, common sense – or, more importantly, “commentators’ sense” visited Fir Park where Motherwell (again) hosted The Rangers.
Well were awarded a penalty, much to the indignation of professional controversialist, Chris Sutton, and the world’s wealthiest horticulturist Ally McCoist.
A kick is not a (penalty) kick. Unless it's really hard!
“Never a penalty!” “Soft!” “There’s contact but not enough.” “There is a kick but not hard enough!”
Well, that appeared to be that, despite what you may have seen watching at home.
Two former professionals – one ex-Celtic, one ex-Rangers – made their statements of ecumenical unanimity.
Nick Walsh had got it wrong and Curtis Main cynically took advantage to make it 1-0 to Motherwell.
Then – Oh, the Humanity! – Allan Campbell had the Claret-and-Ambers 2-0 up in 16 minutes.
Well dominated the first half but Sutton and McCoist – neither of whom had ever “been professional” in “drawing fouls” in or around the box, were gagging on the injustice of that wrongful pen.
What happened next was as lamentable as it was predictable.
Eight-million-pound-man James Tavernier took the first opportunity after half-time to theatrically land on his bahoochie and – peep-peep-point! – it’s a penalty.
Again Sutton and McCoist agreed – never a pen! – but Tav didn’t care. Poetic justice!
Two minutes later, Jamie Murphy popped in a peach and it was 2-2.
Honest Tavernier had no intention of going down
Well’s top-six ambitions virtually shattered, The Rangers still looking good for a top-four-or-better finish to the season.
All is apparently right with the world, except for the referee.
Now, I already know what a good five-to-seven of my ten (or more) regular readers are thinking: that referee Walsh was just biased - he couldn’t wait to even it up.
And you’d be at least half-right.
But, by full-time, something else had happened. McCoist had changed his mind about the first penalty and the rest of the panel, except for Sutton, agreed that Walsh had got it spot-on! (Pun champion since 2006.)
Just another day in the professional backwater that is Scottish football.
However, in homage to that legal great, Tony Petrocelli, let me present you, ladies and gentlemen, with another version of what happened that day.
Petrocelli tells it like it is.
Your eyes did not deceive you when you believed that Russell Martin had kicked Chris Cadden on the calf, missing the ball by some margin of both space and time, thus constituting a penalty.
But what happened at half-time behind closed doors in the referee’s room?
I submit to you that poor Nick Walsh, as officials regularly do, ate the forbidden fruit of half-time roundups put on BT Sport (on this occasion, instead of Sky), either on a TV or personal mobile device, and found that he had been roundly castigated for a crucial decision by two high-profile “expert” commentators from either side of a divide that last existed in 2012.
He was now going to be the subject of much criticism, given the importance of the game for both clubs and, faced with the prospect of a media barrage for days after the game, he allowed human weakness to take over.
I believe that he really couldn't wait to even things up, as the punters often say, but probably not because he was following a tradition of institutional bias.
His first-half performance had been very good.
But he listened to the opinion-formers and buckled, throwing bad decision after good because neither Chris Sutton nor Ally McCoist either know or care about the rules of the game. (After all, in their playing careers, they had someone on the pitch to take care of that.)
In other words, because he made a good decision that pundits didn't understand, he felt compelled to "compensate" by making a bad decision to make amends.
That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is modern Scottish football. The media influencing decisions on the field and actively making things worse.
McCoist later admitted that he was wrong. Doing likewise doesn’t fit with Sutton’s persona.
But, again and again, in the Scottish game, refereeing decisions are made that defy the international rules, which are intended to offer some semblance of consistency and an even playing field.
That’s how it becomes “common sense” to absolve Kipré of a correct red card (only in Scotland would it not have been a clear red) and Andrew Davies can perform what was definitely a reckless and dangerous "challenge" on Scott Brown - but which looked like a deliberate and malicious assault - and get a single-match ban.
Another accidental attack on Scott Brown
Because, you see, there is really no such thing as common sense.
Well, there is but it exists in each of our minds in different forms according to our wishes and needs at any specific time. And that is the same as inherent bias.
Rules governing a game are intended to ensure that those inconsistent interests don't offer advantage or disadvantage unfairly.
So that one player isn't protected while another is assaulted; one freed of suspension while another is banned for an identical or lesser offence.
Play isn't - or shouldn't be - stopped for some head injuries but not others. Because, even when a player's health and safety is at stake, he is at the mercy of what that particular referee considers "common sense" - the catch-all excuse for not doing his job.
I have little sympathy for referees and assistant referees in Scotland as their general standard of officiating is appalling.
I also find it both incredible and offensive that Scottish referees are still considered incapable of the corruption that the media are all too happy to believe pervades football in countless overseas countries.
But the atmosphere that is created in Scotland is toxic to any hope of the raising of standards or fair play in general.
The biased and ignorant, through their media influence, too often dictate the implementation of the rules of the game.
We don't need common sense dictated by part-time weekend entertainers. We already have rules.
We just need the officials to apply them in Scotland properly, without the pundits telling them not to.
Imagine that - Scottish football being governed by the rules and standards that apply to the rest of the world.
I have always had mixed feelings about the Green Brigade.
I love many of their displays and acknowledge the atmosphere that they have generated at times when it has been badly needed.
I also give them huge credit for the food bank collections, which accentuate the solidarity of Celtic fans with the poor for whom our club was founded, especially as so few other clubs' fans ever come close to matching it.
I have similar values to many of those that the GB express – left, Irish Republican, and for a just solution for the Palestinian people.
On the latter issue, I have no problem saying that, overall, I was wrong about the Palestinian flag protest for the match with Hapoel Be'er Sheva and the subsequent "Match the Fine for Palestine" was a very proud moment for Celtic that I had not anticipated. Fair play.
But while the GB was proved right about the previous Palestinian action (and this weekend certainly warranted one), many of their political activities have given me cause for concern.
Not necessarily because I disagree with the message but because claiming Celtic for a narrow political viewpoint is divisive and inappropriate to a club with Celtic's "open to all" identity and values.
Okay, we're not really open to all – not to neo-Nazis, Fascists, racists, Antisemites, Islamophobes, anti-Catholic bigots or anyone who discriminates on the basis of any religious discrimination.
Generally, anyone who advocates discrimination against minorities is not welcome to express their views at Celtic Park (though some minorities would not have been welcomed at any club, including Celtic, in previous decades).
That's just my opinion, of course. This is my personal forum for expressing it and I have to acknowledge that I don't speak for Celtic or Celtic fans.
But this is one area in which I feel that the Green Brigade can often lack an appreciation of nuance and the true value of diversity.
Frankly, I think that they often act like a bunch of overgrown kids (though many are, in fact, just kids).
I have sung many a song in honour of the Irish rebels, who people like me remember, particularly at Easter time.
The Foggy Dew, Come Out Ye Black-'N'-Tans, The Boys of the Ould Brigade, The Merry Ploughboy, Rock on Rockall and more. But I have never sung any of them at Celtic Park.
Because, they are not necessarily understood and, if they are, not necessarily accepted amongst the Celtic support.
Danny McGrain MBE
Excuse the nuance, folks, but Willie Maley – a far greater Celt than I or (I humbly submit) any Green Brigade member – urged young men to fight for the British Empire. And that's when it was a real piece of work!
That would be the same empire from which many great Celts accepted bestowed honours – Sir Bob Kelly; Jock Stein, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire; Bobby Lennox, Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire; Paul McStay, Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, and more.
All, immeasurably greater Celts than I could ever wish to be.
And that necessarily implies to me that Celtic supporters can't exclude even those who have fought for that empire from our midst, never mind those fans who currently support Scotland's place in the United Kingdom and vote for it.
And, logically, neither could we or should we seek to exclude people who support Scottish independence.
I've lived through the last throes of Labour in Scotland and I didn't like what I saw. I don't much like the Scottish National Party, either.
Personally, I'm a left-leaning supporter of Scottish independence, with no support for the British union, and would be politically closest to the Scottish Socialist Party had that entity not gone up in a puff of hubris, testosterone and farce.
So, what are we going to say? You can't be a Celtic supporter and vote for a British Unionist party like Labour, the Conservatives or the LibDems?
You can't be a Celtic supporter who, like me, vociferously opposed the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act and vote SNP?
"Radical" Celtic fans say Yes to Scottish independence
If you think, “Yes”, to either question, I would ask who exactly you think you are to make Celtic Park the battleground for your narrow view of politics.
And who the hell you think you are to use Celtic or Fans Against Criminalisation to make party-political points at Celtic Park, as the Green Brigade did on Saturday during the match against Ross County.
"FAC 1 – 0 SNP", the banner went, with the Green Brigade “Ultras” skull logo, despite FAC having gone to great lengths to say that they represented a broad range of opinions and football loyalties.
The banner also had the tag – ACAB (All Coppers Are Bastards).
The OBFA, admittedly, caused tremendous damage to relations between Scottish football supporters and Police Scotland (and Celtic fans have long had an at best guarded relationship with the police as an institution).
But, to be kind, this is just another example of the rebel wannabe kids spewing forth on banners without thinking of nuance at all. "All coppers are bastards"? Doesn't that sound discriminatory? Have you envisaged a state that can exist in the absence of a police force?
(As I have always said, if you want to say, “ACAB”, then never lower yourself to call the cops so that one of those bastards has to risk his or her safety to get you or a loved-one out of a hole.)
So, according to one banner, you can't be an SNP-supporter or a police officer and be a Celtic fan.
Only if you believe that the Green Brigade's big banner – thankfully not recently with their “pyro” bonfire-night displays – speaks for Celtic, rather than a bunch of kids, who can grow up in their own time, not on Celtic's.
As with most divisive issues, I see stridently diverse opinions on the issue of Scottish independence.
Some see those who sing against British imperialism in Ireland but support British-Unionist Labour to be the most risible of hypocrites.
Others see the SNP, the primary party of Scottish independence, as an untrustworthy shower with no regard for Scotland's Irish Catholic community or football supporters as a group.
William Wallace and Bobby Sands banners at Celtic Park
Both positions have their arguable merits.
But, like it or not, members of both camps have a place at Celtic.And many thousands of SNP supporters and voters also support Celtic.
Just as Green and LibDem supporters, capitalists and – yes – even Tories. (We've had plenty in the past, though I find the party particularly offensive - which is not illegal).
Our club has embraced them all – imperialists, republicans, Catholics, Protestants, “Mohammedans” (as Maley referred to our first Muslim player), Jews, Gay people and many (though fewer now) homophobes.
Let no one or any group try to dictate that the Celtic family or club, open to all, should be divided according to their own narrow views or use the platform of Celtic to seek to exclude people from our club.
Our unity and diversity has enabled us to stand strong against every outside force that sought to divide us - one club since 1888.
There is a place for us all – even the Green Brigade.
More than 80 England caps, his country's captainship and the fact that he played professionally beyond 40 are enough evidence of that.
