THE TABLET
THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY Founded in 1840
A NOT SO BEAUTIFUL GAME T
he warm and generous welcome given by the people of Scotland to Pope Benedict XVI last September amply demonstrates that the great majority reject the old spirit of sectarian anti-Catholicism. Even so, it
has left an uncomfortable legacy in the rivalry, not always good- humoured, between Rangers and Celtic football clubs in Glasgow and their respective followers. As with various soccer clubs in England that were established in the nineteenth century, both clubs began life in an effort to provide something worthwhile for working-class youth that would keep them out of trouble. Rangers was Protestant, Celtic Catholic, which in the nineteenth-century context meant Irish immigrant. The paradox is that the two clubs have themselves now become a major source of that trouble. As happened again last week, matches between the two sides have a propensity for violence, on and off the pitch, during and after the game. And beneath the insults, the old sectarianism still lurks. It is brought to the surface by the heightened emotion of a football “derby” – two local teams competing, as they have done for generations –plus large quantities of alcohol consumed before and after the game. The volatility this can produce is dramatically if shamefully
reflected in the statistics for domestic violence in Glasgow which, according to the police, show a sudden peak after any Rangers-Celtic game. These are presumably not sectarian inci- dents with Catholic husbands beating up their Protestant wives and vice versa. It shows how tenuous is the connection between religious identity and a violent temper caused by drink. This is not really a religious problem; it is a Scottish problem.
If sectarianism is generally in decline, it still figures more promin - ently in Glasgow than in comparable English cities. One thing the Scots could learn from south of the border is not to blame the separate Catholic school system as a source of sectarian feeling, as some of them are sometimes inclined to do. There is no evidence from elsewhere in mainland Britain that Catholic schools provoke tribal or sectarian rivalries like those between the supporters of Celtic and Rangers, suggesting that the enforced merging of church and non-denominational schools in Scotland is unlikely to provide a solution to the problem. Nor is the tendency of Catholic families to cluster together
in certain housing estates necessarily to blame, although it must cut down opportunities for social mixing. Again, this is not unknown in England, without sectarian consequences. In the latest Old Firm derby, fans were inflamed by the spec- tacle not only of players on the field losing their tempers with each other but Celtic manager Neil Lennon and Rangers assis- tant manager Ally McCoist engaged in a nose-to-nose spat. Yellow and red cards were handed out like raffle tickets. The managements of the two clubs attempted to present a united front at a summit this week, organised by Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond, both acknowledging the need to avoid a repetition of the disgraceful scenes that have tarnished the good name of Glasgow all over the world. One recommenda- tion is greater effort to encourage responsible drinking, and there have been calls for pubs and bars to be forced to close before a match. Some such salutary action is unavoidable. Glasgow cannot go on like this.
ATTACK ON NHS COULD BE FATAL B
efore Parliament is a bill to reform the National Health Service that could be the coalition Government’s undoing. It was not in the Tory election manifesto – which promised not to interfere with the NHS – nor in the agreement that brought the Liberal Democrats into Government with them. The Prime Minister himself report- edly failed to appreciate what was involved, but simply trusted his health secretary, Andrew Lansley, to get on with it. Doctors and other professional organisations are against it, warning that it will damage standards of care. The most cogent criticism is that it proposes a solution without stating what the problem is. The NHS is better than ever at doing what it does, and under existing management, still improving. The Government explanation, that it will “strip out layers of wasteful bureau- cracy”, is unconvincing. There is no way of knowing whether the new administrative structures will be any more efficient. Labour is against the reform, not surprisingly, but more sig-
nificant for the coalition’s future is the unhappiness in the ranks of the Lib Dems. While the party whips may prevail in the House of Commons, a battle royal can be predicted in the House of Lords. Baroness (Shirley) Williams, former leader of the Lib Dem peers, has called the reform incomprehensible and dis- ruptive. Her party has just suffered humiliation in the Barnsley Central by-election, which raises the stakes a notch. The NHS could even be the issue that breaks the coalition apart. The essence of the reform is the abolition of local Primary
Care Trusts (PCTs), the bodies which commission hospital serv- ices, and the transfer of their powers to local general
2 | THE TABLET | 12 March 2011
practitioners. They in turn would form local groups (“consor- tia”) to appoint and supervise new agencies which would take over the commissioning role. Service providers in the NHS such as local hospital trusts would then submit bids for con- tracts. But the private sector will also be allowed to bid – the legislation permits “any willing provider” to enter this mar- ket for health care, which has caused some to say that the unstated intention is to privatise health care in Britain. Mr Lansley’s reply is that family doctors should be able to shape the range of local services available to patients, match- ing local needs more effectively. The British Medical Association has objected that this sets up a conflict of interest between family doctors and their patients, because the less doctors spend on buying services, the more they will have left in their budg- ets to pay themselves. Thus NHS reform is politically hazardous for David Cameron’s Government, and even pro-Government commen- tators have been warning that there could be much worse to come. Ironically, the Government does not have a clear philo- sophical objection to the way that the NHS has been run – the point about “wasteful bureaucracy” is a managerial one – so there is no ideological body of opinion cheering it on, no natural constituency hoping to benefit. On the other hand, the NHS has a vast workforce, which is unanimously opposed, and an even bigger constituency of customers, its patients, who regard the NHS with almost religious devotion. Given the risks he is running and how little he stands to gain, it is mystify- ing why Mr Cameron thought this was a fight worth having.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40