When I was a boy growing up in Glasgow, we lived for football. We’d arrive at my primary school in Battlefield at least an hour before the bell, gutties on and ready tae kick a tanner ba’ around that weirdly shaped football pitch, hoping to score an Archie Gemmill style goal, followed by raucous celebration and the lifting of the Jules Rimet trophy before 9.10am registration with Miss Sweeney.
Each term we started by picking two captains. Those captains would then alternate in the picking of players, an experience that has moulded many for life. Luckily I was a keeper, an Alan Rough in a world of wannabe King Kennys ... whilst I was never first pick, I satisfied myself with a healthy career in the top half of the draw.
The pitch we played on had “challenges”. It sloped downhill dramatically, some three metre difference between goals - it was L-shaped, with one goalkeeper unable to see the other, and Mansionhouse Road, out of bounds, separated from our pitch by only an ineffectual fence.
And while the normal rules of playground football applied, there were always new challenges to the perceived wisdom.
1. If the ball went on the roof of the cludgie whoever kicked it had tae get it.
2. If you dinked the keeper, shooting uphill, and the ball almost cleared the line, you got the goal
3. If some eejit skied the ba’ over the ineffectual fence, they had tae ask the joyless Jannie tae get it back.
Of course, there was always some bleating, an amount of moaning and the odd attempt to re-write the rules on an ad hoc basis. We were governed by the universal mantra that “fair is fair”. As eight year olds we dealt with these debates and discussions; we decided. Democratically. Just as we did when it came to picking a new captain every term. If you had been a captain the term before you automatically entered the ballot. There were no shortage of young pretenders wanting, wishing, willing to take the arm-band. But the incumbent always, always had the right to defend his previous term’s record.
We had lived but eight summers, yet no one, not once ever thought to challenge this notion; it was unknowingly the exercise of Natural Law by weans in Battlefield. Natural law originated in the classical age of Greek philosophy, promoted through the prism of political perception by the likes of Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke in the age of the Enlightment.
Nothing could be less enlightening than currently watching the Parliamentary Labour Party, imploding in an idiotically internecine of indulgence. I have nothing to grind, axe-wise. Labour are dead to me, especially after what I witnessed in Scotland during indyref1. Many that share my political passion are either indifferent to the Head Office antics or gleefully willing the fire to burn higher. I seem unable to keep calm when confronted by the contemptible cavalcade called the contemporary Parliamentary Labour Party. My sense of social justice, like my sense of Natural Law is utterly offended as parliamentary politics ploughs into the power of the people.
If the PLP wanted to usurp their leader, a leader who holds the greatest ever mandate to lead the party, they should have collected 51 names and found a stalking horse. Instead, they attempted to destroy the man rather than simply defeat him. (It’s worth remembering that before he was even elected, coups were being concocted….).
A procedurally meaningless, personally motivated vote of no confidence followed. Co-ordinated resignations, some seeming to have been helpfully organised by certain media outlets, a further attempt to trash the man. And of course, the wave after wave of ad hominem attacks that the mainstream media have happily framed. The truth? Labour membership has more than doubled under his leadership. Young voters in university towns seem to be the biggest demographic. Labour has never been more popular.
Then this final ignominy, a legal attempt to stop the incumbent defending himself from a leadership challenge. Unbelievable. The country point and laugh. All I know is that me and my eight year old footballing school pals would have definitely let Corbyn stand to be captain again, naturally and without recourse to law. Fair is fair, after all.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here