"It's been happening for 50 years. The big decisions have always gone against my club and in favour of Rangers. Nothing has changed." - Billy McNeill, Ex-Celtic manager.

"Everyone wants people to get ordered off, everybody wants penalties against us, everybody wants everything against us. I don’t know what road we are going down in that respect. We seem to be reaching a ridiculous stage where refereeing decisions actually become far more important than the game itself." - Walter Smith, manager of Glasgow Rangers.

"Mumble, mumble..take it on the chin" - Tony Mowbray, manager of Celtic (ok this one is made up.. possibly).

Every now and again in Scottish football the question of match official bias towards Rangers explodes onto the back pages, flares for a brief moment then gradually sinks down to dampened embers largely due to a concentrated effort on behalf of the Scottish football establishment to apply a large measure of cold water. On every occasion when the controversy has reared its head, invariably after a sustained period of highly dubious decisions aiding the Forces of Darkness, a counter attack is led by the nation's press aided, of course, by a vanguard of retired players in the pay of the same media and retired referees, some of whom were involved in equally controversial pro-Rangers decisions during their careers. The sports hacks from the Fourth Estate (as it fondly likes to call itself) are certainly not all rabid cheerleaders for the Dark Side, although some certainly are, however to make it in the mainstream media a certain amount of personal compromise must be adopted to enable career progression.

The situation is best summed up by the media watch project, Medialens. Referring to the ability of journalists to present officially promoted fiction as fact, the website FAQ states: "we believe that the all-too-human tendency to self-deception accounts for their conviction that they are honest purveyors of uncompromised truth. We all have a tendency to believe what best suits our purpose; highly paid, highly privileged editors and journalists are no exception. In any case, professionals whose attitudes and opinions most closely serve the needs of corporate power, whether in media institutions or elsewhere, are more likely to be filtered through to positions of authority within such institutions." In other words those who toe the line are far more likely to climb up the greasy pole of career progression. During controversies mainstream media journalists invariably adopt a neutrality facade in order to present the corporate line as their own objective opinion. Medialens rightly regards such 'neutrality' as a sham: "we believe that media 'neutrality' is a deception that often serves to hide systematic pro-corporate bias. 'Neutrality' most often involves 'impartially' reporting dominant establishment views, while ignoring or marginalising non-establishment views."

In the context of Scottish Football, pro-corporate bias can be seen in the dedicated efforts to protect the reputation and interests of the sport's governing bodies and its minions by promoting the Establishment line in the face of overwhelming evidence. It results for example in the vociferous response from the corporate media to Fergus McCann's refusal to walk away from the Jorge Cadete registration scandal, and the outpouring of sympathy for Farry following Celtic's vindication. Despite an independent commission finding beyond doubt that the SFA chief executive deliberately delayed Cadete's registration until after the 1996 Scottish Cup semi-final against Rangers, which Celtic lost 2-1, the corporate media took great pains to attribute the event solely to Farry's penchant for officious bureaucracy or a simple personality clash between McCann and Farry. Farry was the lone gunman on the Park Gardens grassy knoll. The fact that prior to the commission finding the SFA's internal inquiries amazingly came to the inevitable Farry exoneration finding was brushed aside.

Only one newspaper really questioned the lone accidental gunman theory, The Scotsman on 2 March 1999, "A Fall Guy Named Farry", pointed out the impossibility of Farry alone dragging out the investigation process for three years: "At the very least, the office bearers, John McBeth, of Clyde; Chris Robinson of Hearts (both vice-presidents) and George Peat of Airdrie (treasurer), should have insisted on examining all pertinent material and accelerating the process. Their lack of action is at least the equal of Farry's, even if the chief executive, as the man in charge of administration, was the starting-point for the improper handling of the matter." The article continues: "The former Lord Dervaird, for example, would surely have questioned how internal inquiries into the business at Park Gardens could possibly have exonerated Farry on a previous occasion when the case presented by Celtic proved to be unopposable." A lone voice in the corporate media wilderness, and McCann's summary that the whole episode pointed to an "institutional bias" was of course not given the time of day.

Added to the Establishment cheerleading there is an almost deferential attitude to certain Scottish figures that practically eliminates the possibility of any real critical comment or assessment. With David Murray for example such deference allows the most fantastic nonsense to be swallowed by corporate journalists then vomited onto the back pages. Who can forget the incredible media celebration over Murray's laughable Ronaldo PR stunt, or indeed the near universal acclaim heaped onto the Rangers owner by the corporate media when he emerged from honorary chairman purdah in 2004 to present his Cunning Plan to restore Rangers finances? The Cunning Plan you may recall involved nothing more than some vague idea about "trading out of trouble". Despite the poverty of Murray's scheme, which had been promoted breathlessly for a full week leading up to the Grand Announcement, very few hacks bothered to ask any troubling questions, or indeed any questions at all, simply presenting this wafer-thin stunt as another magnificent Murray coup. If you wish to look for evidence of a total lack of 'neutrality' when it comes to Rangers and David Murray look no further than this national embarrassment.

To further understand the relationship between the Scottish Football Establishment, of which the mainstream media is a part, and Rangers, the fact has to be recognised that for decades Rangers was, and is, the adopted team of the Establishment. Only through the patronage of the Establishment could Rangers maintain their infamous sectarian employment policy for so long, with the silence from the SFA and practically the entire mainstream media, with a few notable exceptions, being absolutely deafening Not until UEFA started to take an interest and Graham Souness's demands were accepted, did the barriers reluctantly come down. Similarly it was only when UEFA embarrassed the SFA by explaining their decision not to punish the Rangers for the bigoted chants of its supporters during their game against Villarreal in 2006 that Park Gardens began to move on the matter.

As The Telegraph reported following the successful appeal against the original UEFA decision not to punish: "Uefa appealed against the decision of the control and disciplinary body - an autonomous committee within Uefa - after Rangers had been acquitted on the grounds that the game's authorities could not be expected to clean up problems effectively sanctioned socially by custom and usage." Although this was bizarrely trumpeted by Rangers supporters as a complete exoneration (which reveals their thought process), UEFA basically stated 'why should we do something about this when Scottish authorities, including the SFA, are doing zip?' It should be noted at this point that when faced with a growing demand to end Rangers protected status, the SFA chief executive ex-Rangers player Gordon Smith, in October 2007 whined as he launched into an appeal to leave Rangers alone: “Celtic have always thought that people were against them, but now Rangers are starting to feel the same.” Diddums.

The corporate media either treat accusations of official bias with lofty distain, ridicule or when the evidence against Rangers is overwhelming, by adopting the 'neutrality' approach which accuses both Celtic and Rangers of equally gaining from officials at the expense of other teams. The latter also aids in maintaining the fiction of "wee team" support in the media, that as Graham Spiers pointed out is a laughable con. A typical example of this 'both as bad as each other' approach would be STV's Ronnie Esplin's effort following sustained criticism of pro-Rangers decisions, suddenly the controversy also involved favouritism to Celtic: "Are Scottish referees really biased towards Rangers and Celtic? Ronnie Esplin considers the logistics of referees favouring the Old Firm after a month of 'mistakes' by officials." In this article Esplin offers not a single example of a decision in Celtic's favour to justify the inclusion of the club in the controversy.

Esplin is by no means unique in trying this on, yet while it is true that all clubs occasionally benefit from match officials mistakes, the sheer volume in Rangers favour either forces each "balancing" article to vague generalisations, or alternatively the adoption of unquestionable inclusions such as the now legendary Kris Boyd disallowed goal against Motherwell. Walter Smith too isn't shy of including less controversial decisions when faced with outrage over match officials favouritism. In his after match press conference following Rangers draw at Fir Park in February, Smith responded when asked about Ross Forbes' disallowed goal which would have put the home side 2-0 up: “But I think if I can remember correctly we had a goal knocked off in a [previous] match here, a goal by Kris Boyd. So sometimes they go for you, and sometimes against you. If you wish to cast your mind back, we would have won that game if we had got that one. So it balances out. I thought?I would remind you of that.” Indeed, maybe someone should have reminded Smith that a goal can't be scored after the referee's whistle has blown for an infringement, offside in this case. In the game in November 2008, which ended goalless, the linesman's flag and subsequent referee whistle meant that play had largely stopped by the time Boyd thumped the goal into the next, an act described by the Daily Mail as 'frustration'.

In short the mainstream media have a corporate inclination to lend unwavering support to the football Establishment regardless of the evidence, although there's an important exception to this which we'll look at later. As an example of the media wagon circling in the face controversy, we can look at the then Dundee United manager Craig Levein's withering attack on notorious referee Mike McCurry following a truly outrageous performance by the match officials when United visited Ibrox in May 2008. "I said to him [McCurry] that we were as well not turning up. What was the point? We were as well going home," said a clearly agitated Levein after the game. "Mike could have phoned me this morning and said: 'Look, Rangers are going to get the three points today -- just tell your lads to stay in the house.' It's impossible to win here in important games. The referee has bottled it at the penalty -- that was my thoughts if you want to know the truth. He knew, if he had given the penalty, he would have had to send Davie Weir off." Incredibly it wasn't McCurry who incurred the media's wrath, it was Levein. In the face of an intense media backlash Levein later slightly toned down his criticism, and United owner Eddie Thompson attempted to calm troubled waters by resorting to the "balanced" bolthole, by bizarrely claiming that McCurry's performance was proof that match officials are biased in favour of "the Old Firm". Interestingly George Peat, SFA president, reacted to McCurry's shocking performance by lambasting Levein's comments as "criminal". What laws Levein broke were not revealed.

The corporate media's inability, or unwillingness, to objectively report can be witnessed in the reporting of the events in the two games against Rangers which led to Celtic making official representations to the SFA over the actions of match officials. When the news of these discussions was leaked, allegedly by a Celtic source, media reports of Peat's knicker-wetting outrage largely avoided mention of the cause of Celtic's concern or downplayed the events. WSN however reported: "Both Old Firm games this season have seen major decisions go against Celtic, including several penalty claims during their 2-1 defeat at Ibrox in October, most notably when David Weir felled Shaun Maloney without punishment from Craig Thomson. Marc-Antoine Fortune had a goal controversially disallowed by Steve Conroy in the 1-1 draw at Celtic Park on January 3 for a foul on Rangers goalkeeper Allan McGregor." STV also mentioned the background: "The last two old Firm encounters have not been without incident. During the game on January, a goal by Marc-Antoine Fortune was ruled out after referee Steve Conroy said the Celtic striker had fouled Rangers goalkeeper Allan McGregor. In the previous match in October, Celtic had a number of penalty appeals denied by match official Craig Thomson, who later admitted he had made mistakes during the game."

Compare the STV quote to the reporting of the same story in the Daily Record: "Celtic believe they were denied at least one penalty in the first Old Firm derby of the season at Ibrox in October - a match which Rangers won 2-1 - and also insist they were denied a legitimate goal during the 1-1 draw New Year's Parkhead fixture." Craig Thomson's admission of "mistake" regarding the Maloney penalty claim is ignored by Keith Jackson when reporting on the 2-1 match, and the near universal confirmation that Fortune's goal was legitimate is reduced to Celtic alone insisting the goal was good. In none of the reporting will you find mention of concerns over the fact that Kyle Lafferty was allowed to remain on the pitch at Celtic Park after a disgraceful assassination attempt on Andreas Hinkel. As Hinkel later said: "The image of the Lafferty tackle isn't in my head, it's in my shin. I still have it there and I can go on Youtube and see the challenge on a 'the worst tackles' clip. If I had planted my foot on the ground then I could easily have broken my leg."

You'll note a running theme here of referees admitting to more than the usual number of "mistakes" then it comes to Rangers, McCurry also admitted to "mistakes" after the aforementioned Dundee United shocker. Even when there is an acknowledgement of favourable decisions in Rangers favour, there is no subsequent follow-up or attempt to investigate just why Rangers benefits from match official "errors" far more than any other team. Such a topic isn't considered for discussion by the corporate media for reasons already mentioned, at best concerns will be raised about the standard of general refereeing or the smokescreen of "Old Firm" bias. Yet incompetence would surely manifest itself in a general sharing of injustices amongst clubs to a similar degree, that clearly does not happen so how can such a defence be maintained?

To underline the task faced by Celtic during the current controversy, the club was criticised during the spat with Peat as they had not taken up an offer to meet by Hugh Dallas, the SFA’s head of referee development, "despite the fact that at the start of the season Dallas made clear his door was open to any aggrieved manager". Again the fact that 'impartial' Hugh Dallas featured in several controversial incidents involving Celtic, including the infamous 1998 league clincher by Rangers at Celtic Park where he clearly lost the plot and may as well have donned a Rangers top, is blithely ignored. Would Dallas have thrown up his hands and offered a mea culpa? Shedding bitter tears and asking for forgiveness for those match officials whose integrity has been compromised by such unbalanced "mistakes"? I doubt it very much. It's a bit like making a complaint to the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission who then instruct the police to investigate themselves, a waste of time. After all one game filled with pro-Rangers decisions would be unfortunate, two in succession is getting beyond a joke, but three? If Hugh Dallas needs a visit from Tony Mowbray to bring his attention to the smell of decomposing herring then he's deliberately blocked his nostrils.

Yet what of the SFA, can they really be instructing referees to act in a nefarious manner? Isn't such an accusation so ludicrous that it merits the hooting and braying from the corporate media? Well, perhaps if there was no evidence for prior form on this, but there is. To fully understand the situation in Scotland, and to wholly appreciate the ability of the game to be warped in favour of one team, you need look no further than the circumstances surrounding the treatment of Paul Gascoigne during his Rangers career. Similarly to appreciate that accusations of bias regarding match referees are not just the produce of gripe and girn, one only needs to look at the events of season 1997-1998 and the behaviour of one Bobby Tait. First though let's ponder Gascoigne's interesting relationship with match officials.

In 1995 Paul Gascoigne joined Rangers for a fee of £4.3m, his signing was proclaimed a great coup for Murray and consequently Scottish football. The journalist Gerry McNee revealed on STV's Scotsport programme that the SFA had instructed match officials to protect the player and to show leniency due to his notoriously volatile temperament (the theory being that sneaks would provoke the big bairn into temper tantrums). Any doubt over the validity of McNee's claim dissipated as Gascoigne was allowed to rampage through season after season, mixing incredible skill with brutal thuggery, while miraculously avoiding a red card. No other player has managed to accumulate thirteen yellow cards in one season without encountering a red somewhere along the line. The issue was covered by Bryan Scott in the Daily Mail following Gascoigne's eventual overdue dismissal in November 1997. "Cynics might wonder at this point why, prior to Wednesday, no Scottish referee had ever red-carded Gascoigne, who courts trouble on a regular basis by using his arms and elbows as a dubious means of protection," he said. "Were they afraid to risk attracting the notoriety of being the first to deal severely with the biggest-name player at Scotland's biggest club and, if so, might Rowbotham have rid them of their inhibition?" No one asked if they were merely obeying orders.

Rowbotham not only committed the cardinal sin of actually red carding Gascoigne, he awarded enough legitimate injury time for Celtic, through Alan Stubbs, to grab a late injury time equaliser which contributed in no small way to Celtic winning the league title and stopping Rangers ten-in-a-row bid. Walter Smith afterwards accused Rowbotham of lacking impartiality, presumably referring to the slating Rowbotham received when he failed to take action against Gascoigne in 1995. On that occasion the lovable rogue inflicted five stitches on Aberdeen's Paul Bernard's face and head-butted John Inglis in the chest. Gascoigne wasn't even booked for either incident, however such was the level of mayhem at the game that the Procurator Fiscal asked Strathclyde Police to examine 'certain incidents' during the match. Probably panicking due to Rowbotham's strict interpretation of the Hands-Off command, "Gazza and defender John Brown were hauled before the SFA on the strength of ref supervisor Don McVicar's report and given one-game bans". Rowbotham had a career "stall" after the game but found himself in Coventry after red carding Gascoigne, although quite why is anyone's guess as he clearly followed the rules on that occasion. Maybe that was his mistake.

Another referee who found himself in a bit of a pickle due to Gascoigne and the no sending off rule was Jim McGilvray. During a game against Partick Thistle in February 1996, McGilvray followed the rules, however stupid, and booked Gascoigne for leaving the pitch to celebrate his goal. So that's Gascoigne on a yellow, which means that from now on nothing can be done against him for the remainder of the game, and that's just how it turned out. Despite two further bookable offences, including stamping and wrestling, McGilvray failed to hand Gascoigne a second caution. Afterwards McGilvray justified his behaviour by laying the blame on the SFA, huffing that their rules regarding leaving the field of play during goal celebrations forced him to harshly book Gascoigne, and then the poor mite felt unable to dish out a second yellow in case the harshness of the original decision caused a riot amongst the followers of Dignity. Yes you read that right. Leaving aside the fact that the third bookable offence should have removed any moral qualms, McGilvray felt no similar inner turmoil or fears for public safety when it came to Partick Thistle's Roddy McDonald in the same match. McDonald walked due to two yellow cards, the first which most missed as it was issued as the player left the pitch at the end of the first half.

According to Partick Thistle, McDonald was cautioned for crossing himself as he left the pitch, a regular trait. "Rod was completely innocent, I am convinced of that. "He crossed himself, as he does during every game," claimed Murdo McLeod the then Partick Manager. "And there no way he was trying to incite." An unnamed player stated: "Rod was very upset at the end of the match. He just couldn't understand why he'd been booked, then sent off." McGilvray you'll note had no problems with booking someone for blessing themselves, but felt the goal celebration rule was a bit harsh. Interestingly enough McGilvray did not witness the heinous act committed by McDonald, instead two Rangers supporters complained to Plod who then drew the referee's attention to his assault on civilisation as we know it.

Sixteen days after the game McGilvray resigned, blaming the SFA for imposing restraints on match officals that were making the job impossible. Initial crisis management of the decision quickly fell apart with McGilvray the object of intense media attacks and no some amount of gatling gun attention by the SFA chief executive, Jim Farry. One unnamed "Grade one" match official was quoted by the Daily Record hissing: "Jim's talking rubbish when he says he didn't want to send Gascoigne off because it would have caused a riot. All he's doing is trying to justify the decision he took not to send him off. But what he HAS done is reinforce the myth that there is one rule for Rangers and another for the rest - which is utter rubbish." McGilvray's real crime was to give the game away, can't have that after all.

In an amusing postscript to this incident, McGilvray was later rehabilitated by the Daily Record following Hugh Dallas' 1998 spectacular, the same newspaper that carried headlines in 1996 such as "McGilvray's gone from a referee to a whinesman" (geddit??) and "Bottler Jim let us all down". The bold Jim was trooped out as a ex-top grade official to give Dallas' performance a clean bill of health and to condemn accusations of bias thrown at the throbbing headed ref. Interestingly also McGilvray did not come under the sustained media barrage in 1996 for his actual performance at Firhill, rather for his criticism of the SFA. You may wonder just what was the greatest offence, failing in his job or having a spat with his ex-employers, clearly the corporate media came down heavily on the latter which says a hell of a lot about their perspective. Moving on we come to another period of intense bias in favour of Rangers by match officials, their Ten-in-a-row build up.

Now as Celtic supporters we are used to having cope with referees and their assistants pulling out all the stops for Rangers in their time of need, but season 1997-1998 will be remembered for many things including the sight of Bobby Tait throwing all caution to the wind. Prior to his penultimate performance Tait had officiated at two highly controversial games that season involving Celtic and Hearts. In February 1998 Celtic played Hearts at Tynecastle in a game of huge importance, a win would see Celtic go top of the league by two points. Tait got into this stride by first disallowing a perfectly good Morten Weighorst goal, described by Glen Gibbons of The Scotsman thus "Referee Tait indicated that he had controlled the ball with his hand, but, to the naked eye and, relying on Wieghorst's vehement protest as a guide, it seemed a pretty severe judgement", then manufactured several minutes injury time in the second half despite an unusual lack of stoppages. With Celtic leading by a single goal, and with Tait examining his watch several times (no doubt wondering how far he could push it), a deflected Quintongo goal deep in injury time levelled the scores. Celtic restarted the game by driving at the Hearts box, and with Weighorst bearing down on goal Tait blew for full time.

The next encounter in March saw Tait enjoying a bruising encounter between the two teams, yet only one side was penalised while the other appeared to be able to rampage at will - I'll leave you to guess who. On this occasion with Celtic pressing to break the goalless encounter, having endured a rather torrid time during the game, Tait brought the game to a close after adding the mere minimum of extra time (47 seconds) despite lengthy stoppages due to injuries. When the news broke later that Tait had asked for, and was granted, the last home Rangers game of the season as his retirement present from the SFA (bizarrely this happens apparently), black clouds descended. The league was balanced on a knife-edge and could go either way. With Rangers requiring three points from this vital game the decision to hand it to a well-known Rangers supporting referee would be viewed with incredulity in most countries, not here though. In what became known as one of the greatest moments of comeuppance in Scottish football, despite minimal stoppages Tait played four minutes injury time in the first half and a further four in the second, only for a very lacklustre Rangers to fail to take advantage of his largesse and for Kilmarnock to steal the game deep in injury time through Ally Mitchell.

The possibility that a referee could have acted the same way with Celtic and for that to have gone without critical comment by the media is simply beyond imagining. Similarly does anyone seriously believe that if Paul Gascoigne had signed for Celtic, match officials would have shrieked at the possibility of showing a red card for his elbow and head-butting antics? No, it's simply not credible. Only Rangers could have enjoyed such benevolence and as Rangers' need grows so too does the ability of that club to benefit from match official eccentricities and "mistakes". Back in the nineties it was Rangers burning desire to reach Ten-in-a-row, an event probably heralding Armageddon, now it's their desperate attempts to extract themselves from the financial mire. Whenever the call goes out, the Scottish Football Establishment can be relied upon to respond and act accordingly. Equally the corporate media can be relied upon to act as a propaganda wing, downplaying the injustices, muddying the waters and lambasting those daring to voice public outrage. When the league is effectively over and Rangers safe, match officials will no doubt give a couple of highly dubious decisions in Celtic's favour to allow journalists to claim "balance". In the meantime, the hacks will do their job, turning accusers of match officials into the accused in tried and trusted fashion.

The latest victim of the Show Trials looks to be Aiden McGeady following his comments on Dougie McDonald's lamentable performance at Ibrox. "The comments before the game might have played on his mind,” said McGeady at the weekend. "It's safe to say he wasn't impartial the other day. Of course it didn't look like a red card for Scott Brown." Considering the fact that McDonald certainly did not deal with the Brown-Lafferty incident impartially as one was red carded and the other let off without even a caution, you have to wonder how such a comment could be construed as controversial. Tony Mowbray led a sterling defence of McGeady by claiming the player had found the word lying in the street and didn't actually known what it meant. Good one Tony, no one can doubt your decision-making process. STV however took great delight in reminding everyone that McGeady was a clever cookie, revealing his high school grades and informing an astonished nation that his father is an English teacher. Clearly McGeady has no defence and we must brace ourselves for his public flogging when the SFA's general purposes inquisition demands his appearance. Not everyone who questions match officials is punished of course, especially if they are called Walter Smith.

Let's remember at this point that Rangers sent a "sharply worded letter of complaint" over the appointment of Rowbotham for the midweek derby match in November 1998. And what do you know? The word "impartial" was used. "Because of events following the game against Aberdeen two years ago there was no way he could be impartial", the letter stated. "He was under extreme pressure and the bottom line is that this time he should not have been appointed in the first place." Rowbotham it seemed could not be impartial due to an match that had occurred two years previously, despite having refereed three Rangers games in the meantime. Rangers of course were not punished or asked to explain this accusation, Rowbotham on the other hand didn't get off so lightly. More recently Walter Smith questioned the impartiality of linesman Tom Murphy following the so-called disallowed goal at Fir Park in November 2008, by girning: "I think it is shown quite clearly that Boyd was onside. Mr Murphy was quick to allow a Scott McDonald goal at Celtic Park last season and he was quick to disallow that one tonight." With a name like Murphy he has to be a biased Celtic supporter right? You'll not be surprised to hear that Smith escaped SFA punishment. Escaping punishment at the same time was Falkirk striker Michael Higdon who accused referee Iain Brines of being a Celtic fan, it'll be interesting to note if Aiden McGeady receives the same "you naughty boy, off you go and don't do it again you young scamp" punishment received by Higdon.

Yet can the truth be constantly covered up by hysterical denunciations and wrist-slap punishments? After three derby games in which Rangers benefited massively from "mistakes" by match officials, are the previously reliable methods of silencing critics still effective? It very much depends on the actions by Celtic. Instead of issuing half-assed excuses and take-it-on-the-chin missives, Celtic should stand by the facts and demand answers from the SFA, while ignoring the inevitable frantic character assassination from the corporate media. Interestingly rumours of an impending face-off between the SFA and Celtic are rife on the Internet at the moment, whether this is just wishful thinking or kite flying is unknown. Even if such rumours are true there's a considerable amount of doubt regarding the club's will to rock the boat to such an extent. Personally I find it rather hard to believe that anyone at boardroom level has the stomach for such a confrontation, if they have its remained remarkably well hidden so far. More likely Celtic will remain grumbling quietly on the sidelines and restrict themselves to issuing frantic claims that players are too ignorant to know what they are saying.

Yet without adequate protest nothing will change and Celtic will continue to be disadvantaged in a two horse league, as Billy McNeill pointed out: "Celtic have been suffering referee injustices against Rangers for 50 years. I felt that way as a player, during two spells as manager, and now as a spectator. Nothing seems to change. This season I've seen it in each of the three derbies - and what happened at Ibrox on Sunday was as disappointing as any I've had to stomach." He continued: "Scott Brown's actions did not merit a red card. As soon as he walked, Celtic's chances of gaining the victory that they so badly needed diminished dramatically. And how Kyle Lafferty managed to escape any punishment stunned me... I thought Madjid Bougherra had a superb game. But he was incredibly fortunate to stay on the park and how he managed to do so is beyond me." Beyond anyone unless you accept the opinion of McGeady as credible and take that option into consideration. The red card on Brown is open to debate, the decisions to allow Lafferty to escape without punishment and Bougherra to remain on the pitch are not. Brown may have had to walk if the letter of the law was strictly applied, although it would have been harsh, however the same laws were certainly not applied with the Rangers pair.

Rangers are a club who have benefited from Establishment favour for nigh on a century, nothing has changed nor will it do so unless changed is forced upon the Scottish game. The sheer extent of the dishonesty this season reflects the Establishment's confidence in their invulnerability, and this will always remain so unless confronted. Match officials may not have won Rangers the league by themselves, Celtic's self-generated deficiencies hold no small responsibility, but they certainly have contributed. Such a situation should be considered an outrage in any civilised society where sport is governed by rules and structures designed to ensure fair play. In Scotland clearly that ideal exists as nothing more than an abstract concept. One club is placed above and beyond the rules, while the others, and certainly their only real rival, are expected to accept injustice in silence.

If Celtic cannot find the courage to force change, then the only other option is to improve the side to a level that will largely nullify the advantage Rangers receive from their establishment patronage; being has good as Rangers isn't enough, we have to be far better in order to achieve balance. As Bertie Auld said about the Stein team: "he would say that if the other team scored four and we scored five then there was nothing the referees could do about it." At Celtic Park in January for example Fortune's disallowed goal should have been cancelled out by the plethora of chances Celtic created but failed to capitalise on due to atrocious finishing. Similarly defensive frailties cost us dearly in the first derby game of the season. In February while Rangers hardly deserved to win, the same can be said of Celtic, and a draw simply wasn't good enough due to the points difference between the two clubs. In short if Celtic aren't prepared to take on the Scottish Football Establishment then the only other option is sufficient team investment. If neither option is taken, then all we can expect to do is offer up our chin on a routine basis while feeling all nice and warm over our moral high ground occupation. It's our call.